Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
August 5, 2003 Agenda
AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL August 5, 2003 After determining that a quorum is presem, the City Council of the City of Demon, Texas will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of August 5, 2003. Following the completion of the Work Session, the City 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 right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Governmem Code, as amended, as set forth below. 1. Closed Meeting: mo Deliberations regarding personnel matters - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.074. Deliberate and discuss the appointment, evaluation and the duties of the public officers listed below to the following City boards or commissions having discretionary powers as opposed to purely advisory powers: ao Planning and Zoning Commission (Bob Powell, George Watkins, Joe Roy) Zoning Board of Adjustmem (Judy Willis, Lee Ann Nutt) Bo Deliberations regarding economic development negotiations - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.087 and Consultation with the City Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Deliberate and discuss commercial or financial information received from a business prospect and offers of financial or other incentives to the business prospect for the purposes of economic development negotiations relating to the development of Clear Creek Ranch being approximately 749 acres of land located north of Loop 288 and west of FM 2164 in the Morris May Survey, Abstract No. 807, the J.S. Collard Survey, Abstract No. 297, the Alexander White Survey, Abstract No. 1406, and the Victor Gailor Survey, Abstract No. 453, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. Also, receipt of legal advice from the City Attorney on matters in which his professional responsibility to the City Council requires private legal consultation. ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN City of DeNon City Council Agenda August 5, 2003 Page 2 COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN IN THE CLOSED MEETING iN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE PROViSiONS OF §551.086 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE (THE "PUBLIC POWER EXCEPTION"). THE CiTY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE, §§551.001, ET SEQ. (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, iNCLUDiNG, WITHOUT LiMiTATiON §§551.071-551.086 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. Regular Meeting of the City of Demon City Council on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 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." 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamations/Awards B. Recognition of staff accomplishments 3. CITIZEN REPORTS Receive citizen reports from the following: 1. Peternia Washington regarding concerns of Southeast Demon. 2. Willie Hudspeth regarding concerns of Southeast Demon. 3. Bob Clifton regarding the Consumer Health Departmem. 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 Consem 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 Consem Agenda (Agenda items A-K). This listing is provided on the Consem Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consem Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items A-K 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. City of DeNon City Council Agenda August 5, 2003 Page 3 mo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of Mayhill Road improvements at Pecan Creek; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3035 - Mayhill Road Improvemems at Pecan Creek awarded to AUI Comractors L.P. in the amoum of $1,064,064.90). Bo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of a Mobile Catch Basin and Sewer Cleaning Truck for the City of Denton Water and Sewer Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3036 - Mobile Catch Basin and Sewer Cleaning Truck awarded to Dallas Peterbilt, L.P. in the amount of $167,689). Co Consider an ordinance amending ordinance 2001-204 to amend section 6.1 of the Rules of Procedure and Section 2-29(a) of the City Code to decrease the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee; providing a savings clause; and providing an effective date. D. Consider approval of the minutes of July 15, July 16, and July 22, 2003. mo Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an agreemem between the City of Denton and Teasley Denton CVS, L.P. for the abandonment of certain public utility easemems recorded in Volume 1421, Page 168 and Volume 2978, Page 915 of the Real Property Records of DeNon County, Texas and being in the Poulallier Survey, Abstract No. 1006; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute said agreemem on behalf of the City of DeNon; and providing an effective date. Fo Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City Of Denton, Texas and Denton County, Texas for the Texas Department of Transportation Off System-Bridge Replacement Program; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. Go Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas placing a proposal on the September 2, 2003 City Council public meeting agenda to adopt a 2003 tax rate that will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate; calling a public hearing on a tax increase to be held on August 19, 2003, requiring publication of a Notice of Public Hearing on a tax increase in accordance with the law; and providing an effective date. Ho Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an Alternative Developmem Plan for C.H. Collins Athletic Complex. The proposed 42.575-acre site is located north of Loop 288, south of Long Road and between Sherman Drive and Stuart Road. The subject site is within a Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district. A stadium and parking lot are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval (6-0). (ADP03-O002, C.H. Collins Athletic Complex) City of DeNon City Council Agenda August 5, 2003 Page 4 Consider approval of a resolution to approve and authorize the City of Denton to file an amicus curiae brief in Denton County v. Tarrant County, Cause No. 02- 0795, in the Supreme Court of Texas; establishing a public purpose, authorizing retention of counsel and providing an effective date. Jo Consider approval of a resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas, calling a public hearing as to the advisability of proposed improvemems in the proposed Clear Creek Ranch Public Improvement District No. 1; and providing an effective date. Ko Consider approval of a resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas adopting the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program for the 78th Second Called Legislative Session; providing a repealer; and providing an effective date. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS mo Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Mobility Plan Component of The Denton Plan to revise the location of Lakeview Blvd, to change the classifications of Trinity Road between Mills Road and FM 426 route #1 for Lakeview Blvd. as shown on the mobility plan, FM 426 between proposed route #5 of Lakeview Blvd and the intersection of the current Route #1 of Lakeview Blvd., and Edwards Road between Swisher Road and Lakeview Blvd.; and providing an effective date. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) (SI02-0013, Lakeview Mobility Plan AmendmenO 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION mo Consider approval of a resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas supporting the creation of a historic marker that recognizes historic black communities of DeNon, including Freedman's Town and Quakertown, and to recognize the creation of the black community in Solomon Hill after the Quakertown community was dispersed by the creation of what is now known as the Civic Cemer Park; authorizing the placemem of the marker on city property; and providing an effective date. Bo Consider adoption of an ordinance on final reading, establishing the extension of the cable television franchise between the City of DeNon and Charter Communications; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. Co Consider nominations/appoimmems to the following boards and commissions: 1. Human Services Advisory Committee 2. Library Board 3. Planning and Zoning Commission (Bob Powell, George Watkins, Joe Roy) 4. Public Utilities Board 5. Zoning Board of Adjustmem (Judy Willis, Lee Ann Nutt) City of Demon City Council Agenda August 5, 2003 Page 5 Do New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. mo Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda Fo Possible Cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Go 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 ,2003 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET August 5, 2003 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 Mayhill Road improvements at Pecan Creek; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3035-Mayhill Road Improvements at Pecan Creek awarded to AUI Contractors L.P. in the amount of $1,064,064.90). BID INFORMATION The purpose of this project is to remove Mayhill Road from the floodplain of Pecan Creek. The location for the improvements is the stretch of Mayhill Road south of McKinney Street to Morse Road. Mayhill Road in this area is identified as a major arterial on the Mobility Plan. At this time, it has not been determined if the ultimate roadway cross-section will have 4 or 6 traffic lanes. The bid project includes a 175-foot long pre-cast concrete box beam bridge over Pecan Creek at Mayhill Road. The designed bridge width can provide either 2 or 3 traffic lanes as needed. A second bridge structure can be built in the future when the roadway is widened. The project also includes construction of curbed concrete pavement, per arterial roadway standards. To reduce total costs for the Mayhill Road Improvements at Pecan Creek project, the City will construct the drainage improvements, and furnish and install roadway fill. City crews will remove existing asphalt pavement, remove culverts, fill the roadside ditch along the west side of Mayhill Road from McKinney Street to Pecan Creek, and construct a concrete box culvert, curb inlets and storm drains. Bids for the construction phase of this project were opened on July 8, 2003. There were seven bidders, with bids ranging from a low bid of $1,064,064.90 to a high bid of $1,517,626.00. AUI Contractors L.P., of Fort Worth, Texas met all requirements for the qualified low bidder for this project. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board approved this item at its July 21, 2003 meeting. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of Bid 3035 to AUI Contractors L.P. in the amount of $1,064,064.90. Agenda Information Sheet August 5, 2003 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AUI Contractors L.P. Fort Worth, TX STAFF COST ESTIMATE The engineer's estimate for this project was $1,143,405.50. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The estimated timeframe for this project is October 2003-July 2004. FISCAL INFORMATION This bid will be funded from account 650031560.1360.40100. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Bid Tabulation 1-AlS-Bid 3035 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MAYHiLL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT PECAN CREEK; PROViDiNG FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 3025-MAYHiLL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT PECAN CREEK AWARDED TO AUi CONTRACTORS L.P. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,064,064.90). 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 3035 AUI Contractors L.P. $1,064,064.90 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 .,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD- Bid 3035 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: August 5, 2003 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of a Mobile Catch Basin and Sewer Cleaning Truck for the City of DeNon Water and Sewer Departmem; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3036-Mobil Catch Basin and Sewer Cleaning Truck awarded to Dallas Peterbilt, L.P. in the base bid amoum of amount of $167,689). BID INFORMATION The sewer cleaning truck is used for regular sewer flushing maimenance activity to prevem build up of solids in the sewer system that can reduce the capacity of the sewer lines. This helps to prevem odors and overflows during dry weather conditions. Also, the sewer flushing activity preserves capacity to allow higher flows to pass through during wet weather conditions. Flushing of sewer lines on a regular schedule is an important activity and with the upcoming new EPA regulations will become a component of the comprehensive sewer capacity management tool kit. The purchase of the new sewer cleaning truck will replace the existing truck, which is 13 years old. This truck is diesel powered and meets EPA emission standards. Bids for the new truck were received on July 8, 2003. There were seven bidders for the project. The bids ranged from $167,689 to $207,662. Dallas Peterbilt of Irving, Texas was the low bidder. Dallas Peterbilt in their bid provided costs for the purchase of additional items beyond the base bid for the sewer truck. From the menu of optional items available, staff is recommending purchase of 800 feet of sewer hose in lieu of 400 feet, which is in the base bid. Also, purchase of a floodlight is recommended. The cost of these two items will add $1,200 to the base bid for a total price of $168,889. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The PUB approved this item at its July 21, 2003 meeting. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of this bid to Dallas Peterbilt, L.P. in the base bid amoum of $167,689. Agenda Information Sheet August 5, 2003 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Dallas Peterbilt, L.P. Irving, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery can be made 115-125 days from receipt of an order. FISCAL INFORMATION This truck will be funded from account 640200.8537. Attachment 1 :Bid Tabulation 1-AlS-Bid 3036 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent V Z Z LLI LLI LLI Z 0 o ~ LLI :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: O~ O0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE CATCH BASIN AND SEWER CLEANING TRUCK FOR THE CITY OF DENTON WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROViDiNG AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 3036-MOBIL CATCH BASIN AND SEWER CLEANING TRUCK AWARDED TO DALLAS PETERBILT, L.P. iN THE BASE BiD AMOUNT OF $167,689). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 3036 Dallas Peterbilt, L.P. $167,689 SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-Bid 3036 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: August 5, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Legal Department CM/DCM/ACM: Herb Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Consider an ordinance amending ordinance 2001-204 to amend section 6.1 of the Rules of Procedure and Section 2-29(a) of the City Code to decrease the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee; providing a savings clause; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: On May 29, 2001, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2001-204 which amended Section 6.1 of the Rules of Procedure and Section 2-29(a) of the City Code to increase the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee to three persons composed of the Mayor and two other Council members, selected by the Council, and the City Manager. At your recent luncheon meeting to discuss appointments to your boards, commissions and committees, you expressed your desire to decrease the size of the Agenda Committee so that only two members of the City Council, the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem, would compose the Committee along with the City Manager. This ordinance reduces the size of the Agenda Committee from four to three persons and the number of Council appointees on the Committee from three Council members to two. OPTIONS: The City Council can approve the Ordinance which would reduce the size of the Agenda Committee to three persons composed of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and the City Manager. The City Council can choose not to enact the Ordinance which would keep the Agenda Committee at four persons composed of the Mayor, two other members of the City Council, selected by the Council, and the City Manager. FISCAL INFORMATION: There would no fiscal impact to the City of Denton from the passage of this ordinance. Respectfully submitted, Herb Prouty, City Attorney S:Our Documelts 'vliscellmleous 03 agelda infimllation sheet Council Appointees Agenda Corn DOC S:Our Docunlelt ~Ordhlmlce~0 3 Council Appointees to Agelda Cam doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2001-204 TO AMEND SECTION 6.1 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND SECTION 2-29(a) OF THE CITY CODE TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL APPOINTEES TO THE AGENDA COMMITTEE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on the 29th day of May, 2002, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2001- 204 amending the Council Rules of Procedure (Rules) to increase the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee and to make certain other changes to the Rules; and WHEREAS, at their meeting of July 16, 2003 the City Council expressed their desire to reduce the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee to two members composed of the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it necessary to amend the Rules to enact this decrease in the number of Council appointees to the Agenda Committee; NOW, THEREFORE; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That Section 6.1 of Ordinance 2001-193 "Agenda" and Section 2-29(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 6.1 (2-29(a)) AGENDA: The order of business of each meeting shall be as contained in the agenda prepared by the City Manager, which shall be reviewed and approved by an Agenda Committee composed of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem, and the City Manager. When items are removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular agenda by members of the Council, the removed items shall be taken up in the order of removal right after the consent agenda. Placement of items on the agenda shall be governed by this Section and Section 6.3; provided that if a Councilmember has an "emergency" item that the Councilmember believes should be placed on the next regular or special meeting agenda, the placement must be approved by two members of the Agenda Committee. Conduct of business at special meetings and Council Committees and subcommittees will likewise be governed by an agenda and these Rules of Procedure. SECTION 2. That save and except as amended hereby, the remaining paragraphs, sections and clauses of Ordinance No. 2001-204 and Section 2-29(a) of the City Code shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __day of ,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 15, 2003 After determining that a quorum was presem, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Kamp, McNeill, Montgomery, Redmon and Thomson. ABSENT: None 1. Staff responded to requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for the City Council regular meeting of July 15, 2003. Following the completion of the Work Session, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting to consider the specific items listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. 1. The following items were considered in Closed Meeting: mo Deliberations regarding real property - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with the City Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Deliberated the value and lease of real property interests at the Denton Municipal Airport pertaining to an Airport Lease Agreement between the City and Ezell Aviation including an amendmem thereto and partial assignmem thereof; and receipt of legal advice from the City Attorney on a matter in which his professional responsibility to the City Council requires private legal consultation. Bo Consultation with Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Discussed, deliberated and consulted with the City's attorneys comemplated litigation involving the comract with Harrison Quality Construction Inc. for the construction of the Denton Public Library North Branch (Bid # 2819) along with any related comracts or comract documents and discussed various issues related to these contracts and other documents involving the North Branch Library where to discuss these issues and matters in public would conflict with the attorneys' duties and professional responsibilities under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. Regular Meeting of the City of DeNon City Council on Tuesday, July 15, 2003 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. City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 2 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS mo Proclamations/Awards 1. Choice Homes Presentation Harold Johnson, Choice Homes Community Manager, presemed the City with a check to be used for the purchase of trees in commemoration of Choice Homes' 15th anniversary. Lancine Bentley, Program Manager for Keep Denton Beautiful, presented the Council with the Governor's Community Achievemem Award. This award would fund improvemems along TxDot roadways in the City of Denton. B. July Yard-of-the-Momh Awards Mayor Brock presented the July Yard of the Month Awards to: Sharon and Glen Jennings David Minter Peggy Franks and Sharilyn Nusbaum Leo and Joann Perez Brian and Lee Anne Watson Darlene Mullenweg Ed and Nancy Legler - Water Smart Yard Wash-It-Kwik - Business Yard Co Resolutions of Appreciation 1. The Council considered approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for Ida Bonaparte. Burroughs motioned, Redmon seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. D. Recognition of staff accomplishmems City Manager Conduffpresemed staff accomplishmems to the Council. 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. The Council received citizen reports from the following: 1. Willie Hudspeth regarding concerns of Southeast Denton. Mr. Hudspeth stated again that smoking should be restricted from one of the emrances of City Hall so that there was one smoke free entrance. He again commented on the fact that there were no African-Americans on the Fire Departmem. He also commemed on how the Police Departmem acted against the activities for youth in Fred Moore Park. City of Demon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 3 2. Bob Clifton regarding the City of Denton inspections Department. Mr. Clifton stated that he was having problems with the Inspections Department and Health Department concerning an establishment he was trying to start on the Square. He suggested a checklist be made available for the starting of businesses in the City. o Brian Sutherland regarding light pollution in Township ii due to Racetrac on Dallas Drive. Mr. Sutherland stated the new Racetrac across from his subdivision had 40 unshielded floodlights that shone on all of the neighborhood homes, causing a large amoum of light pollution. He asked the Council to work with the Racetrac Corporation to shroud the lights so as to reduce the amount of light pollution into the area homes. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brock indicated that Item 4U and 4X were pulled from consideration. Item 4D and 4Y would be considered as separate items. Burroughs motioned, Kamp seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions with the exception of Items 4D and 4Y. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Item 4D was considered. Janet Simpson, Acting Director of Parks and Recreation, detailed the various categories of parks located in the City and the proposed agreemem with the University of North Texas for the softball fields. The following individuals spoke on the issue: Anna Broudrick, 535 County Road 2133, Valley View, 76272 - favor Bob Gorton, 3821 Deer Forest, Denton, 76208 -favor Alice Gore, 2215 Westwood, Demon, 76205 - opposed Commem cards were received from the following individuals: Pati Haworth, 1506 Highland Park Road, Denton, 76205 - opposed William C. Johnson, 1506 Highland Park Road, Demon, 76205 - opposed Sarah Bryam, 1500 Kendolph, Demon, 76205 -opposed ira Defoor, 1407 Kendolph, Demon, 76205 - opposed Burroughs motioned, Kamp seconded to approve Item 4D. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 4 Council considered Item 4Y. Dottie Palumbo, Assistant City Attorney, detailed the issues included in the Legislative Program. McNeill motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve Item 4Y. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. R2003-205 - A resolution approving the fiscal year 2004 Financial Plan of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District; pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 772, as amended; and providing an effective date. R2003-012 - A resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the 2004 Budget of the Denton Central Appraisal District; and declaring an effective date. Approved a tax refund for the following property taxes: Na Reason ~a e a ~oun A. Lone Star Title, Inc Overpayment 2002 $907.06 2003-206 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas, authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between the City of Denton, Texas and the University of North Texas pertaining to the use of and upgrade to Denia Park; and providing an effective date. R2003-013 - A resolution of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the Convention and Visitor Bureau Program Year 2003 revised budget; and providing an effective date. 2003-207 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas, authorizing an agreemem between the City of Demon, Texas and the Boys and Girls Club of Demon County providing support for at-risk youth; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing for an effective date. 2003-208 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas, authorizing an agreemem between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Festival Foundation for supplemental funding for the Arts and Jazz Committee for the Denton Arts and Jazz Festival; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing for an effective date. 2003-209 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of automatic external defibrillators; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2963 - Automatic External Defibrillators awarded to Cardiac Science, Inc. in the amount of $42,375). City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 5 2003-210 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of printer and plotter cartridges and parts; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3027 - Printer and Plotter Cartridges and Parts awarded to CVR Computer Supplies in the estimated amoum of $65,904.80). Jo 2003-211 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of PVC electrical fittings and accessories; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3038 - PVC Electrical Fittings and Accessories awarded to Stuart C. irby Co. in the estimated amoum of $243,565.35). Ko 2003-212 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order 4 to the contract between the City of Denton and Texas Electric Utility Construction, inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 2840 - Hwy 380 Water and Sewer Relocation Change Order Four in the amoum of $103,422.13). Lo 2003-213 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number One to the contract between the City of Denton and Xerox Corporation; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2001-077; Purchase Order 13131 to Xerox Corporation for the lease of a Xerox 2060 Digital Press in the amoum of $706,852.20 plus $.0731 per color copy and $.0307 per black and white copy for each copy over 60,000 per momh and File 3051 - Change Order Number One in the deduct amoum of $123,553.20 for a total amoum of $583,299). Mo 2003-214 An ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for the emergency purchase of contract work and equipment to repair storm damage to DME equipment located on Bonnie Brae Street in accordance with provisions of State Law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bidding; and providing an effective date (File 3049 - Additional Emergency Services for Bonnie Brae Power Outage awarded to Garland Power and Light in the amount of $30,024.66). No 2003-215 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Cooper Creek Lift Station; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3011 - Cooper Creek Lift Station awarded to Can-Fer Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,225,259.25). Oo 2003-216 - An ordinance awarding a comract for the lease of services, software, hardware, and annual maintenance for the installation and support of Xerox DocuPrint 92C Network Printing system as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procuremem Commission through the Qualified information Service Vendor (QiSV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (File 3050 - Lease of Xerox DocuPrim City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 6 92C Network Printing System awarded to Xerox Corporation in the total 60 momh lease amoum of $274,869.60). Po 2003-217 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of temporary employment services to process EMS billing for the City of Denton Fire Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3037 - Temporary Employmem Services for EMS Billing awarded to Triangle Temporaries, Inc. in the estimated amount of $20,000). Qo 2003-218 - An ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas, approving a lease agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Soccer Association pertaining to the construction, operation and use of a new building at the North Lakes Park soccer complex; and providing an effective date. Ro R2003-014 - A resolution allowing Taco Cabana Restaurant to be the sole participant allowed to sell alcoholic beverages at the Fuego Y Alma Event on September 27, 2003, upon certain conditions; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an agreemem in conformity with this resolution; and providing for an effective date. S. Approved the minutes of June 3, 10 and 17, 2003. To Grained an exception to the Noise Ordinance for the purpose of the Apollo Nights Concert Series on Sunday, July 20, 2003; Sunday, August 3, 2003; and Sunday, August 17, 2003 at Fred Moore Park, from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. The requestor was specifically asking for an exception to all for live music on Sunday. U. This item was pulled from consideration. go 2003-219 An ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving an Encroachmem Agreemem between the City of DeNon and the City of Corimh, which permits the City of Denton to locate a water re-use pipeline in a portion of State School Road under the jurisdiction of the City of Corimh; located in the Levi Young Survey, Abstract Number 1451, and the Berry Merchant Survey, Abstract Number 800, in the City of Corinth, Denton County, Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. Wo 2003-220 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Denton, the University of North Texas and McDonald Transit Associates, Inc. to provide for motor carrier passenger service for UNT studems, staff and faculty; and providing for an effective date. X. This item was pulled from consideration. City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 7 Yo R2003-015 - A resolution of the City of DeNon, Texas adopting the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program for the 78th First Called Legislative Session; providing a repealer; and providing an effective date. 5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on first reading, establishing the extension of the cable television franchise between the City of DeNon and Charter Communications; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. John Cabrales, Public Information Officer, detailed the provisions of the extension of the cable television franchise. The following ordinance was considered on first reading: FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, ESTABLISHING THE EXTENSION OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McNeill motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance on first reading. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. New Business The following Items of New Business were suggested by Council for future agendas: 1. Council Member McNeill suggested a join meeting with the DISD regarding economic ventures. 2. Council Member Redmon asked for a review of the penalty and iNerest aspects of the utility billing policy. 3. Council Member Redmon requested an update on the mosquito spraying policy. merchants. Council Member Thomson asked for a work session discussion regarding itineraN 5. Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs requested information on a nuisance ordinance for directional lighting Co Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda City of Demon City Council Minutes July 15, 2003 Page 8 City Manager Conduff did not have any items for Council consideration. D. There was no cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. E. The following official action was taken on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Burroughs motioned, Kamp seconded to approve a change order with conditions as noted in Closed Session. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Momgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. EULINE BROCK MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JULY 16, 2003 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 11:30 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Kamp, McNeill, Montgomery, and Thomson. ABSENT: Council Member Redmon 1. The Council held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding nominations to the city's boards and commissions. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, presented the nominations suggested by Council to date and the vacancies that were still open for consideration. Council discussed the nominations and made suggestions for the vacancies. The nominations would be voted on at the July 22nd Council meeting. 2. The Council held a discussion and determined membership to Council Committees. Mayor Brock reviewed the function and current membership of each Council committee. Council discussed and made recommendations for membership on the committees. Council Member Perry suggested reducing the number of participants on the Agenda Committee to the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Manager. Council consensus was to instruct the Legal Department to draft an ordinance to reduce the membership on the Agenda Committee. Discussion on the Joint Tax Abatement Committee noted that the committee was looking at restructuring itself with a different name to more accurately reflect its duties. Council discussed the Zoning Board of Adjustment with the possibility of increasing the membership on the Board and to eliminate the alternate positions. Council discussed the formation of a citizen ethics task force. discussion on such a task force at an upcoming work session. Kamp would serve as council representatives. Consensus was to hold further Council Members Thomson and Council discussed the possible formation of an ad hoc citizens committee to look at a tree preservation ordinance. Consensus of Council was to request the Planning and Zoning Commission to appoint members to such a committee. 3. The Council held a discussion and considered formation and membership of ad hoc task forces. This item was discussed with Item #2. 4. No Closed Meeting was held during the Work Session. City of Demon City Council Minutes July 16, 2003 Page 2 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m. EULINE BROCK MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES July 22, 2003 The City of DeNon City Council was invited by the University of North Texas to participate in a complimentary bus tour of Denton on the University of North Texas' "Regal Eagle" on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 departing from the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. After determining that a quorum was presem, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Brock; Mayor Pro Tem Burroughs; Council Members Kamp, McNeill, Montgomery, Redmon and Thomson. ABSENT: None 1. Staff responded to requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for the City Council regular meeting of July 22, 2003. Following the completion of the Work Session, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting to consider the items listed. 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: mo Deliberations regarding real property - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.072 and Consultation with Attorney - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. 1. Deliberated the purchase and value of real property imerests for park and street purposes in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Survey Abstract 950 and being an approximate 10.965 acre tract and a 2.689 acre tract, located at the southwest corner of State School Road and Brighton Street, Denton, Texas; which acquisition was for a public purpose. Received legal advice from the City Attorney or his staff concerning legal issues regarding the acquisition of such real property imerests. Bo Deliberations regarding certain public power utilities: Competitive Matters --- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.086. Received competitive electric information, including commercial information, from DeNon Municipal Electric ("DME") staff relating to its competitive activities, to wit: the possible acquisition of 800 MHz radio frequencies from a third party, respecting DME's trunked radio system. Discussed, deliberated, considered, provided staff with direction, and took final action regarding the foregoing matter. Regular Meeting of the City of DeNon City Council on Tuesday, July 22, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 2 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. Proclamations/Awards There were no proclamations/awards presemed at this meeting. B. Recognition of staff accomplishments City Manager Conduffpresemed staff accomplishmems to the Council. 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. The Council received citizen reports from the following: 1. Dr. John Paul Eddy regarding need for new tree ordinance. Dr. Eddy stated he was concerned about the environmem in the city and felt that more needed to be done to preserve trees. He presemed values associated with trees such as soil/water quality value, memal health values, cooling/shade value, increase local property tax values. A good ordinance was needed; enforcement must be in place and all citizens needed to be tree watchers so as to maintain trees in the city. 2. Serena Eckert regarding realignmem of Lakeview Blvd. Mayor Brock indicated that the third speaker had asked that his time be given to Ms. Eckert, as he was unable to attend. Consensus of Council was to allow the additional time. Ms. Eckert stated Council should not consider Route 5 for the proposed realignmem of Lakeview Blvd. She felt that the proposed route would be dangerous for children attending Pecan Creek Elememary School. The proposed route would have a six lane, 45 mile per hour traffic pattern. She was in favor of the proposed Route 4, as it would reduce the danger to pedestrians in the area. The nature preserve in the area would also be in danger with Route 5. 3. Darryle Petters regarding realignmem of Lakeview Blvd. Mr. Petters was not present at the meeting. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Burroughs motioned, McNeill seconded to approve the Consem Agenda and accompanying ordinances. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. City of Demon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 3 mo 2003-221 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas to declare the imem to reimburse expenditures from the unreserved fund balance of the General Fund with Certificates of Obligation so that a project for the acquisition of approximately 13.65 acres of land from the State of Texas for parks and street purposes can be consummated, such land being located at the southwest comer of State School Road and Brighton Street in the City of Denton; declaring an emergency and amending the 2003-2004 Capital Improvement budget to allow the funding for said project; and providing an effective date. (Land purchase and related costs-$189,000.00) Bo 2003-222 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas approving a Real Estate Contract between the City of Denton, The State of Texas by and through the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation and The School Land Board for the purchase of an approximate 10.965 acre tract and a 2.689 acre tract of land located adjacent to the Denton State School in the M.E.P. & P.R.R. Survey, Abstract No. 950 in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. Co 2003-223 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract for an Electrical Utility Easement consisting of 1.11 acres, being part of Section 3, Tract 6 conveyed to Rayzor Investments, Ltd. by deed recorded in Volume 1796, Page 601 of the Real Property Records of Demon County, Texas, said property being located in William Neill Survey, Abstract No. 970, Demon County Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (West Demon Electric Project) Do 2003-224 - An ordinance abandoning and vacating a portion of a sewer line Easement from J. Newton Rayzor to the City of Denton, as recorded in Volume 514, Page 581 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas, being a part of the E. Puchalski Survey, Abstract No. 996, and declaring an effective date. mo 2003-225 - An ordinance abandoning and vacating a portion of a sixteen foot wide drainage and utility easemem affecting Lot 4, Block 2 of Southmom Place, an addition to the City of Denton according to the plat thereof which is located in the C. Poulallier Survey, Abstract No. 1006; and declaring an effective date. Fo 2003-226 - An ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas authorizing the expenditure of funds for paymems by the City of Demon for Wide Area Network Charges to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas; and providing an effective date (File 3055 to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) in the estimated amoum of $57,000). Go 2003-227 - An ordinance approving the expenditure of funds for the purchase of the renewal fee for maimenance of the City of Demon's Public Safety software provided by VisionAir and 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 3054 to VisionAir in the amoum of $140,832). City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 4 2003-228 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of prevemive maintenance services for City vehicles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3023 - Preventive Maintenance Services awarded to USA Lube and Tune in the estimated amoum of $50,000). 2003-229 - An ordinance awarding a comract for the purchase of a trailer mourned underground puller for DeNon Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3040 - Trailer Mounted Underground Puller awarded to TSE International, Inc. in the amoum of $76,720). J. Approved appoimmems to the following boards and commissions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Airport Advisory Board Animal Shelter Advisory Committee Community Developmem Advisory Committee Construction Advisory and Appeals Board Historic Landmark Commission Human Services Advisory Committee Library Board Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board TMPA Traffic Safety Commission Zoning Board of Adjustmem 2003-230 - An ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving an amendmem to an airport lease between the City of Denton and Ezell Aviation, Incorporated and a partial assignment to George Dalton; and providing an effective date. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Teasley Lane High School, The approximately 67.69 acre site was generally located north and east of Teasley Lane (FM 2181) and west of Blue Bonnett. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on second reading to volumarily annex approximately 67.69 acres. (403-0001, Teasley Lane High School) (Not a public hearing) Kelly Carpenter, Director of Planning and Development, presented the details of the proposal. A high school was proposed for the site. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2003-231 City of Demon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 67.69 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF TEASLEY LANE (FM 2181) AND WEST OF BLUE BONNETT IN THE SOUTHEASTERN SECTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION IN THE J.C. BAKER SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 47, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE CALLED 13.404 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM GLENN WAYNE GRAY, JR. ET UX TO DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4088, PAGE 874 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, A PART OF THE CALLED 13.406 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM BRANDON S. GRAY ET UX TO DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4088, PAGE 870 OF THE SAID REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, A PART OF THE CALLED 13.387 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CHARLES RUDY ROACH ET AL TO DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4088, PAGE 860 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, AND THE CALLED 37.595 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM CLAUDE D. ROACH ET AL TO DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT RECORDED IN VOLUME 4088, PAGE 865 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS; APPROVING A SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (A03-0001) McNeill motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance zoning approximately 67.69 acres of land to a Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A public high school was proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0). (Z03-0016, Teasley Lane High School) 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. 2003-232 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ZONING A TRACT OF LAND, COMPRISING APPROXIMATELY 67.69 ACRES LOCATED IN THE J. C. BAKER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 47, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION; THE TRACT BEING GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND EAST OF TEASLEY LANE (FM 2818) AND WEST OF BLUE BONNETT, IN THE City of DeNon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 6 CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z03- 0016) Burroughs motioned, Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on second reading, establishing the extension of the cable television franchise between the City of Denton and Charter Communications; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. John Cabrales, Public Information Officer, presented the details on the extension of the cable television franchise. The following ordinance was considered: SECOND READING AN ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING, ESTABLISHING THE EXTENSION OF THE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McNeill motioned, Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance on second reading. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. commissions: The Council considered nominations/appoimmems to the following boards and 2. 3. 4. 5. Human Services Advisory Committee Library Board Planning and Zoning Commission Public Utilities Board Zoning Board of Adjustmem Burroughs requested Council go imo Executive Session to discuss nominations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Zoning Board of Adjustmem. McNeill seconded the request. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Momgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Council reconvened into Open Session. Burroughs motioned, Montgomery seconded to take no action on the item and reconsider it at the August 5th meeting. On roll vote, Burroughs "aye", Kamp "aye", McNeill "aye", Montgomery "aye", Redmon "aye", Thomson "aye" and Mayor Brock "aye". Motion carried unanimously. City of Demon City Council Minutes July 22, 2003 Page 7 C. New Business There were no items of New Business were suggested by Council for future agendas: D. Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda City Manager Conduff reminded Council of the opening of the North Branch library and the upcoming planning session. E. Possible Cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting. F. Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. There was no official action on Closed Meeting items. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. EULINE BROCK MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET August5,2003 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistam City Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an agreemem between the City of DeNon and Teasley DeNon CVS, L.P. for the abandonmem of certain public utility easemems recorded in Volume 1421, Page 168 and Volume 2978, Page 915 of the Real Property Records of DeNon County, Texas and being in the Poulallier Survey, Abstract No. 1006; authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute said agreemem on behalf of the City of DeNon; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Teasley DeNon CVS, L.P. has requested that the City of DeNon abandon two existing public utility easements. The abandonment is contingent upon relocation and acceptance of existing utilities to a new public utility easemem dedicated by replat of the property. Teasley DeNon CVS, L.P. is developing the property for a new CVS Pharmacy. OPTIONS 1. Approve the ordinance, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Fall2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION None ATTACHMENTS Location map Draft ordinance Agreemem Prepared By: Tod Taylor Real Estate Specialist Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department TEASLEY WIND RIVER WIND RIVER ~--~l ~ ~~377 [~~ ~": 400' / -- ~- ~ ~~'~ LJ ~ ~ , F~ S:\Our Docurnents\Ordinances\03\CVS Abandonment Agreement Approval. doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND TEASLEY DENTON CVS, L.P. FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS RECORDED IN VOLUME 1421, PAGE 168 AND VOLUME 2978, PAGE 915 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND BEING IN THE POULALLIER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1006; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Easement Abandoment Agreement between the City of Denton and Teasley Denton CVS, L.P. in substantially the form of the agreement attached hereto and made part of the ordinance for all purposes (the "Agreement") is hereby approved. SECTION 2. The City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~ EASEMENT ABAND O 'NMENT~AGRE EMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into effective as of the date set forth below by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a home rule municipal corporation (the "City") and Teasley Denton CVS, L.P. (the "Landowner"). WHEREAS, the Landowner has made application requesting abandonment of a Public Utility Easement dated May 11, 1984 and recorded in the Real Property Records of Denton' County under Volume 1421, Page 168 and Tract 2 of Public Utility Easement dated May 1, 1991 and recorded in the Real Property Records of Denton County under Volume 2978, Page 915 (collectively referred to as the "Existing Easements"); and WHEREAS, the LandoWner has dedicated a public Utility Easement, recorded in Final Plat of Lot 1, Block A, Teasley Commons, an Addition to the City of Denton, Texas, recorded in Cabinet V, Page 136 of the Plat'Records of Denton County, Texas (the New Easement); and WHEREAS, the LandoWner has agreed to relocate all existing utilities currently located in the Existing Easements to the New Easement; and WHEREAS, the City agrees to a~andon the Existing Easements upon relocation and acceptance by the City of the relocated utilities to the New Easement NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein the City and the LandoWners hereby agree as follows: 1. The City shall abandon the Existing Easements upon completion of relocation and removal of the existing utilities from the Existing Easements to the New Easement. The relocated utilities shall be inspected and accepted by the City prior to the City's abandonment of the Existing Easements. 2. The Landowner shall provide to the City written confirmation from all franchise utilities relocated and removed from the Existing Easements. 3. The City Council of the City and the Landowner have duly authorized this Agreement and the execution of same by the officers or agents who have signed below on their behalf. In Wimess Whereof; this Agreement has been executed by the parties to be effective this ~ day of ,2003. CITY OF DENTON By: MICHAEL A. CONDUFF, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 7ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM TEASLEY DENTON CVS, L.P., A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY: CVS 5962 GENERAL INC.,, A NEW HAMPSHIRE CORPORATION, IT'S GENERAL PARTNER BY: ~~ TIMOTHY E. ~ LEGAL COUNCIL' TIMOTHY E. KRAMER A~r, ~EC~./SENIOR LEGAL CO~INSEL BY: S:~tl Est~rojeets~.OW Shanat~ity Councih2003 City Council ltema~ugust 5, 2003~VS Easement Abandonment~,-CVS Easement Abandonmeat ~eatdoc Page 2 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET August5,2003 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the Mayor to execme an interlocal cooperation agreement between the City Of Denton, Texas and Denton County, Texas for the Texas Department Of Transportation Off System-Bridge Replacement Program. BACKGROUND "Off-system bridges" are existing bridges located on public roads and streets off the designated state highway system. The federal off-system bridge program in Texas is administered by the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDOT") to replace or rehabilitate structurally deficient and functionally obsolete (collectively referred to as deficiem) bridges. The usual participation ratios for the off-system bridge replacemem (or rehabilitation) program is 80-percem federal funds, 10-percem state funds, and 10-percem local funds. Texas Administrative Code, Title 43, Section 15.55(d) (43 TAC Section 15.55(d)) provides that under specific conditions the 1 O-percent Local Government match fund participation requirement may be waived with agreemem by the Local Governmem to perform, or cause to be performed, an equivalent dollar amount of structural improvement work on other deficient off-system bridges or deficiem mainlane cross-drainage structures along school bus romes within its jurisdiction. If the construction cost of such a Local Govemmem funded project is also recognized by TxDOT as the Local Governmem's participating funds for the off-system bridge replacemem (or rehabilitation) program, the Local Governmem project is referred to as an "equivalent match project". Attachment 1 summarizes the local fund participation requirements. Each TxDOT administered off-system deficiem bridge replacemem (or rehabilitation) project within the jurisdiction of the City of DeNon or DeNon County requires the City or County, respectively, to participate 10-percent either by cash payment, or using an equivalent match project. The City of DeNon will construct a bridge structure and drainage improvemems for Mayhill Road at Pecan Creek which will remove Mayhill Road from the Pecan Creek floodplain and improve local drainage. TxDOT has determined that this project qualifies as an equivalem match project. This project provides approximately $1,109,920 as City of DeNon 10-percem participating funds under the federal off-system bridge replacemem (or rehabilitation) program. The City of DeNon match funds provide the opportunity for approximately $11,099,200 off- system bridge replacement (or rehabilitation) improvemems. The structural and functional condition of existing bridges are ranked using the "sufficiency rating" which is an indicator score of the bridge condition. Existing bridges with a sufficiency rating below 50 are eligible for replacemem under the federal off-system bridge program. Existing bridges less than 24-feet wide carrying two-way traffic are functionally obsolete under the federal bridge program. These existing bridges can be extended rather than replaced under Page 1 this program, with one exception. Bridges built with flat slab construction become structurally unstable when extended, and are replaced instead. The City o£ DeNon has the following off-system bridges eligible for replacemem under the federal bridge program, using the Mayhill Road Improvemems at Pecan Creek equivalem match project funds. Table 1 - TxDOT Off-System Bridge Replacement Projects in City Limits Eligible for TxDOT Funding Agreements Bridge Estimated Estimated Project Construction City Match Location Cost Required Mayhill Road at Cooper Creek $239,182 $23,918 Frame Street at Pecan Creek $224,630 $22,463 Bonnie Brae Road at Hickory Creek $418,662 $41,866 Bonnie Brae Road at Roark Branch $190,674 $19,067 Bonnie Brae Road at Dry Fork Creek $292,541 $29,254 TOTALS $1,365,689 $136,569 Match Funds Available ............. $1,109,920 Match Funds Unused ............. $973,351 The Frame Street bridge at Pecan Creek qualifies as a fiat slab bridge less than 24-feet wide while the other bridges have sufficiency ratings below 50. No other bridges within DeMon's jurisdiction qualify for replacemem. Attachmem 2 provides locations of these bridges. As seen in Table 1, Match Funds Unused amoum is more than $900,000. The federal bridge replacemem program does not allow "banking" of leftover match funds for future City projects. Match funds available but not included in Bridge Replacemem Funding Agreemems with TxDOT prior to letting the Mayhill Road Improvements at Pecan Creek Project will be lost. These unused match funds cannot provide a direct benefit to City of DeNon residems. TxDOT has idemified 39 bridges in DeNon County eligible for replacemem under the federal off-system bridge program. TxDOT has also determined that the City of DeNon and DeNon County may enter into an interlocal agreement and then be represented as a single entity eligible for off-system bridge replacements under the federal program. The unused City match funds can therefore be used to fund DeNon County bridges. The City benefits from having replaced County bridges in the ET J, which may become City responsibilities upon annexation. The City also benefits from good will generated with Denton County. Our citizens receive benefits of safer bridges and reduced flooding hazards. This Agenda Item is to consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of DeNon authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement between the City Of Denton, Texas and Denton County, Texas specifically for the TxDOT Off System-Bridge Replacement Program. Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, authorizes local governments of the state to enter into contracts for governmental functions and services to increase their efficiency and effectiveness. Under these circumstances, a consolidated effort for the construction and managemem of bridge Page 2 improvemems within the jurisdictions of the City and County are in each party's best imerest and that of the public. An imerlocal agreemem will increase the effective and efficiem functioning of each party. The County and the City are local governmems as defined in the Texas Govemmem Code, Section 791.003(4), have the authority to emer into an imerlocal agreemem for this specified purpose. Attachmem 3 is a copy of the proposed Ordinance. The imerlocal cooperation agreemem will establish funding priority for City of DeNon bridge replacement projects over Denton County projects. TxDOT and Denton County have identified the following eligible DeNon County bridge replacemem projects within DeNon County for inclusion in the imerlocal agreemem (see Table 2): Table 2 - TxDOT Off-System Bridge Replacement Projects in Denton County Eligible for TxDOT Funding Agreements Denton County Bridge Estimated Estimated Project Construction City Match Location Cost Required Sam Bass Road at Clear Creek $ 792,175 $ 79,218 John Paine Road at Roark Branch ** $ 244,033 $ 24,403 Nicholson Road at Clear Creek ** $ 806,728 $ 80,673 Indian Trail Road at Behnke Branch $195,525 $19,552 Friendship Road at Pecan Creek $ 292,541 $ 29,254 Huling Road at Pond Creek $190,674 $19,067 Pruett Road at Carson Creek $ 229,480 $ 22,948 Reik Road at S. Hickory Creek $ 370,154 $ 37,015 TOTALS $3,121,310 $312,131 Match Funds Available from City ............. $934,266 Match Funds Unused ............. $622,135 ** Within DeNon ETJ All other eligible bridges within the ETJ are already included in similar funding agreements executed between Denton County and TxDOT, or are not eligible at this time for replacement under this Program. OPTIONS Approve the Ordinance. Postpone consideration of the Ordinance request. Disapprove the Ordinance, and pursue City projects only with TxDOT. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None Page 3 FISCAL INFORMATION The City would be responsible for obtaining right-of-way and assume costs to arrange for relocating milities for each bridge replacemem project located within the City. DeNon County would have these responsibilities for bridges in the County. TxDOT does not pay for right-of- way or mility relocations under any circumstances. Requiremems for right-of-way and mility relocations are idemified during the project design phase, vary depending on site conditions, and cannot be estimated at this time. Should these costs become prohibitive to the City, the City can delay or abandon bridge replacemem. There would also be administrative costs for the off- system bridge replacement program to provide contract compliance data and documentation to TxDOT. The administrative costs cannot be estimated at this time, as the City has no prior experience with this program. ATTACHMENTS TxDOT Letter dated January 9, 2001 Location Map Ordinance Agreement Prepared By: Sr. Engineer, Transportation & Drainage Edward F. Witkowski, Jr. Respectfully submitted: Director of Engineering Charles Fiedler Page 4 Texas Department of Transportation 2624 W. PRAIRIE * DENTON, TEXAS 76201-5117 * (940) 387-1414 January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Local Fund Participation-Waived Federal Off-System Bridge Program Projects and Equivalent-Match Projects Hon. Scott Armey Denton County Judge 110 W. Hickory St. Denton, TX 76201 Dear Judge Armey: Texas Administrative Code, Title 43, Section 15.55(d) (43 TAC Section 15.55(d)) is now in effect providing that the usual 10 percent local match fund participation requirement may be waived on an authorized federal off-system bridge program project, providing the Local Government agrees to perform structural improvement work in a dollar- amount equivalent to the local participation, on other deficient bridge(s) or cross-drainage structure(s) within its jurisdiction. The project on which the local fund participation requirement is to be waived is referred to as the "participation-waived project", while the project or projects on which the Local Government agrees to perform structural improvement work in return for the participation waiver, is referred to as the "equivalent-match project(s)". With written request by the Local Government, consideration may be given to such waiver on any federal off-system bridge project within the Local Government's jurisdiction that is currently authorized for construction, but the contract has not yet been awarded. However, the department is unable to reimburse escrow funds that have already been paid by the Local Government. The waiver request must include the location(s), description of structural improvement work proposed, and estimated cost for the proposed equivalent-match project(s), together with a copy of the Local Governing body's resolution. Such requests will be reviewed and considered according to the requirements of 43 TAC Section 15.55(d), and the Local Government will be notified accordingly. If waiver approval is granted, such approval must then be manifested through written agreement executed between the State and the Local Government. For your use, attached are examples of a form letter requesting the waiver and a resolution form adopting the waiver request. Please contact this office if further information is needed in preparing or considering the preparation of a waiver request. Claud P. Elsom III, P.E. Area Engineer Attachments: Example Form Letter Requesting Waiver Example Local Governing Body Resolution Form Adopting Waiver Request cc: John Polster Kelly Zwinggi An Equal Opportunity Employer ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN 1NTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CiTY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS FOR THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFF SYSTEM-BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Mayor, or in her absence the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Denton County, Texas for the Texas Department of Transportation Off-System Bridge Replacement Program, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein by reference (the "Interlocal Cooperation Agreement"). SECTION 2. Any expenditure of funds as set forth in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Doeuments~rdinanees~03xJntertoeal Agrmt-OffBridge Replacements-Denton County. doc INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE REPLACEMENTS This Agreement is entered into by and between the County of Denton, Texas, hereinafter called "County" and the City of Denton, Texas, hereinafter called "City". WHEREAS, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, authorizes local governments of the state to enter into contracts for governmental functions and services to increase their efficiency and effectiveness; and WHEREAS, such a consolidated effort in the construction and management of street and bridge improvements within the jurisdictions of the City and County, are in each party's best interest and that of the public and this Agreement will increase the effective and efficient functioning of each party and WHEREAS, the County and the City are local governments as defined in the Texas Government Code, Section 791.003(4), have the authority to enter into this Agreement, and have each entered into this Agreement by the action of its governing body in the appropriate manner prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the County and the City specify that .each party paying for the performance of said functions of government shall make those payments from current revenues available to the pay/ag party; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, and of the terms, provisions, and mutual promises herein contained which fairly compensate the performing party, it is mutually agreed as follows: 1. TERM AND EFFECTIVE DATE The term of this agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and shall remain in full force and effect until all matters completed. related to the Project and State Program have been 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the fights and responsibilities of the City and County for the construction of street and bridge improvements for Mayhill Road at Pecan Creek which bridge improvements are described as follows: Construction of a 175-foot long concrete precast bridge structure on Mayhill Road over Pecan Creek, and including box culvert and storm drain improvements along Mayhill Road between McKinney Street and Morse Street to remove the traveled roadway from the Pecan Creek floodplain and improve local drainage conditions (hereinafter called the "Project"). The Project is located within the jurisdiction of the City and County. The Project qualifies as an Equivalent Match Project ("EMP") under the Texas Department of Transportation ("TxDot') Off-System Bridge Program as authorized by Sections 15.52 and 15.55 of the Texas Administrative Code (the "State Program"). 3. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES A. The City shall be the Program Manager on behalf of County and City for the State Program, and as such, provide such other services for the Project and Qualifying Projects as may be required by TxDot to comply with requirements of the State Program from time to time. B. The City shall construct or cause to be constmcted all improvements associated with the Project. C. The City shall pay ali costs of construction for the Project. The estimated cost of construction which qualifies under State Program is $1,358,000.00. D. The City shall provide assistance for the Project by making timely application for funds available to City and County under the State Program for qualified City and County projects. E. City shall promptly notify County of any notices or requirements that pertain to the County or require County to furnish information to comply with State Program. F. The City shall have sole authority and responsibility for management of City's qualifying projects under the State Program funded through this Agreement. · Page 2 Denton Co Bridge Replace Final,doe G. City shall pay all costs excluded from the State Program, including utilities relocations, acquisition of right-of-way or easements, and any other costs, for projects located within the City. 4. COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES A. The County shall furnish to City all information pertaining to County's "Qualifying Projects" that is required for City to make application for matching funds for County's Qualified Projects under the State Program. B. County shall furnish information pertaining to County's Qualifying projects to City in a timely manner when requested by City to comply with State Program requirements. C. The County shall provide technical and or administrative support services when reqUested to do so by City to comply with State Program requirements as may be required from time to time. D. The County shall have sole authority and responsibility for management of County's qualifying projects under the State program funded through this Agreement. E. County shall pay all costs excluded from the State Program, including utilities relocations, acquisition of right-of-way or easements, and any other costs, for projects located within the County. 5. THE STATE PROGRAM Under the State Program, the Texas Department of Transportation hereinafter called "TxDot' allows for a waiver of the normal 10% local participation for certain qualifying projects by offsetting dollar for dollar the monies spent by the local government for a EMP. The City currently has five projects ("City Qualifying Projects") that qualify under the State Program as follows: Page 3 Denton Co Bridge Replace Final.doc Bridge Replacement-Mayhill Road at Cooper Creek Estimated Cost: $239,182 10-percent EMP Match: $23,918 Bridge Replacement-Bonnie Brae Street at Roark Branch Hickory Creek Estimated Cost: $190,674 1 O-percent EMP Match: $19,067 Bridge Replacement-Frame Street at Pecan Creek Estimated Cost: $224,630 1 O-percent EMP Match: $22,463 Bridge Replacement- Bonnie Brae Street at Hickory Creek Estimated Cost: $418,662 10-percent EMP Match: $41,866 Bridge Replacement- Bonnie Brae Street at Dry Fork Hickory Creek Estimated Cost: $292,541 1 O-percent EMP Match: $29,254 The County currently has the following projects that qualify under the State Program ("County Qualifying Projects"): Bridge Replacement- Sam Bass Road at Clear Creek Bridge Replacement-John Paine Road at Roark Branch Bridge Replacement-Nicholson Road at Clear Creek Bridge Replacement-Indian Trail Road at Behnke Branch Bridge Replacement-Friendship Road at Pecan Creek Bridge Replacement-Huling Road at Pond Creek Bridge Replacement-Pruett Road at Carson Creek Bridge Replacement-Reik Road at South Hickory Creek Page 4 Denton Co Bridge Rep[ace Final.doe The City and County agree that all actual costs for the Project which are currently estimated to be $1,358,000 will be first used to apply against the City's 10% EMP Match for the City's Qualifying Projects under the State Program. The remaining costs for the Project will be used by the County to apply against the County's 10% EMP Match for the County's Qualifying Projects. 6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP Nothing herein contained shall be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 7. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement will not be affected, and in lieu of each provision which is found to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, there will be added as part of this agreement a provision as similar to such illegal, invalid, or unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid, and enforceable. 8. LIABILITY This Agreement is made for the express purpose of providing services, which both parties recognize to be a governmental function. Except as hereinafter provided neither party assumes any lability beyond that provided by law. This Agreement is not intended to create any cause of action for the benefit of third parties. 9. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This Agreement supersedes any prior agreement between me parties hereto related to the Project and constitutes and expresses the whole agreement of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be effective on its date of execution (the "Effective Date"). 10. AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS 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 Page 5 Denton Co Bridge Replace Final.doe hereto, and each party certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions or ordinances were passed by their respective governing bodies authorizing this Agreement. 11. NOTICES Any notice given by one party to the other in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be by personal delivery; or shall be sent by registered mail or certified mail; or shall be sent by U.S. Mail, remm receipt request, postage prepaid; or by facsimile to: City Manager City of Denton 215 East McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 Fax No. 940.349.8596 COUNTY: Denton County Judge Denton County Courts Building 1450 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76205 Signed to be effective as of the __ day of ,2003 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: Euline Brock, Mayor ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM HERB~~ ATTORNEY BY: Page 6 Denton Co Bridge Replace Final.doc DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS BY: Mary Horn, County Judge ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DISTRICT ATTORNEY BY: Page 7 Denton Co Bridge Replace Final,doc AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET August 5, 2003 Fiscal Operations, Tax Department Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas placing a proposal on the September 2, 2003, City Council Public Meeting Agenda to adopt a 2003 tax rate that will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate; calling a public hearing on a tax increase to be held on August 19, 2003, requiring publication of a Notice of Public Hearing on a tax increase in accordance with the law; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND In the Friday, August 1, 2003, Reading File, staff provided Council with a copy of the required notice of effective tax rate calculation to be published in the Sunday, August 3 newspaper. Municipalities are required to publish their rollback tax rates in the newspaper, along with the effective tax rate and other required schedules. The rollback tax rate divides the overall property taxes imo two categories--maimenance and operations (M&O) taxes and debt service taxes. By law, the rollback rate for taxing units are set at an eight percem (8%) increase in operating (M&O) taxes. The effective tax rate is generally the property taxes divided by the current year's taxable value of properties that were on the tax roll in both years. This rate excludes taxes on properties no longer in the taxing unit and also excludes the currem taxable value of new properties (growth). The City of DeMon's effective rate is $.53166/$100 valuation and the rollback rate is $.69912/$100 valuation. The Property Tax Code specifies that "if a taxing unit (other than a school district or small taxing unit) proposes a tax rate that exceeds the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate, the taxing unit's governing body must vote to place the proposal to adopt the tax rate on the agenda of a future meeting as an action item". While the proposed 2003-04 budget keeps the current .54815 rate unchanged, it is 103.1% of the effective tax rate and requires a public hearing. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE 08/05/03 08/10/03 08/19/03 08/24/03 09/02/03 Vote to Place Proposal on Future Agenda Publish Required Notice for Public Hearing Hold Public Hearing Publish Second Required Notice for Vote on Tax Rate Adopt Tax Rate PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW City Council was provided information regarding the proposed tax rate in the August 1, 2003, Reading File. FISCAL INFORMATION The proposed property tax rate is included in the 2003-04 proposed budget. Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PLACING A PROPOSAL ON THE SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA TO ADOPT A 2003 TAX RATE THAT WILL EXCEED THE LOWER OF THE ROLLBACK RATE OR 103 PERCENT OF THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE; CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON A TAX INCREASE TO BE HELD ON AUGUST 19, 2003; REQUIRING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON A TAX INCREASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to adopt a tax rate of $.54815 per $100 valuation, which will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate, in accordance with the requirements of the Tex. Tax Code ch. 26 and to schedule a public hearing on the proposed tax increase; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES SECTION 1. The City Council desires to adopt a tax rate for the 2003 tax year of $.54815 per $100 per valuation that will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the placement of an item on the September 2, 2003 City Council public meeting agenda to vote on a proposed tax rate of $.54815 per $100 valuation that will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or 103 percent of the effective tax rate. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby calls a public hearing on the proposed tax increase to be held in the City Council Chambers at City Hall located at 215 East McKinney Street in Denton, Texas 76201 on August 19, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. The public hearing will not be held until at least seven days after notice of this public hearing has been published in the Denton Record- Chronicle, a newspaper having general circulation within the City, in the form of the attached Notice of Public Hearing on a Tax Increase, which is made a part of this resolution for all purposes. The City Manager and the Assistant City Manager for Fiscal & Municipal Services are hereby directed to publish said notice in accordance with this resolution and in accordance with Tex. Tax Code §26.06. At the public hearing, the City Council will afford adequate opportunity for both proponents and opponents of the tax increase to present their views. SECTION 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas on this the 5th day of August, 2003, at which meeting a quorum was present and the meeting was held in accordance with the provisions of Tex. Gov't Code §551.001, et seq. The City Secretary is hereby directed to record this resolution and the vote on the proposal to place the item for a tax increase on the September 2, 2003 City Council agenda. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __day of .,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Councilmember Euline Brock, Mayor Mark Burroughs, Mayor Pro Tem Bob Montgomery Jack Thomson Perry Mc Neill Pete Kamp Raymond Redmon Voted For Voted Against S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\03\tax public hearing.doc Page 2 Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase The City of Denton, Texas will hold a public hearing on a proposal to increase total tax revenues from properties on the tax roll in the preceding year by 3.1 percent. Your individual taxes may increase at a greater or lesser rate, or even decrease, depending on the change in the taxable value of your property in relation to the change in taxable value of all other property and the tax rate that is adopted. The public hearing will be held on August 19, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. at the City Council Chambers in City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201. FOR the proposal: AGAINST the proposal: PRESENT and not voting: ABSENT: The following table compares taxes on an average home in this taxing unit last year to taxes proposed on the average home this year. Again, your individual taxes may be higher or lower, depending on the taxable value of your property. Average residence homestead value Last Year This Year $110,423 $117,730 General exemptions available (amount available on the average homestead, not including senior citizen's or disabled person's exemptions) $5,000 $5,000 Average taxable value $105,428 $112,730 Tax Rate .54815/$100 .54815/$100 Tax $577.90 $617.92 Under this proposal, taxes on the average homestead would increase by $40.00 or 6.92 percent compared with last year's taxes. Comparing tax rates without adjusting for changes in property value, the tax rate would increase by $.00¢ per $100 of taxable value or 0 percent compared to last year's tax rate. These tax rate figures are not adjusted for changes in the taxable value of property. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: August5,2003 Planning and Development Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: ADP03-0002 (C.H. Collins Athletic Complex) Consider an ordinance approving an Alternative Development Plan for C.H. Collins Athletic Complex. The proposed 42.575 acre site is located north of Loop 288, south of Long Road and between Sherman Drive and Stuart Road. The subject site is within Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. A stadium and parking lot are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Denton I.S.D. Denton, Texas The Denton Independent School District proposes a 10,000-seat football stadium on the site. The property contains the water park (adjacent to the stadium site) and will eventually contain an elementary school, a technology center and a public park. The applicant request approval of an Alternative Development Plan in order to vary from site plan requirements relating to street trees, tree canopy coverage, parking lot design and light and glare performance requirements as outlined in Section 35.13 of the Development Code. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the Alternative Development Plan as proposed by the applicant (6-0)(Holt Absent). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. Building permits can be issued after the final plat has been approved and filed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of ADP03-0002, commonly known as C.H. Collins Athletic Complex: The subject property was voluntarily annexed into the city on August 8,2001. Ordinance 2002-040, adopted on February 20, 2002 placed the subject property in a Neighborhood Residential - 4 (NR-4) zoning district and land use classification. No neighborhood meeting was held. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Location/Zoning 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes, July 9, 2003 6. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Wes Morrison Planner I Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Request The Denton Independent School District is proposing a 10,000-seat football stadium on the subject site. The entire property currently contains the newly opened water park (adjacent to the stadium site) and will eventually contain an elementary school, a technology center and a public park. The applicant is requesting an Alternative Development Plan to alter site plan requirements relating to street trees, tree canopy coverage, parking lot design and light and glare performance requirements as outlined in Section 35.13 of the Development Code. Existing Condition of Property Adjacent zoning: North: Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) - Vacant Land South: Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) - Vacant Land East: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) - Aquatic Center West: Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4)- Proposed School Site 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. Development Code/Zoning Analysis The following are Sections of the Development Code that are not being met with the proposed site plan: Section 35.13.6 - Street Tree Requirements. The applicant is proposing to widen the area designated for street trees between the curb and the sidewalk by 15-feet to make additional room for trees and create a more naturalistic screening area. Per the code, sixty-three (63) street trees are required along the frontage of this development. The proposed landscape plan (Attachment 4) shows seventy-two (72) trees (a 15% increase) in the buffer area. In addition to the trees, the applicant is also proposing ornamental shrubs in a portion of the buffer. Section 35.13.7 - Tree Canopy Requirements. A 50% tree canopy is required in the NR-4 zoning district. This would equal approximately 927,283 square feet of canopy (over 21 acres). The NR-4 zoning is typically a single-family residential district, and that is why the tree canopy requirement is so high. The attached landscape plan shows that approximately 295,000 square feet of canopy is being provided. Section 35.13.10 -Access, Parking and Circulation Requirements a) The applicant is requesting a waiver from the requirement to break up the parking lot into blocks no larger than 100 parking spaces. Although the large parking lots have been broken up by four (4) pedestrian landscaped islands, the remaining parking lot areas are greater than 100 spaces (range from 132 spaces to over 600 spaces). Instead of providing more pedestrian islands, the applicant is proposing four (4) large landscaped pedestrian islands. The proposed islands exceed the minimum 10' width by 35' (45' total) and were also designed and located to provide direct access to the entries to the stadium. b) Additionally, parking lots are required to be designed with the landscaped and end cap areas planted with trees, shrubs and ground cover. Landscaped areas should also be evenly distributed throughout the parking area and parking perimeter. Although, the applicant has exceeded the tree canopy requirements for the parking lots, the plantings are concentrated along the perimeter of the parking lot and along the pedestrian islands, which is a function of the pedestrian island design addressed above. Section 35.13.13.A - Orientation Requirements Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides of the building. The applicant is proposing approximately 130 parking spaces between the road and the building. The intent is to provide a parking area for employees and users of the stadium in close proximity to the stadium facilities. This parking area includes space for player and band buses and will be gated for controlled access. The applicant has proposed to increase the buffer yard between the parking area and the street and provide additional landscaping to screen the parking lot from the road. Section 35.13.12 - Light and Glare Performance Requirements Due to the nature of the proposed use, the amount of light that will be generated from the stadium will exceed the minimum requirement of ½ foot-candle at the property line during scheduled events. The parking lot will be required to comply with the lighting requirements and will be shielded from adjoining uses. Alternative Development Plan Criteria An applicant may propose an Alternative Development Plan, which meets or exceeds the design objectives of Subchapter 35.13 but does not meet the standards of Subchapter 35.13. The Alternative Development Plan provides the option to address the design criteria through a flexible discretionary process. The criteria for approval is as follows: 1. Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The property was purchased for the intent of developing a water park, stadium, elementary school, a technology center and public park. The proposed Alternative Development Plan minimizes the impact of the development on adjacent properties. 2. Assure quality development that fits with the character of Denton. The proposed development will meet the criteria of the Denton Development Code, and the construction and site design will be compatible with the character of Denton and the specific area. 3. Focus on new development to activity centers to curb strip development and urban sprawl. The proposed development minimizes urban sprawl by providing needed services in an area that has adequate infrastructure to support the use. 4. Ensure that infrastructure is capable of accommodating development prior to the development occurring. Adequate infrastructure exists to service the proposed development. Staff Findings The proposed stadium is a type of use that was not fully anticipated during the formation of the Development Code. The proposed design solutions do provide the applicant with a workable site while maintaining the intent of the code. Staff Recommendation Based on above findings staff recommends approval of the requested Alternative Development Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 NORTH Location/Zoning Map ~SITE Scale: None Attachment 3 *°o~.° / / Attachment 4 I'd 'i LH =:_ --ILS 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 f2 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment 5 PROCEEDINGS COMMISSIONER APPLE: Good evening. At this 2 time, I will call to order the regular m~ting of the 3 Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Denton, 4 Texas on this Wednesday July the 9th, 2003. 5 Please join us as we stand to say the 6 pledge of allegiance to the United States flag and the 7 Texas flag, 8 (Thereupon, the Pledges of Allegiance were 9 recited.) 10 COMMISSIONER APPLE: BefOre We get started I 1 this evening, I'd like to mention that Vicki Holt will be 12 absent tonight with an excused absence. 13 And second of ail, I would like to take a 14 moment to introduce Ms. Kelly Carpenter. She is tho new 15 Director of Planning for the City of Denton. She has been 16 with us three days now. She began on Monday. And she 17 comes to us from Los Alamos, New Mexico. And we wish to 18 give her a real warn welcome. We're glad she's hem. 19 MS. CARPENTER: Thank you very much. 20 COMMISSIONER APPLE: The next item of 21 business is to consider approval of the minutes of our 22 June 25th, 2003 meeting.. Are there any corrections? :23 Cotranissioncr Johnson. 24 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: On page 8, line 6 of 25 Page 2 the regular session, there's a misspelled word. It says "paramctm'." It should be "perimeter." COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Any more corrections or do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER IOHNSON: ['II move approval of the minutes. COMMISS[ONFA~APPLE: We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: second, COMMISSIONER APPLE: --'gild fl second tO approve. Any discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 6-0. The next item is our Consent Agenda. It's Items 3A through H. And Mr. Reichhart with the Planning Staff would like to make an announcement. MR. REICHFIART: staff is requesting that Iron D be pulled. And that's the final plat for Teasley Lane High School. Wefre still waiting for final approval from FEMA. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Mr. Reichhart. Mr. Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: MOVe approval of the Consent Agenda Items A through H except for Itcan D. COMMISSIONER ROY: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda except Item D. Any PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 9, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 6-0. Moving fight along, we have an item for individUal consideration, And Wes Morrison with the City Staff will present, MR. MORRISON: Good evening. Denton [so is proposing an athletic center or complex located north of Loop 288 between Ste~vart Road and Sherman Drive. The site is located within a neighborhood residential 4 zoning district. The Development Code does not clearly or completely address this type of development, therefore, the applicant has requested an alternative development plan. The issues addressed in this alternative development plan are as follows. First off, the requirement for street trees located in Section 35.i 3.6, that requirement states that street trees sliall be planted between the street and the sidewalk. The.gpplicant has requested or has proposed that thvy widen the area between the street -- widen that proposed -- or that requirement to include -- so they include more streets -- more trees just not up within the -- between the sidewalk and the street, So now instead of -- for instance, instead of having the 63 trees that they're required to have, they'll have 72, which is a 15 percent increase. It's 2003 Page 4 just going to be a widened area that they'll have those in. The second issue is regarding the tree canopy. This -- like I said, this lot is located within an NR-4 zoning district, which was intended for single family uses. Therefore, the requirement is a 50 percent tree canopy intended, again, for residential uses. This not being a residential use, this being a stadium use, it's difficult for them to.meet that requirement. As shown on their landscape plan, and let me get to that, they have approximately -- they should have approximately 927,000 square feet to meet their canopy required by the 50 percent. They're only showing 295,000 square feet. That's of canopy being provided. Third issue is that the parking lots are required to be broken up into 100 spaces or less. The applicant has broken the spaces up. into four pedestrian districts. As you can tell -- and-I had something here. Maybe I can show with my pen, if I can get the docucam, these areas here are pedestrian accesses that will be leading into the stadium. Those have been landscaped and around the perimeter of the parking lots have been landscaped. Each of these blocks of four have been Page 1 - Page 4 l 2. 4 $ 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 !11 ]2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attachment 5 broken up into spots ranging from 132 spaces up to 600 spaces. The other requirement regarding the parking lot is that they should have a particular -- they should meet a tree canopy. They are exceeding their tree canopy ~n the parking lot. The issue is that it's not evenly distributed as the Code states it should be. And so they have, in essence, like I said, provided the tree canopy on the perimeter, not throughout the entire parking 10t. The last issue is regarding the light for the parking lot and the stadium, they've requested a -- in their plan that on the stadium lights that they exceed the half foot candle required that reaches the property line. Page 7 J MR. MORRISON: The applican~ was under the 2 impression that they were over their parking. In essence, 3 they're not. They're under their parking requirements. 4 So the Code requires impervious parking for over the 5 parking limit. Since they are not over that, they don't 6 need that waiver. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: I don't see any 9 further questions. Is th~ applicant present? 10 MR. MOP, mSO~4: ~ believe so. Yes. t I COMMISSIONER APPLE: would tbey tike to 12 come down and say anything? 13 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you, Madam Chairman, The parking lot lights will have to comply with Code, though. Due to the proposed design, it makes a workable site plan for the applicant. And we think it meets the intent of the Code, so staff recommends approval. Are there any questions? 14 15 16 17 18 19 Conm~issioners. My name is Bill Coleman. I'm with Coleman Associates Surveying at 300 North Elm in Denton, Texas. And I have been working with the school district on putting this plan together that we bring before you today. Aside from the issues that Mr. Morrison raised in his presentation, I don't have anything further COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Reichhart would like to add something. MR. MORRISON: okay, MR. REICHHART: Just additionally, one of the other alternatives to this is the parking between the stadium and the street, if you could address that. Page 6 MR, MORRISON: sorry. The parking -- the applicant -- the Development Code does not allow parking between the street and the building. The applicant has proposed that this area here which is about 130 parking spaces, which will be gated on both sides and landscaped with trees and shrubs around the front and the sides, this 20 21 22 23 24 25 to add except that we have done everything that we know we can do to as best comply with the spirit of the City Codes and Ordinances while developing something that is not addressed in the City Codes and Ordinances, and, that is, a football stadi~n of this size and quality. If you have any questions, I will be glad to answer them. Page 8 We have some resource -- members of the resource team also present to answer any detailed questions you may have. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioners, do you have any questions? Commissioner Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: If there's no parking lot is intended for servants or, you know, the employees of the stadium, bus parking for students, getting on and off -- bands, football teams, what have you. So that's another issue that I left off the original. Anything else? COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Powell has a question. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. I'm reading on the plan that we have called the alternative development 7 question, I'm ready to make a motion, Madam Chair. 8 COMMISSIONER APPLE: All right. 9 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER MU'LRO¥: I move approval of 11 the alternative development plan as presented. 12 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a 14 second. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Powell. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. I'm going to plan, which doesn't show any trees, by the way. Number four says, "Waive the requirement for pervious parking." Is that still the deal? MR. MORRISON: That is not needed. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Can somebody explain why? MR, MORRISON: oh, okay. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr, Reichhart. MR. MORR1SON: ! can. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Mr. Morrison. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 talk about trees, believe it or not. I don't have any heartburn with this plan at all. I think it's phenomenal. I want to bring that up first because what I'm going to -- because the rest of it may be a tad critical, but not of the plan and not of the concept. I'm pointing out that other people when they develop have to do things that the school districts hasn't had to do here. They have to have trees in places these people don't have. And if they don't have them, we tend to give them heartburn over it. And I'm talking, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 9, 2003 Page 5 - Page 8 Attachment 5 I specifically, about the plan necessary for the development 2 of the shopping center on Loop 288 recently. 3 We gave them ail kinds of trouble about 4 pervious parking and about trees and sign location and 5 signs not -- and, you know, none of that's here. And I 6 don't mean that it should be. This is a great plan. To 7 accomplish what they're doing here is wonderful. 8 I just don't think we treat everybody 9 equal. And I'm just pointing that out for whatever it is 10 worth. It's just one man's opinion. I'm not asking for 11 any action or any -- I don't want any -- I'm not even 12 looking for arguments. I usually am. But it just doesn't 13 seem that we treat everybody equal. Thank you. 14 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, Commissioner 15 Powell. Commissioner Mulroy. 16 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: If I may, Madam 17 Chair, briefly respond to that. I agree with my fellow 18 Commissioner, we don't treat everybody equal and the 19 mason for thc alternate development plan is the Code did 20 not undertake to .address the specific needs of schools, 2i coliseums, athletic complexes, so we have to -- 22 tailor-made each one according to the functionality and 23 the existing site. But if you recall several months ago, 24 the last school project on Teasley came up for preliminary 25 platting and the suggestion was made that City staff Page 10 1 undertake a development of, perhaps, a checklist with the 2 School District to try to formulate a backdrop of criteria 3 that would be consistent for them to measure against. And 4 if we agreed on it, we could give them administrative 5 relief without going through an alternate development 6 plan. 7 So Pm not saying it was meant to be equal. 8 It certainly -- it's not, but it's kind of a moving 9 target, I think, and I'd like to nail that down so the 10 school district will have something standard to work 11 against. Thank you. Commissioner Watkins. 12 COMMISSIONER W^TK~S: Thank you, Madam 13 Chair. I agree with Cormnissioner Powell. It seems not 14 right, but by the same token, I noticed this is zoned 1 $ NR-4. And on my visit, I only see one house within sight 16 or seeing distance. So I don't know really that we should 17 compare a stadium to a residential housing development, I 18 guess is what I'm saying. 19 I don't know why it's zoned NR-4. It is, 20 and so that brings us to the tree situation. But if 21 you've been to the location and I'm sure you have, there's 22 not a tree anywhere south along the road and across 288. 23 So I appreciate the School District planning and wanting 24 to continue this project away from residential housing 25 developments. My only thought is the light on 288, but PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JULY 9 '- Page 1 1 I'm sure the School District will address that. Thank 2 you, Madam Chair. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Mr. Snyder would like 4 to shed a littl~ light. 5 MR. SNYDER: I jUSt want to point OUt tO 6 the Commissioners, I think they already know, but maybe 7 the public doesn't know. Th~ tndqaendent School District 8 being the fact that they're a political subdivision of the 9 State of Texas, they am exempt from certain of our 10 regulations. I 1 One of those is our zoning regulations. 12 Out of a matter of cooperation with the City, they have 13 elected and they have on all of their projects have 14 elected to come through and comply with our regulations to 15 the extent feasible. 16 So I just want to point that out. That is 17 one distinction under the law, why maybe you could say 18 that they should be treated differently in that they are 19 another governmental entity. And they don't have to 20 strictly -- they don't have to comply with this alternate 21 development plan requirement in the first instance. Just 22 wanted to point that out. 23 COMMlSSIONE~ Am'LE: Thank you, Mr. Snyder. 24 Commissioner Powell. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: one thing I forgot to Page 12 I mention that this is the second school within recent 2 memory, I guess, of the last three or four months that 3 we've had to make a deal on about parking in front. 4 I think we need to consider that in thc 5 future. These can't be the only kind of developments 6 where parking in front is a necessity. And if we're 7 constantly making special deals for somebody to park in 8 front. We may want to look at that. I think that comes 9 under Item 6, also, but just pointing that out. 10 And, again, my cormnent is not negative 11 about the district or the plans or Mr, Coleman or anybody. 12 I think it's wonderful. I just want to see -- t would 13 just like to see develOPers treated the same way as ~i14 everybody else. '15 COMMISSIONER APPLE; commissioner Johnson. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, I would like 17 to say that I am in total agreement with Commissioner 18 Powell. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we have a motion and a 20 second on the table to approve this item. ls there any 21 further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 6-0. 22 23 24 25 2003 Page 9 - Page 12 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON APROXIMATELY 42.5 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF LOOP 288, SOUTH OF LONG ROAD, BETWEEN SHERMAN DRIVE AND STUART ROAD, WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MODIFYING PARKING, STREET TREE, TREE CANOPY, LANDSCAPING, AND LIGHTNING REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE M_AXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (ADP03-0002) WHEREAS, Denton Independent School District has applied for an altemative development plan ~vhich is on file in the City's Planning Department, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" (the Alternative Development Plan), on approximately 42.5 acres of land located in a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district, as more particularly described in Exhibit "B' attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on July 9, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Alternative Development Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Alternative Development Plan is consistent with The Denton Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The ARernative Development Plan is hereby approved. 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 servable. 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 Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ day of ,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY PAGE 2 DEDICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON WHEREAS THE DENTON iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT the owner of a certain tract of land in the Samuel McCracken Survey Abstract Number 817, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas being a part of the called 120.420 acre tract described in the deed from Edward F. Wolski to the Denton Independent School District recorded under Clerk's File Number 97-R0083710 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGiNNiNG at the Northwest comer of the herein described tract in the center of Long Road on the North line of the said 120.420 acre tract from which a 1/2 inch iron rod found with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS4001" (herein after referred to as 1/2"IRF) at the Northwest comer of LOT 1, BLOCK A, C. H. COLLINS ATHLETIC COMPLEX as shown by the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet U, Page 583 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas bears South 00 Degrees 52 Minutes 04 Seconds West a distance of 55.00 feet; THENCE South 00 Degrees 52 Minutes 04 Seconds West a distance of 55.00 feet to the said 1/2"IRF at the Northwest comer of Lot 1, Block A; THENCE South 30 Degrees 55 Minutes 07 Seconds West with the West line of Lot 1, Block A a distance of 575.81 feet a 1/2"IRF; THENCE South 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East continuing with the West line of Lot 1, Block A a distance of 370.32 feet to a 1/2"IRF at the Southwest comer thereof; THENCE South 85 Degrees 59 Minutes 48 Seconds West across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 193.52 feet a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "Coleman 4001" (herein after referred to as 1/2"IRS); THENCE North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 385.05 feet a 1/2"IRS; THENCE South 37 Degrees 27 Minutes 26 Seconds West across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 101.38 feet to a 1/2"IRS at the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 175.07 feet; THENCE Along the arc of the said curve, an arc length of 123.41 (chord bearing South 57 Degrees 39 Minutes 08 Seconds West a distance of 120.87 feet) to a 1/2"IRS at a point in a compound curve; THENCE Along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 786.05 feet, an arc length of 333.45 (chord bearing North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 330.95 feet) to a 1/2"IRS at a point in a compound curve; THENCE Along the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 175.07, an arc length of 123.41 (chord bearing North 57 Degrees 39 Minutes 08 Seconds West a distance of 120.87 feet) to a 1/2"IRS at the end of the said curve; THENCE North 37 Degrees 27 Minutes 26 Seconds West across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 88.78 feet to a 1/2"IRS; THENCE North 90 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds West across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 542.52 feet to a 1/2"IRS; THENCE North 00 Degrees 00 Minutes 00 Seconds East across the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 974.14 feet to the North line of the 120.420 acre tract in Long Road; THENCE South 89 Degrees 07 Minutes 56 Seconds East along the center of Long Road with the North line of the 120.420 acre tract a distance of 2,068.39 feet to the PLACE OF BEGiNNiNG and enclosing 42.699 acres of land. NOW, THEREFORE, KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: THAT, DENTON iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT does hereby adopt this plat designating the herein described property as LOT 2, BLOCK A, C. H. COLL1NS ATHLETIC COMPLEX in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and does hereby dedicate to the public use forever the street rights-of-way and public easement shown hereon. DENTON iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Norm Sisk, Director of Operations STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON This instrument was acknowledged before me on the __ day of iNDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, on behalf of the said school district. by Norm Sisk of DENTON (Signature of Notary) My commission expires: Exhibit B 'i FIq III m III I_l.l EIE_Z~ E~E --IE :: :I: ='= :': :': EIE EIE :~ :': :': =-': AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CMfDCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET August 5, 2003 Legal Department Jerry E. Drake, Jr., Senior Assistant City Attorney/Litigation Chief SUBJECT: Consider a resolution to approve and authorize the City of Denton to file an amicus curiae brief in Denton County v. Tarrant County, Cause No. 02-0795, in the Supreme Court of Texas; establishing a public purpose; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: Tarrant County sued Denton County in 1997 in an attempt to alter the historic boundary between the two counties that was surveyed and established in 1852, the only southern boundary relied on since. The litigation Denton County v. Tarrant County, Cause No. 02-0795, In the Supreme Court of Texas is pending a Motion for Rehearing, and County Commissioner Carter has requested our support in joining with other cities in an amicus brief. Denton County prevailed at the trial level, but the Court of Appeals in Fort Worth reversed, and Commissioner Carter has requested the City's support in persuading the Texas Supreme Court to accept review in the case. The County has asked Dallas Attorney Rider Scott to prepare the amicus brief. This case has implications beyond the boundaries of the two counties. In Denton County other taxpayers will have to absorb public debt that has been issued to build and improve our county roads, for the thousand of acres which will be transferred to Tarrant County. Future growth and development of both commercial and residential property along State Highway 114, and in this critical growth corridor, will benefit Tarrant County residents, not those of Denton County. OPTIONS: The City Council can approve the Resolution, which would authorize the City of Denton to participate in an amicus curiae brief in support of the County of Denton to preserve the historic 1852 southern boundary of Denton County. The City Council can choose not to enact the Resolution. FISCAL INFORMATION: There would no fiscal in,pact to the City of Denton from the passage of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY OF DENTON TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN DENTON COUNTY F. TARRANT COUNTY, CAUSE NO. 02- 0795, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS; ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC PURPOSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the County of Denton and Dallas were initially created by Act of the Texas Legislature in 1846 and Tarrant was not created until 1850; and WHEREAS, the southern boundary of Denton County was marked on the ground and surveyed by George White in 1852 and said survey was legally approved and filed with the Texas General Land Office; and WHEREAS, the County of Tarrant was not surveyed until 1854 by A.G. Walker who recognized and relied upon the 1852 George White survey of Denton County to complete the northern boundary of Tarrant County where it was common with Wise County; and WHEREAS, the George White survey of 1852 marking the common boundary of Denton and Tarrant Counties is the only survey ever marked on the ground, filed with the Texas General Land Office and recognized for any purpose, since the formation of the Counties; and WHEREAS, the alteration of an established and recognized historic boundary will create uncertainty, materially affect property rights and dilute the electoral access, there is rational and public policy basis for preserving the historic boundary separating the Counties of Denton and Tarrant; and WHEREAS, Tarrant County sued Denton County in the 43rd Judicial District Court of Parker County to alter the historic boundary and said District Court did in all aspects rule and render an opinion against Tarrant County; that the Second Court of Appeals, Fort Worth, reversed the District Court; an appeal thereof is pending in the Texas Supreme Court Cause No. 02-0795; Denton County v. Tarrant County; and WHEREAS, consideration of this cause by the Supreme Court of Texas is warranted for review of constitutional, and state jurisprudential issues and to provide finality. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: 1. AUTHORIZATION. The Mayor or her designate is hereby authorized to take all actions necessary and proper to implement the provisions of this Resolution. 2. PUBLIC POLICY. The City Council does hereby specifically find that public policy purposes are furthered by the preservation and retention of the historic southern boundary of Denton County as surveyed by George White in 1852, which survey was re-ascertained on the ground by Denton County in 1997. 3. INTERVENTION. The City of Denton is authorized to intervene as an amicus curiae in Denton County v. Tarrant County, Cause No. 02-0795, in the Texas Supreme Court, and, join in an amicus brief to be filed in the Texas Supreme Court for the public policy purpose as stated herein. 4. RECITALS. The City hereby finds and declares all precatory language herein to be true and correct and approves and adopts the same herein as part of this Resolution. adoption. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective on and after the date of its PASSED AND APPROVED this __ day of August, 2003. HON. EULINEBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Original signed by Jerry E. Drake, Jr., Sr. Asst CiW. Atty AGENDA. INFORMATION SH'EET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: August 5, 2003 Economic Development Mike ConduiT, City. Manager SUBJECT CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED CLEAR CREEK RANCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND Recorp, a development company based in Scottsdale, Arizona, has been working with property owners, Larry E. Kuhlken and Jeanine W. Kuhlken, to develop approximately 750 acres of land north of Loop 288, known as the proposed Clear Creek Ranch development. Recorp and the property owners have requested that a Public Improvement District (PID) be established for the purpose of developing road and utility infrastructure. Cities and counties may establish PIDs to make improvements to infrastructure to facilitate economic growth within an area. The Public Improvement District Assessment Act allows the city to levy and collect special assessments on property that is located within the PID. Assessments must be based upon the special benefits that accrue to the property because of the improvements. A PID may be initiated by the city or by petition by property owners of over 50% of the property valuation and either 50% of the number of taxable property owners who would be assessed or owners of more than 50% of the surface area. In this case, the property owners have submitted a petition requesting the PID be created. Establishing a PID requires a public hearing. The purpose for this resolution is simply to call the pubic hearing for September 2, 2003. Prior to the date of the public hearing, a feasibility study will be performed to determine whether the PID improvements are reasonable and can be supported by the proposed assessments, ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT If the PID is approved at the September 2, 2003 City Council meeting, Recorp plans to close on the property. A five-year on-going service plan and assessment plan must be developed that defines the annual indebtedness and projected costs of the improvements. The plan must also be updated annually for purposes of determining an annual budget for the PID. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW N/A FISCAL INFORMATION -1- A separate fund is established to receive and disburse PIX) assessments. Improvements are financed through bonds. Bond debt is retired through the annual PID assessments. EXHIBITS Resolution Respectfully submitted: Linda Ratliff, Director Economic Development Department -2- S:\Our DocumentsLResolutions~03\Clear Creek Public Hearing Resolution.DOC RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING AS TO THE ADVISABILITY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 1N THE PROPOSED CLEAR CREEK RANCH PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code (the "Act") allows for the creation of public improvement districts, either by action initiated by a municipality or county or upon receipt of a petition satisfying the requirements of the Act; WHEREAS, on the 18th day of July, 2003, owners of certain real property (the "Petitioners") located within the City of Denton (the "City") delivered to the City of Denton a petition (the "Petition") requesting the creation of a public improvement district to be known as the Clear Creek Ranch Public Improvement District No. 1 (the "District") as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereto (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Petitioners represented in the Petition that they were the owners of 100% of the Property within the proposed District, thereby satisfying the requirement in the Act that a petition may be presented by the owners of taxable real property representing more than 50 percent of the appraised value of the taxable real property liable for assessment under the proposal, as determined by the current roll of the appraisal district in which the Property is located, which owners also own taxable real property that constitutes more than 50 percent of the entire area of all taxable real property that is liable for assessment under the proposal; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners requested that the City Council of the City call a public hearing as to the advisability of the creation of the District. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City finds that the Petition complies with the Act. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby calls a public hearing for September 2, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the Denton City Hall, 215 East McKinney, City of Denton, Texas, on the advisability of the improvements in the proposed Clear Creek Ranch Public Improvement District No. I specified in the Petition. SECTION 3. The City Secretary is hereby directed to cause, before the 15th day before the date of the public hearing, a notice of the public heating to be (a) published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and (b) mailed to the current address of the owners, as reflected on the tax rolls, of property subject to assessment within the proposed District. SECTION 4. The public hearing notice shall contain the following information: (a) the time and place of the public hearing; (b) the general nature of the proposed improvements; (c) the estimated cost of the proposed improvements; (d) the boundaries of the proposed District; (e) the proposed method of assessment; and (f) the proposed apportionment of cost between the proposed District and the City as a whole. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINEBROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~~~'~~' Ame ica Re:: 748,972:7 acres o£ ]~tnd located ir,~ [ka~lon Co-~ TX Acgort!J~ng ~o the De]~to]~ Caun[y Deed Records, we :fS~'~d ~t~e record ow~er of propc, ly d;escribed o~ Wa~so~ Kuhlken, as ~er sep:amte prope:ny, a one-hall" (U2} undivided imemsI, as tea ca[ted 299.738 ~mms porti{'m of subject pmpe~y; Lawrmace E KuN. ken m~d Jeamine Kuhlken as to a ca[k':d 384.52 acres po~io'~:~ of sul)ject l:,rope~q:y from January 1,2(}03 ~hmugh om'~' cet~i:ficat:~on dam, .~une Si'acm'ely L,,'~ NDAMEt~ !.C,A ~ MER i(. A N 'l ~I.~. C OB! P AN ~ Al)yson Si EXHIBIT 299~738 ecru t~C't, de~cribed in the Deed from ~ai~?,/o,%t~ & ~alleway~ inc. tO Larry E~ Xuhiken et ux recofde~ il~ vo]..im~ 1312, P&~e ],~6 of the Real Kuhikan ~t ux r~ccrded in Volume 3134~ Pa~ 537 ~f thc said Re, J, est~b~:[sh~d fen=e linc [.$ the o]..~ road with th~ We~l;, line o~ rc~tr~;~t corn.~r thereof~ feet; THE~CE I-Io~q;b OL d.sgrses S1 mirmtes 27 ~,econd~ .S~st a ~Js~ace cf 99.61 the 9~,~21, ac~e tract the following 9 call~: tQ a 1/2 inch iron inch i~on ro~ fou, nd~ bO a,, 1,/2 i~ch i~o~ roa f~'u.~d; t;.o a 1/2 i~ch iros rod fOu.¢id a.t ~he Southeast AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: August 5, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Legal Department CITY ATTORNEY: Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT. - A Resolution of the City of Denton, Texas adopting the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program for the 78th Second Called Legislative Session; providing a repealer; and providing an effective date. 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 Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program and adopted its legislation program for the 78th First Called Legislative Session. Governor Perry added a Second Special Called Session for redistricting and other issues affecting the operation of local government. This resolution addresses the issues that pertain to the City of Denton. More detailed information is in this week's City Attorney Status Report. OPTIONS. - The City Council may adopt the resolution as' the City of Denton's 2003 State Legislative Program for the Second Called Session, direct staff to make changes and then adopt the legislative program as amended or decline to adopt the Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Herbe City Attorney S:\Our DoeumentsXLegislation\03 StateXagenda information- legis program second called session.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ADOPTING THE CITY OF DENTON'S 2003 STATE LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE 78TM SECOND CALLED LEGISLATIVE SESSION; PROVIDING A REPEALER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Seventh-eighth Texas Legislature adjourned on July 28, 2003; and WHEREAS, Governor Rick Perry called a special session commencing on July 28, 2003;and WHEREAS, redistricting, general government, public school finance issues and many legislative issues affecting local government will be considered; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to adopt its legislation program for the 78~ Second Called Legislative Session, attached as Exhibit "A", NOW, THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: That the City of Denton's Legislative Program 78th Second Called Legislative Session for the City of Denton is adopted as set forth in Attachment "A", incorporated herein and made a part of this resolution for all purposes. SECTION2: That the Mayor and City Council, City Manager and the City Attorney, or their designees shall communicate the items included in the state legislative program to members of the Texas Legislature. SECTION 3: 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. SECTION4: That the Mayor, City Manager and the City Attorney, or their designees are directed to communicate to the members of the Texas Legislature and actively oppose any legislation which diminishes the City of Denton's home-rule authority or has a negative impact on the City of Denton's governmental authority. SECTION 5. That all previous resolutions and orders or parts of resolutiOns or orders in force when the provisions of this Resolution become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION6: 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. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ day of ,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Exhibit A City of Denton Legislative Program for the 78th Second Called Legislative Session The City of Denton supports the following Legislative Issues: Legislation adopting a Congressional Redistricting Map that maintains the City of Denton and Denton County in Congressional District 26, respecting communities of interest as required by the Federal Voting Rights Act. Legislation to re-establish the first Saturday in May as the May uniform election date. Legislation relating to HB 3588 from the just completed regular session that maintains local authority over regional transportation issues. Legislation that assists State Universities to contribute to the economic development of the university's surrotmding region. Legislation that restores Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (TIF) fimding to local governmental libraries. Legislation relating to state fiscal management, including adjustments to certain school district fiscal matters made necessary by recent changes in state fiscal management; making related appropriations. The City of Denton will actively oppose any legislation that diminishes the City of Denton's home-rule authority or has a negative impact on the City of Denton's governmental authority. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: August 5, 2003 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Si02-0013: (Lakeview Mobility Plan Amendment) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Mobility Plan Component of The Denton Plan to revise the location of Lakeview Blvd, to change the classifications of Trinity Road between Mills Road and FM 426 route #1 for Lakeview Blvd. as shown on the mobility plan, FM 426 between proposed route #5 of Lakeview Blvd and the intersection of the current Route #1 of Lakeview Blvd., and Edwards Road between Swisher Road and Lakeview Blvd.; and providing an effective date. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-1) BACKGROUND: Applicant: City of Denton History: Lakeview Blvd is a proposed arterial traversing the east side of Denton connecting Hwy 380 with i-35E, it has been shown on the City's thoroughfare plan since 1986. it is expected to carry a large amount of bypass traffic some of which is currently using Loop 288 and Mayhill Road. in preparation for a possible Bond Election in 2004, the City hired Teague, Nall& Perkins, inc. (T, N&P) to perform a route study for Lakeview Blvd. evaluating the two alternate routes currently shown on the City's Mobility Plan. The route study evaluation criteria included cost estimates, physical constraints, floodplain disturbance as well as other environmental concerns, existing and proposed land uses, drainage issues, existing zoning and plats, permitting issues, and right of way acquisition. In addition to the two proposed alignments shown on the existing plan, a third alignment (a combination of the two proposed alignments) was analyzed as well. In researching the floodplain/Corps of Engineers (COE) permitting which would be required to accomplish any of the three routes, T, N, &P stumbled across a relatively new COE policy restricting the crossing of COE property to regional, multi-jurisdictional roads such as FM highways, interstates, etc. In addition, the proposed alignments after closer inspection had other constraints such as an existing cemetery and a mobile home park on Trinity Road, large stands of trees, steep topography near Pecan Creek and extremely long and expensive bridges over Pecan Creek. Based mainly on the cost issues associated with the Bridge over Pecan Creek and the COE issue as a secondary factor, a fourth route west of the other three routes was added to the scope of the route study in an effort to see if it was possible to reduce the cost of the bridges and avoid any crossing of the COE property. Upon further analysis of the fourth route, it became apparem that not only could the COE property be avoided, but the proposed fourth route provided other benefits as well. The fourth route requires a much smaller bridge over Pecan Creek, is not affected by the cemetery or mobile home park, and affects a smaller number of trees. Given all of these factors, the cost estimate for the fourth route was several million dollars less expensive to build. After two neighborhood meetings in September 2002, (one for residems north of Pecan Creek and the second for residems south of Pecan Creek) and a P&Z public hearing in October, 2002, staff was directed by the Planning & Zoning Commission to investigate the possibility of additional routes and to gather more public input. ( October 23, 2002 P&Z minutes attached) The public hearing was cominued to a date in December 2002. A number of residems outside of the city limits and just west of "The Preserve" who owned property affected by Route 4 were opposed to the alignment. Staff idemified an additional route (Route 5) and engaged Teague, Nall& Perkins to review and analyze the additional route. Route 5 utilized most of the existing alignment through the Preserve, but curves sharply to the west at the north end of "The Preserve" and follows Route 4 from Pecan Creek north to Hwy 380 thus avoiding crossing property owned by opponems of Route 4. A new neighborhood meeting for affected property owners south of McKinney Street was held on May 21 st 2003. A new neighborhood meeting north of McKinney Street was not necessary as the addition of route 5 does not change the information provided to the residents north of Pecan Creek and all residents who attended the meeting north of Pecan Creek were in favor of the route change. Residents outside the City Limits as well as many residents of "The Preserve" attended the most recent neighborhood meeting. In general, County residents were in favor of Route 5 and residents of The Preserve were in favor of Route 4. County residents felt that the road has been planned and shown on the city's Thoroughfare Plan in its currem location since before The Preserve was planned and developed and that the Preserve was developed in spite of the proposed road. The Preserve residents felt that regardless of previous plans, the Preserve comains many single-family homes as well as an elememary school and is not compatible with the plans for a six lane divided boulevard. It took much longer to analyze the additional route 5 than anticipated, so rather than continue a public hearing from October of 2002, a new public hearing was held at P&Z on June 25th, 2003 with new notifications. Staff recommended route # 5 to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the following reasons. 1. School Proximity: Although the Preserve neighborhood voiced a strong concern regarding Lakeview Blvd running directly in from of Pecan Creek Elememary School, the Demon Independem School District as well as the developer's of "The Preserve" worked very diligemly with City staff in the design of the school, specifically the site circulation, driveways and median openings with Lakeview Blvd in mind. In addition if route #4 is adopted, a larger number of elememary school studems would be required to cross Lakeview Blvd. (including some areas within The Preserve) to get to Pecan Creek Elememary School. Crossing Lakeview Blvd. would be considerably more dangerous than the road froming the school given the design of the site. As a comparison, Sam Houston Elementary School is in an almost identical situation to that of Pecan Creek Elementary School in that both Lakeview Blvd. and Teasley Lane are currently 4- lane thoroughfares with the potential to become 6-lanes in the future if needed. In both cases, the parent drop off is in the front of the building with Bus drop off at the rear. The main difference is that the Sam Houston situation requires a significant number of students to cross Teasley Lane which is much more problematic than walking along the street. 2. Cost: Route 5 appears to be the least costly route to construct. In addition, route 4 involves a significant amount of time, effort and expense rezoning and replatting "The Preserve". Route 5 involves some rezoning and replatting, but not nearly to the extent of route 4. These additional costs associated with route 4 as estimated by the developers of "The Preserve" could eclipse the cost savings of the smaller bridge needed for routes 4 and 5 and place it closer to the cost for Routes 1, 2 and 3. 3. Funding: Route 5 stays significantly within the Denton City Limits as opposed to Route 4 which involves a significant amount of property outside of the City Limits. Historically, The City of Denton has not spent capital improvements funding outside of the City Limits. 4. Right of Way Acquisition: Route 5 would require significantly less effort and fewer tracts with regard to obtaining the needed right of way. The large majority of property owners that would be directly affected by right of way acquisition for route five have expressed no objection to the route compared to the large number of residents directly affected by route 4 who are opposed to that route. The potential for a number of condemnations exists with route four. In addition, "The Preserve" development has already reserved additional right of way for the future widening of Lakeview Blvd. in its current alignment in the event that it is needed. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with the Staff recommendation and also recommended Route #5. (6-1) Staff has also worked with the developers of the Preserve as well as the developers of Lakeview Ranch on the north concerning the proposed Mobility Plan amendment. They are generally in support of the amendment pending the outcome of any rezoning or replating needed as a result. The Preserve rather than Lakeview Ranch is most affected by the discussions between routes 4 and 5 because the two routes coincide in Lakeview Ranch. Staff has met with DISD to inform them of the change and received positive verbal feedback regarding route 4 as it takes the thoroughfare away from the School Frontage, however they have acknowledged that Pecan Creek Elementary School was constructed with full awareness that Lakeview Blvd is a planned 6-lane arterial. Purpose of a Mobility Plan: A mobility plan is a planning tool used by most cities and counties of any size to plan capital improvements, coordinate right of way needs with pending developments and is typically based on the expected road capacity needs in the foreseeable future. It is a broad-brush picture based on a set of assumptions at a particular place in time. It shows generally the location and size of the proposed roads needed to move traffic effectively given the specified assumptions. The current City of DeNon Mobility plan was adopted by the City Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan. As time progresses and property develops, it is often necessary to review the assumptions used to create the map originally. Changes in expected development trends often precipitate the need to make adjustmems to a mobility plan. An important factor to remember in the process of amending the mobility plan is to focus on the broad issues as they relate to the surrounding land uses, general alignments, and expected traffic instead of becoming caught up in minute details that are typically worked out once a general route has been adopted. As is expected with any amendmem of the magnitude being considered, there are a few other minor changes that will be required if the proposed alignmem of Lakeview Blvd is revised on the Mobility Plan. These are listed in the subject and in the ordinance comained within the back up. The Need for Lakeview Blvd: Staff has received questions regarding the need for Lakeview Blvd. given that Loop 288 will be widened to 6 lanes in the near future and shouldn't we be focusing on Mayhill Road. The Loop will be widened to 6 lanes within the next couple of years. In general, a six lane divided urban street will carry around 26,000 vehicles per day at Level of Service D. Anything above a LOS D is considered unacceptable (too congested) by most communities. Some sections of Loop 288 already carry more than 26,000 vehicles per day, which means that the Loop will already be at or over capacity the day it opens. Mayhill Road is designated as a 4-lane arterial on the City's Mobility Plan. A 4-lane road generally carries 16,500 vehicles per day comfortably. Some sections of Mayhill already have nearly 10,000 vehicles per day. Staff is already in the process of analyzing whether Mayhill Road should be six lanes instead of four lanes. The cost difference between a 4-lane Mayhill and a 6-lane Mayhill is tremendous because of the additional right of way that will be required. Funding for Mayhill Road will also be considered in future bond programs. The number of new subdivisions under construction on Hwy 380 as well as to the north on Hwy 377 in combination with the amount of vacant property in Denton between Loop 288 and Lake Lewisville has the potential to generate a huge number of traffic trips. With no capacity remaining on Loop 288 and only between 6,500 to 16,000 trips available on Mayhill once it is widened, it becomes fairly certain that an additional north/south arterial will ultimately be needed to move traffic in an acceptable manner. Annexation Issues of Routes 4 and 5: The area in which Routes 4 and 5 traverses, contain properties within and outside of the city limits of DeNon. Of the two routes, Route 4 affects the greater number of parcels (8) located outside of the city limits. Based on history regarding CIP funding, approximately 133 acres (encapsulating all ETJ parcels) may need to be annexed imo the city if Route 4 were to be developed as opposed to 93 acres for Route 5. The City of DeNon has not historically expended CIP funding in areas outside of the City Limits. In addition, staff has been in discussion with a developer who has recemly secured 250 acres bounded by Edwards Road on the north, Pocrus Page Road on the south and Andrews Corporation on the west. They will be requesting annexation in the near future. 4 45 37 8 133ac 104 5 5 1 4 93ac 119 Both proposed routes are within Neighborhood Centers land use development areas. Existing land uses within these areas include single-family development associated with The Preserve, numerous large-acre single-family lots along Swisher Road (designated as homestead lots) and considerable undeveloped properties. Zoning densities in this area, with the exception of The Preserve, decrease from west to east, moving from the intensity of the Regional Mixed Use Centers along IH-35E and Denton Regional Medical Center towards rural-like, large lot development. As parcels within the Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) become annexed, they would conform to zoning densities from 1 unit per acre to 6 units per acre, depending on location. Limited retail uses such as restaurants and neighborhood services would be appropriate within a neighborhood center located as the market dictates along the final route of Lakeview Blvd. It should be noted that staff has been in discussion with a developer who has recently secured 250 acres bounded by Edwards Road on the north, Pocrus Page Road on the south and Andrews Corporation on the west. They are proposing a mixed-use neighborhood center type of development. Using Route 4 as the preferred option would have the greater disruption to existing parcels. Since a majority of Route 5 has existing 2 and 4-lane construction, additional disruption to parcels is kept to a minimum. With the construction of either route, appropriate section design should be incorporated to allow adequate sidewalks and secure crossings at major intersections. RECOMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends adoption of route five for Lakeview Blvd and therefore recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. (6-1) OPTIONS 1. Approve Ordinance 2. Disapprove Ordinance PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) The Planning and Zoning Commission received a briefing on the proposed Mobility Plan amendment to change the alignment of Lakeview Blvd. on August 28th, 2002 and held two public hearings, one on October 23rd, 2002 and the most recent on June 25~h, 2003. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend route #5 for Lakeview Blvd with a vote of 6-1. FISCAL INFORMATION Currently no funds have been allocated to the construction of this roadway section. Lakeview Blvd will most likely be considered as a candidate for funding in the City's next bond program. There is no immediate fiscal impact for the City of Denton other than staff'time to revise the map if amended. A table comparing costs for each route is included in the back up. In addition, if the Mobility Plan is changed, the City plans to partner with the developers of the Preserve to revise their Planned Development and existing plats as a result of the Mobility Plan amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Route 5, Exhibit A 2. Current Mobility Plan 3. Five Routes Considered in T,N, & P Route Study 4. P&Z Minutes 10-23-02 5. P&Z Minutes 6-25-03 6. Cost Estimates 7. Ordinance Prepared by: David Salmon, PE, City Engineer Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler, Director Engineering Department PROPOSED ROUTE 5 DENTON MOBILITY PLAN ROadwaycomponent Legend ~ Railroads --~ ~ Rails t0 Trails Reserve lOO Yr FloodPlain 500 Yr Floodplain COD ETJ CLASS c011ec10r :~:= Freewav m s ~ Primary Major Arterial ® ~ ~ SecondaW Majer Arterial Maintained by TXD©~- R0adN0t Yet BUilt~ FUtU re E~isting RoadN0tt0 Class sta nd a rd Exhibit A Resdlnti0n R98-065! Dec. 15i 1998 -- Amendment Date: Aug !7; 1999 M'ap ~pda~ed J~!~ }~i 20~3 Lakeview Blvd. Route Study June 2003 N Lakeview Drive Options Lane Built Road #4 Lane Built Road ~Alternate Routes Routes Under Discussion Preferred Alternate Route 2000' City of Denton Plannin and Development Department 221 N ~m De.to.~ Yexas 76201 (940) 349-8350 Pni~ 82 I encupsulatcs that m~ 2 Then wc bald anotbnr n~8a~t a w°ck 3 later at the clubhousc up ac Lakcvicw Ranch. Tlmt mcctin8 4 v/as n~tich mm~ li~ht~ nttm~ rm gueamJn~ sot~ 5 around tm, nm~oe 12 people. No one st that mectin8 6 objected to flit rcal~qm~nt of Lakcvicw Bou~a~l. And 7 for ~fle most par~ tl~ peoptc who attmded d~ 8 n~abborlmod meetin~ on Ifle north end which was basically 9 10 to b~ in favor of th~ ammtdment. 12 is 1trot X do havo th~ proposed nl~t oo tl~ overhead 13 and just another m~ndcr that the Mobility Plnn is very 14 sdmnatic in nature. And, you know, when there's a linc 15 drown on a mobility plan, it mmm bt if and when ! 6 road is constructed, it ~ bo within sevmd ~ 17 fect of the lin~ it do~n*t mcan that it's ~oing to 18 follmv that ~ exactly. Ifs a concep~ plan to 1~ us -- l~lp tho City 8uklo dm'eloPment and he'lpusin 21 An~ at ibis point nnd I'm sm~ you notlc~d 22 in yuttr bncimp, ht staff is recenunendin8 that ~is 23 be continued to t~ December 4~ Phnning and Zoning ~4 C~nmission ~ for two ~asons. Number erie, 25 mm~ pub~ input ~ ,mm~er two, to also c~naid~ .~LANNINO AND ZONING COMMISSION F~c 83 ! rczonlng ~Nat wt'll have to talin place within tl~ 2 if tide pm'ticu~ antendmmt Io tl~ Mobility Plan 3 approved. Th~ prcscr~ is one of thc rm that was kcpt 4 when ~ City was re.med. And because fl's a PD, if thc ~ City Coundl chose to move ~ ~, it would ~ prccip~t~ a zoning chnn~ in tt~ Prese~ And so ? ~hought it wo~ld nmkc some scm~ to bring not c~lY thc 8 Mobility Plan Am~dment, but tho proposal rezcnin~ of 9 Preserve ~ at ~ s~ ~ m ~ ~ h~ n 10 nm~ full picture of what the result would be. So at this I 1 point, we're recm~nmding that v~ _hold tho public bem'in~ 12 but tlmt we continue it M December 4th. That will give 13 us time to get me~ Publlc input, ~t 1~ z°nin8 for tl~ 14 prcscs~c caught up, so you can look nt it at one fim~. ! 5 And then nt that point, hopefully, b~ in a 16 position to mak~ a dccislon and mow tl~ -- mow it on to 17 tl~ City Cou~ofl. X*I! 1~ ~iad to ansv~' any qucsfionn 18 you might have. 19 co~n~ Arrc~ Thank you. 20 CommisskxxT Holt. 21 ca~~ HOOT: Mr. Salmon, coukl you 22 us~ this map nnd rdr~h our mm~y on tl~ n~v pwposal? 24 for me lo d~ib~ if I put up tl~ exi~/ng Mobility Plan. 25 'fhis is ~!~ existing Mobility Pbn. And it Page 84 1 shows Laktsvi~w Boulevard in its current location tbrm~b 2 the Prcscrvc. And tl~ you'll s~ it splits off in 1fir 3 middle port, on and we'w 8ot mt Opl~on A nnd an Option B 4 and th~n it eomcs track to8~ ~ain ~ust s°uth °f C°~9cr $ Creek and then runs throuah ~ ~ 6 And vdmt w~'m considering dfis ewnirt~ is 8 Wlmt ~e propmal would bo, and this will 9 bc very rough, because rm just 8oin~ to had draw thh, 10 but what the prot~o~al would I~ would !~ m malign 11 Lakm,~ Boulm~-d, ~n~-thing me~ in this fashicm where 12 I've drawn with the oran~ line. So you cnn sero kind of ~3 h th~ ydtow m'ea ovm' he~ where thc c~isting ali8nment 14 is accordln~ to the Mobility Plan and whc~ I've drawn 15 ~his oran~ line is vcry xoughly whc~ we would propose ~6 u~e fond be moved to ou tl~ Mobility Plnn. 17 COMMmS~Om~HOLT: Thank you, 18 ~o~msmo~'m~ Atq't~ ~ see no other 19 questions. Thnnk you. 20 ~m. m.nm~ ~ have a question. 21 cot~dts,~ot, n~ AeeCS; 22 wc imvc smac cards of pcopl~ who wmtld Uke to spcak and 23 you can come fntward at that time. We trove a numb~ of 24 cards t'or people who'd like to speak in support. Dan 25 Hopkins. OcioBFA 23RD, 2002 Page 81 - Page 84 ~d~nte. ltTM Pag~ 86 hold. So v~*vo ~ot to work Om~h bt issue,. There sro son~ m smmdmmts r~quimi of ~ c~ ~ h~ - p~ of o~ ~t~a~o~a p~o~~l~ ~ a ~t~t~p~~~~ ~si~. ism of~f~y r~ ~ ~ ~ct. ism h~ 1 2 3 4 6 '7 10 11 12 13 14 15 :!6 :17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 Thc mc issu~ that renlly supports tl~ n~llgnment of ~his and tekin~ Irnft'c off ~ Bonlov8~l es we haw it hid out risht now is the fact that Pt~.serve ~ _lemcntnry School is sitting on tho Bonloverd fu it sits right now. And ~lmt's alwnys been a mmcent of hnvin~ a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Pagv 87 I clcmenlary school on a major ~ By reroufing i~ 3 iss~ ~t ~'~ ~. 7 ~o~ Ae~ v~ ~ no 8 ~. ~y~. I~ac~~d 9 ~, 1~ ~ T~ in ~. He ~ n~ ~ 10 ~ s~ ~t ~s~ ~ ~s ~p~. l1 I~a ~ ~W~ B~ w~ ! 2 ~ ~sh ~ ~, but ~ ~ ~ s~ and ~ 13 ~ ~ ~ f~nH~y~ ~- 15 ~ R~ ~ n~ ~ ~ s~, but ~ ~ ~ ~ Ac~ ~pp~n~n, l~S~ ~ ~ ~a~in~~w~ ~t 19 fiH out a ~ w~ ~M 1~ ~ s~ in s~ I 21 ~. Wn&~. 22 ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ much. ~ ~ 23 is W~ W~s e~ I ~ et ~367 ~s ~ ~. I 24 ~ - rma ~ of N~ T~s end ~ ~ · ,?a~ 88 I 1977 and thls is my property hem. I have 2~ nc~s horo 2 that I bought in 1979 for my hor~s and cows and things 3 1i1~ t~tt in a rural cxistencc~ 4 My ~ b~hs 36 acm which c~m 5 -- wl~ch fmcs tl~ corncr of Edwards and Swishcr Road. 6 SI~ iS opposed. I luw my _~__'~hor behind us which Js ? rJsht up in here, who just finished a house ~ this 8 squiS#y linc bt staff drm~ went t~Sht throush his 9 hons~ I hnve n Ii~tlo difficulty wi~h staff workin8 with 10 tl~ ~ of t~ Prcsc~ and ~n st~ cGnm ovcr I1 here and runs flSht tbrou~ ot~ propm7 and doesn't cvcn ]2 tnlktonc. Whytstht? Woliwina Connty. Ihvoa 13 _~?~ questlon to ask. Whet filet does the City of ~nton 14 haw to cemc in bcrc and tcll us in tl~e Connty what wc'r~ 15 supposed to do wi~h our proteerty. So I wou~ 16 yon cne lqpd way tllm~ I also clmlkngo on etbics. J7 Wo hou~ht out bcron number of ym~ s~o. 18 I'm not essinst mobility. Fm not asainst things In 19 D~nton and moving forward of Denton. Y(m hnvc got other 20 im~bkms h~e. You'~ got Mayhil~ Rosd that could b~ 21 conn~ed right here at Pockrus. Very sho~. Thor's 22 nothing in them Yon could 8ct this MayhiH Roed aH 23 ¢on~ up hn~ traffic moving tba~. Why am wc so 24 intc~est~l in 1ho City of l~nt~m compld~ng n road thro~ 25 bene es a fast track for a s _hoetcut from 35 to Pilot Point OCTOBmt 23RD, 2002 Page SS - Page 88 1 7 tell us what v~ hoed to do with i~ Ail ~ That's 8 ~! ~'~ ~ytn~ 9 My ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. 10 ~~. ~a~h~ ~ 11 ~'t~ ~~. AH~L 18 ~? ~'~ ~ly ~ a~ ~ o~y -- 19 ~, 20 ~~s ~~up~ ~ 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 Con ~_,~n~_!t_TM Pag~ 89 F~ 91 and Aulxw. Whys~M~~~ Whyis I whilolldsrondis aconr.4~tri~tnow, th~conc~tdoes l~e Cily of Denton ~ lhl~ money to do somelhlng 2 mn ~t tl~c~h my l~ving ~m. So on a s~lflsh ~sis, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 ~5 [~LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 I don't want my house talum. We - from a differ~t lxdnt 4 ofv~, ~ I'm a I~ ~s~ m ~ f~t- Z 5 ~t a ~ ~ ~C~ ~, ~m~t ~t 6 ~t~~. A~ I sai~ did ~ 7 ~t ~'s a ~~wbi~ ~ ~ 12 ~ 8 m b~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ T~d Tay~, a ~ 10 ~. ~ c~ out and ~w i~ ~ sa~, my ~ ~s 11 ~big~. ~ab~~. ~dI'm 13 ~d ~ c~ and ~o a 1~? ~ ~ ~ did ~ 20 ~ ~ f~ ~ ~, ~ a f~ ~ ~d ~ my 2 ! f~t y~ is ~ ~s~ w~t I ~ ~, ~, 22 f~ ~t of a ~1~ 9oint a v~. 23 ~ ~t is ~ ~ ~ifl~ ~, ~ Pa~ 90 l~Oplo who haw lived I~m all lt~es~ yoars nnd forc~ us ~ 1 ~ ~ng ~ ~'t ~t ~ ~. 2 ~~ ~ ~k ~ ~. Wi~. 3 ~ ~ ~ s~ in ~i~? If~'H ~ ~ 5 ~ aud a~s, p~. 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ is $u~n ~. I ~ a 7 f~ ~9~ ~. Ic~'t~ m~. I~s 8 f~~~~~t~a~ 9 ~R. ~d~th~. l~a~ 10 f~33~. I~wofnn~m~ ~so~t 11 do~t ~? ~t ~c~~my f~ It's not~ ~~~~i~ 13 aftra h~ P~b~ I~ hy~ ~ ~t 16 ~t b~. ~ I~lcaH~8 a~I~ 17 ~ ~,I'H~ a ~m. ~. 18 ~M~o~ ~nky~. ~ ~ 19 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~n~ If 20 ~'~c~m~a~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is Jo~ ~V~as. ~ 24 F~go 92 w~m _.~,t,_~ i~. W~ll, obviously, ~h~ Pmsa~ ~b d~n'l ~ ~y ~. Wc~ nho mMin ~ ~ a ~,,~ ~s ~. ~d, ~,I'm ~ an~ h ~s ~, ~t ~ ~'t ~ ~ at 288 ~ ~ll. We a ~d, ~ously, ~ ~ a ~d. But~~'-~~ an ~is~ ~ and q~c~ s~ ~ n~ ~ ~ An~ fi~lly, jmt as my ~ ~ ~d, ~ ~'t in ~ Ci~ p~, but ~ ~ ~ ~k at ~bb~ab~ ~ ~~ ~t ~~of~ of~ ~. N~ ~ I'm a ~t at 3325 ~ ~ e~ ~ Page 89 - Page 92 21 22 23 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Pag0 93 I been since .- I lived on tbe road since I was about 12 2 years old. So you might say I havo a vested interest. 3 Ail ~hoso po~k~ lhoy named off in support of thls now 4 Lakovicw Boulevard. No~ OhO of thom livos in lha arca we $ bevobeon talkingnbout. Not ouo of them. Thiswholc 6 o~ing ~ tomy y~ ~o wl~ ~ B~ b~o~ hou~t 7 a hu~ parcel of land that camo from 1-35 an lha way over 8 to Univ~sity Drivo. 9 And thero's boon plans in tbe making fee 10 d~o last, what, twenty years on i~[s kind of lldng, and it 11 never incindod my propet~y ~ntil, wbet, two or threo 12 monthss~o. AndI~etanolice. ldon'thavo35nc~sor 13 2~acrcs. Ihavojustover two. An. d you tal~ any Pan of 14 it and it signifioantly impects my lifestyle. 15 A lot of us who livo out there because wo 16 vamttoliwinthacountry. Wo own horses. Wohavo 17 animals. I have been s school tcacber, also and 1'11 havo 18 to ldl you, I,vo put my heart and soul in mY ~- 19 'I'nat's where my money wont. I don't ha~ much of anyggng II moving, ibo~ a~ ~ ~m~myP~. 22 They're in great shape and doing wall, but I want to bo 23 ~ for e~n. 24 And I ~ fecl liho ~y'vc kind of Page 94 1 mmin~ but only tin~ choiora haw ~ knocked out by 5 And I'll ~ you. We bedn't heard anything about it 6 until, whnt, Angust or Scplembor. And I just bclk~ 7 ~'s other oph~ns than that. I believe thn~'s a $ betler way to t~cat people who lived in ~ho county for, 9 you know, 20, 30, 40 years. 10 COMMISSIONER AtSI~L~ You Still beVO a 11 mlnu~ 12 t,t~ ~,mz~ ~ank you. Ijustthinktltis 13 whoio thln8 has chan~d a wh°le ~°t sin°° its °riginal 15 pfescr~,o and tbey talk abotlt lho chan~ls d~,':y'ro l~oing to 16 ~ Wall, I happe~ to know that they made a change on 17 tbe road and idnd of bypassed tha Planning and Zoning 18 Commission on extending iidwards Road until tho school wcn~ 19 thro~h and ~ldcd anoth~ little road ovcr hcr~ I pcr~ ~'t ~y p~ ~ ~ improvcmonts they marlo to tho mad sinco it kind of crumbled off ou tbe cdl~s. I camo and spo~ about ~at who n~en't lzre to represent iff You know, people who CoIld__*m~-ItTM l~!g~ 95 I w~o just bought a houso - how Ion8 has that Pr°serv° 2 bern? Tlz~may~ay~ar, mybe. Thaydon'thavea 4 8 ~d ad~s, p~. 9 ~ l,m~ ~out a 10 w~ ~. Y~ sai~ ~ ~ ~ mY q~s. I ~d 11 ~a~. ~--~~N~ I~ 12 3057 ~ ~, N~, ~'s n~ ~ ~ ~t 14 p~~ Wo~ 1972. I~'t~~t I5 of~~ ~ I~s ~t~- I6 It ~s w~. Now, ~ ~ c~. ~, ~ 17 ~is~ ~ c~'t ~ ~a~ i 8 job, f~ -- buM~ ~! ~ ~d ~ ~ is 21 I ~'t ~ ~ ~ ~ a~t ~ 22 scSI ~ in ~ ~ P~. W~ c~'t put ~t ~d 24 ~ ~d ~ put R ~ ~ ff ~ ~ ~ 25 ~p~a~d~ BUt ~~ ~~ ?~ 96 1 agreecL Thut's wonderful. You guys aro doin~ gre~ So 2 ~y ~ it ~ ~ ~ it? No~ ~ told ~. I 3 ~ ~t -- ~H, ~1 ~ of ~ ~t ~ pl~ 4 ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~i~ m pi~ ~ ~ offS. ~ ~Y~~~g~~ 6 ~lc ~t ~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 ~~. A~I ~ all in f~ofit ~ S it ~d ~ ~ b~ off of ~ 288 md M~II. If 9 y~ ~l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~w ~0 m ~ ~i~ abo~ ~t. 11 ~s ~ ~ ~ woutd ~ j~t ~. 12 B ~ld ~ ~ ~le ~iW ~t to ~ 13 ~le who ~ o~ of ~, So I ~ a lot of 1~ ~s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ with ~s at ~ 15 l~~I~of~Y. But S~ ~ 16 E~s R~ ~'~ ~1 b~ li~ ~ f~ ~ 20, ~V ~, ~'t ~ q~ ~t. AM ~ t~ ~. 18 ~MMI~ION~ ~P~: T~ ~, ~r. 19 ~ ~y~ el~ In ~ ~ who ~ m 21 public ~ O~ I'm ~. ~'t ~t ~ ~ ~ ~SSION~R M~Y: I ~t ~ ~ a ~M~SIONBR AP~ And ~y h~ Ms b~ ~. ~ ~ ~t m m~ O~-i=OBIiK 23RD, 2002 P~? 93 - Pnge 96 ~n_d~n_ ~Tt TM Page PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 3 ~ ~ ~~. ~-I~if~ 4 ~n~t~~ nnd~t ~ 5 ~ ~'t go, a~ say ~ it is ~i~ ~ ~t 6 ~,s ~m,~t-- ~ ~ ~ ~t? W~ 7 ~i~ m put · m~ ~ ~'s ~c. But ~ ~ 9 p~s ~ ~if ~ ~s ~ ns it is ~ f~ ~ I3 ~. ~ ~? TM ~ is m ~n~ ~ 14 pub~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~. V~ b~i~s, ~ ~ is ~. 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 P~,c 98 I was ttyin~ to be cooperative with th~ City and be l~Ipful, 2 so forth and so on. Obviously, we have a lot of property 3 owners that m,e ram~ than a llttle upset about it- And 4 from what I can tell so far without I~:arin~ ~y 6 nF~in, it maY be mY ngo and I f°tg°t' It may be ignman°e 7 ~md I should know, but I don't have a clu~ why we're all of a redden ~ tlds. So I want to ma~ sure that I0 two different da~ here, whicl~-ver on~ it is, that we 11 have a oomple~ and full explanation as to why this is 12 happenin~ what's brin~in~ it about, who's going to pay 13 fei- it, ~t oe~ra, ~t o~i~na. Thank you very much. 14 COMMISSIONER APPt~: Mr. R~c_lthart would 15 llke to add ~. 16 Mit. ItmCHt4ART: It jUSt made be think that 17 I wanted to ~-t out on the record tonight as a point of la clartfication~ I~is is not ~ driven by the Preserve. 19 I m~an, tl~'re being impact~ And a lot of people can~ 21 this. And we will clarify tbe why's and wherefore's 22 beltind it. But I lust wanted to clarify tonight that this 23 is not bein~ driven by tha ~. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ~ yOtL ~ C,_,,-.~i aai,:~- _~ Holl:. OL-I'OBER 9.3RD, 9-001l Page 97 - P~.~ 99 CondenscltTM t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 t3 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: lhe final item on our Agenda this evening is a public hearing regarding an amendment to the roadway component of the Denton Mobility Plan. David Salmon with the City Engineea'ing staff will present and I will open the public hearing. MR. SALMON: O00d evening, Madam Chair, members of tile Conunission. We talked about this issue, Lakeview Boulevard, some months ago and the public hearing Page 19 was continued. It took staff a little bit longer than anticipated to, I guess, do the homework that was requested at the last public hearing, which I believe was last October. But since that date, we've held an additional neighborhood meeting and we've worked with our consultant to come up with an additional route to put on the table for consideration. Just to kind of bring everyone up to speed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 creek crossing, a number of trees that need to be cut down, the cost, the size of the bridge, a number of different issues. So the original study that we had done took a look at three different routes. The first thing that came back before the consultant even finished the study and sort of raised a red flag in our minds was that the Corps of Engineers within the last two to three years made regarding tiffs Mobility Plan mnendment, Lakeview Boulevard is an arterial street that's been shown on the City's Mobility Plan since 1986. In fact, on the semen I've got a copy of our existing Mobility Plan. In 1999, the Mobility Plan was amended to show two possible routes. The original route that was done in 1986 runs close to the edge of Lake Lewisville. And then an alternate route was proposed in 1999 and then ultimately Page 18 1 added to the Mobility Plan that brought it a little bit 2 further west and aligned it with Trinity Road. And that 3 was in response to some zoning that occurred up in the 4 Lakeview Ranch area. 5 The City is planning to hold a bond 6 election sometime in 2004. And in preparation for that, 7 staff has hired some consultants to do a nmnber of what we 8 would call route studies to determine relative costs, 9 determine, I guess, what would be the most optimal route 10 for a number of our maj or arterials so that when it comes 11 time to start compiling data for our bond progrmn, we'll 12 have reliable cost estimates and, at least, some of the 13 technical issues, you know, ready to talk about. 14 The City hired Teague, Nall, and Perkins to 15 take a look at Lakeview Boulevard in particular and asked 16 them at first to look at the two alternate routes because 17 we knew prior to having a bond election, you know, in the t 8 event that there's a possibility that we could have any 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 a major change in tbelr policy regarding crossing Corps property wifl~ roads, Prior to the policy change, getting Corps permission to cross their property with a road was really more of a paperwork exercise and achninistrative in nature. But if you could demonstrate that you were going to mitigate any impacts, more times than not, you were able to receive a permit to build tile road. After the policy change, the Corps of Engineers now only allow roads of a regionally significant nature to cross their property. At first we tried to convince the Corps of Engineers that Lakeview Boulevard would be a regionally significant road given the fact that, at least according to our Mobility Plan, would link 1-35 with Highway 380. And they, I guess in a nutshell, you know, thank you but no thank you. You know, we consider a regional road more funding to apply to Lakeview Boulevard, we certainly want to know which route we're going to do. And in addition to the two routes that are on the Mobility Plan, we also asked our consultant to take a look at what we call Route 3 which is almost a combination of the two existing routes just to see if there was going to be any difference with regard to the Page 20 I like an FM highway or an interstate. So, I mean, it 2 becmne obvious to staff that, you know, thc routes we 3 currently have on our Mobility Plan certainly have some 4 major obstacles. 5 Then our consultant brought to light I 6 think an even more important issue with regards to the 7 existing routes, and that's the fact that even if we could 8 garner Corps of Engineers support for either of these two 9 routes or Route 3, as a matter of fact, the bridges were 10 going to be extremely expensive. 1 t And I think that issue has really taken the 12 forefront as opposed to the Corps of Engineers issue. You 13 know, it could be possible for the City, you know, to work t4 with the Corps of Engineers over a long period of time and 1 $ then maybe ultimately prevail with regards to getting 16 permission to do -- cross the Corps property. But I 17 that more importantly than that, the bridges that would be 18 required at either of these two locations are so prohibitively expensive that it's not likely that either road would be built. To give you just a real rough proportionate example, our last bond program, I think we had somewhere in the neighborhood of about $30 million for transportation improvements. And so that's money that we're supposed to spend over a five-year period for 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 17 - Page 20 CondcnscltTM Page 21 1 transportation. One of these bridges all by itself is in 2 the range of $14 to $15 million. So if you look back at 3 historic data, it doesn't seem very likely that we would 4 ever fund a $14 or $15 million bridge in our bond program 5 and use half of the money that we have for transportation 6 over a five-year period on one project. 7 Typically, we like to take that money 8 spread out over five years and apply it to different areas 9 of the City so that everybody gets the benefit from it 10 rather than concentrating half the money on one project tn 11 one geographic area. 12 So it soon became apparent to us that even 3 though the Corps of Engineers issue is certainly important 14 and it certainly could be an obstacle, I think the more 15 important thing to focus on here is the fact that what we 16 currently have on our Mobility Plan would be extremely 17 expensive to build and, frankly, given our history with 18 bond progrmns and the amount of money that we typically 19 have for funding, it probably would not be built any time 20 in thc near future, if at all. 21 Working with our consultant, we came up !22 with what we started calling Route No. 4 which it starts 23 at the same point on the south but about at the south 24 entrance of The Preserve, it veers slightly to the west 25 and takes a more straight north/south alignment. It stays Page 22 1 slightly west of The Preserve and parallels Swisher Road, 2 crosses Pecan Creek, and intersects McKinney Street west 3 of Trinity Road, and then eventually veers back towards 4 the east and meets the alignment of the existing Mobility 5 Plan up near Cooper Creek just south of Lakeview Ranch, 6 In this particular case, Route No. 4 not 7 only misses the Corps of Engineers' property, but the 8 bridge cost is hugely less than what it would be on the 9 existing roads. I've got the figures here somewhere, but 10 if I remember correctly off the top of my head, I think 1 t the bridge costs are closer down to the $3 to $5 million 12 range rather than $14 or $15 million, which is a 13 significant savings. 14 At that thne, our consultant felt that it 15 probably wasn't reatlstie, or given our minimum curvature 16 criteria and the width of the right-of-way and a number of 17 other design standards that we have in our Development 18 Code, didn't think that it would be reasonable to use the 19 existing alignment of Lakeview Boulevard and try to curve 20 it back around the Corps property. So we didn't even 21 investigate that at that time. 22 So our first round of public meetings back 23 last fall really touted Route No. 4. We went and had a 24 public meeting up at Lakeview Ranch. We had another 25 public meeting down at The Preserve. And then ultimately Page 23 I we had the public hearing here at the Planning and Zoning 2 Commission in October of last year. 3 Recapping what happened at our public 4 meetings the first time around, everyone who crone to the 5 public meeting who lived at thc north end of the alignment 6 was in favor of the new alignment. So there really wasn't 7 an issue on the north end of the alignment. 8 When we held our neighborhood meeting in 9 The Preserve, them were people on both sides of the 10 issue. There were a nmnber of fo[ks who live in thc 11 County whose land would be directly impacted by Route 4~ 12 Some of them have lived in their property for many years 13 and certainly were not in favor of Route 4. 14 However, a nmnber of people who lived in 15 The Preserve felt that moving this potential thoroughfa~e 16 out of their subdivision was an advantage to their f7 subdivision and were actually in favor of Route 4. So, 18 you know, we had a ntm~ber of people for Route 4 and a 19 nmnber of people against Route 4. 20 And as you'll recall during our last public 21 hearing in October, the Conunission told staff to continue 22 the public hearing. See if there's any possibility that 23 any other route may be feasible and, in addition, continue 24 to garner more public input, and that's what weWe done. 25 We held a -- we immediately had our Page 24 1 consultant, Teague, Nail, and Perkins, take a look to see 2 I guess a little bit more closely whether there wasn't 3 maybe another route that we could put on the table as an 4 alternative. And as it turned out, although it's very 5 tight, it is possible to fit what we're calling Route 5, 6 which uses thc existing alignment through The Preserve, 7 curves the road back around to the west in order to miss 8 the Corps property, and, of course, again, we're looking 9 at a $2 to $3, maybe $5 million bridge cost. But our 10 corridor here is relatively narrow. 11 There's a property owner here that we've 12 tried to work with and tried to get some kind of input 13 from. I believe it's Mr. Grimes. And I think his main 14 concern was that he wasn't necessarily opposed to the road 15 bisecting his property, he just wanted to make sure that 16 the road didn't come close to either his house or his 17 daughter's house. I think they're both on the stone 18 property. And we were able to, I guess, shoehorn Route 5 19 through Mr. Grimes' property, sort of dividing the 20 property between his house and his daughter' s and keeping 21 enough buffer between the mute and the homes that they 22 felt that it would be acceptable to them, meeting all of 23 the City's minimum curvature criteria and at1 the things 24 that we typically, you know, want to have. So after doing 25 more homework, we decided that Route 5 was certainly a PLANNING & ZOlqlNG COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 21 - Page 24 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 l0 iI 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondonseltTM Page 25 feasible route, It also tllrned out that Route 5 was slightiy more expensive or slightly less expensive than Route 4, at least using rough esthnates. And at that point we decided that we m~ded, as you directed us to do, get more public input. Because Route 5 really didn't change anything north of Pecan Creek, we didn't feel the need to hold another public meeting north of Pecan Creek because the information was exactly the same and we had concurrence of everyone north of Pecan Creek, at least at our first public meeting. So we only held au additional public meeting in The Preserve. Again, I guess I could characterize it almost the same way. The public meeting out at Tile Preserve was very heavily attended. Them were a nmnber of people who came to the meeting who live in The Presc'rvc Page 27 1 identical. 2 So, you know, when we have people up here 3 tonight talking about Route 4 versus Route 5, you know, 4 the only real difference is the area in The Preserve. 5 I know at the last public hearing we had 6 some questions regarding why are we doing this now and 1 7 thought Pd very briefly try to answer that. Again, we're 8 in the midst of trying to prepare for a bond program that 9 will be held sometime in 2004, And rather than scrambling 10 at the last minute doing cost estimates, we're trying to 11 do a lot of that homework in advance using some 12 consultants so that we have some good accm'ate cost 13 estimates that aren't done at the last minute prior to the 14 bond election. 15 Whoa you look at -- I know another question 16 tlmt's come up relative to this why are we doing this now who would, because of the location of the school and tile location of their homes, the proximity to Route No. 5, really would prefer Route No. 4. And, again, there were a nmnber of people who live in the ETJjust to the west of The Preserve who, again, have lived in their propc~'ty for a long time and felt that they would really prefer to leave the route over here in The Preserve where it is on our current Mobility Plan. And I'm sum this evening we have a number of people on both sides of the issue that will be speaking with you. I guess where it becmne a little bit difficult for staff was, you know, given the fact that 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 26 1 2 3 4 and why do we need Lakeview Boulevard, and I think I wrote some of this in your backup, if you look at Loop 288 right now, it's running about 25,000, 30,000 vehicles a day on some sections. I don't think there's anyone here in tile room that would agree that the ctm, ent condition on Loop 288 is acceptable. As a matter of fact, using a level of service which is om' typical way of measuring how effective a road is, right now the level of service on Page 28 Loop 288 during our rush hours is actually level of service E and F which means it's almost at the point of failure or what we would call gridloek. Given the fact that there's already 25,000 both routes are technically feasible, you know, cost-wise, there's some cost difference, but, you know, it's not a tremendous amount, it was difficult for staff to come up with a recmmnendatioa. And, frankly, you know, we knew whatever reconm~endation we came up with, there would be people that 5 to 30,000 vehicles a day on Loop 288 and the State is 6 proposing to build the Loop starting next year to six 7 lanes, even at six lanes, 30,000 vehicles a day will still 8 keep that road, that road will still operate at what we 9 consider a level of service D which is marginally 10 acceptable. were unhappy with it. But, you know, that's just sort of thc name of the gmne here and ultimately we're going to have to select a route. And given the fact that we do have people on both sides of the issue, we don't feel that we can please everyone and we're just going to have to try to make the best decision we can given all the facts and information that we received. One of the things I want to clarify is that the only -- Route 4 and 5 coincide for probably two-thirds to almost tim:e-quarters of the way from 1-35 to Highway 380. The only difference is this area directly west in the area of Tile Presmwe. Route No. 4 goes west of The Preserve. Route No. 5 goes through The Preserve and then curves back around. But in ~:fcrence to the two routes, other than that area through Tile Preserve, they are 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I guess what I'm trying to say in a nutshell is the day that Loop 288 opens as a six-lane road, it will already be at what we would consider an acceptable capacity which means any additional traffic after that, it would be an unacceptable level of service. So, you know, we're pretty well writing off Loop 288 in terms of additional mobility for our City. We have Mayhitl Road that runs relatively close to Loop 288 and parallel. Right now Mayhil[ Road in some sections is carrying between 8,000 and t0,000 vehicles a day. Our Mobility Plan indicates that Mayhill Road at some point in time should be widened to fern' lanes. A four-lane road at level of service D, which again is marginally acceptable, can carry approximately 16,000 -- well, I want to say 20,000 -- well, I've got the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 25 - Page 28 CondcnseltTM Page 29 1. number in her~, it's somewhe~ in the range of about 2 16,000 -- yeah, h~e it is, 16,500 vehicles a day. So 3 assuming that we build Mayhill Road to the four lanes that 4 it shows on our curr~nt Mobility Plan, that's only going 5 to leave us about another maybe 6,000, 8,000 vehicles a 6 day before we reach capacity on Mayhlll Road. 7 Now, we're in the middle of -- we've hired 8 a consultant to take a look at Mayh{ll Road and determine 9 whether -- you know, how much it would help to make it six 10 lanes versus four and how much more money that would cost, 11 and, you know, we may very well be coining to you in the 12 near future with another Mobility Plan amendment asking to 13 upgrade Mayhilt Road from four lanes up to six. But, you 14 know, even at that, you know, we're back at a six-lane 15 road with a capacity of smnewhere around 26,000, maybe 16 30,000 vehicles a day so now we're working with maybe not 17 -- so that gives us another 10,000, 15,000 vdficles a day 18 capacity to run between Highway 380 and 1-35. 19 When you consider the amount of property 20 that we have that's undeveloped from the Loop all the way 21 out to the lake and then you consider properties going out 22 on Highway 380, thc number of subdivisions occurring out 23 in that direction, you start adding up the traffic trips 24 and you very quickly come to the realization that, you 25 know, even if we had a six-lane Mayhill Road and a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 14 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 30 six-lane Loop 288, it's not going to take a whole lot more development off to the east to put both of those roads hack over capacity again. So it's imperative that we have a third arterial connecting 1-35 with Highway 380~ Just to wrap up here, again, staff had a very difficult time making a technical decision regarding which route, 4 or 5, would be the technically the best route. And, of course, you know, there's a lot of factors that, you know, staff from a very technical standpoint can't take into account. I mean, we realize there's a lot of people that are unhappy with either route. But if you look at the routes very technically, staff is recommending Route No. 5 which is the one that keeps the route in its cm~rent location in The Preserve and then curves it around the Corps property. And there were a nmnber of reasons that we ultimately came to that decision. Route No. 5 does appear, at least at this point, to be a little bit less expensive than Route No. 4. And in addition to that, there is an unidentified cost with both routes in the fact that either route is going to require some amount of revision to The Preserve planned development. However, Route No. 5 is going to require Page 31 I much less change in The Preserve planned development than 2 Route 4 would create. And then knowing that there's a 3 cost involved in going through a rezoning process and a 4 number of other issues with regards to The Preserve, we 5 think that that makes Route No. 4 even more costly. 6 Route No. 5 also stays inside the City 7 timites more so than Route No. 4. Again, looking back 8 historically at our bond elections, and I've been here for 9 a long time, I don't recall even' funding a road outside of t0 the City limits with capital improvements bond funding. 11 So not that that couldn't happen but 12 history tells us that if we have a road that is ahnost 13 completely within the City limits as opposed'to a road 14 that's significantly outside of the City limits, we're 15 probably more apt to be successful in garnering funding, 16 City funding for the road that's within the City limits. 17 With regard to right-of-way acquisition, f 8 the nmnber of individual tracts that would have to he 19 acquired in order to build Route 4 is significantly higher 20 than the nmnber of tracts that would have to be acquired 21 in order to build Route 5. So, there again, there's a 22 cost factor in there that isn't identified, you know, down 23 to the nmnber but we know just fi'om experience the more 24 tracts you have to obtain, the more time and more money it 25 takes to obtain right-of-way. Page 32 1 I know that the school is going to be an 2 issue. And certainly staff would agree that, you know, an 3 eleaneatary school on an arterial is certainly a concern 4 and not something we would necessarily -- it wouldn't be 5 our wishes to do that. It wouldn't be our first choice to 6 put an elementary school on an arterial. 7 However, in this particular case, when this 8 school in The Preserve was originally planned~ staff 9 worked very closely with the Denton Independent School 10 District, as well as the developers of The Preserve to 11 come up with a site circulation scheme and a driveway and 12 median opening scheme with the idea that ultimately 13 Lakeview Boulevard would be a six-lane road. 14 So although, I guess, in theory we would 15 rather not lmve a school on an arterial like Lakeview 16 Boulevard, the fact still remains tlie school was planned 17 to be there knowing it was an arterial and there was a lot 18 et' time and eflbrt on not only the City's part but the 19 school district's part and the developer's part to design 20 the school in a way that would minimize the safety 21 concerns with the circulation of [he driveways and access. 22 There is no definite timeframe or plan for 23 the constrnction of Lakcview Boulevard. A lot of it is 24 dependent on wbether or not the City really does have a 25 bond election in 2004, whether Lakeview Boulevard is even PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 29 - Page 32 CondenseItTM Page 33 1 included in a bond election if there is one. So it's a 2 little bit difficult at this point to, I guess, tell 3 anyone, yes, we'll be out there building a road in five 4 years or ten years. I raean, there's a tot of what ifs 5 here. But what we're trying to do here this evening is 6 amend our Mobility Plan so that we can start planning for 7 the road with the hopes that if not in this bond program, 8 maybe in a future bond program there will be some lundin 9 to start building Lakeview Boulevard, and we just want to 10 get this first step out of our way. 11 I'll be glad to answer any questions you 12 have and, obviously, we have a a lot of folks here this 13 evening that want to give you their opinions and I'm open 14 for questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, David. We 15 16 do have some. Commissioner Mulroy. 17 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. In case the 18 audience misheard, David did not say that our job was to 19 make as many people upset as we could. David, review fo~ 20 me very quickly, if you could, the present status.of the 21 Lakeview Boulevard as it's built right now and who paid ~22 for it. 23 MR. SALMON: okay. Lakeview Boulevard, -- 24 well, there are two sections of Lakev[ew Boulevard that 25 have been constructed. Page 34 i COMMISSIONER MULROY: But specifically the 2 south section, we're looking at The Preserve. 3 MR. SALMON: Okay. The south section of 4 Lakeview Boulevard, of course, has been constructed all 5 the way from 1-35 up to a point in The Preserve, I want to 6 say up near the amenity center. Just north of the school, 7 it goes from four lanes down to two lanes. 8 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. So most of it, 9 the majority of it is four-lane right now. 10 MR. SALMON: Right. The majority of what's 11 there now is four lanes and then there's a section that's 12 two lanes once you get north of the school. 13 COMMISSIONER MULROY: But the right-of-way 14 is for six? 15 MR. SALMON: well, yes and no. The 16 right-of-way, the actual fight-of-way is for four lanes, 17 but the developers of The Preserve dedicated a 18 right-of-way reserve so that in the future, if it did go 19 to six lanes, we wouldn't have to buy people's baekyards, 20 et cetera. 21 COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: But at the time that 22 it was platted, it was designated as the arterial? 23 MR. SALMON: That's correct. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So I guess 25 what's confusing the issue to me is the presentation is ?LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 35 I like this is a whole new concept when it really isn't. 2 Tile southernmost Lakeview Boulevard was always designated 3 arterial prior to the school, the dedication of the school 4 property, tt~e building of the school, the contractor 5 funding, and prior to the residents of The Preserve buying 6 their homes; is that cch'ecl? 7 MR. SALMON: COiTeX3t. The Preserve was 8 designed that way. 9 COMMISSIONER MLILROY: SO~ ossentlally, if I 10 went backwards from this total presentation, if I took a 11 point north of the school that can still this all down 12 that you're moving thc old aligmnent because the Corps ! 3 won't let us build, you're moving the old original 14 alignment to tile west half a mile or so to abide by Corps 15 regnlations. 16 MR. SALMON: well, that and mainly because 17 of the cost of the bridge. 18 COMMISS~ONEaMtJLaOY: night. Okay. But 19 through The Preserve, this is not new news. This has been 20 establisbed. Tile m'terial has been designated for how 21 many years, ten to 127 22 Ma. SALMON: well, since 1986. I mean, 23 yeah, the actual, the difference from our -- I mean, the 24 Mobility Plan has showed Lakeview Boulevard in this 25 location since 1986 and Route 5 would vary that at a point Page 36 I north of the school. But south of that point, it would be 2 the same as we've had it since 1986. 3 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And that is 4 the conditions under which The Preserve was platted? 5 MR. SALMON: COn'ect. 6 COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. And 7 participated in the construction there and the money, they 8 built the four lanes; is that correct.9 9 MR. SALMON: correct. Yeah, there was a t 0 dedication of right-of-way and most of tile road was funded 11 by the developer at least. A portion was funded by Denton 12 County but mostly it was funded by the developer. 13 COMMISSIONER MULaO¥: okay. Now, if that 14 goes from four to six, then the City would pick up the 15 other two lanes.9 16 MR. SALMON': CO1TeCt. 17 COMMmSIONER MULaOY: okay. All right. 18 Thank you, David. 19 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Conmfissioner Watkins. 20 COMMISSIONER WATK£NS: Thank you, Madam 21 Chair. Mr. Sahnon, I think one of tile most startling 22 things in om' first public hearing was about the Corps of 23 Engineers not allowing the crossing for roads and whatnot. 24 The first thing that came to my mind was 2499 from the 25 airport. Pan I to assmnc that this does not aff~t 2499.9 Page 33 - Page 36 CondcnscltTM Page 37 i MR. SALMON: NO. 2499 iS a road -- well, 2 first of all, it's a State PM highway and, number two, it 3 [inks a number of various cities and communities. So they 4 do consider that a regional road. And I think that's 5 really the Corps' criteria when determining whether 6 something is regional or not is whether or not the road 7 [inks more than one city or cormuunity. § COMMISSIONER WATKINS: All right. So where 9 will it intersect 35E if it's ever built? 10 MR. SALMON: At State School Road. 11 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: cmmnissioner Powell. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Salmon, I want to 14 make it very clear to us and to the audience that you are, 15 you being staff, paid staff for the City of Denton, is 16 recolranending tonight that we give serious consideration to 17 Route 5. And it is, in your opinion, technically the best 18 way to go and that's what you're saying? 19 MR. SALMON: Yes. From a technical staff 20 perspective, we think that Route 5 is the most acceptable 21 route. 22 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And one more thing. 23 You said earlier that one of the things we're trying to 24 accomplish tonight is to lay out the route, whatever it 25 tums out to be, so that the City could then make plans. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 t3 14 15 16 17 ~18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Page 38 And I'm assuming that you also meant, I don't want to put words in yom' mouth if you didn't say this, but itrs not just the City that would be able to make plans, it would be property owners in that area, also, that would be able to make plans on where this mute, where the road would be build if and when it's built. MR. SALMON: well, that's correct. You knew, anybody developing property typically looks at our Mobility Plan to figure out how they want to develop their property. And if you've got flux in your plan, then it doesn't give anybody developing property a clear picture. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I recognize that I'm 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 f8 19 20 :21 23 24 25 Page 39 audience who wish to speak tonight, I'm just going to review our procedure for public hearing so that there are no misunderstandings. Each speaker will have three minutes. You will receive a warning sound when you have one minute remaining. We do ask, since there are so many people to speak, that you not go over three minutes or we will move on to the next speaker. Each speaker should concern himself with presenting new information not given by previous speakers. We're allowed to ask questions of anyone and call on staff at any time. Any remarks from the audience, stamping of feet, applauding, whistles, yells, any demonstrations, we can't pemfit. Persons who do wish to speak are asked to fill out a card as is in the lobby. You can either fill this out to say you do wish to speak or there's a part where you do not wish to speak but you wish for your opinien to be known. And if you haven't filled one of those out and would like to, you can hand those to Conunissioncrs on either end and they'll pass them down, And we'll go ahead and get started. We do have sort of an interesting array of cards this evening. Nonnally, they would be in support or opposition of the Agenda item. Apparently, we have some who arc in support and opposition of the various routes, some who aren't sure Page 40 whether they're in support or opposition, and some whom simply contradict themselves by saying one thing and then checking another. So we're just going to att hold together here and I'll just -- I'm going to call out the names because it's really difficult on most of these to being a lot of redundant here but I want to make sure that everybody here in the sealed audience and in the listening and watching audience understands what you're saying. I'm clear on it but I'm trying to make sure that everybody is clear on it. You're recommending, you representing staff, that it's 5, and this will give everybody then, once we vote on it and I guess City Council votes also, a clear understanding of where it would go assunfing when and if it's built. MR. SALMON: correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER APPLE: l don't see anyulore questions. Since we do have a nmnber of people in the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 tell what you're trying to say. So we're just going to start with Lawrence Menard. Is Lawrence Menard here? If you'll please come down. And when your name is called, come quickly down since we do have so many. If you'll give your name and your address for the court reporter, please, then you'll have your three minutes. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MENARD: I don't wish to speak. COMMISSIONER APPLE: well, actually, you checked I wish to speak, not the I do not wish to speak. So you don't wish to speak, you just wish to register opposition -- MR. MENARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER APPLE: -- to Route 5? MR. MENARD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Okay. Okay. The next one is Tiffany Menard, and she checked to speak, too. MS. MENARD: I'm the stone. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Ms. Menard does not wish to speak either, but she'd like to register Page 37 - Page 40 CondcnscltTM Page 41 1 opposition tO ROUte 5. Jay Walker. 2 MR. WALKER: I[ don't wish to speak. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: we really, in order to 4 -- okay then. He's not going to speak either but he did 5 check he wished to speak. He is in support of Route 4. 6 Maureen Jamail. Finally, somebody who checked they want 7 to speak that wants to speak. Please, no applause. 8 MS. JAMAIL: Good evening, Madam 9 Chairpe~'son and Conunissioncrs. My name is Maureen Jamail 10 and I'm a homeowner -- ! l COMMISSIONER APPLE: If you'll give your 12 adch'ess for the record, please. 13 us. J^M^n.: oh, sm'e. 4208 Boxwood Drive, 14 Denton, Texas, 76208. I'm a homeowner in The Preserve at 15 Pecan Creek. Myself and my family moved to Denton from 16 Carrollton. And the reason we moved from Carrollton is 17 because they decided to build the new 121 bypass in my 18 backyard. 19 Having two small children, that wasn't 20 desirable for us. We looked all around the entire 21 metroplex. We look in McKinney. We looked in other 22 Carrollton neighborhoods. We looked in Flower Mound. We 23 looked in Lewisville. We looked in Denton. And The 24 Preserve at Pecan Creek was actually the only neighborhood 25 that we looked at in Denton and it won our hearts and we l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 t0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 42 chose to build our home in The Preserve at Pecan Creek. We chose to move our family here and to become part of the conmmnity. Since moving here a year and a half ago, we've become involved in our community. We%e become involved with the newly forming e~r^ for the school and, mostly recently, we've changed churches to become involved in a church here in Denton. We are very dedicated to the City and we want to be a part of seeing it grow and seeing it succeed. I am here tonight in my position to oppose Route 5 and to support Route 4. I have a nmnber of reasons and concerns for doing that. But since you asked to not reiterate, I'm going to focus my main concern being the safety issue. The safety issue encompasses a number of different things. It encompasses, firstly, my children and all other children that are going to be going to Pecan Creek Elementary. It's a ten'ifying thought to me that a six-lane, 45 mile an hour thoroughfare carrying up to 36,000 vehicles per day can be construc~al in front of that school and jeopardize up to 600 children every day, twice a day, conceivably every day twice a day, going to and from school. That is jeopardizing those children's safety. Page 43 1 Route 4 offers an alternative to that. 2 Route 4 would eliminate that jeopardy and that danger to 3 those students, to those children. Not to mention, it 4 would reduce the liability to both the school district and 5 the City in the event that there were any horrible or 6 unfortunate accident to occur. Denton ISD has recently 7 changed their policy, their busing policy. Their busing 8 policy used to be if you were within a mile and a half or 9 further out, you were bused. They've changed it to two 10 miles. That is now going to make it so that there are 11 more students that are going to have to bike or to walk to 12 school, just further endangering more of those students. 13 Is it safe for children to walk along a 14 street that is comparable to Main Street in LewisviHe? 15 That's a six- lane thoroughfare. That's kind of a 16 comparable situation of what we're talking about that's 17 going to go in front of our elementary schoot. 18 Besides the danger to the elementary school 19 is the danger to afl the residents who are trying to enjoy 20 the hike and bike trail, who are trying to enjoy open 21 playgrounds, who are trying to enjoy the swirmning pool. 22 Further than that, there's the safety 23 issues concerning The Preserve itself, even though The 24 Preserve itself is not slated to be touched, the 25 construction would affect that nature preserve. The Page 44 1 construction itself could endanger any of those trees, any 2 of that wildlife. Once the road is built, the pollution, 3 the cars, the noise, the traffic, the littering, it's all 4 going to affect that Preserve. And that has been set 5 aside by -- thank you very much for your time and 6 consideration. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We cannot 8 have any applause, as I read earlier, please. Russet1 9 Linson or Linton. And just so you can be ready to come 10 down, the next person is Glenn Coleman. 11 MR. LINTON: Good evening. I'm Russell 12 Linton. I'm at 4710 Indian Paint Way, Denton, 76208. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 14 MR. LINTON: I have a familiar background. 15 I recently moved here from Irving. Lived right off of 16 Be[tline. Kind of wanted to get away from that. I have a 17 special circumstance so I can't say I speak for every 18 homeowner in The Preserve. I live on Indian Paint Way. 19 And whether Route 4 or Route 5 is chosen, I believe I'll 20 be about 150 feet away from this major arterial. I'd be 21 understating things if I told you I was disappointed. 22 But the fact of the matter is we can call 23 it an arterial, but it's purpose is to connect 380 to 35. 24 That sounds a lot like an FM road or a highway to me. 25 The reason I moved here is mainly because PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 41 - Page 44 CondenscltTM Page 45 I of Denton's natural beauty. I understand that it's the 2 same attraction that's causing this growth that rcquires 3 all this new infrastructure. That's inevitable. I had 4 hoped that the City planners would avoid the mistakes of 5 other suburban colmnunities around the metroplex and 6 protect this natural beauty, even as the area expands. 7 Planning a six- lane road through pristine 8 county landscapes and through the very heart of a 9 residential neighborhood puts Denton on the same path 10 which has transformed other Dallas suburbs into landscapes 11 of concrete. 12 Further, this planning violates several of 13 the infrastructure elements set forth in the 1999 to 2020 14 Denton Plan. I realize this was just a policy document, 15 not law. However, I believe it's reconunendations are key 16 to the future of the City. And I have a few examples of 17 those contradictions. Just take page 140, the section on t 8 infrastructm,~ dements from the Denton Plan 1999 to 2020. 19 Require new subdivisions to be designed so that the 20 internal local street system provides access to collector 21 streets. Whenever possible, access to arterial streets is 22 limite~ to collector and arterial street intcxsecfions. 23 There's no collector street on the plan that I'm aware of 24 flint runs the arterial, a major highway straight through 25 the neighborhood in either case, to be honest. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 47 that are against Route 5, but something about Route 4 when compared to Route 5. Route 5 is going right through the school district. Safety issue, yes, but it's made to alleviate the traffic. We're going to have school zones there which is going to bottleneck that up during rash hour periods. And that's not going to happen with Route 4. That's my main point. COMMISSIONER APPLE: ~rhank you. MR. COLEMAN: My pleasure. COMMISSIONER APPLE: John DeVries. MR. DEVR£ES: DeVries. COMMISSIONER APPLE: DeVries. Thank you, sir. MR. DEVRIES; My name is John D~Vries. I live at 4099 Swisher. And the thing I have against Route 4 is it goes right through my living room. And more than that, what's a little bit bothersome is in 2001 I built a home on this piece of acreage. And it's a fairly [argc home. It took a long time to build and there was a lot of conunotion going on. Yet the original drawing from tile consultant that the City used goes right through tile heart of my house, which tells me that they didn't go out and take a look at what they were doing. They looked at some old aerial photos and looked at some maps and thought this would be great, you know, this is where tile road should Page 46 Coordinate with the Texas Department of Transportation and adjacent jurisdiction to discourage diversion of traffic from regional roadways. And I understand this isn't technically a regional roadway but, again, it's a six-lane road connecting 380 and 35, which to me sounds like it fits the case. Prevent diversion of traffic onto lesser arterials and local streets. That was on page 140. And I'm running out of time. I've got several other examples how this violates that Mobility Plata or the -- not the Mobility Plan but the Denton Plan. And I would just like the City to preserve it as it is. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. MR. LINTON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Glenn Coleman. MR. COLEMAN: Madmn Cormnissioner and other Cmmnissioners, my nmxte is Glenn Coleman. I'm at 4241 Boxwood in Denton, Texas. COMMISSIONER APPLE: could you move a little closer, I don't know if they've turned rite sound down a little bit back there but we're having a hard rime hevxing you guys. MR. COLEMAN: okay. 4241 Boxwood Drive. I live in The Preserve. And the only thing I would like to do, I support all the items mentioned by the other people Page 48 i go. 2 I mean, obviously we need a road. Anybody 3 who's been on 288 knows we need more roads. My only 4 concern to this Co~mnittee or to this body is that we 5 really do our due diligence, which we're in the process of 6 doing. Because although the road can be moved they've 7 told me 100 feet or 200 feet either way, I still have a 8 six-lane road in my backyard or my front yard. And if we 9 make it a toll road, then we can tatk about it. But if 10 we're not going to do that, I just want to make sure that 11 we're seeing what we're going to do here because it does 12 go right through the heart of my house. And I want to get 13 a final decision because in developing my own piece of 14 property, I'd like to know what we have to do as soon as 15 possible. 16 COMMISSIONER APPLE: SO your opposition is 17 tO Route 4 going through the middle of' your house? 18 MR. DEVRIES: Yes. I would be more -- if 19 we have to go 4, we go 4, but I would rather go Route 5 20 because it doesn't knock my house over. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, 22 MR. DEVRIES: Thank you. 23 COMMISSIONER APPLE: SCOtt Lent. 24 MR. LENT: I'm Scott Lent, 6509 Daisy 25 Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208. I just wanted to make a PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 45 - Page 48 CondenseltTM point. Earlier it was mentioned that it was kind of preordained that Lakeview Boulevard would become a six-lane highway. I did my due diligence prior to purchasing 1 2 3 4 5 my home in The Preserve. Went to the Planning and Zoning 6 Co~m-nission and got a copy of a staff report dated April 7 11 th, 2001. There is extensive information in here 8 regarding the Transportation Plan and the development of 9 Lakeview Boulevard. 10 The only ~nanaer in which Lakeview Boulevard 11 is mentioned in any date or any stage of completion is as 12 a four-lane road. The natural assumption was as it 13 appears m be, more or less, an extension of Post Oak, one 14 moving in there would assmne that you would get the same 1 $ type of traffic and have the same type of environment that 16 now exists on Post Oak Drive. So it wasn't a foregone 17 conclusion, And those of us who investigated before 18 purchasing were ted by this particular document to believe 19 that that would be a fear-lane low traffic type of 20 thoroughfare. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mulroy 22 has a question for you. 23 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SCO~, would you mind 24 so much if we could get, borrow your docmnent and make 25 copies for the rest of the Conmfissioners, the information Page 49 1 2 3 4 Page 51 And so I'm sure the staff report, although I didn't write it, nay guess is that it was written with the understanding that the developer was building a four-lane read because that's what they were being 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 5 required to do based on their traffic. 6 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: David, could you give 8 Larry just a copy of that for a second to look at because 9 he -- you've already passed it on? 10 MR. SALMON: unfortunately, yes. I gave it 11 to somebody who's making copies. 12 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That's okay. Thafls 13 all right. Colmnissioner Mulroy has -- 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO you're saying that 15 there was no explicit information in response to a citizen 16 inquiry as to what that road might be other than the 17 minimal required by the developer. There was no 18 infon-nation that this was designated as a major arterial, 19 six lane. 20 MR. SALMON: I mcan, I guess I would assume 21 at this point that the gentleman that was just up here who 22 had that information, I would assume went to the Planning 23 Department to find out what the zoning was and what the, 24 maybe what the Comp Plan said or whatever, and he was 25 handed a copy of the zoning staff report. I didn't Page 50 that you got when you bought your house? MR. LENT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: It'S very important for us to know what was disseminated to you. If you'll give it to David right there. And if I could ask you, David, please get us some copies so we can look at that. And return it back, MR, LENT: SUre. Any other questions? COMMISSIONER MULROY: No. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER APPLE: cormnissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I'd like to ask staff to conm~¢nt on that~ MR. SALMON: That was the zoning staff report and I'm sure that was predicated on what was required of the developer. I mean, that's what the developer is required to build is a four-lane boulevard based on the mnount of traffic that they're going to generate. Because the developer doesn't generate enough money or enough traffic for a six-lane divided road, we can't legally require them to build a six-lane road. But they did obviously set aside right-of-way reserves on either side of the right-of-way that they did dedicate with the understanding that someone later would build a six-lane road. Page 52 1 personally provide that information so I don't know. 2 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, and not 3 personal to you but I guess I'm trying to establish the 4 potentiality that by omission the facts were not known. 5 And the specific reason the gentleman came was to do his 6 due diligence, as he said. 7 MR. SALMON: Right. And I would assmne 8 tlmt the gentleman probably came to the Planning 9 Deparunent to ask about zoning and roads and a nmnber of 10 probably other issues. And whoever he spoke to probably 11 gave him the zoning staff report which, of course, was 12 wa'itten, you know, showing the road as a four-lane 13 boulevard because that's simply what was being required of 14 the developer. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: would it have 16 shown -- 17 MR. SALMON: I don't know whether he asked 18 specifically whether the road was going to be larger or 19 not. 20 COMMISSIONER MrJLROY: okay. Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER APPLE: conunissioner $ohnson. 22 COMMISSIONER ~OUNSON: One more before you 23 sit down. The Mobility Plan from 1986 showed what is 24 called on your sheet Route 1: is that right? 25 MR. SALMON: That's correct, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 49 - Page 52 CondenseItTM Page 53 1 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: SO that information 2 should have been available in the Planning Department, 3 available to any citizen that checked on what the plan, 4 Mobility Plan in that area would be, and it showed Route 5 17 6 MR. SALMON: correct. The Mobility Plan is 7 a public document and is available at the Planning 8 Department, as well as the Engineering Department. And, 9 you know, to be honest with you, when somebody comes in 10 and asks about roads, that would probably be the 11 appropriate document to give them. 12 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And that probably 13 would have shown what, a four-lane? 14 MR. SALMON: well, no. The Mobility Plan 15 has always showed six lanes. 16 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: oh, it has. Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, David. 18 Gina Nunez. And next up to speak, if you'll be ready, 19 Kevin McCormack. 20 MS. NUNEZ: Good evening. I'm Gina Nunez. 2t I reside at 3325 Swisher Road, Denton, Texas, 76208. I 22 come to support, I get all my numbers mixed up, Route 5. 23 Indeed, I think it is regrettable that these residents in 24 The Preserve have found that them will be a major 25 throughway going close to them, had they asked some Page 54 1 residents that have been there for many years. We went to 2 meetings with The Preserve. We helped plan. We argued. 3 I had my tape ineasm, er out measuring from the mad to make 4 sure they didn't take more trees than they were supposed 5 to. You see, this area has already endured an incredible 6 amount of -- well, they flat went out with bulldozm's and 7 knocked everything down and they put these huge houses on 8 postage stamps lots. And if these people didn't do their 9 homework, I don't see where it gives them the right to 10 tell me I have to give tile City license to condemn my t 1 propm'ty because of their lack of planning. I've been 12 working on this for many years trying to make sure that my 13 property and my invesmxent is safe, indeed. 14 And I am not the only one. I think it has 15 a lot to do with, you know, the citizens that live along 16 Swisher Road not only are just -- we are Denton County 17 residents. We are not in the City. And we've been paying 18 County and school taxes for many years. But I'll tell you 19 right now because I've been there not long ago, that 20 there's already houses up for sale. They're changing 21 hands. This housing development, these peopl~ haven't 22 proven their support of tile community over any period of 23 tilnc. 24 And we come to you saying we have been 25 here. We've been in the planning process. I've come here [~LANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 55 1 to talk to you guys several times and I'm here again 2 asking you please don't take my property. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: ~rhat's just your 4 one-minute warning. 5 MR. NUNEZ: well, I think I'm done. Thank 6 you. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. 8 MS. LOONEY: I hope this is proper. Kevin 9 McCormack is out of town and he asked me to read a 10 statement for him, if that is okay. 11 COMMISSIONER APPLE: That will be fine. So 12 you're speaking for Kevin McCom~ack? 13 MS. LOONEY: I'm speaking for Kevin 14 McCormack. 15 COMMISSIONER APPLE: If you'll just give 16 his address. t7 MS. LOONEY: Yes. I-Ie lives on Swisher 18 Road, on the comer of Swisher and Pockrus Page. And I 19 have a statement hem from him. 20 COMMISSIONER ^PPLE: ^nd if you'll give 21 your name, also. 22 MS. LOONEY: okay. My name is Cyann 23 Looney. I live at 5493 Edwards Road in Denton. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. 25 MS. LOONEY: This letter is from Mr. Page 56 t McComlack. He says, I feel that Lakeview Boulevard must 2 be extended in its present position. I realize the City 3 developers need to save those millions of dollars ia 4 bridge costs. Excuse me. So I vote for Route 5. 5 Utilizing Lakeview in its pt~esent position 6 is not only the most prudent use of road funds, it is also 7 what was agreed upon by landowners, developer, and City 8 before the first house in The Preserve was even built. 9 I would like to see Mayhill built to six t0 lanes, divided with turn-outs, and keep Lakeview to four 11 hnes as planned in the beginning, and resu'ict truck 12 traffic. The cttrving nature of Route 5 should make 13 Mayhill the most desirable, more desirable road of the two 14 for through traffic, so that should appease the homeowners 5 and their concerns about set, eel traffic and safety for the 6 kids. 7 Could staff please lell me what the plans .8 am for the extension of Edwards to Lakeview and what 19 improvements are planned for the stretch of Pockrus Page 20 between Swisher and Indian l~aint? If you recall, this 21 stretch was granted a varianc~ to the developer to not 22 have to improve because there was to be no access from 23 development to Pockrus Page. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Could we 25 get a copy of that for the ~,,cord? Thank you. Carol Page 53 - Page 56 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 iI 12 13 ~5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Paul. LrN[DENTIFIED SPEAKER: she doesn't want to speak. COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. She is in support of Route 4 and opposed to Route 5. And her Page 57 address is 6506 Daisy Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208. Serena Eckert. And if Darryle Petters would be ready. MS. ECKERT: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Serena Eckert. My husband, my Page 59 somewhat less exp~nsive than Route 5, but I question whether or not a thorough cost benefit analysts has been compiled to compare the short-ten'a cost savings to the long-term decrease in tax revenue with lower property values on current homes and the potential loss of municipal income due to the future or tack of future development that was originally planned for The Preserve at Pecan Creek. In closing, I'd just like to state that we children, and I reside at 6600 Lantana Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208. We am in The Preserve neighborhood. After looking at many conununitics throughout the metroplex, we chose the neighborhood at The Preserve at Pecan Creek to build om' new home ahuost two years ago. Many factors played into that decision. Among the most important were the peace and serenity of the conmmnity and fl~e prospects of the new elementary school opening up within walking distance, a school that both of my children wilt be attending in thc fall and the school to which I have recently been elected to the PTA. I am here tonight to voice our concerns with and objections to the submitted Mobility Plan that would extend the current Lakeview Boulevard to the six-fane 45 mile an hem' thoroughfare as presented in Route 5. I do want to add that we also did our homework 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have invested our money in our current home, yes, but we've also invested ourselves in Denton, Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Ma. PETTERS: Good evening, Madam Chairperson, Conunissioncrs. I'd like to start off -- well, first of all, my nmu¢ is Darryle Petters. I live at 4201 Boxwood Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208. I would like to start off by stating that David Salmon has been very patient, informative, professional, and he's answered all of our questions very well. He's just chosen the wrong route for us and I'm in opposition of Route 5. But he's been great. He really has. Although technically feasible, I believe that Route 5 is the wrong choice. And we heard that word Page 5 8 i and did due diligence. We received similar information to 2 that which Mr. Lent mentioned to you earlier. 3 Our first concern is for the safety of our 4 children. But since someone else has already instructed 5 you mnong those concerns, I will move on to the concern 6 that we have with the impact Route 5 would have on our 7 neighborhood as a whole. If you'll forgive my pun, we 8 want to preserve our neighborhood as it currently is. We 9 will enjoy the tranquil beauty, and that is what first 10 enticed us to come to the conununity in the beginning. It 11 is that facet of the coamuunity that will also encourage 12 others to build in the future, to build the single-family 13 homes that we would like to sec there, 14 However, if Lakevtew Boulevard is changed 15 from a quaint suburban road as it currently is to the i16 major thoroughfare, it would end basically the prospects 17 of a high end development. 18 Another cause for our objection is 19 financial. Not only are we obviously concerned with the 20 decline in our property values that such a road would 21 cause, but we're also perplexed by any proposal that would 22 willingly and purposely decrease the current and potential 23 tax revenue to the City of Denton. 24 As the staff reported, Route 5 may be 125 somewhat less expensive to build -- Route 4 may be Page 60 t a lot when David was up here, that Route 5 is technical, 2 technical, technical. Then we heard words like 3 shoe-horned it in, we finally got the curve radius, we 4 made it fit. And then when we looked at the diagram up 5 here, we see that Route 4 is a straight, is a much 6 straighter route. 7 My concern is safety. But the safety I 8 wilt taIk about is not only for the children there in the 9 school zone. We could plan for access. And i'm sure with 10 the great engineers that the City has, they have planned 11 for on rmnp and off ramp access into the school. But also 12 the safety for the people traveling the road. It's a very 13 curvy route. And some argue that, well, curvy roads in 14 early studies now have shown that people go a little 15 slower. Well, sadly enough, the white crosses we see 16 somethnes on the side of the roads are in the curves. So 17 I really disagree with that. I think we should stay with 18 the straighter. 19 The other thing is the school zone, the 20 speed limit in the school zone. And this will have 21 actually tho opposit~ effc~t of what we're trying to 22 accomplish and that is move traffic from 380 all the way 23 to 35. This wilt slow it down. We'll have a tremendous 24 backup going through that school zone. 25 I understand that there are schools that PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 57 - Page 60 CondenscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 f9 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Page 61 exist in high traffic areas. And where it's necessary, that's okay. Yet it still opens itself up to some tragedies. Boy, that time passes fast, doesn't it? And I understand that even though the developer, the school district, and the residents knew the possibility of Lakeview beconfing a high traffic road, that it's been in the Mobility Plan for some years, that's not a good reason to proceed with Route 5. Here it is. The City has changed plans and routes in the past and they will do so many times in the furore. We have people that moved to Tile Preserve. They drive as far south as Dallas. We love it here. We love what's going on. We think the City of Denton wants this type of planned community. It's a great planned connnunity and we'd like to see many more of this type happen in the City of Denton. And we certainly appreciate your time. We app,'eciate your consideration. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Van Scott. MR. SCOTT: I'm Van Scott, 4605 Baytree Avenue, Denton, 76208, We live in The Preserve, my wife and I. We've had a lot of good things, a lot of good facts. It's a hard problem. Denton needs no~h/south reutes. It's gu'owing. Route 5 is not that route that we nco:].. Page 62 Some primary evidence we've heard are safety concerns for the kids. 36,000 cars per day driving past the school within hundreds of feet of the school. Some of the items, just to l~ap, risking my naivety, I did not know that there was a planned major thoroughfare through this. The road is not four lanes most of the way. I would say halfway. And, finally, I would say that this plan has been in place apparently since 1986, but I would argue that those are old facts that, in fact, we have a thriving conmmnity that people have come to Tile Preserve because of its beauty and it's pastural area. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 63 staff, Cmmnissioners, 1 don't really know what I'm doing here. I',n one of those who's fortunate enough to Live north of McKinney, or norlh of Pecan Creek, and we aisc we're unfortunate enough to have Routes 2 and 3 wen! through two seclions of property we have on both sides of McKinney Road. But I certainly sympathize xvith these folks. I alienated some of them, I think, in October when we -- the No. 4 plan was being considered. And I'd like to speak for north of Pecan Creek, we need a road, 4 or 5, 6, something. 1 wouldn't have been here but my wife told me I oughl Io be here and she's watching and I can't go home. And I'm not going to mention anything about any parking lots tonight COMMISSIONER APPLE: Way to go, Joy. No. Thank you. Cyann Looney. And you spoke for Mr. McConnack before reading his letter. This is for youxse[fT. MS. LOONEY: That's coneet Once ~'tgain, 5493 Edwards Road, Denton, Texa% 76208. I'd like to mention that the proposed Route 4 will gobble up about one-third of our properly which we do not wish to give up. There are a couple of other random thoughts that I have here. I certainty understand tho concern of people in The P,eserve for the sa[ely of their children. But as I understand it, these are not the only If you look at the map over there, there's some curves there which, as DanTle just mentioned, is going to slow down some things. What you don't see on this map too much is the school which is going to be another slowing down. Shady Shores, there has to be a light there, and then also 35. I feel that we're going to be transplanting 288/I-35 scenario to Tile Preserve. I feel like it's going to be a train wreck and we'll be right in tile middle of it. Thank you for your consideration. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Weldon Burgeon. MR. BURGEON: weldon Burgeon. I live at 6562 Grissom Road in Denton, Texas, 76208. Madam Chair, Page 64 I children that are going to be going to Pecan Creek School. 2 There is a whole new housing development on the other side 3 of Indian Paint. There are children who live on the other 4 side. And if Route 4 goes tl~ough there, those kids are 5 going to have to cross the six-lane highway. So 6 potentially the danger to those children is greater than 7 for the children of The Preserve. 8 A lady earlier said that she left 9 Cal:rollton because a bypass was going to go right through 10 her backyard. Well, exactly the same thing is happening 11 to people who live on Swisher if Route 4 is accepted. It 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 .25 is going right tln'ough their backyard without any sort of protection from the pollution, the cars, the noise, and the traffic that will be generated by Route 4. So, obviously, I'm for Route 5 because I think it would disrupt many fewer lives than Route 4. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Linda Winns or Wills. Willis. Sorry about that. MS. WILLIS: My name is Linde Willis, 5367 Edwards Road. I'm here speaking for my husband, Wade Willis, who is out of thc country, He has asked me to present the following list of facts that he has compiled in support of Route 5 versus Route 4. These facts are that Lakeview was designed, approved and built. Route 5 is just a continuation of PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 61 - Page 64 CondenseItTM 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 .8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 651 that route. The residents of The Preserve chose to buy in The Preserve with Lakeview as a part of that development. On the east side of Lakeview there is a greenbelt which, thus, limits tile impact. Lakeview, a new Route 5 would create a nicer residential curving boulevard much more conducive to the area, not causing a race track effect as it would on Route 4. Route 5 would not generate opposition from landowners as would Route 4. The landowners on proposed Route 4 do not want to be forced to sell their land, their homes. Tbey saved their whole lives for them. People in The Preserve have talked about their homes and this impact on theirs. I have to ask them would they like their land stripped from them. The school district also chose the location of the Pecan Creek School knowing that Lakeview would run along the fi'oat of the school, which is no different tban Sam Houston on Teasley Lane. I'd like to add that my children will be going to Pecan Creek and so I have concerns about safety, too. Many more students would be forced to cross Route 4 to get to school than Route 5. Route 5 would not force annexation of the City, of the land into the City which Route 4 would. Route 5 would aisc mean there would be no lawsuits against the City. Most residents at The Preserve would live as Page 66 1 close to Route 4 as Route 5. And, lastly, Route 5 is less 2 expensive. Thank you for your time. 3 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Mark 4 Footlik. 5 Ma. FOOTL~:: Madam Chair, my name is Mark 6 Footlik, 5300 Town & Country Boulevard, Frisco, Texas. 7 Members of the Conmfission, I am the developer of Tile 8 Preserve so I'll be happy to answer any questions for you. 9 But from the historical perspective, I'd 10 like to point out a few things I think you should know. 11 Maybe staff can clarify this because I wasn't here in 1986 12 and I'm not even sure staff was, but David may know a 13 little of thc historical perspective. The Preserve 14 property is part of a larger assemblage that included all 15 the land in what is called Lakeview Ranch that ran from35 16 ali the way up to 380. Now, it wasn't all contiguous but 17 there was a large assemblage of approximately t,200 acres. 18 I think it was zoned, annexed into the City, and zoned in 19 1986. When 1,200 acres was annexed into the City, they 20 obviously had an opportunity to say how are we going to 21 transport all of the impact of these people flu-ough this 22 1,200 acre conununity. And at that time made the decision, 23 I assume, in the annexation and zoning to modify the 24 Thoroughfare Plan to bring a major thoroughfare through 25 this 1,200 acres. Page 67 1 After the 1986 real state debacle and tile 2 axe, the owners of that property lost that property to the 3 banks. The property was then chopped up into different 4 parcels. The piece north of MeKinney was purchased by, it 5 was taken back by one bank and purchased by somebody at 6 auction. We purchased thc properly south of Pecan C~eek 7 which is about 429 acres from the Rxc at auction and 8 proceeded to really do nothing except study the situation 9 from 1994 to about 1998. 10 At that time, we came into the City and 11 said we wanted to pursue a development of the project. We 12 sort of developed the Bridlewood cormnunity in Flower Mound 13 and thought we were ready to tackle another one and 14 thought we could do a nice j ob of upgrading sort of the 15 cozmnunity feel and creating a preserve cmmnunity. 16 At that time, you know, we had a lot of 17 debate with staff about this road and where, how it was 18 going to actually happen to be a thoroughfare road and 19 cross this creek at that point and how expensive it would 20 be for that to happen. But the staff at that time didn't 21 have any either desire or need to modify the Mobility 22 Plan. So they just said, well, that's where it is and so 23 that's where it is. So deal with it or don't deal with 24 it. So we tried to accommodate that into the plan. 25 What's instigating some of this Thoroughfare 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 68 Plan, I think it's important for some of you to understand is that on the north side of the creek, which is all of thc Lakcview property that is tying into 380, they moved most of it out of that project. Now, it was in their zoning and in their annexation but they don't want that thoroughfare in that conununity because of what the impact is going to be. So they're moving that. This plan shows Lakeview Boulevard moving west out of that cmmnunity. And I think the issue here for you-all to decide is, tile issue is not on the table, this plan has been changed, it's been changed north. The opportunity for you to modify this plan, if you so desire, is on the table today. Yes, we knew what the plan was at the time. Nobody was willing to consider changing at that time. Now it's on tile table for consideration and this is something for you-ail to decide, rm willing to answer any questions about what we knew or what we didn't know. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Your time has expired. Colmnissioner Mukoy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. I ]lave fl question. You said to fl~e north that the Lakevlew owners are advocating moving this to the west, would you show me on thc map, because they don't want it? MR. FOOTLIK: You'll have to help mc a little bit, but this Lakeview Ranch here. says Lakeview PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 65 - Page 68 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t3 t4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ranch, Lakeview Ranch. Page 69 COMMISSIONER MULROY: That's correct. MR. FOOTLIK: see this road ~- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. MR, FOOTLIK: -- that was comirlg through here. Actually, it was coming through, I believe -- is this the original alignment, David? MR, SALMON: NO. The original Route 1 is over here. MR. FOOTLIK: Okay. This was the original alignment here which cranes through Lakeview Ranch. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Correct. MR. FOOTLIK: that was 700 acres of the 1,200 acre colmnunity. If you'll notice now that instead of here, it's all pushed out of that cramnunity and it's pushed to the west. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. But that's south of the creek there. North of the creek is built. MR. FOOTLIK: This is north of the creek. This is the creek here. COMMISSIONER MULROY: And there's a creek above there, another creek. MR. FOOTLIK: This is -- the original Thoroughfare Plan came like this. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Start at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 23 24 25 Page 7 I COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. Correct. MR. FOOTLIK: Some of what's driving this is they want to move it out. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, whore do you surmise that information? MR. FOOTLIK: Because I'm just aware of the fact that the opportunity existed for them to review that situation. And heeause we all knew the cost of crossing this creek. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO Lakeview developers got the Corps of Engineers to adopt a new regulation two years ago where we couldn't -- MR. FOOTLIK: NO. We all knew that the Corps was not going to support this road. This was a tine on a map in 1986. COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, I guess your semantics are confusing the issue. You're making some inferences. And you may know facts that ][ don't, and if you have facts, we certainly welcome them. MR. FOOTLIK: i'm just giving -- my historic might be not correct and you can ask staff about22 it, but we all knew the cost of crossing the creek with the bridge and Army Corps was going to be a difficult situation. The opportunity to review the Thoroughfare Page 70 top of the page. Come down very slowly from 380. MR, FOOTLIK: This is the original -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right there, that's build to date, correct? MR. FOOTLIK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. $o they have it existing in their Lakeview Ranch cmmnunity. MR. FOOTLIK: Right. Now, the next phase of it was to go through here which is through their existing community. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I know, but their existing community really is to the north where it's built. MR. FOOTLIK: It's their property. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. But to the south MR. FOOTLIK: It's a PD. COMMISSIONER MULROY: To the south is the projected build-out. MR, FOOTLIK: This is projected build-out but it's all part of the same -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: But they did agree to the north to have it built with additional right-of-way. MR. FOOTLIK: They built it as we've built it to this point. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 72 Plan and Mobility Plan for this road is what's being considered. It's already been sort of suggested, okay, we're going to move it from hem over to here west on this property. The suggestion is you can come here or you can come here and bring it straight through. There's nothing that is fixed in stone other than it was a line on a piece of paper from 1986, period. That's it. And they have suggested moving it and so staff is now -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: who's they? MR. FOOTL[K: The Lakcviow Ranch development people. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So you're unequivocally saying that thc Lakcview Ranch development owners are -- MR. FOOTLIK: Are in favor of moving it. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- are driving this. You said driving it. MR. FOOTLIK: They're in favor of moving it. Who's driving it or how it's happening, that's sort of tile reality of what's happening, COMMISSIONER APPLE; Thank you, Mr. Footlik. It rooks like we only have one card reinaining of someone who asked to speak. Susan Mayo. MS, M^¥O: r hive at 5493 Edwards. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Pull that microphone. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 69 - Page 72 CondensoItTM 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 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 There you go. MS, MAYO: [ live at 5493 Edwards in Denton, 76208. I have the farm that is right here and Route 4 will take about a third of it which will take -- my farm is a working farm and it will take about a third of my working fane which is also my income. I'm also a public school teacher and I've worked for a long time to get tile farm. I really sympathize with the people in The Preseq've. I truly do. Every single thing that they have brought up also holds true for us on Route 4. The only thing is that we've bccn here for 21 years. That's really all I have to say. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. We have a number of cards from people who didn't want to speak. Gary Paul, 6506 Daisy Drive, opposes Route 5. Heather Bobo, 4144 Boxwood Drive, opposes Route 5. Scott Ewing, 6313 Barberry Avenue, opposes Route 5. Wil Mullins, 4504 Baytree Avenue, opposes Route 5. Kelly Mahannah, 4214 Boxwood Drive, opposes Route 5. Laura Leeds, 6506 Lantana Drive, opposes Route 5. Cyndi Buckingham, 6503 Lantana, opposes, I guess, Route 5, opposing Route 5r Mark Leeds, 6506 Lantana, opposes Route 5. Sandra Dutton, 6300 Hawthorn, opposes Route 5. Jo Olson, 6298 Hawthorn Drive, opposes Route 5. Paige Walker, 6302 Page 74 Hawthorn Drive, opposes Route 5. Debra Strong, 6501 Lantana, opposes Route 5. David and Trlcia Hurtm', 4603 Page 75 1 you didn't want to speak, you've already been addressed. 2 Is there anyone who didn't fill out a card but wishes to 3 speak in favor or against? Okay. If you'll come down and 4 give ns your name and address and speak. 5 MS. KEENE: Grace Keene, I live at 6405 6 Daisy Drive. 7 COMMISSIONER APPLE: mn sorry. What was 8 your last name? 9 MS. KEENE: Grace Keene, K-E-E-N-E. 10 COMMISSIONER APPLe: Thank you. 11 MS. KEENE: And I oppose Route 5. I want 12 to save The Preserve. Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER APPLE: okay. Thank you. Is 14 there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak 15 before we -- okay. If you want to just come on down and 16 give your name and adchess, please. 17 MR. LANCE: David Lance, 4504 Black Walnut 18 in The Preserve. Just wanted to say that the amenity 19 center would be essentially unusable. For us who would 20 like to use the pool, it would be on the opposite side of 21 the thoroughfare from us. We wouldn't be able to ride our 22 bikes down there or anything like that. It would be 23 dangerous to use. Thank you reD' much. 24 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there 25 anyone else who wishes to speak? Anyone else who wishes 1 to speak? lC there's anyone else who wishes to speak, 2 just go ahead and get ready to speak, please. Page 76 Black Wahmt, oppose Route 5. Tricia Hurter, 4603 Black Walnut, opposes Route 5. Michcle Coleman, 4241 Boxwood Drive, opposes Route 5. Mike Eckert, 6600 Lantana, opposes Route 5. Shailesh Kulkami, 4211 Boxwood Drive, opposes Route 5. Sandra Gladney, 4204 Indian Paint Way, opposes Route 5. Jackie Bruce, 4215 Boxwood, just says she doesn't want the ruute going through The Preserve. Then we have Janice Randel, 4508 Trmnpet Vine, who is -- pardon me? MS. RANDEL: Mine was confusing. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Yes. Actually, it says to route plan in front of -- opposes routing the plan in front of Pecan Creek Elementary but is in favor of Route 5. So I think she's in favor of Route 4 and opposing Route 5. Donetta Petters is just opposed. Michael Herzog at 702 Madison, opposes 4. He is for Route 5. Carold Nuncz, 3057 Swisher Road, is supportive of Route 5 and opposes Route 4. Rebecca Nunez at 3057 Swisher Road, supports Route 5. Is there anyone in the audience who we have not read a card from, even if you -- if you checked that 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEEDS: Good evening, Madam Chair. Real quickly, my name is Mark Leeds. I filled out a card not to speak. I have to speak now. COMMISSIONER APPLE: mn sorry but we, as I said, if we read your card, we can't start over again. You had the opportunity to pick, honestly, and we've your card, and we had such a large number that we've akeady read. I apologize, but -- MR. LEEDS: That's fine. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak whose cm'd has not already been read? MR. WILKINSON: t don't even live over there. I live in Ponder. I just came to observe. Seems llke everybody has got a not in my backyard attitude. They need to -- COMMISSIONER APPLE: ^11 right. If you'll just give us your name and your address. MR, WILKINSON: Richard Wilkinson, Ponder, Texas, 76259. Everybody seems to be not in my backyard attitude. I think they need to revisit their thoughts and maybe think a little bit deeper. Some people came with a lot of research and some came with just their heart on PLANNING & ZON1NG COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 73 - Page 76 Condens¢ItTM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 il t2 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 f7 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 77 their sleeve, their emotions speaking for what's probably the best for everybody in the long run. Because some people got their life invested in their property that's going to be destroyed. And you can understand their feelings. Okay. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else remaining in file audience who wishes to speak? Okay. David, do you have any closing comments before we close the public hearing? MR. SALMON: JUSt about two points. With regard to some of the discussion that Mr. Footlik brought up on Lakeview Ranch to the north, the issues are ahnost separate. We know that we really can't cross the creek over here toward the east because of the cost of file bridge, you know, at this point. And so, yon know, that ahnost predicates either going with Route 4 or Route 5 if 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Page 79 more minor changes to the Mobility Plan that will need to occur. And I've given you that in your backup, as well. There's a table called other minor revisions. And I just want to get it on the record that I guess when you make your motion, take a look at the options that are listed on page 4 of your backup because I think it's important to note that there are some other very minor revisions that will need to be made to the Mobility Plan in order to accmm2odate Route 4 or 5. They're all listed here on the handout. It's called other minor revisions. Route 4 would require a larger number of minor revisions. Route 5 a lesser number. But in either case, there are some that would have to be done. For instance, just as an exmnple, if Lakeview Boulevard as it currently exists no longer is the route for the arterial, we ever are going to build the road, But as you can tell by looking at the map, you know, if we really wanted to, you know, we could go with Route 4 or 5 to a point north of Pecan Creek and then probably veer over and, you know, go here on Route No. 2 or probably not Route No. 1 because that would be maybe a little bit too much of a curve. But the point of the matted' is you could mix and match several of the routes north and south. And I guess the illustration is that -- I Page 78 think the main difference here is the fact that the route isn't being moved on the north side to, I guess, accmmnodate a bridge structure. However, it is true that the people who are looking to develop Lakeview Ranch obviously would pre[er not to have Routes 1, 2, or 3 in their development. But I think more importantly the people who own the property where the proposed Route 4/Route 5 is being proposed are all in favor of the proposed route, and there really is no controversy or question in their minds regarding any of the routes. In fact, when we did hold the public hearing a number of people who lived on Trinity Road were actually quite relieved that we were taking it off of Trinity and moving it back to the west. So to me it's a whole different set of circumstances. Although a lot of what Mr. Footlik said was true in regards to, you know, moving the road on the north end. The last thing I want to leave you with is that obviously there's a number of different options, and I've listed them all in your backup. I think there's four possible options as I see them. Obviously, you know, choose Route 4, choose Route 5, or leave the Mobility Plan alone, or you could choose to continue the public hearing and~ you know, we could continue to study the issue. But if Routes 4 or 5 are chosen, there are a number of other 17 just the fact that it is four lanes and it is such a long 18 street, it still needs to be a collector. So, you know, 19 instead of simply moving, you know, we would have to 20 designate it as a collector. You know, whether we choose 21 Route 4 or 5 will have an effect on how Edwards Road is 22 designated. 23 So that was my last point is just 24 understand that there are some other minor changes that 25 will need to be made to the plan if we choose Route 4 or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 t3 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 80 5. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you, David. I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up for questions. Co~mnissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: David, my memory tells me, it could be wrong, of course, but this goes back beyond '86, doesn't it? Doesn't this development from 380 to 35, wasn't that first brought to the City in the '70's? MR. SALMON: No, I really don't believe so. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Okay. MR. SALMON: The original zoning, in fact, it was owned by the Bass brothers at the time and they did own 1,200 acres between 380 and 35, and it was about the time that that zoning came into play and that annexat~.on that this mad ended up on the map. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. I just remembered it longer than that. But if it wasn't, it wasn't. Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Mu[my. COMMISSIONER MULRO¥: Yes. I don't have any further questions but I'll be ready to make a motion when my fellow Conunissioners are finished with their questions. COMMISSIONER APPLE: commissioner Holt. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 77 - Page 80 CondenscltTM Page 81 1 COMMISSIONER HOL?: YeS, David. Could you 2 give me a little bit of background on the planning of the 3 school? And wlten it was planned, was this possibility 4 taken into consideration? And exactly how would this -- I 5 mean, this seeans to be one of the major concerns. How 6 would this affect the school and the traffic patterns 7 around the school since they have changed the busing 8 recently in the school district? Was all this taken into 9 consideration and how? l0 MR. SALMON: well, I mcan, the issue is 11 having the road, I guess, in front of the school versus 12 some distance behind the school. The driveways and the 13 median openings and the circulation on the school site 14 w~: all designed with the idea that the road in front of 15 the school was going to be an arterial street. 16 Now, ultimately, you know, in The Preserve, 17 I think tlm, e's a section of the development that is over 18 on {lie other side of this creek and so -- and I don't know 19 how far tile Denton Independent School District goes off to 20 the east. In either event, there will be some students 21 that I would assmne will have to cross Lakeview Boulevard, 22 whether it be people that live over here on the cast that 23 might go to Pecan Creek Elementary, or if the route is 24 moved to Route 4, certainly anybody who attends Pecan 25 Creek Elementary who lives west of Route 4 is still going 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 1t 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 83 COMMISSIONER HOLT: But the parent drop off MR. SALMON: The parent drop off is on Lakeview Boulevard. COMMISSIONER HOLT: So the school district did know that there was a possibility of this. Now, are we talking about -- I can't remember. Is Teasley six lanes in front of Sam Houston? MR. SALMON: It's four lanes now. It has the potential to be six lanes in the future. COMMISSIONER HOLT: So it's the same configuration? MR. SALMON: It's ahnost the sane. COMMISSIONER HOLT: It doesn't have a back out, does it? Is there a back access? MR. SALMON: It does but the back exit also attaches itself to Teasley Lane. There's a circle out hack of the school that goes past the fire station. COMMISSIONER APPLE: It is six-lane, isn't it? It's six-lane. Let's take a vote. I drive it every day. COMMISSIONER HOLT: That's the kind of -- that's what we're talking about. It would be sort of that same situation? MR. SALMON: They're certainly similar, Page 82 to have to cross Route 4. As a matter of fact, right now we have a Centex subdivision that's being built inuuediately west of Route 4. So, I mean, in the i,mnediate futura I know that if Route 4 is selected, we'll have at least students from that Centex development crossing Lakeview Boulevard to get to Pecan Creek. So, you know, I don't think that there was a whole lot of discussion about people necessarily crossing the road. I think most of the discussion at the time the school was planned is how do we design om' driveways and site circulation so we can get buses on and off the property, have appropriate parent drop off, and things of that nature, given the, you know, idea that we arc going to have an arterial here. COMMISSIONER HOLT: I$ there an access back onto Swisher Road? MR. SALMON: YeS, there is. Them is an access to -- it comes right off this corner of Swisher and Pock-as Page. In fact, if I remember correctly, thor's the bus -- and I think Mt'. Holloway from DISD is here and he may be able to answer this if I'm wrong. I think the bus drop off is at the back of the school off of Swisher and Pockrus Page, as well as the staff parking for the school. Page 84 1 very similar roads. I mean, if you had to draw parallels, 2 they arc very similar. 3 MS. JAMAIL: Can i say something about 4 that? 5 COMM[SSIONER APPLE: NO. I'm sorry. Thc 6 audience -- 7 MS. ~AM[^[: why does he get to speak and 8 we don't? 9 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Because he is the 10 staff sunmfing up. He is the applicant in this. Please, 11 ma'am. Would [Vn'. Holloway like to adch,ess Ms. Holt's 12 question? Maybe shed some light. 13 MR. HOLLOWAY: Madam Chair person, members 14 of the Cormnission. Gene Holloway, Denton lSD, Director of 15 Transportation and Planning. 16 We have a lot of items on our plate with t7 the district. Certainly, there's been some address to the 18 changes in the bussing and to the district, and that's 19 being driven by funding, cut, reduction in State funding. 20 And, certainly, when Pecan Creek was planned and brought 21 into being, at that point in time, the district was very 22 well aware about the projected future development of 23 Lakeview Boulevard and what was planned for that. 24 Additionally, the property for the school 25 was a donation by The Preserve LTD, Pecan Creek. And with PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 81 - Page 84 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 85 that, the district was very appreciative. And along with the City, and joint venture, and joint use, 15 acres, 12 acres to the district, three acres by the City for parks and rec. And if I can answer any additional questions, I stand ready. COMMISSIONER HOLT: So that was taken into consideration that that could be six lanes going in front of the school? MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, ma'am. And as Mr. Sahnon pointed out, the City Planning and Engineering, the district, the developer, and all worked very diligently looking to and how we could design the access, both on the front and on the cast and west side of the campus, to promote access to the campus. Again, the district was 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 It 12 13 14 Page 87 Shores. Now~ there are -- there is a small peninsula out there where the actual Lake Dallas boundary cuts tIu:ough that and there's some areas out them where Lake Dallas and also cuts through some properties. Actual, if you're in the front yard, you're in Lake Dallas, if you're in the backyard, you're in Denton ISa. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: So this ¢[eBlefltary school will sen, ice people on both sides of Lakeview? MR. HOLLOWAY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. I don't see any further questions. MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MLILROY: Madam Chair, if I may, I'm going to propose a motion and I'm going to shate aware. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Commissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Mr. Holloway. MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER ROY: On Teasley Lane, recently there have been installed pedestrian yield 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 my motion, then I'll tell you the reasons why. I'm going to mconunend Option 2 as stated on page 4 which would be the alignment No. 4 with the minor amendments as presented by staff. And my reasoning is, you know, although normally I would, my first choice would be to try to honor the work and diligence that staff and their engineers have lights. Now, no matter which route is chosen, is that a traffic calming or control item that we could consider or does that apply in an elementary school case? MR. HOLLOWAY: again, your question, sir? Page 86 22 23 24 25 done and see if we can make that work. And it has been in place, the designation, major arterial, for quite, you know, ten to 12 years, without a doubt. So, normally, I would like to stick with Page 88 COMMISSIONER ROY: The pedestrian yield light, flashing lights that have been installed on Teasley, have you seen ~em? MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. That's correct. COMMISSIONER ROY: All right. It appears they're to make it easier and safer for children in the plan and there is a burden of diligence on the citizens. The information that we had copied from Mr. Lent, the information is there, except that it's in the fine print in the very back. You'll find reference to the additional right-of-way. It doesn't exactly tell you in big, bold letters that it's going to be a major 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Southridge to get over to McMath. Now, can we use that 8 stone approach on either of these two routes no matter 9 where the extension is? 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: To answer that, absolutely. 11 What would happen is that the school district and the City 12 would work very diligently to promote crossing points and 13 crossing controls across any type of roadway, arterial to 14 promote student safety. Again, the location and what 15 was planned for before that, the district was well aware 16 of, 17 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER APPLE: Co~mnissioncr Johnson. 19 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: YeS, sir. East of 20 Lakeview is a greenbelt. 21 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. That's correct. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: HOW far east of thc 23 greenbelt does DISD go? 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: DISD goes all the way over 25 to the fake as far as our -- it includes alt of Shady 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arterial at 45 miles an hour, six lanes, but the information is there, but I don't think it was relayed to the citizens in a meaningful manner. But putting that aside and understanding that there's quite a few rural residents that are going to be in some cases displaced, in other cases inconvenienced greatly. And, you know, another case have to pick one half of the house or the other and I really am apologetic for that on behalf of the City. But, you know, the fact is in time we're going to be urbanized. We are urbanized to the north and to the east and on the 1-35 corridor. And part of that urbanization is decisions that are made for the greater good and, unfortunately, that tends to inconvenience the rural landowners and stakeholders as this urbanization creeps forward and takes over. But in this particular case tonight, you know, for the greater good, I just cannot rationalize when we do build this, and it may be two years, it may be five years, it may be ten years, it's been needed for five PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6-25-03 Page 85 - Page 88 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 years plus. But I don't think in any business sense that anyone here, rural or city, could justify an expenditure of $17 million in order to help alleviate the north/south traffic congestion. You know, in order to provide that major roadway, it doesn't make business sense to spend $17 million and then have to slow down ttu'ough a school zone twice a day. So what we're trying to gain here is a six-lane arterial. And even though for different reasons and miscommunicafions Lakeview Boulevard was the original 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 91 Denton, but I recognize that it doesn't always need to be urban. Some of it can be farms and ranches. And I know that the people own those properties have planned, sweated and developed and worked before I moved here in I974 for those pieces of property. I'm not willing to vote for Route 4 and I will be voting for Route 5. I will be voting in the affirmative on this issue. COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. Seeing no other discussion by Commissioners, I'd just like to say i, too, will be voting in favor o~' the Route 5 motion. And I intent, it's just not practical and it's really self-defeating, like I said, to spend $17 million and then take it flxrough a school zone, if we're really trying to alleve noah/south traffic. So that's my basis for reconm~ending Route 4. COMMISSIONER APPLE: So to sum up your motion is for Route 4? COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS. COMMI[SS[ONER APPLE: Thaak yoo, We have a motion on the table. Motion dies for lack of a second. Couunissioner Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: YeS. I make a motion that we adopt Option I which is Route 5 for a lot of the same reasons that Joe said for Route 4, except that it has been planned for a long time. It's built, it was 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ponder the concerns about tile safety issue regarding tile school because the Route 5 actually is the boundary of tile school, and if you went with Route 4, it goes right through the middle of the neighborhood. And my concern for safety would be all the children that would be going back and forth from both directions two times a day rather than it being to one side. And I do also think that the curvature will be more conducive to a little bit slower traffic than just the straight shot. I think somebody called it a raceway earlier or something. And so much of Route 5 has already been built. It's clear from the maps that Route 4 would, you know, take twice the construction. And I, too, share Conunissioner Powell's concern for tile people who have Page 90 done intentionally that way. And in my opinion that's the better route even though the majority of the people here tonight don't agree with thak COMMISSIONER APPLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER APPLE: We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Conunissioner Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I think the need for Lakeview is very clear. I also accept that the 1986 Mobility Plan which originally outlined the plans for Lakeview Road probably didn't know about The Preserve at the thne and [ accept that Route 5 will be adverse to The Preserve neighbofl~ood. But Route 4 will disrupt file homes, the property, and tile lives of many people. And I think on balance, Route 4 (sic) is the best approach and I will be voting for the motion. COMMISSIONER APPLE: YOU mean, Route 5? COMMISSIONER ROY: ROUte 5. Excuse ule. Route 4 is the one that disrupts the homes and properties and I will be voting for the ,notion which is supportive of Route 5. COMMISSIONER APPLE: couunissioner Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I very rarely speak in opposition 'to and live in an urban part of tile City of 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 92 lived there 20, 30, 40 years. I'm appreciative of the new neighbors, too, and certainly am sensitive to their concerns, but I do think that Route 5 is the best option. Is there any further discussion? Vote, please. Motion carries 6-1. (Co~ra:aissioner Mulroy voting in opposition.) Are there any items for future Agenda? We are adjourned. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 6~25-03 Page 89 - Page 92 Specific Route Cost Summaries Route I (Totg!J_~.ngth = 21,035') Segment South of McKinne~z Construction Cost Cost includes $13,020,300 for Pecan Creek bridge $16,286,200 Engineering $998,500 Right-of-Way i Total $688,480! $17,973,18~- McKinney t$_C?gper Creek North of Cooper Creek $5,263,300 $408,200 $422,200i $6,093,700 $893,800 $113,700¢ N/A! $1,007,500 F.M4261ntersection $261,t00 $35,570 N/Ai $296,670 Total $22,704,400" $1,555,970 $1,110,680 I $2~7-~"~050 Route 2 (Total length = 22,085') Segment South of McKinney_ McKinnex t....._o Cooper Creek North of Coot:)er Creek F.M. 426 Intersection Cost includes $14,955,750 for Pecan Construction Cost $19,604,500 $4,134,870 $893,810 $261,110 Total Engineering $1,t61,000 Right-of-Way $1,117,875 $24,894,29O Creek bridg_E.__ Total $21,883,~-~ $327,640 $3 8,273 $4,840~'~ $98,030 N/A $991,840 $35,570 N/A $296,680 $1,622,240 $1,496,150 $28,012,680 Route 3 length = 21,585'.) Segment Construction Cost Cost includes $8,434,100 for Pecan Creek ~.ridge Engineering Right*of-Way $880,700 $1,166,750 $I3,394,900 South of McKinney.. ~,~!_.n._n,,_e~y to Co__o,.per Creek North of Cooper Creek Total $15,442,350 $4,134,870 $327,640 $378 275 $4,840,785 $893,810 $98,030 N/A $991,840 F.M. 4261ntersection $261,110 $35,570 N/A $296,680 Total $18,684,690 $1,341,940 $1,545,025 $21,571,655 Route 4 Segment Total _(Total.,,.!9,E. gth = 27,250') Construction Cost South of McKinne¥ . $10,664,200 McKinne~ to Cooper Creek $3,659~'(~0 North of Coqper Creek ~ _ $893,8.7!~ F.M. 426 Intersection ~- $261,110 I5,478,120 Cost includes $2,815,200 for Pecan Creek bridge Engineering 1 Right-of-Way $744,400 $297,4OO $98,O3O $35,570 $1,175,400 Total $2,035,300 $687,000 N/A N/A $2,722,300 $13,443,900 $4,643,400 $991,840 $296,680 $19,375;82~- Route 5 Segment (Total length = 23,940',) Construction Cost Cost includes $2,815,200 for Pecan Creek b[i~¢_ge South of McKinnez .=~¥~c~inney to ~.q.._o_per Creek North of Cogper Creek F.M 426 intersection $9,51t,900 $3,659,000 $893,810 Engineering Righbof-Way Total $666,400 $297~ $98,030 $1,867,800 $687,00O N/A $261,110 $35,570 N/A Total $14,325,820 $1,097,400 $2,554,800~ $17,978,020I 12,046, 00 $4,643,40O $991,840 $296,68© 10 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MOBILITY PLAN COMPONENT OF THE DENTON PLAN TO REVISE THE LOCATION OF LAKEVIEW BLVD, TO CHANGE THE CLASSII*ICATIONS OF TRINITY ROAD BETWEEN MILLS ROAD AND FM 426, ROUTE NO. 1 OF LAKEVIEW BLVD AS SHOWN ON THE CURRENT MOBILITY PLAN, AND FM 426 BETWEEN PROPOSED ROUTE NO.5 OF LAKEVIEW BLVD, THE INTERSECTION OF CURRENT ROUTE NO.1 OF LAKEV1EW BLVDAND EDWARDS ROAD BETWEEN SWISHER ROAD AND LAKEVIEW BLVD.; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (CA02-0005) WHEREAS, the City has initiated an amendment to the Mobility Plan component of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Denton adopted on December 7, 1999 (the "Mobility Plan") to revise the location of Lakeview Blvd. to coincide with Route No. 5 as described in the route study prepared by Teague, Nall& Perkins dated March 17, 2003, to change the classification of Trinity Road between Mills Road and FM 426 from a secondary arterial to a collector street, to change the classification of Route No.1 of Lakeview Blvd. as shown on the current Mobility Plan from a secondary arterial to a collector street, to change the classification of FM 426 between proposed route No.5 of Lakeview Blvd. and the intersection of the current Route No. 1 of Lakeview Blvd. from a primary arterial to a secondary arterial, and to change the classification of Edwards Road between Swisher Road and Lakeview Blvd. from a secondary arterial to a collector street all as more particularly described and shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Mobility Plan Amendment"); and WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission after conducting a public hearing recommended approval of the Mobility Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, the City Council after conducting a public heating, finds that the recommended Mobihty Plan Amendment is in the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Mobility Plan Amendment. SECTION 3. The City staff is directed to change the Mobility Plan map to the Denton Plan in conformity with the Mobility Plan Amendment. Until such map change is made a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to the Denton Plan, 1999-2020 showing the Mobility Plan Amendment. SECTION 4: This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2003. EUL1NEBROCK, M AYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~ P~e2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: August 5, 2003 Economic Development/Main Street Mike Conduff, 349-8307~ SUBJECT - CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF A HISTORIC MARKER THAT RECOGNIZES HISTORIC BLACK COMMUNITIES OF DENTON, INCLUDING FREEDMAN'S TOWN AND QUAKERTOWN, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE CREATION OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN SOLOMON HILL AFTER THE QUAKERTOWN COMMUNITY WAS DISPERSED BY THE CREATION OF WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE CIVIC CENTER PARK; AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF THE MARKER ON CITY PROPERTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval (7-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Carolyn Phillips Carolyn Phillips, the petitioner, said the African-American community supports THIS PROPOSAL. She noted that the marker in Civic Center Park commemorating Quakertown was a source of pride for the community, and she would like to see an additional marker placed in the Martin Luther King Park area marking the move from Quakertown to that area. Phillips went on to state that this marker would be a source of healing for African-American community and also for the entire city. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Historic Landmark Commission recommends approval (7-0) ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE If approved, the community will move forward with plans to place the marker. Ms. Phillips has raised funds from the community to pay for the marker plate. A request has been submitted to the County for a stone from the Denton County Courthouse restoration on which to place the aluminum marker plate. The Parks and Recreation Department has expressed an interest in assisting with the placement of the marker in front of the MLK Center. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Ms. Phillips appeared before the Historic Landmark Commission received input from the commissioners. She returned on May 5 approved (7-0). FISCAL INFORMATION None ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. Historic site marker application and proposed marker wording 3. Map of proposed marker site 4. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Excerpts March 10, 2003 5. Historic Landmark Commission Meeting Excerpts May 5, 2003 on March 10, 2003 and and the application was Prepared by: Julie Glover Main Street Program Manager, CMSM Respectfully submitted: Linda Ratliff Director of Economic Development S:\Our Documents\Resolutions\03\Solomon Hill Historic Marker.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF A HISTORIC MARKER THAT RECOGNIZES HISTORIC BLACK COMMUNITIES OF DENTON, INCLUDING FREEDMAN'S TOWN AND QUAKERTOWN, AND TO RECOGNIZE THE CREATION OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN SOLOMON HILL AFTER THE QUAKERTOWN COMMUNITY WAS DISPERSED BY THE CREATION OF WHAT IS NOW KNOWN AS THE CIVIC CENTER PARK; AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF THE MARKER ON CITY PROPERTY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in the early 1900's the community of Quakertown and Freeman's Town were the heart of the black community in Denton; and WHEREAS, the Quakertown community was dispersed due to the efforts to create a city park upon the site of Quakertown; and WHEREAS, the black community relocated near Freedman's Town in an area known as Solomon Hill, which coNinues to be the heart of the black community in DeNon; and WHEREAS, the council has recognized the historical importance of Quakertown and the dispersal of its resideNs by placing a marker in the Civic CeNer Park; and WHEREAS, the council recognizes that the subsequeN relocation of the black community near Freedman's Town in Solomon Hill is also an importaN historical milestone in the history of DeNon; and WHEREAS, the recognition of Freedman's Town, Quakertown and the relocation to the Solomon Hill area would help complete and bring closure to this historic eveN; and WHEREAS, the funds has been raised to create a historic marker recognizing these historic black communities and that a convenient and appropriate site for the marker would be upon city property near the Martin Luther King Recreation Center; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Landmark Commission unanimously supported the creation and placemeN of a historic marker on May 5, 2003 ( 7-0); and WHEREAS, the council believes it serves a public purpose to support the creation of the historic marker and to allow its placement upon a site near the Martin Luther King Recreation Center, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1: The City of Denton supports the creation of a historic marker recognizing the "Historic Black Communities" in substantially the same form as represented in Exhibit "A" which is attached and incorporated herein as if written word for word. SECTION 2: That after the marker is created the City of Denton authorizes the placement of the historic marker at the location indicated in Exhibit "B". SECTION 3: That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __day of ,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY iN NOVEMB. ER 187:5, 27 FORMER SLAVES FROM 'WHi~'E ROCK 'COMMU~ITY I.N gAL. LAS ~ '~ 'dOVED TO DENTON CO:UN17Y AND ESTABLISHED A SMAL.L COMMUNITY KNOWN A:8 F'REEOMAN:~S TO ~V N A P P R O X i M A'T E L Y ~W H E R E T H E N~ A R T I; N L U T U E R K i N G J R;, RECREAT;~ON CENTE;R: AND TOM;AS :R:~VERA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EXIST TO. BAY. LAT'ER, FA.M~L..iES BEGAN BUYING LANB 'T'O "K'HE NORTH AND DEVELOPED A COMMUNITY KNOW'N AS QUAK;ERTO'WN ON THE SiTE WBERE CiViC CENTER PARt(; STANDS TODAY'.. FORD C RA.~FORD:~ ONE OF TH E ORI:Gi NAL F'REEDMAN*S %'OWN 8ETTLERS~ OPENED A GENERAL S'~'ORE :iN Q'UAKERTO%,VN,. I41S SON BERT CRAWFORD RAN THE MORTUARY. HENRY N~ADDOX BOU,GHT SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL LOTS iN QUAKERTOWN AND OP;ERATED A B O A R D l; N G H O U S E ,, T H E T H R I V i: N G C O N~ M U N ! T Y ! N C L U D E D. A SCNOOL~. C;HURCHES~ EATING ESTABL!:SHMEN"~"S AND OTHER BUS l N EBSES,, IN THE EARLY i900S~ A CAMPAIGN BEGAN TO REMOVE (~UAKE;RTOYVN AND TURN THE AREA INTO A CiTY PARK. AFTER BONDS FOR A PARK %A/ERE APPROVE:D IN 1921~ THE EXODUS BEGAN,. SOME BL. ACK FAMiLiES LEFT DENTON. OTHERS RE?UE'tNED TO THE AREA. AROUND FREEBMAN TOWN WHERE A,L,: MILES HAD PLATTED 35 ACRE;S: KNOWN AS SOLOMON HiLL A.S HOME SITES FOR THE DISPLACED BLACKS. SOLOMON HILL ENCOMPASSED AN AREA THAT LATER BECAME KNO~&/N AS SOUTHEAST 'D, ENTON, ~C:LUDiNG THE HILL WHERE FRED MOORE SCHOOL NOW STANDS.. THE AREA HAS REMAINED THE HISTORIC HEART OF BLACK COMMUN~T!ES iN D E N TO N, FINAl., APPII~I(TAT/ON 1tl ST ORIC S~TE ,~ iA RK LR CITY OF !'}I:~NTON, 1 LXAL Site Address: MiLK~ Jr. Cenle~ 1,¢8a! descriptiel:t {lot and blo, ck or m,c~cs and bo,*m&} attach I xhiBii A if'l'xscessary) C L~FTelll2 Z{.)B J 13~', Name oF o~a. ner(s) City of Bent~:m Address Teiephone n'ms"tber~ (A. dd. lt[ozaa] ownc:r:s may be ] sted on a separate 9ieee of'paper.} C:~::~st ru cfi~:~[~/Dese ript ion o17 evem, t!oundirlg of h~sliiuiion, person: archeological si~e or coaswucfion oF Freedman's Town, Quakertos~ ~ ar, d tl~e Solomon~ Hitl Addition make up tt~e ldsioric Black Communities <~f Be~:~em Starting i~ 1875, ~reedm;a~fs To~ ~:~ was settled by former slaves wh~, moved there from White Rook Comm;~miB' in l)a:/~as A. lthou;al,1 Quakerie~.~ has received n:aiiena~ ati:emioa, ~ reedlman's T(mn and Soloma:~:~ llili Additi~m~ .c~:m~prising wh:ai ~¥e k~ow ~s SrmtI~eas~ l)eni(m:~ is the coal:er o f' th e his to rio ~[fric;:~,*A m eriea n ,eom m u airy oi" Den i~n, The hnportal~ce of this marker is: te enhanee cemmtmiiy pride, by providing a per:ma, ae~t:~!: marker to homer ihe earl)African A, mericm~ se~:tlers i,~ l)enlxm,, 3. 'iDocm~sentatio'r'~ ~;o verify importance {st(ppo~t for i[erx'l 2), A~'!,ach copks ef :lbr perm. ane.r~t files (newspaper ar~klcs government re:cords, history books, Exhlbi[ Cu:rrenlly !is!ed National tlcgisier? Recorded Texas L,~.m&a~,k No Local sur~,cys o:r r,ccogs;[ion? I:tistorie Preq)e~l:y In,'ertl:m3'? ii ,, .Architect ~: I;luikk:r 3.. Ex!erior material Doors Windows P<)rches E;×:erior Pho~.:~g, raphs A[iad~ fbur (4)photographs of ~:)le historical malker site. o:~,~e f~rem each Soum. l!;a.s~ m:~d West} Cr'iteri~ (:o be used i:n }tistorical Laadmark iT~esiga~aii:oa T]q.e pethioncr wUl be responsible for u~mshm~ dam 't~> the ] Nstoric Landmark Commission, ;oF substantia~i:r-~g ~hat ~,he pro]x, rD~ meets one or more oFthc fb!lowi~;~.g 13 criterions fbr ]:Ns~oric Landmark desig~a.~i<m: L,!mrac~¢r,. ini:eres'I or value as part of the devel~opmep, h hcri~s_ge characteristics o:!' the City of Ben,om State o17 ")"cxa:s or &e [,.:h:'ded Stat:es. 2,. Recegnitio~ as a r¢co~:ded Texas historic !andm~!rk; a ~miionaI landmark? or entered imo l::he Nalional Register et }:.lis~ofic Places. hals infl'L:tenced the developmenl: of th.e ciry~ Relations!~ip i;o other distinctive bui!dings, sites or areas whk:h arc el~g!..~., R.'. for according to a plan based ,.m arcmtec{ural, historic or cuhura] mod[. 7,,, Portra}a] of t~e em:iromnent ot'a group character:,zed b? a di, sti:ned ye arcTNiecl:ural s%k 8. Ar'ch~eok,:gica] vahte that i(: les produced of caa be , - - * exl,,act~;:e {o produce data 9. t xempli!ication of the cu[lu,,.al, ccc,,r,;omic, social ethn;ic or hisk, rica.1 befit.age of the Ch}, Sr. ate or '[. nixed States. Y 1t. ideni:ification wi. da a person or persons who signi t'Scantly c¢~ntnouted~' to !he I2, A building or slyuc'tu,re that becalise of its location has becorr~e of ,~,'ak~e to a ne~ghbor~'x~c,d, co:rnn:tmfit} a~e~ or the ci;r>,. 13, '\?al't.!e as an astx:'c{ r':,{i' comn-tunity sentiment or [}t~t;lt:ic pride. Filial si'.,e app ............... ! 0 ]i,X;,B i [: ~ I, I/We the undersig:'}ed, owner(s) of} or par{y{s} v, ith [inancia! i~a'teresl in. all proper~:y h. crcin described, do hereby l~le d:fis~ my/our pe~:i~ion, asking d~at the said property' be designated as a historic ~andma.rk under the Novjsions of Orilinance ¢/80*30 of {he Code of'Ordinances of d~e C:[I}' ,of I)en~on, Texas. I,"*¢ 'c a. uth:t, r, ze dae Ci:t:y of'l)en~on to place a si;gn or signs cm tine above proper{y for public nc>tilica~ion of the proposed ' -': :' :',~ '~' ~ n.o~h, ca.l~,.; :, .t~f lac proposed historic designation Ad;dress C:'hy/State/Zip E Ma, i] site al:)p,]1 Opti~:~nal ln:formafim:~ ln~erior Photographs Al, your optkm, you may attach []hotos oJ:' i~:~ter:ior archit:ecmral deta. ils ti:mi add ~:o '!:he cha.racier c,J"lh.e~proper[~...... , %=.1 0 © L) x ~ CONDENSND ~%STO'RY ©f ST. JTu'-~ES A, H, E. CHURC~ 188i-i, 976 about eleven years after slavery,, in the Fear ]875 a ~ .... Ne?re CiLizens, being dissetis:f~e~] wi~:h 1. ivins~ condit~iens on farms and nlan'ha'tions~ decided to move to ~.~ new location 'to ~ - ~petter their living condihisns~, and to rear their = ' .......... ~ a m z 1 i e s The move was $ a, .., 't e ..~ in ]:?ovemher of 1875~ ~: families :from Dallas County in the s~tt]eme:nt o~' ~.~hite Rock, ....... e to Denton ..... and se C~u~ty t'~led about Lwo and one~half m. iles from the Couni..y ~'-'~ ~, ~m--~%/ named this new settlement ~ '~ ~d'- Some of t;he people in, the g'reur;, had fall':h, ce,n'a~e% am:] de"':~ ~l=~:,~,on to live ChrisLJan l. ivesl so they met frO~il hotl, se t:o house~ {ind held wee~iy prayer and class .~= ' m~.~tz~}g~. Per a year they scoured d~.;: services of a minister in the gronp~ the Reverend M.. P l_~a?nher.h I,,ater~ '~he Reverend J, V. S, Goins came and ~he church was orga:ni:zec] and n.a~sed the Saint Jar~es African Hei:hedi. st Epi. sc'opa]~ lne Charter i~,_~m. Ler~, were Jim Crawferd, DicF (2rawferd~ Jerry Crawferd, Ford Crawford., Jim Hall~ Phillis Hall, Giles l.,awsen~ ~8ter !:.~a'wson~ 7~.rth~:r Cochran~ 'Harriet Cochran~ .H, P, Lambert~ Sallie Lambert~ He:nry 4,-,aa... ~ a,. ...... s.~ Char!otto Maddex~ Jim Hol'h~ Hahhie ~o!.'~;';.~ and Em. ty Russell It W~$ :./.~.de:.nL this ~:J_me {::h~tt ~. buildirl, g was n. 6.~.d=~.~, Henry H.a~dex and his wif'e C~ar'ir"~'t~{~ led ~'~{~ g~r",u','~ bF goin:i~ into %he woods and cutti, ng t.i:nber for the fc~dation, This was the chux'c'h was moved to a n.e:w locahion on C,a.r,]..~:.~ Aven. ue~ az]d another smaal suildj;.ng was erec'L-,e:d . ,a.~,.., ~,a~u,:gz.a'te of 'the Reverend D. HiL 1. ~.899 the c]:!Llrch was rebuilh L~nder the pastorate of the J, a. Powe, Those serving ~s ~...~,a.=te.["~s at this hime were J, P,. Lilly~ J. D. Crawi'-or('i~ il. S. Johnson, and H, Taylor. In 1909 '{::~e Reverend. N~ J~ Cooper erec~ied anon:her building. '~'~ year 1922, the i ...... ~-~r'~ ~%~'~ere the Church steed ~.,~:~s purchased by. the City to be used as a ~)~zk ~,'-- site, So, the church had to he moved again 'i"h~s time the ~ .... , ~}~.,~l]_d2ng was wrecked and a ~'~c, re mo,ier~'~ building was erected en the cornez of Oak and Crawford Streets~ The parsonage was move{] and i.c, cated Re>at to the Church, on Oak Street~ This was dc, ne under 'the 'pastorate oz the Reveren{J Pr;in, ce F. Jackson, Those serving' as t,rnstee 8 were: B. F, Crawford ~ d. ~I, Lar~ber G r~ He~'~hry., J R lhegan, J W N'- ~ ..... and H. Ma~ox Under the pastorate of the Reveren~ A, ~2ayman Harvey J.,n new parsonage was erectad at the cost of $7.~000, 'P~'oF,,~ ~., .-. time to t the church received reoairs and im'{}rovements~ In c~n~"~?',}~,~-~r of 1.962~ un~'ler the ~.~ .... ~orah~ of the W. A, Garland;' t~e bui].di, ng wns wrecke{~], the lot cleared,, a~,d a new brick huiidin?I was erected an~f[[ dcdj, ca~-ct[~ in September .1~ e,a. The following persons served as $'tewar{]s and trustees aL tN[.$ time,: and Bulah Grays S~'ewards ~- J. ,IS, Smith~ lRoy David~ ~,,P. M. Needs and Leonard Logan, {Phis is the building in which ~e now worship,} in December of 1963 new pews were purchased at the cost of $1~ 400., On Novena,her 29, 196{i~ t~e Reverend S. Iii, Braziei assigned to Saint James, Under his pastorage a new organ was purchased~ a, water fountain installed in the memory ef Sister Virgie o .} {, s al chased. Caraway~ a Communion table and ,~ul~.~t seat were so ~ Women s H, is~':~io~a~ ............ f Society of Saint James bears "-'~-"~,.z~ ha, me of one of the ' ...... ~- Under th, e pastorate of'Rev. M,, E, Rice in t968~ the parsonage was remodele, d, in i. 969~ Rev. ~-'~. jamerson,~ Jr. came to u,s. Under his leader- ship the sanctuary was remodeled~ ca!.~}~ed~ and a new piano ~',n~-chas]~ k,~c.!.~ This choir was na~'mred after for ~.ne Lambert--Tay!or Sunshi~e "~'~"'~' - . ]3am~el t alnd Sister Je,ssie two ef ~s olesst member s, lBro Luther ~ ~ TayAor. Central heat and air '6,,'1 a s installed. The younq organ'kse~J a choir ~ i]..~ Jamersonetks .~ i,n hO}lor" of Rev gamerson. Steward ~' ~ '''~ I~ a g~oup '-~ 'women to 6 the pastor was organize~, Robes were purchased for the Senior Choir~ Many ~'ouru{i people and a, dnlts jointed the church under the leadership ef Rev, Jamersen~ Jr~ Ne remained pastor for seven years, {The longest ~ime ever served hy ~7 p~sLors assigned, Le St, James.} On the i00th Anniversary ef the chnrch~ a parade called ~Freedom March" ~..~as held and participan~hs marched from the site ef the first church to its presen~ ieca~i, en. Through interested memhers~, the history of St. James has continued to be recorded. Rev~ Albert Moore, Jr~ served as pastor fre~e October 1977 te March i978~ Un, der his leadership the members were encenraged to feI!~ewshi, p hy organizing a '~Famiiy Night, ~' Each family was asked te bring a dinner once a month for fa~i~y night which bret,Nht unity a~'ong t~e me~bers of {?~e c]'tsrd'~, Rev. Kenneth Naters served as'paster from 1978 8{"~ 1979, Under his ]~eadership the ~'oung People's DeparLment was reorganized and ten yeuhh attended the annual rehreatz: att Letham SNrJ, ngs. The Second Sunday was denoted YoutN Sunday wihN ehe young people being i~ charge ef tile program, The young peep!e also hook a %rip to Palo I}uro Canyon t.o see one ef our members~ Quenhin, Clark~ perform in the erodt~ction of '~ x~,'~ ~' -~ -- le~,~s. The also ce [,~(~ hl!e bir%h of Hicheal Wi~i, ia~s Nahers~ the second baby barn t,o a tni, ni, ster~s faNily in Ehe Churoh~s !~istory, Rev, Maters encouraged men~%bers to collect aluminum cans that could ~:'>e sold and rec],'cled, This marlked i.he ]3eginning' efa sci, f-help effort toward the purchase ef$ church van ..... ]_ washes were ........ ?~-ld to stn'n'::~le~r~ene~ ~ ~ ~, , ~ ~, this efferh ~:~,,,z ~}!ed, ges ~..o suppiellent Lhe v-. ~, %,~elre df- ~ .... .....~' s~ Waters used her musical ahi!ities to expand the inve],vernent of }~euth and helped Le ergani, ze the first christmas Can'tata. P. ev~ Richard Tankersen served as paster ~?rom 1.979~80~ Rev, Tankersen nsed his expertise in financial planning to adjust the Church~s ]st:~dget for annual expenditures, He al. se organized menhhly planning [~eetings in an attempt te involve all the mom.bors. The firsh Christian Debutante program was held honoring ouhstanding young women from our community, T'hose yot~r~g ladies recognized were: Robbia Garrett (Hit. Pi!,grim CH.E Church}~ Susy Devereaux (Pleasant Greve}, Jeyce Ervin {Hr. Calvary} , Patsy Varne~: {St, Es~manuei}, Katt~y Rhodes~ Penny Jones and Sever!F David {SL, James}. The Rev. Rohhie L. Slaughter~ our.13resent p~'nste..,r, c8~e to us in t980 She revitalized our churc!l ~ith God ~s the seurce~ tn~;eugh {~he use of revivals and nusicals L~dies a. no] ~en s Bih}~e Classes were established, ~[~i.ght services were increased with 'the organizing of various programs. Each second .Sun~ay night is devo!:ed fe~ a ~, ~ :~ec~:~ each third Sunday nig'~;~t is recognized as ~}~ Pamil Affai. r~' and on fourth Sundey nic~}it~:~ me~sers celebratin/ a birthday during the month present_ a program. Hose emphasis has been placed on reaching ~ ~',~ ,'~ North Texas an~J TWU and invelvin{{ them ikn our ~- .... ~.~C ....... The church van is sen% to TWU caen Sunder te transport sh:denes, The first Community Music Workshop was held by Cynthia ....... ~u~.~e~ McDade., a TNU student and our musician. A Pale Chorus was erganize[[ and mere adults have been ~ ~ ..... ~ra~n to participate in Sunday School under Slaughter~s leadership, Physical in~prevements made during Rev~. Slaughter~s ~}ast. era'te have been ~% r, '~a~., enclosing of 'the foyer which was aided thro~ag~,~ fundra=ising by the Young People ~s ...... ~ The Senior Sunday School class of the '~'~'~ ~lx~ Baptist Church, along wJ_{:h members of our church used their ski. lis to acco'lp]ish this project w~ich had been envisioned by Hfs Eulah Gray A~oLh.~..r goal fulfilled was an annual fel.!owshi]s day with students fro~l~ '~'~,,.~'~ former Fr~,d Hoere Scheet~ The church has been b~ ......... ¢~':~ hv the i. icensing o:~ ~" ' ' NcDo~a!e~ Who receJlved her in our membership, Sister Ella H:ae '~ "~' license in July~ 1982~ and Brother H, Slaughter in January~ 1983. are thankful te have in ou~ mj.dst~ Rev. W, [~, Clark as Assistant Pastor, Rev, Clark is r6tired but served his tenure in Texas in various conferences. S%~, James is his home church and Ne returned here with his family and united with The chur'ch has gsown spl~.~.~.~al, ly~, finan, cJa!,]..y, and many improvements can be seen as e result ef our 51.~t pastor~ Rev,. Rehbie Lowe S1 .... ~ .... r, During our IlO years~ we have been blessed wit~ outstanaincx Lh.~istlan leaders. We have t. riumn'hecl.~.. . ._- over adversity and we have embarked upon our second cent~/ry o:f service wi, th vlsi, on o'o'timism that this lit't:le l~liht, of ours will c:ont, inu. e 'to shine]! Wilson street Parking Area Main Entrance Proposed Marker Location Martin Luther King Recreation Center Excerpt of Minutes Historic Landmark Commission March 10, 2003 A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission of the City of Denton was held in the Denton Main Street Office Conference Room, located at 101 S. Locust, Suite 500, on Monday, March 10, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Peggy Capps, Ann Hatch, Mildred Hawk, Steve Johannson, Rod Reeves, and Elise Ridenour Staff Members: Julie Glover, City of Denton Historic Preservation Officer/Main Street Manager; Alison Ortowski, Main Street Assistant; Eddie Martin, City of Denton Legal Department Others Present: Nancy Baker, Georgia Caraway, Tabitha Chancellor, Gordon Meredith, Carolyn Phillips II. Hold a public hearing and consider approval of a final application for Historic Site Marker for Quakertown to be located in the MLK Center Recreation Park, 1300 Wilson. Glover reported that a question arose from a conversation between she and Eddie Martin. Martin asked Phillips, petitioner, what exactly is being requested. He stated that there is no zoning being requested, which means that the historic landmark commission can give a recommendation for some type of action to the City Council. If zoning was an issue, that would be handled by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Capps questioned Martin regarding a commemorative marker in the City Hall complex. Capps asked Martin to research the process by which that marker was placed. She would like to know if it went through the Historic Landmark Commission. Glover noted that Mike Cochran could probably answer that question. Capps then welcomed Carolyn Phillips, petitioner, who was given ten minutes to speak on behalf of her petition. Phillips stated that this marker was supported by the African- American community. She then noted that the marker in Civic Center Park commemorating Quakertown was a source of pride for the community, and she would like to see an additional marker placed in the Martin Luther King Park area marking the move from Quakertown to that area. Phillips went on to state that this marker would be a source of healing for African-American community and also for the entire city. She also stated that the city is growing and that growth is akeady affecting the neighborhoods in the MLK area. She would like this marker placed to ensure the historical integrity of the move from Quakertown. Capps asked for those in opposition to the petition to speak. There were none present who wished to speak in opposition of the petition. Capps then asked for those who wished to speak in favor of the petition. There were none present who wished to speak in favor of the petition. Capps then asked Phillips if she wished to say anything further. Phillips declined. Capps closed the public hearing and asked Glover for her recommendations or remarks. Glover declined, noting that she felt that the Commissioners still had questions. Capps opened the floor to questions from the Commissioners. Hawk asked Phillips how this marker would relate to the Denton County Historical Commission's marker program. Phillips noted that the main difference would be that the Quakertown issue did involve the City, and she would prefer that the City also be involved in placing the marker. She stated that she feels that it would aid in the community's healing if the City were involved. Capps remarked that historical markers through the State historical commission are designed to commemorate historic events and the criteria are such that it would be appropriate for Ms. Phillips to come to the next Denton County Historical Commission meeting and request a marker. Capps stated that she is not sure if the Historic Landmark Commission has the authority to make a decision to place the marker. The Commission can give a vote of confidence that this site is appropriate to commemorate as a place where something historically significant to this community happened. Capps then noted that the move from Quakertown could easily be commemorated through a marker obtained through the Denton County Historical Commission. A committee would be available through the Denton County Historical Commission to assist Ms. Phillips with the preparation of an application to the state marker program. Capps then suggested that it might be best to postpone the item until it is determined whether or not the decision to place the marker is under the Commission's jurisdiction. Johannson questioned whose authority placed the Quakertown marker in Civic Center Park. Capps answered that the State placed that marker. Johannson noted that perhaps since these markers are meant to complement each other, marking where the move was from and where the move was to, that they should be placed by the same authority, which would be the State. Capps remarked that there is a precedent for a marker placed by the City, as well, with the marker at City Hall honoring O'Neil Ford. Capps earlier asked Martin to research the process by which this was done. Martin stated that the City can place a marker, but that decision to do so is the province of the City Council, not the Historic Landmark Commission. The Commission can make a recommendation to the Council but nothing more. Martin then noted that Ms. Phillips could have gone to the Council first rather than the Commission. The Council would have then asked the Commission for recommendations. Martin questioned whether or not this marker was meant to rezone any land. If the request is to designate the area of land known as Solomon Hill as a historical landmark, the process would go from the City, to the Historic Landmark Commission, and finally to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Phillips stated that she had talked to Ed Hodney with the City Parks and Recreation Department. He said that he had no problem with a marker being placed in MLK Park, Fred Moore Park, or Phoenix Park. Capps then asked Ms. Phillips was truly seeking a site marker for Solomon Hill. Ms. Phillips stated that was the case. Hawk noted that if Ms. Phillips goes the State-County-City route, she should be able to get a larger marker that would contain more information. Reeves questioned if now Ms. Phillips needs to go the Council. Martin stated that since the issue is already with the Commission, Ms. Phillips does not need to go to the Council at this time. The Commission still needs the technical information to complete a site designation. It would be best if the details were finalized before approaching the Council. Glover further explained that usually when the Commission approves a marker, it is the resuk of a historic overlay zoning. This petition does not contain a legal description of the park and it does not appear as ifrezoning the park is being requested. The question is that ifrezoning is not at issue, then why is the petition with the Commission? Mr. Martin could not locate anything in the ordinance that said that the Commission had jurisdiction over this type of marker that does not contain a request for re-zoning. Capps entertained a motion to postpone the public hearing until a determination can be made as to whether or not the Commission has the proper jurisdiction. Hatch made a motion to postpone the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Hawk and carried unanimously. Excerpt of Minutes Historic Landmark Commission May 5, 2003 A regular meeting of the Historic Landmark Commission of the City of Denton was held in the Denton Main Street Office Conference Room, located at 101 S. Locust, Suite 500, on Monday, May 5, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Peggy Capps, Ann Hatch, Diana Hatch, Mildred Hawk, Steve Johannson, Rod Reeves, and Elise Ridenour Staff Members: Julie Glover, City of Denton Historic Preservation Officer/Main Street Manager; Alison Ortowski, Main Street Assistant; Eddie Martin, City of Denton Legal Department Others Present: Mike Cochran, Gerald Goodgame, Carolyn Phillips IV. Consider and take action on a resolution in support of a historical marker regarding Quakertown to be placed in the Solomon Hill area Chairperson Capps recognized Carolyn Phillips. Phillips stated that she and many in the neighborhood are very excited about this marker that will help provide closure for many on this issue. Capps questioned as to whether the proposed wording was wording that she approved. Phillips stated she does approve. Cochran also noted that a final copy of the wording will be provided to the Commission before going to the City Council for approval. D. Hatch noted that in the proposed wording, "Freedman's Town" and "Freedman Town" both appear. After discussion, it was agreed that it should appear "Freedman Town." Martin then questioned Phillips as to whether or not the local African American community was happy with the proposed marker's wording using "Black families" as opposed to "African-American families." Phillips responded that she believes either one would be fine but would poll the community to ensure the proper phrase is used. Reeves made a motion to approve a resolution in support of a historical marker regarding Quakertown, with the final version of the wording to be approved by the City Council. The motion was seconded by A. Hatch and carried unanimously. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: August 5, 2003 General Government Betty Williams, Director of Management & Public Information Michael A. Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, on third reading, amending Ordinance 99-094, adopting additional provisions related to the cable franchise authorized by Ordinance 99- 094, which granted a cable televisions franchise within the city; providing for an extension to the term of the franchise agreement between Marcus Cable Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Charter Communications and the City, providing for acceptance of the extension by Charter Communications; providing a cumulative clause; providing for a savings clause; providing a severability clause; providing for engrossment and enrollment; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: Our current cable television franchise agreement with Charter Communications (Charter) expires on December 15, 2003. The current 15-year franchise was initially granted to Sammons Communications on November 15, 1988, with the passage of ordinance #88-189. The franchise was transferred to Marcus Cable Associates in November 1995 (ordinance #95-191), and transferred again to Charter Communications in March 1999 (ordinance #99-094). The cable television franchise is regulated by the Denton Cable Television Ordinance 88-182 (Chapter 8 of the Code of ordinances), the agreements signed by all three cable operators over the years, and by the Federal Cable Act. Currently, Charter pays the City a quarterly 5% franchise fee on all cable television service gross revenues. On December 21, 2000, Charter submitted to the City the required written notice requesting the commencement of the renewal process. The City began the renewal process by holding two public hearings to gain citizen input on determining the community's future cable-related needs, and review Charter's past performance. The City also formed a Cable Task Force, with representatives from various community stakeholders, to assist in identifying needs and assessing Charter's performance. The City hired C2 Consulting to assist in making a determination of Charter's financial, legal and technical capabilities to meet our future needs. Upon completion, the results of these activities will be reported to council. During the renewal process an audit was conducted for the period January 1997 through June 2002 to determine if all franchise fees had been paid to the City as required. The audit revealed that Charter in fact owed franchise fees and the City sent a Notice of Violation letter demanding payment of approximately $62,628. Charter responded that they agree that some franchise fees are due, but disagree on the amount. The City continues to work with Charter on resolution of this issue. ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton, com (TDD 800-735-2989) 7/14/03 Cable Franchise Extension Page 2 of 3 The performance review process also revealed that some customer service issues existed. In July 2002, Denton joined several other cable consortium cities in contracting C2 Consulting to conduct an audit of Charter's three call centers from January 2001 to June 2002. The audit revealed that Charter was not in compliance with the telephone customer service standard for the audited period. The audit also revealed that Charter had destroyed all telephone call data prior to January 2002 for the Denton Call Center. The unavailability of this data is extremely significant in that the City could not verify any of the statistics reported prior to January 2002, and the statistics that were reported to the City during the period available showed gross inaccuracies. The gross inaccuracies included Charter's inability to tie the raw data on the number of calls answered within 30 seconds, and adjusted for abnormal operating conditions, to the final figures reported to the City. In April 2003, Denton joined several other cable consortium cities in submitting Notice of Violation letters to Charter and assessing liquidated damages as allowed by the franchise agreement. Denton assessed $828,790 in damages. Charter has had several informal meetings with Denton on this issue with no resolution. This item is planned to come before council on August 19, 2003 with a recommendation for an administrative hearing as allowed by the franchise agreement. On March 14, 2002, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) settled the debate over the regulatory classification of cable modem service and launched proceedings to examine the proper regulatory treatment of this service. In a Declaratory Ruling, the FCC concluded that cable modem service is an information service and therefore not subject to FCC jurisdiction. The FCC further determined that cable modem service is not a "cable service" as defined by the Communications Act and is thus not subject to local franchising authority regulation. As a result of this, on March 29, 2002, Charter submitted a letter to the City stating that they will no longer collect franchise fees on cable modem service, thus these revenues will not be included in the gross revenues from which franchise fees are calculated. This has had a significant negative impact on the franchise revenues that the City collects from Charter. The City sent a demand letter in April 2002, but to date Charter has not paid franchise fees on the cable modem service. The Alliance of Local Organizations Against Preemption has brought this issue before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we anticipate a ruling by the end of the year. On June 2002, Charter filed a petition for special relief with the FCC requesting that they find that effective competition exists in the City of Denton. This would take away the rate regulation authority that the City currently has over some of Charter's rates, and it would allow Charter to charge different prices in different parts of the city. In September 2002, the FCC granted Charter's petition, and the City filed an appeal. In May 2003, the FCC denied the City's appeal, so the City filed an application for review directly with the FCC Commissioners. This matter . may take a year or more before it is resolved. ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) 7/14/03 Cable Franchise Extension Page 3 of 3 Due to these and other outstanding issues with Charter, staff feels that extension of the current cable television franchise should be pursued while the notice of violations against Charter are resolved. Charter has agreed to a one and one-half (1 ½) year extension of the current franchise as long as the City continues to engage in renewal discussions. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the ordinance extending the terms of the current cable television franchise agreement between the City and Charter to June 15, 2005, or the date upon which the City grants or denies a franchise renewal to Charter, whichever occurs first. 2) Deny the ordinance and direct staff to continue working on renewal negotiations with Charter. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends option #1 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW {Council, Boards, Commission): 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Council Work Session, December 1, 2001 Charter Franchise Renewal Public Hearing on January 17, 2002 Charter Franchise Renewal Public Hearing at Council Regular Meeting on February 5, 2002 Council Regular Meeting, First Reading of Ordinance, July 15, 2003. Council Regular Meeting, Second Reading of Ordinance, July 22, 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION: City will continue to receive 5% of Charter Communications gross revenues as franchise fees. Respectfully submitted: ~retty X~liiarhs Director of Management and Public Information Prepared by: ~ Cabrales Jr. P~lic Information Offi~r Attachments 1. Ordinance ADA/EOE/ADEA www.ci _tyofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) SSOur Documeuts\Ordinances\03~Franchise Extension,DOC ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO; 99-094, ADOPTING ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CABLE FRANCHISE AUTHORIZED BY ORDINANCE 99-094, WHICH GRANTED A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. ANrD THE CITY, PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION BY MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., PROVDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR ENGROSSMENT AND ENROLLMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, (the "City") is emPowered under {}51.001 of the Texas Local Government Code to adopt an ordinance or role that is for the good government of the City; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton granted a cable television franchise to Sammons Communications, Inc. ("Sammons") pursuant to Ordinance No. 88-189 passed by City Council on November 15, 1988 and duly accepted by Sammons which incorporates the provisions of Chapter 8 "Cable Television" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, the City's Ordinance No. 95-191 consented to the transfer and assi~ment of the Franchise and the cable television system in the City from Sammons to Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Ordinance and in an Acceptance Agreement dated September 12, 1995. (Ordinance Nos. 88-189 and 95-191 and the Acceptance Agreement of September 12, 1995 are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Franchise"); and WHEREAS, the City's Ordinance No. 99-094 consented to the transfer and assignment of the Franchise and the cable television system in the City from Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. to Charter Communications subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Ordinance and in an Acceptance Agreement dated March 23, i999; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 1999, the City adopted Ordinance No. 99-094 granting a cable television franchise within the City with an expiration date of December 15, 2003. WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City of Denton and is mutually agreeable to Marcus Cable Associates, L.L.C., dgo/a Charter Commumcations, to extend the terms of the current franchise agreement, as provided for and in accordance with all applicable law, until the earlier of either June 15, 2005, or the date upon which the City grants or denies franchise renewal, consistent with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended [47 U.S.C. § 546], whichever occurs first. NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Incorporation of Preamble. The above and foregoing preamble is incorporated into the body of this Ordinance as if copied herein in its entirety. SECTION 2. Amendment Extending Agreement Term. Marcus Cable Associates, L.L.C. d/b/a Charter Communications ("Charter") currently has an existing cable franchise ("Franchise") with the City of Denton, Texas, under Ordinance No. 99-094, which was passed and approved by the City Council on March 23, 1999. Pursuant to such Ordinances, this Franchise is due to expire on December 15, 2003; however, the City and Charter hereby mutually agree to be bound by the terms of this franchise either until June 15, 2005, or until such time as the City shall formally grant or deny franchise renewal, consistent with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended [47 U.S.C. § 546], whichever occurs first. The extension of time, as agreed to by both parties, shall not operate to materially modify, revoke or terminate any fights previously granted in the original franchise contract. AccordinglY the City and Charter agree to extend the terms of the Franchise until the earlier of either June 15, 2005, or the date upon which the city grants or denies franchise renewal, consistent with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended [47 U.S.C. § 546], whichever occurs first. This ordinance hereby amends Ordinance No. 99-094, an amendment to Ordinance No. 95-191 and all other amending ordinances thereto; in the particulars stated in Section hereof, and all other sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases and words of such Ordinances are not amended by are hereby ratified and affirmed. SECTION3. By its signature below, Charter, the Grantee, hereby agrees that consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has been provided for by the changes made herein, and agrees to be bound by and comply with such changes. Charter further represents and agrees that the person signing below on behalf of Charter is the properly authorized official of that corporation and has the necessary authority to execute this document and further certifies to the City that any necessary resolution or other act extending such authority has been duly passed and is now in full force and effect. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be cumulative of ali other Ordinances and shall not repeal any of the provisions of such Ordinances except for those instances where there are direct conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance. Ordinances or parts thereof in force at the time this Ordinance shall take effect and that are inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Ordinance. SECTION 5. All rights and remedies of the City of Denton, Texas, are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of any other Ordinance affecting cable fi:anchises which have secured at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such Ordinances same shall not be affected by this Ordinance but may be pros~uted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 6. If any section, article, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed such remaining portions of this Ordinance despite such invalidity, which remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. The City Secretary of the City of Denton is hereby directed to engross and enroll this Ordinance by copying the exact caption and effective date in the minutes of the City Council and by filing this Ordinance in the ordinance records of the City. SECTION 8. In accordance with Section i3.02 of the City Charter, this ordinance shall become effective twenty-one days after final approval. The full text of this ordinance shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the City, the entire expense of which shall be borne by Charter. The City Secretary is hereby directed to publish the fhll text of this ordinance i:n such official newspaper of the City once each week for two consecutive weeks inunediately following the passage of this ordinance on second reading. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EUL]NE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY The City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by its duly constituted authorities, hereby declares the foregoing Ordinance passed on first reading on the day of _, 2003; and passed on second reading on the ~ day of ,2003; and passed on third reading on the ~ day of ,2003; and being finally effective as of the . day of ,2003. /s/ Euline Brock, Mayor /s/ Pete Kamp, Council Member /s/ Bob Montgomery, Council Member /s/ Jack Thomson, Council Member /si Mark Burroughs, Council Member /s/ Perry McNeilI, Council Member /s/ Raymond Redmon, Council Member The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on first reading and passed to second reading by the following votes, this the __ day of ,2003, at a regular session of the City Council. Euline Brock, Mayor, voting Mark Bourroughs, Council Member, voting Pete Kamp, Council Member, voting Perry McNeill, Council Member, voting Bob Montgomery, Council Member voting Raymond Redmon, Council Member, voting Jack Thomson, Council Member, voting The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on second reading and passed to third reading by the following votes, this the ~ day of ~ 2003, at a regular session of the City Council. Euline Brock, Mayor, voting Mark Bourroughs, Council Member, voting Pete Kamp, Council Member, voting Perry McNeill, Council Member, voting Bob Montgomery, Council Member voting ~ Raymond Redmon, Council Member, voting __ Jack Thomson, Council Member, voting ~ The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on third reading and passed by the following votes, this the ~ day of ,2003, at a regular session of the City Council. ACCEPTANCE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, did on the ,2003, enact an Ordinance entitled: day of AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 99-094, ADOPTING ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CABLE FRANCHISE AUTHORIZED BY ORDINANCE 99-094, WHICH GRANTED A CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EXTENSION TO THE TERM OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C. AND THE CITY, PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXTENSION BY MARCUS CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., PROVIDING A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR ENGROSSMENT AND ENROLLMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, said Ordinance was on the ~ day of ., 2003, duly approved and subscribed by the Mayor of said City, and the seal of said City was thereto affixed and attested to by the City Secretary; NOW, THEREFORE, Charter, hereby in all respects ACCEPTS, APPROVES AND AGREES TO said Ordinance, and the same shall constitute and be a binding contractual obligation of Charter, and of the City, without waiver of any other remedy by Charter, does hereby file this, its written acceptance, with the City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas, in her office. DATED this the __ day of ,2003. Charter Communications ATTEST: By: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: August 5, 2003 City Manager's Office Mike Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider nominations/appointments to City's Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND Council postponed consideration of this item at the meeting of July 22, 2003. Nominations are needed for the attached boards and commissions. If Council desires, it can waive the rules of procedure and vote on any nominations made at this meeting. If you require any further information, please let me know. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary Board Council Nomination Member Community Development Redmon Human Services Montgomery Brock Library Board Redmon Planning and Zoning Commission Redmon Kamp McNeill Brock Public Utilities Board Redmon Kamp Montgomery Brock Zoning Board of Adjustment Alt. 1 -All Alt. 3 -All