Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 18, 2003 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL February 18, 2003 After determining that a quorum is presem, the City Council will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the annual audit. Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of February 18, 2003. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council will convene in a Closed Meeting to consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. The City Council reserves the right to adjourn imo a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended, as set forth below. 1. Closed Meeting: A. Personnel Matters - Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.074. Evaluation of Municipal Judge Evaluation of City Attorney Evaluation of City Manager ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT SUCH FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE IS TAKEN IN THE CLOSED MEETING iN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE PROViSiONS OF §551.086 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE (THE "PUBLIC POWER EXCEPTION"). THE CiTY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOV'T. CODE, §§551.001, ET SEQ. (THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, iNCLUDiNG, WITHOUT LiMiTATiON §§551.071-551.086 OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. Regular Meeting of the City of Demon City Council on Tuesday, February 18, 2003 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Demon, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE U.S. Flag Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag -- i pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." City of DeNon City Council Agenda February 18, 2003 Page 2 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamations/Awards B. February Yard-of-the-Month Awards C. Recognition of staff accomplishments 3. CITIZEN REPORTS A. Receive citizen reports from the following: 1. Stacey Mitchel: a low cost pet sterilization and vaccination program. 2. Willie Hudspeth: minority hiring and concerns for southeast DeNon. Nell Yeldell: cement batch plant and noise it generates; and the history of Prairie Street. 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-M). 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, Consem Agenda Items A-M 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 Consem Agenda. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execme a professional services agreemem with R. J. Covington Consulting, LLC for consulting services relating to Task Order No. 03-C, regarding additional professional services relating to the DeNon Municipal Electric Transmission Cost of Service Filing and Hearing with the Public Utilities Commission of Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing the Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, to execute an extension to an Interlocal Cooperation agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Independent School District regarding the lease of excess dark fiber optic capacity from the City to the DeNon Independem School District in connection with the implementation of the Denton Independent School District wide area network; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; providing for retroactive ratification, approval and confirmation thereof. City of DeNon City Council Agenda February 18, 2003 Page 3 Co Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a one-year extension to the Depository Services Contract with Texas Bank; and providing an effective date. Do Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of Imemion to issue Certificates of Obligation of the City of DeNon for public improvemems such as streets, parks, and solid waste; and providing an effective date. mo Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the issuance and publication of Notice of Sale of City of DeNon General Obligation Bonds for capital improvements such as transportation and buildings; and providing an effective date. Fo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of a metal storage building at the DeNon Municipal Electric yard; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2947 - Metal Storage Building at DME Yard awarded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., inc. in the amoum of $131,638). Go Consider adoption of an ordinance awarding a comract for the purchase of LED traffic signal lights and pedestrian coumdown lights 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 therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2973 to Amtech Lighting Services in the amoum of $343,500 for a five year period). Ho Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of fleet vehicles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2935 - Fleet Vehicles 2003 awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item in the total amoum of $174,002.50). Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of tree trimming services for the Denton Municipal Electric Division; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2945 - Tree Trimming for DME awarded to Asplundh Tree Expert Co. in the estimated amoum of $138,000). Jo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of outgoing U.S. Mail services for the City of DeNon; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2948 - Mailing Service awarded to Unlimited imernational Mailing, inc. in an estimated amoum of $33,000). Ko Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of a track type tractor/dozer; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2952 - Track Type Tractor/Dozer awarded to Holt CAT in the amoum of $515,043). City of DeNon City Council Agenda February 18, 2003 Page 4 Lo Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.19.6(c)1 of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage, specifically underground storm sewer requiremems. The 17.94-acre parcel is located on the south side of Audra Lane between Nottingham Drive and Mockingbird Lane. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single-family residence is proposed. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variance with conditions 6-0. (V02-0031, Audra Oaks) Mo Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas calling a Public Hearing of the DeNon City Council on Land Use Assumptions, a Capital Improvements Plan, and Proposed Amendment to Impact Fees related to the possible adoption of Amended Water and Wastewater Impact Fees in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Governmem Code; requiring the City Secretary to post notice of the public hearing and to provide additional notice of the public hearing as set forth in the body of this ordinance; and providing an effective date. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS mo Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Specific Use Permit to allow outdoor recreation use on approximately 84 acres located in a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road, east of 1-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartmem units are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0. (Z02-0060, The Timbers at DeNon) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving an Alternative Development Plan for approximately 84 acres located in a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road, east of 1-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartmem units are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0. (SP02-0009, The Timbers at DeNon) Co Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance creating a Special Sign District for a 6.71-acre site, commonly known as the Southern Hills Plaza developmem. The property is generally located at the southwest corner of Brinker Road and Colorado Boulevard with street frontage on I35E South. The purpose of the Special Sign District is to allow signage to deviate from the requiremems of Subchapter 15 of the Developmem Code, formerly Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances, the Sign Ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-2. (SD02-0003, Southern Hills Plaza) Do Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Detailed Plan for Planned Developmem 170, 172 and 176 (PD- 170, 172 and 176). The approximately 253 acres of land, commonly known as The Wheeler Ridge Addition, is located south of Nowlin and Robinson Roads on the east side of FM 2181 (Teasley Lane) generally opposite Hickory Creek Road. The amendmem will alter the number of lots and increase the open space for this property. Single- City of DeNon City Council Agenda February 18, 2003 Page 5 Family residemial subdivision and open space parkland are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0. (Z02-0061, Wheeler Ridge) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 36.6 acres of land from Planned Developmem 191 (PD- 191) zoning district to Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property is generally located north and south of Audra, west of Mayhill Road, and east of Loop 288. A single-family subdivision and open space are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0. (Z02-00062, Prominence Square) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance for a specific use permit for a gas well site on approximately 62.6 acres of land. The site is in a Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning district. The subject property is located south of Mission, north of Hobson Lane and east of U.S. 377 (Fort Worth Drive). One gas well is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0. (Z03-0001, Ragle Unit No. 1/Gas Well) 6. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. Consider nominations and appoimmems to the City's Boards and Commissions. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. Items from the City Manager 1. Notification of upcoming meetings and/or conferences 2. Clarification of items on the agenda Possible Cominuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 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 DeNon, 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. 02/17~O3 #4A AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: February 18, 2003 Electric Utilities Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreemem with R. J. Covington consulting, LLC for consulting services relating to Task Order No. 03-C, regarding additional professional services relating to the Denton Municipal Electric Transmission Cost of Service Filing and Hearing with the Public Utilities Commission of Texas; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The Council has previously approved Task Order 02-B in the amoum of $67,200 for preparation of the TCOS filing package and support of settlemem discussions with the TPUC staff. Unfortunately, the settlement discussions have not been successful, resulting in a need to take the filing through the formal hearing process. When initial TCOS filings were made in 1996, the TPUC had only one approach for developmem of a rate. Since, before the state law creation of the TCOS concept, the TPUC did not set rates for municipal utilities, this approach was based on the financial structure of publicly owned companies that raised the majority of their capital through issuance of stock. When the formulas associated with this approach were applied to municipal utilities that financed their capital expenditures through a combination of cash and revenue bonds, it produced unreasonably low rates of return. In some cases it even produced negative rates of return. Consequently, the rate of returns for municipal utilities in that first filing were often negotiated numbers. That was the case for DME. Sebesquent to that initial filing, DME and other municipal utilities worked with the TPUC to develop a "Non-IOU Rate Filing Package". This package allows municipal utilities to include capital requiremems in its TCOS filing based on either a Debt Service Coverage Method, a Cash Flow Method, or a Times Imerest Earned Method. DME chose the Cash Flow Method for the filing it recently made. Unfortunately, the TPUC staff has never fully accepted the concepts behind the Non-IOU Rate Filing Package. They take the result of a properly developed filing based on the Non-IOU Rate Filing Package, back imo the resulting private utility type rate of return result, and try to force a reduction in the municipal filing during the settlement process by any method they can find to reach a "rate of return" they decide is reasonable. In DME's case, they tried to shift a significant amount of debt expense associated with transmission improvements onto distribution expenses. Although this TCOS filing is relatively small, DME will be making another filing to incorporate a significant amount of transmission investment within the next year. It is important that DME does not allow a bad precedent to be set in this case that would hurt its ability to recover costs properly in the future. OPTIONS None RECOMMENDATIONS DME recommends approval of this Task Order 03-C. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Discovery is already under way. DME supplemental testimony has been filed. Hearing dates have been set for March 11 - 13, 2003. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW {Council, Boards, Commission) Approval of Task Order 02-B in the total amount of $67,200. The Public Utilities Board voted to approve Task Order 03-C at its February 3, 2003 meeting by a vote of 5 to 0 with 5 members present. FISCAL INFORMATION Cost not to Exceed $30,800. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. Professional Services Agreement 3. TaskOrder 03-C Respectfully submitted: Sharon Mays Director of Electric Utilities ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R. J. COVINGTON CONSULTING, LLC FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATING TO TASK ORDER NO. 03-C, REGARDING ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO THE DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE FILING AND HEARING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF TEXAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to engage the firm of R. J. Covington Consulting, LLC of Austin, Texas ("Covington"), to provide professional consulting services to the City relating to Task Order No. 03-C, including, without limitation, additional services incurred by Denton Municipal Electric ("DME") regarding the Transmission Service Cost of Service ("TCOS") filing and hearing with the Public Utility Commission of Texas; and WHEREAS, the City staff has reported to the City Council that there is a substantial need for the above-described specialized professional services, and that limited City staff cannot adequately perform the services and tasks with its own personnel; and WHEREAS, Chapter 2254 of the Texas Government Code, known as the "Professional Services Procurement Act", generally provides that a City may not select a provider of professional services on the basis of competitive bids, but must select the provider on the basis of demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications, and for a fair and reasonable price; and WHEREAS, Covington has represented DME continuously over the past seven years, and has proven to be a valuable, affordable, competent, dependable professional resource that has expertise in and is well acquainted with the electric regulatory framework in Texas. Covington and his staff are particularly familiar with the characteristics and operations of DME; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the professional services, as set forth in the Professional Services Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with R. J. Covington Consulting, LLC of Austin, Texas, for professional consulting services relating to Task Order No. 03-C, to Denton Municipal Electric, in substantially the form of the Professional Services Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. EXHIBIT 1 SECTION 2: That the award of this Agreement by the City is on the basis of the demonstrated competence, knowledge, and qualifications of Covington and the ability of Covington to perform the professional services needed by the City for a fair and reasonable price. SECTION 3: That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attached Professional Services Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 4: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ., 2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY S:\Our Documents\Ordinancesk03\R J Covington Consulting LLC-DME-Ord Aprv TO-3-C 2003.doc STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES PERTAINING TO DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 18th day of February, 2003, by and between the City of Denton, a Texas Municipal Corporation, with its principal office at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 ("CITY"); and R. J. COVINGTON CONSULTING, LLC, A Texas Limited Liability Corporation, with its principal office at 13276 Research Blvd., Suite 201, Austin, Texas 78750, hereafter "COVINGTON"; acting herein by and through their duly authorized representatives. WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants, promises and agreements herein contained, the CITY and COVINGTON do hereby AGREE as follows: ARTICIJE ! EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT The CITY hereby contracts with COVINGTON, as an independent contractor, and COVINGTON hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Scope of Services as stated in the Articles to follow, with diligence and in accordance with the highest professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas. ARTICI,E I1 SCOPE OF SERVICES A. COVINGTON shall provide to the CITY additional professional consulting services pertaining to the assistance of City Staff in areas associated with the transmission cost of services filing with the Public Utilities Commission of Texas ("PUC"). COVINGTON agrees to perform the services and tasks more particularly described in Task Order No. 03-C attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. B. To consult with the City Manager, Assistant City Manager/Utilities, the Director of Electric Utilities, the Utility Attorney, and any other designated administrative personnel regarding any and all aspects of the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. ARTICIJE III PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by both the CITY and COVINGTON. The termination date of this Agreement shall be upon the earliest to occur of the following events: completion of the work described herein and in the attached Task Order No. 03-C; or upon the depletion and exhaustion of the $30,800 amount provided for herein; or upon fifteen (15) day's written notice to terminate, issued by Ire Director of Electric Utilities, DME. This Agreement may EXHIBIT 2 be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. COVINGTON shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule established by the CITY, acting through its Director of Electric Utilities. ARTICI,E lV COMPENSATION A. COMPENSATION TERMS: "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense for any assignment incurred hereunder by COVINGTON for supplies, long-distance telephone, telecopier, reproduction expense, overnight courier, photocopy expense, transportation, travel, communications, subsistence and lodging away from home and similar incidental expenses reasonably incurred in connection with that assignment. BILLING AND PAYMENT: 1. For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by COVINGTON herein, the CITY agrees to pay COVINGTON, a total fee, including reimbursement for direct non-labor expense, not to exceed $30,800 for those services described in Task Order No. 03- C. 2. The fee for the services described in this Agreement to be performed by COVINGTON are to be billed the rates as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. Billing shall be reported in minimum one-quarter (1/4) hour increments. 3. Payments to COVINGTON will be made by the CITY on the basis of detailed monthly statements rendered to the CITY through its Director of Electric Utilities. The fees bills as submitted shall be allowed by the Director of Electric Utilities; and they shall be examined and approved by the Utility Attorney. However, under no circumstances shall any monthly statement for services exceed the value of the work performed at the time a statement is rendered. 4. Nothing contained in this Article shall require the CITY to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory as reasonably determined by the City Manager or the Director of Electric Utilities, or which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The City shall not be required to make any payments to COVINGTON when COVINGTON is in default under this Agreement. 5. It is specifically understood and agreed that COVINGTON shall not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by the CITY for any charge, expense or reimbursement above the maximum not-to-exceed fee as stated, without first having obtained written authorization from the CITY. Page 2 C. PAYMENT If the CITY fails to make payments due COVINGTON for services and expenses within forty (40) days after receipt of COVINGTON'S undisputed statement thereof, the amounts due COVINGTON will be increased by the rate of one percent (1%) per month from the said forty (40th) day, and in addition, COVINGTON may, after giving ten (10) days' written notice to the CITY, suspend services under this Agreement until COVINGTON has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges provided. However, nothing herein shall require the CITY to pay the late charge of one percent (1%) set forth herein if the CITY reasonably determines that the work of COVINGTON is unsatisfactory, in accordance with this Article IV, Compensation, and the CITY notifies COVINGTON in writing of any such defect. ARTICLE V OBSERVATION AND REVIEW OF THE WORK COVINGTON will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the CITY any defects or deficiencies in his work or the work of any subconsultants performed hereunder. ARTICI,E VI OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents, analyses and other data prepared by COVINGTON under this Agreement ("Work Products") are instruments of service and are and shall remain the property of CITY. COVINGTON shall have the right to make and retain copies and use all Work Products; provided, however, the use shall be limited to the intended use for which the services and Work Products are provided under this Agreement. COVINGTON may use and may copyright certain non-sensitive Work Products as property of COVINGTON; provided that prior written approval is obtained from CITY, whose approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, and providing that copywriting will not restrict CITY'S right to retain or make copies of the Work Products for its information, reference and use on the Project or services under the Agreement. The Work Products shall not be changed or used for purposes other than those set forth in this Agreement without the prior written approval of COVINGTON. If CITY releases the Work Products to a third party without COVINGTON'S prior written consent, or changes or uses the Work Products other than as intended hereunder, CITY does so at its sole risk and discretion and COVINGTON shall not be liable for any claims or damages resulting from or connected with the release or any third party's use of the Work Products. ARTICLE VII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR COVINGTON shall provide services to the CITY as an independent contractor, not as an employee of the CITY. COVINGTON shall not have or claim any right arising from employee status. Page 3 ARTICLE VIII INDEMNITY AGREEMENT COVINGTON shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the CITY and its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the CITY, and including without limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, and damage for professional malpractice resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of COVINGTON or any subconsultants, in performance of this Agreement. COVINGTON'S liability under this Article VIII is expressly limited to the limit of COVINGTON'S insurance as set forth in Article IX. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any person who is not a party to this Agreement and nothing herein shall waive any of the party's defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action or litigation filed by anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. ARTICLE IX INSURANCE During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, COVINGTON shall maintain the following insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best Rate Carriers of at least an "A-" or above: mo Comprehensive General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence and not less than $500,000 in the aggregate, and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each occurrence, and not less than $100,000 in the aggregate. Bo Automobile Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each person and not less than $500,000 for each accident; and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. Co Professional Liability Insurance with policy limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. COVINGTON shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies at the CITY's request to evidence such coverages. The insurance policies shall name the CITY as an additional insured on all such policies to the extent legally possible, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to CITY and COVINGTON. In such event, COVINGTON shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, deliver substitute policies furnishing the same coverage to the CITY. Page 4 ARTICI.E X ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties agree to settle any disputes under this Agreement by submitting the dispute to arbitration or other means of alternate dispute resolution such as mediation. No arbitration or alternate dispute resolution arising out of or relating to, this Agreement involving one party's disagreement may include the other party to the disagreement without the other's approval. ARTICLE XI LIMITATION OF LIABILITY To the extent permitted by law, the total liability of COVINGTON to CITY for any and all claims arising out of this Agreement, whether caused by negligence, errors, omissions, strict liability, breach of contract or contribution, or indemnity claims based on third-party claims, shall not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000). ARTICI.E XII CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES In no event and under no circumstances shall COVINGTON be liable to CITY for any interest, loss of anticipated revenues, earnings, profits, or increased expense of operations, or for any consequential, indirect or special damages. ARTICIJE XIII PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COVINGTON will perform services under this Agreement with the degree of skill and diligence normally practiced by professional engineers or consultants performing the same degree of similar services. No other warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, is made with respect to the services furnished under this Agreement and all implied warranties are disclaimed. ARTICIJE XIV TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT mo Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days advance written notice of termination to the other party. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in the event of either party substantially failing to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. No such termination will be effected unless the other party is given: (1) written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and setting forth the reasons specifying the nonperformance, and not less than ten (10) business days in which to cure the failure; and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. If this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services to be provided hereunder, COVINGTON shall immediately cease all services and shall render a final bill for services to Page the CITY within 30 days after the date of termination. The CITY shall pay COVINGTON for all services properly rendered and satisfactorily performed and for reimbursable expenses to termination incurred prior to the date of termination in accordance with Article IV, Compensation. Should the CITY subsequently contract with a new consultant for the continuation of services on the Project, COVINGTON shall cooperate in providing information. COVINGTON shall mm over all documents prepared or furnished by COVINGTON pursuant to this Agreement to the CITY on or before the date of termination, but may maintain copies of such documents for its use. ARTICI,E XV RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by the CITY shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of COVINGTON, or any sub-consultants of COVINGTON, for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work product. ARTICI,E XVI NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail at the address shown below, certified mail, return receipt requested unless otherwise specified herein. Mailed notices shall be sent to the parties at the following addresses: To COVINGTON: To CITY: R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC Attn: Richard J. Covington 13276 Research Blvd., Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78750 City of Denton, Texas Att-n: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager 215 East McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given or within three days after the date of mailing. ARTICI,E XVII ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement consisting of nine (9) pages, and three (3) additional pages consisting of Task Order No. 03-C, constitutes the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements and supersedes all prior contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter hereof. ARTICI,E XVIII Page 6 SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the party shall reform this Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. ARTICLE XIX COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS COVINGTON shall comply with all federal, state, local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or hereinafter be amended. ARTICLF, XX DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In performing the services required hereunder, COVINGTON shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. ARTICI,E XXI PERSONNEL mo COVINGTON represents that he has secured, or will secure at his own expense any additional personnel required to perform all the services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall be subconsultants of COVINGTON, and shall not be employees or officers of, nor have any contractual relations with the CITY. COVINGTON shall inform the CITY of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest that may arise during the term of this Agreement. All services required hereunder will be performed by COVINGTON or under his supervision. All personnel engaged in work shall be qualified and shall be authorized and permitted under state and local laws to perform such services. ARTICLE XXII ASSIGNABILITY COVINGTON shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the CITY. Page ? ARTICI,E XXIII MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding arising between the parties hereto out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, and unless such waiver or modification is in writing, duly executed; and, the parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless as herein set forth. ARTICI,E XXIV MISCELLANEOUS mo COVINGTON agrees that CITY shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after the final payment under this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of COVINGTON involving transactions relating to this Agreement. COVINGTON agrees that the CITY shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary COVINGTON facilities and shall be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct audits in compliance with this section. The CITY shall give COVINGTON reasonable advance notice of any intended audits. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Co COVINGTON shall commence, carry on, and complete the work required by this engagement with all applicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, efficient manner and in accordance with the provisions hereof. In accomplishing the work, COVINGTON shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with related work being carded on by the CITY. D° The CITY shall assist COVINGTON by placing at COVINGTON's disposal all available information pertinent to the work required by this engagement, including previous repons, any other data relative to the project and arranging for the access to, and make all provisions for COVINGTON to enter in or upon, public and private property as required for COVINGTON to perform services under this Agreement. no The captions of this Agreement are for informational purposes only and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed in four original counterparts, by its duly authorized City Manager; and R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC has executed this Agreement by its duly authorized officer on this the 18th day of February, 2003. Page "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Municipal Corporation By: Michael A. Conduff, City Manager ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY "COVINGTON" R.J. COVINGTON CONSULTING, LLC A Texas Limited Liability Corporation ATTEST: By: Richard J. Covi~_g{on, Pres~Xc~nt S'\Our Documents\Contmcts\03\RJ Covington Consulting LLC-PSA-TO 03-C-2003-DME.doc Page 9 ATTACHMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2003 BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND R.J. COVINGTON CONSULTING, LLC TASK ORDER NO. 03-C Transmission Cost of Service Filing - 2002 - Additional Services This Attachment is a Task Order contemplated by and appended to the Professional Services Agreement entered into by and between the City of Denton, Texas and R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC. dated February 18, 2003, and approved by the City Council by Ordinance on this date. Work provided for in this Task Order is for R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC ("RJC") to continue to assist the City in the completion of the 2002 transmission cost of service study ("TCOS") filed with the Public Utility Commission of Texas ("PUC") as Docket No. 26672. Background RJC, working with City staff, prepared and filed on September 20, 2002 an application to increase DME's rates for wholesale transmission service in ERCOT. The application requests an increase in DME's TCOS from $768,620 to $1,111,420. The TCOS filing is the second such filing made by the City. The first was in 1996. Since that first filing, the Commission has instituted a "Non-IOU Rate Filing Package" that allows municipalities the option to include in its TCOS, capital requirements based on several options. In addition to the traditional "Rate of Return Method" for determining capital requirements, a Non-IOU entity can file using the "Debt Service Coverage Method," the "Cash Flow Method," or the "Times Interest Earned Method." DME used the Cash Flow Method, a method it supported during the development of the Non-IOU RFP; a method particularly suited for systems that have historically cash funded their construction and repairs and replacement programs. At least one other municipality has filed using this method, but that case was settled and no precedents were set on the application of the Cash Flow Method. Although DME has entered settlement discussions with the PUC staff, it has not been able to reach agreement on a settlement. For this reason, after a number of meetings, DME is set to go to hearings. The primary issue is the application of the Cash Flow EXHIBIT 3 Task Order No. 03-C 2002 Transmission Cost of Service Filing (Additional) Method as opposed to the Rate of Return Method which has substantial negative impacts on DME's recovery of TCOS. This Task Order is to increase the budget needed to defend the 2002 TCOS. The services performed by RJC will include the preparation and filing of supplemental testimony, review of Staff's filed case, preparation of rebuttal testimony, participation in hearing, reviewing and assisting in preparing briefs, and other activities needed to complete the case. Scope of Services Task A TCOS Settlement Discussions RJC will prepare and file supplemental testimony to address issues raised by PUC staff. RJC will continue to participate in discussions with PUC staff to explore opportunities to settle the case before actual hearings begin. PUC staff testimony from other cases will be reviewed for positions on issues being raised in this docket. Task B TCOS Hearings RJC will review testimony and exhibits filed by PUC staff and other parties and evaluate impacts of alternative positions of other parties. Rebuttal testimony will be prepared to address issues raised by PUC staff in their direct-filed testimony. RJC will assist attorneys in preparing cross of PUC staff and other parties. RJC will attend hearings and present direct testimony to defend DME's position on the issues raised. Task C Post Hearing Activities PJC will assist attorneys in preparing briefs, reviewing the Administrative Law Judge Preliminary Order, and will assist attorneys in filing exceptions to the Order if necessary. RJC will review the Final Order, and rework numbers for the Final Order. Budget The not-to-exceed amount for the above scope of services, for both additional labor and out-of-pocket expenses, is $30,800. This budget will not be exceeded without prior written approval of the City. RJC will bill monthly with supporting documentation of 2 of 3 Task Order No. 03-C 2002 Transmission Cost of Service Filing (Additional) activities performed. The termination date of this Task Order No. 03-C shall be upon the completion of the work as described in the Professional Services Agreement and the TO No. 03-C; or upon the depletion and exhaustion of the $30,800 amount provided for herein; or upon fifteen (15) days written notice to terminate, issued by the Director of Electric Utilities, DME, whichever event shall first occur. The work being performed will be under the supervision of the Director of Electric Utilities, DME and may be modified at any time upon appropriate notice to RJC. EXECUTED in four (4) original counterparts by a duly authorized officer of RJC and by a duly authorized officer of the City of Denton, Texas on the 18th day of February, 2003. AUTHORIZED BY: ACCEPTED BY: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS R. J. COVINGTON CONSULTING, LLC By: By: Michael A. Conduff City Manager Richard J. Covin~)~ ~" President JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY S:\Our Documents\Contracts\03~R J Covington Task Order 03-C TCOS-DME.doc 3 of 3 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 3, 2003 9:00 A. M. After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Demon, Texas was presem, the Public Utilities Board convened imo an Open Meeting on Monday, February 3, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 PRESENT: George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: Dick Norton ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 5) Consider approval of a Professional Services Agreement with R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC, Austin, Texas in the amount of $30,800 regarding Task Order No. 03-C which pertains to continued services on Denton Municipal Electric's Transmission Cost of Service ("TCOS") filing at the Public Utilities Commission of Texas. Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, presemed this item. The settlement discussions with the Texas Utilities Commission have not been successful, resulting in the need to take the filing through the formal heating process. Although this TCOS filing is relatively small, Denton Municipal Electric (DME) will be making another Filing to incorporate a significant amount of transmission investment within the next year. It is important that DME does not allow a bad precedent to be set in this case that would hurt its ability to suitably recover costs in the future. Hopkins moved to approve Task Order No. 03-C with R.J. Covington Consulting, LLC, with a second from Cheek. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. Page 1 of 1 02/17~03 #4B AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 18, 2002 DEPARTMENT: Electric Utility ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 S UBJEC T Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the Mayor, or in the Mayor's absence, the Mayor Pro-Tem, to execute an extension to an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Independent School District regarding the lease of excess dark fiber optic capacity from the City to the Denton Independent School District in connection with the imp lementation of the Denton Independent School District Wide Area Network; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; providing for retroactive ratification, approval and confirmation thereof. BACKGROUND In February of 1998, the Council approved a contract between DISD and the City to provide dark fiber service to certain DISD locations. This contract allowed DISD to extend the contract for an additional five years upon proper notice. Proper notice was received from DISD. The attached contract implements the five-year extension. Pricing for Core Wide Area Network (Core WAN) and for extension of service on established DME right of way is in accordance with the terms of the initial contract. Charges for addition of any facilities outside of established DME right of way will be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. Termination charges are established in the contract to assure that DME will recover all expenses for facilities installed solely for DISD's use in the event the contract is terminated early. The contract has also been clarified in several as it relates to Disaster Recovery and Notification. A clause has been added to the contract indicating that DISD and DME desire to continue their relationship beyond five years and are committed to enter into discussions to determine the best manner to do so. OPTIONS None REC O MMENDATION S DM E Recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission) Council approval of the original Interlocal Cooperation Agreement for dark fiber service to DISD. The Public Utilities Board considered the Agreement at its February 3, 2003 meeting and voted approval by a vote of 5 to 0 with 5 members present. FISCAL INFORMATION DM E will receive $16,989.94 p er month for the service it is presently providing. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. Contract Respectfully submitted: sharon M ay s Director of Electric Utilities ORDiNANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDiNANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR, OR IN THE MAYOR'S ABSENCE, THE MAYOR PRO-TEM, TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT REGARDING THE LEASE OF EXCESS DARK FIBER OPTIC CAPACITY FROM THE CITY TO THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT WIDE AREA NETWORK; AUTHORIZiNG THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; PROVIDING FOR RETROACTIVE RATIFICATION, APPROVAL AND CONFIRMATION THEREOF. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the Mayor, or in her absence, the Mayor Pro-Tem, is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, an Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the Denton Independent School District for the lease of excess dark fiber optic capacity from the City to the Denton Independent School District in connection with the implementation of the Denton Independent School District Wide Area Network, which Extension to Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION 2. That the expenditure of funds as set forth in the Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 3. That this Ordinance and the attached Extension To Inteflocal Cooperation Agreement shall be ratified, approved and confirmed effective as of the 28th day of January, 2003. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ., 2003. EULINEBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: EXHIBIT 1 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY S :\Our Doc~Ordinances\03\D,kS.D Interlocal Cooperation Agreement-Dark Fiber WAN 2003.doc THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § EXTENSION TO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, a Texas Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "CITY") and the DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter "DISD"), organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, acting by and through, and under the authority of their respective governing bodies; and WHEREAS, the CITY and DISD are local governmental entities, both of whom have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Agreement individually and who mutually desire to enter into an extension to interlocal cooperation agreement, as provided for in Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (Vernon 1994) in order to maximize the benefits to the citizens of Denton, Texas derived from each taxpayer dollar; and WHEREAS, the CITY has heretofore constructed a fiber optics system operated by Denton Municipal Electric in order to provide a dependable, secure, and cost-effective communications path for the monitoring and protection of its electric utility system; and WHEREAS, there exists a limited amount of excess capacity on the City's fiber optics system; and DISD has not heretofore constructed any fiber optics system in order to interconnect all of DISD's facilities, largely due to the cost of constructing such a system. DISD, in order to improve the quality of education of the children enrolled in the Denton schools, desires to lease from the CITY, only excess "dark" fiber optic capacity from the CITY's system for use in its computer network, for the purpose of interconnecting all of DISD's schools, support and administrative facilities on a fiber optics system which DISD believes will provide for a vast integration of educational materials and exchange of data; and WHEREAS, the provisions of §54.2025 of the Texas Utility Code further expressly allows and permits the lease of excess capacity of the CITY's fiber optic facilities (dark fiber) provided that the rental is done on a nondiscriminatory, non-preferential basis; said Texas Utility Code clearly does not allow or permit the use by DISD of the CITY's "lighted" fiber facilities; and accordingly, it is expressly understood by the CITY and DISD that only "dark" fiber is being leased to DISD hereby; and WHEREAS, the CITY and DISD desire to pool their resources, avoid unnecessary or duplicitous expense, and take advantage of maximizing economies of scale, resulting in cost savings to their respective taxpayers; and DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 1 EXHIBIT 2 WHEREAS, heretofore, the CITY and DISD, by an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement previously executed and approved by the CITY Council and the DISD Board of Trustees, in early 1998, for a term of five (5) years, provided for the CITY to lease excess "dark" fiber optics system capacity, and to construct a Wide Area Network ("WAN") for use by DISD, utilizing that dark fiber optic capacity provided and installed by the CITY, as provided in said previous Intedocal Cooperation Agreement; and WHEREAS, said previous Interlocal Cooperation Agreement contained provisions that allowed the CITY and DISD to further extend their agreement, provided that certain terms and conditions are met; and the CITY and DISD each mutually desire to continue their contractual relationship by extending the term thereof for an additional five (5) year period; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to extend the lease of excess "dark" fiber optics system capacity to DISD and to extend a Wide Area Network ("WAN") for use by DISD, utilizing that fiber optic cable provided by and installed by the CITY as provided in this Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement. The CITY and DISD by this Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (hereafter the "Agreement") express their mutual understanding that the relationship to be created by implementation of this Agreement is that of two governmental entities sharing a private telecommunications network; and WHEREAS, there is a valid govermnental purpose served by this Agreement by the CITY to DISD to provide high technology communications capability and connectivity for the DISD in order that DISD may interconnect its facilities to provide enhanced services to the students of DISD, as well as to DISD's support and administrative fimctions, consistent with the lease of "dark" fiber; and WHEREAS, the CITY and DISD agree that all payments made in connection with the governmental functions provided for by this Agreement shall be made from current revenues available to the paying party and that the payments received are adequate and fairly compensate the parties for the services performed; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, now contained in Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code (Vernon 1994), authorizes the CITY and DISD to enter into this Agreement for the purpose of achieving the governmental functions and providing the services represented by this collective, cooperative undertaking. NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and DISD, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants set forth in this Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement do hereby AGREE as follows: DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 2 ARTICLE I INCORPORATION OF PREAMBLES The preambles to this Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement and are found and determined to be true and correct. ARTICLE II SCOPE OF AGREEMENT Ao Denton Independent School District ("DISD") intends to implement its Wide Area Network ("WAN") utilizing leased "dark" fiber optic cable owned by and provided by the City of Denton ("CITY"). DISD will own and provide all of the electronics equipment needed to implement its WAN at its sole cost and expense. Bo The Core WAN, as referred to in this Agreement consists of a redundant ring which incorporates five (5) specific DISD sites. Additional lines emanate from this redundant ring to other DISD sites. The redundant ring DISD sites and other DISD sites are shown on Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference. The redundant ring shall consist of two (2) pairs of single-mode fiber optic cable terminating at points of demarcation at each DISD site. Additional lines shall consist of at least one (1) pair of single-mode fiber optic cable terminating at points of demarcation at each DISD site. The connection from Calhoun Middle School to Denton High School shall consist of two (2) pairs of single-mode fiber optic cable terminating at points of demarcation at each DISD site. Co The CITY shall furnish at CITY's own cost and expense, except as otherwise provided herein, all labor, services, and material for the creation, construction, and completion of the redundant ring and all additional lines emanating therefrom as provided within this Agreement. Do The CITY shall furnish at CITY's own cost and expense, except as otherwise provided herein, all labor, services, and material relating to the termination of the fiber optic cabling with "ST" style connectors into patch panels at each of the DISD sites. The exact point of demarcation or placement of the patch panel at each of the DISD sites shall be mutually determined by the CITY and DISD at the time of construction, which determination shall be evidenced by a letter signed by authorized representatives of the CITY and DISD. Eo DISD shall furnish, at DISD's own cost and expense, unless otherwise provided herein, all labor, services, and materials necessary for the installation and connection of DISD's electronics equipment (not to include "ST" connectors) to the patch panel at the point of demarcation at each of the DISD sites. F. DISD shall be responsible for providing suitable conduit ingress from the utility right of DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 3 way to a point within 50 feet of the point of demarcation at each DISD site. The exact location for the ingress conduit will be mutually agreed to between DISD and DME. Plans should be provided to DME as soon as possible but not less than 120 days prior to installation. The conduit will be dedicated for the sole use of DME for fiber installation. The conduit installation shall meet National Electric Code for installation of communications cable. The conduit will be a minimum of 2-inch conduit with long sweep 90s. There will be no more than four 90s without a pull box. Pull boxes will be large enough and configured to accommodate a minimum-bending radius of 15 inches. DISD will be responsible for providing a pulling string in the conduit. Go DISD shall promptly provide the CITY with any additional instructions, by means of drawings or by other written document, as the CITY may require to proceed with the work as provided for in this Agreement. All such drawings and written documents shall be consistent with, and reasonably inferable from this Agreement. CITY and DISD agree that the CITY's service to DISD is limited to a point-to-point, unswitched, private "dark" fiber service. CITY and DISD further agree that DISD's use of the WAN shall be limited to DISD personnel and students; and, that DISD will not offer access to the system to the public. ARTICLE III TERM OF AGREEMENT Ao The CITY and DISD agree that this Agreement shall be effective from and after, and retroactively approved, ratified, and confirmed as of the 28th day of January, 2003 irrespective of the formal approval date of the governing bodies of both parties hereto, and shall continue in force and effect for a period of five (5) years. In the event that §791.001(f), or any other provision of Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code requires an annual or other period of renewal of this Agreement, then the parties shall be deemed to have elected to renew this Agreement annually on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement unless the parties each elect to terminate this Agreement. The CITY is desirous of continuing to provide its dark fiber service to DISD. DISD is desirous of continuing to receive dark fiber service from the CITY. In furtherance thereof, the CITY and DISD commit to enter into a meaningful dialogue to determine the best manner in which to maintain their mutual commitment to this beneficial relationship on a long-term basis, no later than ninety (90) days from the date of this Agreement. ARTICLE IV TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either party may voluntarily terminate this Agreement at any time upon giving to the other party one hundred twenty (120) days written notice of such intention to terminate; Provided, however, that CITY and DISD agree that if DISD terminates this Agreement DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 4 Bo Do prior to the five (5) year extended term set forth in ARTICLE III, above, DISD will pay CITY a termination fee as specifically set forth below: First Year of Agreement $67,000 Second Year of the Agreement $15,000 Third Year of the Agreement $0 Fourth Year of the Agreement $0 Fifth Year of the Agreement $0 These termination payments shall be adjusted as appropriate for addition of new facilities to the WAN made during the term of this Agreement pursuant to ARTICLE V, §B. Either party may terminate this Agreement for cause by reason of the other party's material breach or default in the performance of this Agreement. The party seeking to terminate this Agreement trader this provision shall provide the defaulting party written notice, specifically identifying the breach or default complained of, which notice shall provide the defaulting party a period of not less than thirty (30) days in which to cure such breach or default. In the event such breach or default is not fully cured within the time period specified, then the party seeking to terminate this Agreement shall provide the defaulting party with further written notice expressly specifying that this Agreement will be terminated if the breach or default is not wholly cured within ten (10) days after the receipt of the written notice by the alleged defaulting party. In the event that the defaulting party fails to cure the breach or default complained of, within the time specified, then this Agreement shall be terminated, and the party terminating this Agreement may seek appropriate legal relief. At the time of expiration or termination of this Agreement, the CITY shall remove all fiber optics connections at the DISD sites in a careful, prudent manner, unless otherwise mutually agreed. In the event the CITY terminates this agreement, without DISD's consent, prior to the expiration of its term, the CITY agrees to continue "dark" fiber service until such time that the CITY arranges for a commercial provider to establish service comparable to that of the CITY "dark" fiber system for the remaining term of this Agreement. The City shall pay for the difference in cost between the commercial provider's cost and the amount due to the CITY under this contract. ARTICLE VI CONSIDERATION TO BE PAID BY DISD TO THE CITY Ao For Core WAN services shown in Exhibit "A", DISD shall pay to the CITY, beginning on the effective date of this Agreement a monthly payment of $16,989.94 and shall continue to pay such monthly payment amount to the CITY on the same date of each DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 5 successive month thereafter, so long as this Agreement is in force and effect. Bo The CITY and DISD contemplate that the Core WAN network shown in Exhibit "A" of this Agreement will be expanded in the foreseeable future as the DISD opens new schools and other school-related facilities. Accordingly, the CITY and DISD desire to provide for such eventuality and, upon mutual agreement between DISD and the CITY, a new DISD facility within the Denton Municipal Electric service area may be added to the WAN network for the term of this Agreement, at the rate of $362.00 per month, per new facility. Additionally, in the event that any such new DISD facility to be connected to the WAN is beyond six thousand (6,000) feet from the DISD core facility ("core facility") providing service, then the $362.00 per month rate shall be increased by an amount equaling $.06 per linear foot per month for each foot, which the new DISD facility exceeds the distance of six thousand (6,000) feet from the core facility along established Denton Municipal Electric right-of-way. Charges for any new DISD facilities outside established Denton Municipal Electric right-of-way shall be negotiated on a case-by-case basis. DISD and CITY agree that the termination fees set forth in ARTICLE IV, Section A. will be adjusted to reflect the City's investment in new facilities added pursuant to this Section VI.B. The CITY and DISD agree to cooperate and plan additions to Core WAN in a manner that will not result in increases in charges paid by DISD during a DISD budget cycle or decreases in revenue received by CITY during a CITY budget cycle, unless mutually agreed to by both the CITY and DISD. ARTICLE VII COMPLETION OF CONNECTION TO WAN/SUPERVISION The CITY may utilize such persons as may be necessary to act as inspectors or agents for the purpose of supervising, in the interests of the CITY, the materials furnished and the work done by DISD as construction of a project proceeds. ARTICLE VIII ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONNECTIONS/WAN BY DISD The CITY agrees to submit to DISD sufficient test data respecting all aspects of any additional line in order to establish satisfactory performance prior to utilization of the connection and acceptance by DISD. Once any such requested testing is complete, and DISD reasonably approves the test results, then DISD's acceptance of the line is complete. Acceptable test results will be defined as follows: An Optical Time Domain Reflectometer ("OTDR") shot must be provided for each individual fiber strand (end to end) and the results must be of a level of performance that adheres to the following specifications: DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 6 The "redundant ring"/backbone OC-12 Single Mode Fiber Optic cable plant: Power Budget = 25db Distance <= 40km TX optical output power minimum of 2dBm maximum of-3dBm RX input sensitivity minimum of-10dBm maximum of-28dBm The "additional lines"/end nodes OC-3 Single Mode Fiber Optic cable plant Power Budget = 25db Distance <=40km TX optical output power minimum of-5dBm maximum of 0dBm RX input sensitivity minimum of-34dBm maximum of-10dBm ARTICLE IX USE OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION All data exchanged between CITY and DISD in connection with this Agreement or in utilization of the Core WAN and any additional lines, which is identified as proprietary information, shall be safeguarded by CITY and DISD to the same extent as CITY or DISD safeguards like information relating to CITY's or DISD's own business. If, however, such data is publicly available under the Public Information Act (Chapter 552 of the Texas Government Code) or other applicable laws, is already in either party's possession or known to either party, or was rightfully obtained by either party from third parties, neither CITY nor DISD shall bear any responsibility for its disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise. CITY acknowledges that certain data peculiar to DISD contains personally identifiable information, as that term is defined by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, concerning students. CITY agrees that in the event that such data comes into the CITY's possession that the CITY will not disclose to any individual or entity any personally identifiable information concerning students of DISD, unless the CITY is required to disclose this information as a result of an Order issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction. ARTICLE X OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF PROPERTY Ao The CITY shall own and maintain all fiber optic cables which terminate at the points of demarcation at each DISD site. B. DISD shall own and maintain all electronic equipment located at each DISD site. DISD shall have the right to utilize the leased "dark" fiber optic cables comprising the redundant ring and connecting the DISD sites, so long as this Agreement is in force and effect. DISD agrees that it will not sell bandwidth to any other party. DISD further agrees that its use of the Core WAN and any additional lines will be consistent with that of a private line service user, and that DISD shall not offer access to the Core DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 7 WAN or any additional lines to the public, and shall take reasonable action to establish procedures and protocols to assure that only authorized DISD personnel and DISD students are permitted access to the Core WAN and any additional lines. DISD shall not, under any circumstances, connect its WAN in any manner to CITY'S "lighted" fiber system. ARTICLE XI RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTENANCE DISD shall be solely responsible to determine the location of any problem within the DISD electronics network and to remedy such problem at DISD's sole cost and expense. In the event that a problem arises solely within the fiber optic cable (the redundant ring or any additional lines emanating from the ring) or connections at any patch panels, DISD shall promptly notify the CITY and the CITY shall resolve the problem in a timely and cost-efficient manner at the CITY's sole cost and expense. ARTICLE XlI CITY MAINTENANCE OF FIBER OPTIC CABLE Unless otherwise mutually agreed, Denton Municipal Electric Fiber Division will provide maintenance and repair service between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (Normal Service Hours). Response time will normally be one hour. Maintenance and repair service applies to leased fibers only. Bo Denton Municipal Electric Fiber Division employees will respond to DISD declared emergencies that occur outside of Normal Service Hours if requested to do so by the DISD Technology Information Officer or his authorized designee; DISD shall notify CITY in writing of such designation before such designation is effective. A charge of $15.00 per hour per employee responding will be charged for this service. This hourly charge will be escalated annually by applying the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index respecting the telecommunication/utility industry. In the event the DISD Technology Information Officer or his authorized designee requests Denton Municipal Electric Fiber Division response to emergencies that occur outside of Normal Service Hours, DISD agrees that a qualified DISD employee will also respond to said emergency. In the event that the CITY determines that it is reasonably necessary to perform maintenance on the fiber optic cable or within the CITY's network, then the CITY shall notify DISD at least twenty -four (24) hours in advance, if reasonably possible, of any periods of time the CITY determines is necessary for the CITY's network to be down. DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 8 ARTICLE XlII DISASTER RECOVERY Unless otherwise determined by the Denton Mayor, Denton City Manager, or authorized Federal or State disaster recovery or Homeland Security Official, in the event of a disconnection of the WAN due to a natural disaster, such as a tornado, flood, or other catastrophic event, the CITY will re-establish connections to DISD at the earliest reasonable opportunity immediately after restoration of fiber service to the Denton Municipal Electric electric system, emergency services, law-enforcement, medical and health services, and other critical City functions. In all cases, taking into account that the safety and welfare of the citizens of Denton shall be the CITY's utmost priority in determination of restoration of service. Ao In the event of a total loss of connectivity, the following is the reconnection priority for DISD sites by importance: 1. Technology Center 2. Ryan High School 3. McMath Middle School 4. Strickland Middle School 5. Denton High School 6. Fred Moore High School 7. Ronny Crownover Middle School 8. Calhoun Middle School 9. Transportation 10. Service Center 11. Hodge Elementary School 12. Borman Elementary School 13. EP Rayzor Elementary School 14. Evers Elementary School 15. Ginnings Elementary School 16. Houston Elementary School 17. Lee Elementary School 18. McNair Elementary School 19. Newton Rayzor Elementary School 20. Rivera Elementary School 21. Ryan Elementary School 22. Wilson Elementary School 23. Ann Windle School for Young Children 24. Central Services 25. Special Education 26. SKECC In the event of a partial loss of connectivity, the following is the reconnection priority to Multi-Homed Sites for DISD by importance: DME~ISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 9 1. Transportation 2. Service Center 3. Hodge Elementary School 4. Borman Elementary School 5. E.P. Rayzor Elementary School 6. Evers Elementary School 7. Ginnings Elementary School 8. Houston Elementary School 9. Lee Elementary School 10. McNair Elementary School 11. Newton Rayzor Elementary School 12. Rivera Elementary School 13. Ryan Elementary School 14. Wilson Elementary School 15. Ann Windle School for Young Children 16. Central Services 17. Special Education 18. SKECC 19. Technology Center 20. Ryan High School 21. McMath Middle School 22. Strickland Middle School 23. Denton High School 24. Fred Moore High School 25. Ronny Crownover Middle School 26. Calhoun Middle School ARTICLE XlV NOTIFICATION Upon DISD recognition of occurrence of an outage of the dark fiber system the DME Communications Manager shall be notified and a DME Tech shall be dispatched. In the event this level of response and notification is unable to satisfactorily respond to the needs of DISD the level of escalation of notification shall be: the DME Superintendent of System Operations, followed by the DME Assistant Director of Operations. Upon DME recognition of occurrence of an outage of the dark fiber system the DISD Technology Information Officer shall be notified. DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 10 ARTICLE XV HOLD HARMLESS To the extent allowed by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Texas, and without waiving any immunity or limitation to liability, DISD agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits, and liability of every kind, including all expenses of litigation, court costs, and attorney's fees, for injury or death of any person, or for damages to any property; real, personal, or intellectual, arising out of or in connection with the use, but not the installation or maintenance, of the fiber optic network the subject of this Agreement, where the injury or death or damage is caused by the negligence of DISD, its officers, agents, or employees, except that DISD assumes no liability for the sole negligent acts of CITY, its officers, agents, or employees. To the extent allowed by the Constitution and statutes of the State of Texas, without waiving any immunity or limitation to liability, the CITY agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless DISD, its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, causes of action, suits, and liability of every kind, including all expenses of litigation, court costs, and attorney's fees, for injury or death of any person, or for damages to any property; real, personal, or intellectual, arising out of in conjunction with the installation or maintenance, but not the use, of the fiber optic network the subject of this Agreement, where the injury or death or damage is caused by the negligence of the CITY, its officers, agents or employees. ARTICLE XVI ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties may agree to settle any disputes under this Agreement by submitting their dispute to arbitration or other means of alternate dispute resolution such as mediation. No arbitration or other alternate dispute resolution arising out of or relating to, this Agreement involving one party's disagreement may include the other party to the disagreement without the other's approval. ARTICLE XVlI ASSIGNABILITY DISD shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably be withheld. CITY shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the DISD, which consent shall not be unreasonably be withheld. DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 11 ARTICLE XXI. GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE This Agreement shall be construed under and governed by, and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, and all obligations of the parties hereto, created by this Agreement are performable in Denton County, Texas. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. ARTICLE XXII ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement and the exhibits attached thereto, constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No amendment, modification, cancellation or alteration of the terms of this Agreement shall be binding on any party hereto unless the same is in writing, dated subsequent to the date hereof, and is duly executed by the parties hereto. ARTICLE XXIII WAIVER OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS The failure of either party to enforce or insist upon compliance with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment of any such terms or conditions, but the same shall be and remain at all times in full force and effect. ARTICLE XXIV BINDING AUTHORITY This Agreement is entered into by the duly authorized officials of each respective governmental entity. ARTICLE XXV CAPTIONS The captions contained in this Agreement are for informational purposes only and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized Mayor on this the __ day of February, 2003; and the Denton Independent School District has caused this Extension To Inteflocal Cooperation Agreement to be executed by the President of its Board of Trustees on this the ~ day of February, 2003, but to be effective from and as of the 28th day of January, 2003. DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 13 "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Texas Municipal Corporation ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: EULINE BROCK, MAYOR By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY "DISD" DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTEST: BY: RICK WOOLFOLK, President Board of Trustees BY: DR. JEAN SCHAAKE, Secretary Denton Independent School District Board of Trustees DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 14 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HAYES, COFFEY & BERRY, P.C. By: S:\Our Documents\Contracts\03\DISD Dark Fiber Contract- Third Draft 011703-B.doc DME/DISD Extension To Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - Page 15 Denton Independent School District Logical WAN Diagram Exhibit "A" Tec DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 3, 2003 9:00 A. M. After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of DeNon, Texas was presem, the Public Utilities Board convened imo an Open Meeting on Monday, February 3, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 PRESENT: George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: Dick Norton CONSENT AGENDA Board Member Don White asked that Consem Agenda Item #1 be considered individually. Board Member George Hopkins asked that Consem Agenda Item #2 be considered individually. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 1) Consider approval of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an extended Interlocal Cooperation Agreemem between the City of Denton and the DeNon Independem School District ("DISD") regarding the lease of excess dark fiber optic capacity from the City to DISD in connection with the implementation of the DISD Wide Area Network White asked if staff would bring the extended Inteflocal Cooperation Agreemem back before the Board, or will this item automatically give the Mayor the authority to sign. Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, assured White that any additional agreements, concerning long-range plans beyond the 5-year extension, would be brought back and presemed to the Board. Hopkins moved to approve extending the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with DISD, with a second from White. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. Page 1 of 1 02/17~O3 #4C AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 19, 2003 Fiscal Operations Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a one-year extension to the Depository Services Contract with Texas Bank; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND Texas Bank is curremly under comract by the City as the bank depository for public funds. The Agreemem also includes safekeeping services and possible purchase of certificates of deposit within a predefined limit. The original contract is for a term of two years beginning March 1, 2000 and ending February 28, 2002 with a provision for three, additional one-year extensions up to three additional years or five total years under the same terms and conditions of the contract, subject to the mutual agreement of both parties. In February 2002, the contract was extended for the first one-year term. The primary objectives of the depository agreement are: · To employ a bank that is both capable of providing high quality banking services and willing to be attentive to the City's money matters; · To maximize the total dollars earned by the City on invested monies in order to be prudent and effective custodians of the taxpayers' financial sources; · To maimain a good working relationship with the depository bank; and To adequately compensate the depository bank for services provided to the City and to allow a reasonable profit to be earned, subject to competitive forces in the marketplace. To fully comply with the requirements of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 105, as amended, The Texas Govemmem Code, Chapter 2257, and all other applicable laws. RECOMMENDATION On February 6, 2003, The Investment Committee recommended approval of' extending the Depository Contract with Texas Bank. FISCAL INFORMATION The Depository Agreement charges are budgeted funds in the Treasury Division budget. Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of` Fiscal Operations S:\Our Docmments\Ordinances\02\exrension of depository contract 03 04.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION TO THE DEPOSITORY SERVICES CONTRACT WITH TEXAS BANK; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on February 1, 2000, the City of DeNon and Texas Bank emered imo a Depository Services Contract whereby Texas Bank was designated as the primary depository for operations and payroll accoums and banking and depository services beginning Marchl, 2000 and ending February 28, 2002, with three possible on,year extensions of the Contract not to extend beyond February 28, 2005, in accordance with the requiremems of Chapter 105 of the Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City and Texas Bank desire to initiate the second one-year extension which will begin March 1, 2003 and ending February 28, 2004; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a First Amendment To The Depository Services Contract between the City of Denton and Texas Bank extending the term of the Contract to February 28, 2004, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized expend funds as required by the Depository Services Contract as amended. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 20 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Docmments\Uontr acrs\03~Depository Serv 2nd Ext.doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEPOSITORY SERVICES CONTRACT STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON This First Amendment to that certain Depository Services Contract executed on February 1, 2000 between the City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation locaed in the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "City," and Texas Bank, a bank located in the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "Depository"; said Contract hereinafter referred to as "Contract": NOW, THEREFORE, under the conditions and forthe considerations hereinafter expressed, the parties hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. In accordance with Article 1 "Selection and Term" of the Contract, the Contract is hereby extended for an additional on,year term beginning March 1, 2003 and endhg February 28, 2004. ARTICLE 2. That save and except as amended hereby, all the remaining articles, terms, conditions, sections, sentences, clauses, and phrases of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS of which this Contract has been executed on this the ,20 by the duly authorized officers of Depository and City. day of CITY OF DENTON: ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: Michael A. Conduff City Manager Address: City of Denton 215 E. McKinne~( Denton, Texas 76201 BY: S:\Our Docmments\Uontr acrs\03~Depository Serv 2nd Ext.doc APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: TEXAS BANK By: Authorized Signature Name: Title: Page 2 02/17~O3 #4D AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Fiscal Operations Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the publication of Notice of Intention to issue Certificates of Obligation of the City of DeNon; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND This ordinance provides the Notice of Intention to issue City of Denton Certificates of Obligation Bonds, Series 2003. This notice will be published on March 9 and March 16, 2003. These Bonds will provide funding of $7,565,000 (plus costs of issuance) for the following projects and improvemems: 1,050,000 1,300,000 1,000,000 740,000 565,000 610,000 300,000 2,000,000 Streets and Transportation Public Safety Land Acquisition Technology Services Public Safety Radios Parks (Aquatic Cemer) Warehouse Land Acquisition Facilities Improvemems (Airport and Fleet Services) Solid Waste PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) All of these projects were approved in the Capital Improvemem Program, fiscal year ending 2003-2007. FISCAL INFORMATION The Certificates of Obligation Bonds will have an estimated average annual debt services requiremem of approximately $513,000. This amoum has been included in the budget process. Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE_ ........... TIlE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON WHEREAS, it is deemed necessary and advisable that Notice of Intention to Issue Certificates of Obligation be given as hereinafter provide& THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: Section I. That attached hereto is a form of "NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON", the form and substance &which are hereby adopted and approved, and made a part of this Ordinance for all purposes. Section II. That the City Secretary shall cause said NOTICE, in substantially the form attached hereto, to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, with the date of the first publication to be at least fifteen (15) days before the date tentatively set for the passage of the Ordinance authorizing the issuance of such Certificates of Obligation. Section m. That this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 18th day of February, 2003. ATTEST: Euline Brock, Mayor Jennifer Walters, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: By: ~ ~"-~"tr-,~'~'j~/ THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION OF THI~. CIT_Y OF DENTQN THE CITY OF DENTON, in Denton County, Texas, hereby gives notice of its intention to issue CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, in accordance with the Certificate of Obligation Act of 197I, as amended and codified, and other applicable laws, in the maximum principal amount of $7,680,000 for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the City's contractual obligations incurred pursuant to contracts for the purchase, construction and acquisition of certain real and personal property, to wit: (a) acquisition of land for construction of public safety facilities, (b) acquisition of land for expansion of City warehouse facilities, (c) improvements at the City's public parks, (d) improvements to the City's solid waste disposal system and acquisition of related equipment, (e) computer and technology equipment and upgrades for the City's information technology and communication systems, (f) road and street improvements and equipment and (g) miscellaneous renovations and improvements to City owned facilities; and also for the purpose of paying all or a portion of the City's contractual obligations for professional services, including engineers, architects, attorneys, map makers, auditors, and financial advisors, in connection with said Certificates of Obligation. The City proposes to provide for the payment of such Certificates of Obligation from the levy and collection of ad valorem taxes in the City as provided by law, and from certain surplus revenues (not to exceed $10,000 in aggregate amount) derived by the City from the ownership and operation of the City's Utility System (consisting of the City's cOmbined waterworks system, sanitary sewer system, and electric light and power system). The City Council of the City tentatively proposes to authorize the issuance of such Certificates of Obligation at a meeting commencing at 11:00 a.m. on the 25th day of March, 2003, in the City Council room at the Municipal Building (City Hall), 215 E. McKirmey, Denton, Texas. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS By: Jennifer K. Walters, City Secretary 02/17~03 #4E AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Fiscal Operations Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance directing the issuance and publication of Notice of Sale of City of DeNon General Obligation Bonds; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND This ordinance provides the Notice of Sale of City of DeNon General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003. This notice will be published on February 23, 2003. These Bonds will provide $3,950,000 for the following projects and improvemems: $1,900,000 $2,050,000 Transportation (Hwy 377 Alternate) Building (Civic Cemer, Emily Fowler) PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) All of these projects were approved in the Capital Improvemem Program fiscal year ending 2003-2007 and approved in the Bond Election on January 15, 2000. FISCAL INFORMATION The General Obligation Bonds have requiremem of approximately $315,000. process. an estimated average annual debt service This amoum has been included in the budget Respectfully submitted: Diana G. Ortiz Director of Fiscal Operations ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SALE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: Section I. the following form: That the City Secretary is directed to issue a Notice of Sale of Bonds in substantially OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS $3,950,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2003 The City Council of the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, will receive sealed bids at the Municipal Building, 215 E. McKinney Street, in the City of Denton until: 10:30 a.m., c.S.T., Tuesday, March 25, 2003 for the purchase of: $3,950,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003 to be dated April 1, 2003, and to mature serially on February 15 of each year 2004 through 2023. Sealed bids, plainly marked "Bid for Bonds", should be addressed to "Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Denton, Texas", and must be submitted on the "Official Bid Form" to be made available by the City Council prior to the date of sale. All sealed bids will be publicly opened and tabulated before the Council. Copies of the "Official Statement", '2qotice of Sale", and "Official Bid Form" are being prepared and will be distributed to prospective bidders on or about March 25, 2003, and will be furnished to any prospective bidder upon request, by First Southwest Company, 777 Main Street, Suite 1200, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Financial Advisor to the City. The City reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any and ali irregularities. By order of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas. JENNIFER K. WALTERS City Secretary City of Denton, Texas Section II. That said Notice shall be published once in The Bond Buyer, New York, New Yod~, which is a national publication regularly and primarily catryin__g financial news and municipal bond sale notices; and said Notice also shall be published once in the "Denton Record-Chronicle", which has been designated as the official newspaper of the City of Denton. Said publications shaIt be made at least thirty days prior to the day set for receiving bids. Section III. approval. That this Ordinance shall become effective mediately upon its passage and PASSED AND APPROVED this 18th day of February, 2003. · Euline Brock, Mayor ATTEST: Jermifer Walters, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 02/17~03 #4F AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: February 18, 2003 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Sharon Mays 349-8487 ACM: 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 a metal storage building at the Denton Municipal Electric yard; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2947- Metal Storage Building at DME Yard awarded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $131,638). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the construction of a metal storage building, which will be used to store non- warehouse inventory for the Electric Operations, Metering, Communications and Distribution Departments. The inventory is currently being stored in old cargo trailers that have deteriorated to the point where they no longer protect the stored equipment. This new building would also be used to house trucks that DME currently leaves exposed to the elements due to their size. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that Bid 2947 be awarded to Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $131,638. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., Inc. Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Construction of the building can be completed within 120 days of the start date. FISCAL INFORMATION This item will be funded from account 60045900.1360.3610. Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 2947 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent iii ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A METAL STORAGE BUILDING AT THE DENTON MUNICPAL ELECTRIC YARD; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2947-METAL STORAGE BUiDLiNG AT DME YARD AWARDED TO JONES AND JEFFERY CONSTRUCTION, INC. iN THE AMOUNT OF $131,638). 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 2947 Jones and Jeffery Construction Co., Inc. $131,638 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 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 02/17~03 #4G AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services~~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance awarding a contract for the purchase of LED traffic signal lights and pedestrian countdown lights as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission through the Qualified Information Service Vendor (QISV) Catalogue Program; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 2973 to Amtec Lighting Services in the amount of $343,500 for a five year period). BID INFORMATION This item is for Traffic Control to enter into a state QISV contract with AMTEC Lighting to provide LED traffic signal lights and pedestrian countdown lights. The cost of the system includes installation and will be amortized with no interest for five years. The cost of the contract includes a six-year warranty on the LEDs and maintenance for the duration of the contract. Amtec Lighting Services will be required to respond to outages within four hours of notification of a failure. This contract is for a $5,725 monthly lease expenditure. This would be a total of $22,900 for the balance of this fiscal year. The total cost for the next fiscal year 12-month lease will be $68,700. The city currently spends $81,300 per year ($6,775 per month) in electrical costs alone. With the installation of the LEDs the cost of electricity will drop to $6,400 per year, and the City will save approximately $6,200 per year, or $31,000 over five years in total operating costs. The LEDs have an expected useful life of approximately 10 to 12 years, which means that the cost savings for the following years will be $74,900 per year. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that a five-year QISV contract be awarded to Amtec Lighting Services in the amounts listed below for a total cost of $343,500. 2002-2003 (4 mo.) $ 22,900 2003-2004 $ 68,700 2004-2005 $ 68,700 2005-2006 $ 68,700 2006-2007 $ 68,700 2007-2008 (8 mo.) $ 45,800 Total $343,500 Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Amtech Lighting Services Arlington, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is a five-year contract, which will begin after installation of the LEDs is complete. should be approximately June 1, 2003. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for this item will be from account 355001.6368. This Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: QISV Certification Letter 1-AISFile 2973 Attachment , MTECH Lighting Services February 3. 2003 Ms. Julia Klinck Purchasing City of Denton 801 Texas Stl-¢¢t Denton, Texas 76201 Reference: 0ISV Traffic Signal Proposal Dear Julia: Amtech Lighting hereby' submits to the City of Denton our statement as related to the above referenced proposal. "All pricing contained in this proposal currently meets the published list price or is less than the published list price of the QISV document." Our current proposal is actually less than published list price due to negotiations by the city. Amtech Lighting is an approved QISV supplier (see attached approval letter). Our VID= is 1951864029700. Our web page is x~ xx~,v.abm.com'amtechqisv. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. Sincereb', Frank Campa=ona, CLMC Branch Manager Amtech Lighting Services a subsidia~' of /~ Industrics Incorporated ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LED TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTS AND PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN LIGHTS AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMISSION THROUGH THE QUALIFIED INFORMATION SERVICE VENDOR (QISV) CATALOGUE PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 2973 TO AMTECH LIGHTING SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $343,500 FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton has heretofore adopted Resolution 92- 019 pursuant to Section 2157.067 of the Texas Government Code and Sections 271.082 and 271.083 of the Texas Local Government Code which authorizes the City to participate in the State Purchasing Building and Procurement Commission Qualified Information Service Vendor Catalogue Purchase Method provided for in Subchapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code (the "QISV Catalogue"); and WHEREAS, the herein described vendor is a qualified vendor in the QISV Catalogue and the contract authorized by this ordinance is in the best interests of the City and complies with the requirements of Subchapter B of Chapter 2157 of the Texas Government Code as a QISV Catalogue purchase; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered purchase order for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Number" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, are hereby approved: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2793 Amtech Lighting Services $ 343,500 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the attached purchase orders, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to the Building and Procurement Commission for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the bid documents and related documents filed with the Services Commission, and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. Should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in File 2973 wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the Building and Procurement Commission, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications and standards contained in the Proposal submitted to the Building and Procurement Commission, quantities and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the subject purchase orders, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved purchase orders or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of .,2003. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 02/17~O3 #4H AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: February 18, 2003 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Cary Tower 349-8424 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of fleet vehicles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2935-Fleet Vehicles 2003 awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item in the total amoum of $174,002.50). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the purchase of fleet vehicles for Demon Municipal Electric and the Water Distribution Division. item 1 is for one V~ton extended cab fleet addition pickup for the Electric Operations Department and one ½ton extended cab replacement pickup for the Electric Metering Department. Item 2 is for one ½t on extended cab 4 x 4 replacement pickup for the Water Distribution Department. Item 3 is for one 3Aton extended cab 4 x 4 replacement pickup for the Waste Water Division. Item 5 is for a 1 ton cab/chassis extended cab 4 x 4 replacement pickup for the Electric Substation Department. Item 6 is for two 1½ton cab/chassis crew replacement pickups for the Electric Distribution Department. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item as listed below. Item# Desc(See Tab) Qty. Supplier Price+Options* Net Total 1. ½Tn Pickup 2 Village Ford 2. ½Tn Pickup 1 Friendly Chev. 3. 3¼Tn Pickup 1 Friendly Chev. 4. ~¼Tn Pickup 5. 1 Tn Pickup 1 Five Star Ford 6. 1 ½Tn Cab 2 Five Star Ford 7. 1 ½Tn Pickup $17,368.00+$1386 $18,754.00ea $ 37,508.00 $18,561.00+$ 960 $19,521.00ea $19,521.00 $19,924.00+$ 960 $20,884.00ea $ 20,884.00 No award-to be rebid later $27,061.00+$1740 $28,801.00ea $ 28,801.00 $31,002.25+$2642 $33,644.25ea $ 67,288.50 No award-to be rebid later Total Amoum For 7 Vehicles $174,002.50 *Options include extended warranty and power windows and locks for Items 1,5 and 6; and extended warranty only on items 2 and 3. All vehicles are powered by LEV rated gasoline or diesel engines. Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Village Ford Pilot Point, TX Friendly Chevrolet Dallas, TX Five Star Ford Carrollton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery schedules vary by vendor and type of vehicle with delivery dates ranging from 45 days to 120 days. FISCAL INFORMATION These units will be funded from Motor Pool Fixed Asset Fund account 810001.8535. This fund is made up of an accumulation of Motor Pool replacement funds and proceeds from the auction of City vehicles and equipment. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 2936 O O ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLEET VEHICLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2935-FLEET VEHICLES 2003 AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR EACH ITEM IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $174,002.50). 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 ITEM VENDOR AMOUNT 2935 1 Village Ford $37,508.00 2935 2,3 Friendly Chevrolet $40,405.00 2935 5,6 Five Star Ford $96,089.50 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: 02/17~O3 #41 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: February 18, 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 tree trimming services for the DeNon Municipal Electric Division; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2945-Tree Trimming for DME awarded to Asplundh Tree Expert Co. in the estimated amoum of $138,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for an annual contract to provide tree-trimming services for Denton Municipal Electric (DME). DME trims trees from overhead power lines to prevent outages to the electric system and safe guard the public. DME follows recommendations submitted by Texas A&M University regarding normal tree growth for this area. DME trims one fourth of the system per year while adhering to A&M recommendations. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of this bid to Asplundh Tree Expert Co. in the estimated annual amoum of $138,000 utilizing bid items 1, 2, and 3 as determined to be the lowest responsible bidder by the DME staff. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Asplundh Tree Expert Co. Mansfield, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual agreement that will begin upon Council approval. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for this item will be provided from accoum 600300.6534 5930 A. Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-ALS- Bid 2945 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 0 0 0 (DO 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 ~,D 0 L~ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TREE TRIMMING SERVICES FOR THE DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC DIVISION; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2945-TREE TRIMMING FOR DME AWARDED TO ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $138,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2945 Asplundh Tree Expert Co. $138,000 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: 02/'17/03 #4,1 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: February 18, 2003 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Susan Croft 349-8505 ACM: Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a comract for the purchase of outgoing U.S. Mail services for the City of DeNon; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2948-Mailing Service awarded to Unlimited Imernational Mailing, Inc. in an estimated amoum of $33,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the acquisition ora comractor to perform out going U.S. mail services for the City of DeNon. Services include pickup of mail at designated sites, processing of residual and utility billing mail, and delivery to the U.S. Post Office. Residual mail is picked up at approximately 3:00-3:30 P.M. each workday. Utility bills are picked up at approximately 11:00 A.M. each day. Bid solicitations were mailed to seven potemial bidders. Only one bidder responded which was primarily due to the requiremem for pick up service from multiple sites. Other service providers for mail handling do not offer the multiple site pick up service. Unlimited Imernational Mailing, Inc. has been our service provider for approximately eight years. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of Bid 2948 to Unlimited International Mailing, Inc. in an estimated amoum of $33,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Unlimited Imernational Mailing, Inc. DeNon, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The terms of this comract will be for one year, beginning on the date of award by Council. It shall be renewable for two additional one-year periods with all terms and conditions remaining unchanged, if agreed to by both parties. FISCAL INFORMATION This item will be funded from accoum 630800.7879. Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 2948 Respectfully Submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent LLI iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiii ~ iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiii o° ~' ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF OUTGOING U.S. MAIL SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2948-MAILING SERVICE AWARDED TO UNLIMITED INTERNATIONAL MAILING, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $33,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 2948 Unlimited International Mailing, Inc. $33,000 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. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 02/17~O3 #4K AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Materials Management Kathy DuBose, Fiscal and Municipal Services Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Vance Kemler 349-8444 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of a track type tractor/dozer; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 2952-Track Type Tractor/Dozer awarded to Holt CAT in the amount of $515,043). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the purchase of a track type tractor/dozer for the Solid Waste Department. This will replace the landfill's track loader (EMIS#8560), which incurred a major breakdown and has been determined by Fleet Services as not economically repairable. This equipment will be utilized for landfill excavation, to spread cover material on a daily basis, and in other landfill operation activities. This tractor/dozer will be powered by an EPA Tier II compliant diesel engine. This bid also contains optional buy back quotes, which may be exercised at the time they become available or are deemed advantageous by staff. Bids were sent to the three known manufacturers of this type of equipment. A pre-bid meeting was held on January 14, 2003 with two vendors attending- RDO Equipment and Holt CAT. One bid was submitted at the bid opening on January 30, 2003. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of Bid 2952 to Holt CAT in the amount of $515,043. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Holt CAT Fort Worth, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery of the tractor/dozer can be made within 75 days from receipt of an order. Agenda Information Sheet February 18, 2003 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION This item will be funded from account 66001800.1355.30100. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 2952 0 I-- 0 Zo~ O~ z 0 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A TRACK TYPE/DOZER; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 2952-TRACK TYPE TRACTOR/DOZER AWARDED TO HOLT CAT IN THE AMOUNT OF $515,043). 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 2952 Holt CAT $515,043 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: 02/17~O3 #4L AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Engineering CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349 - 8314 SUBJECT Consider approval of an exaction variance of Section 35.19.6 (c)l of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage, specifically underground storm sewer requirements. The 17.94 acre parcel is located on the south side of Audra Lane between Nottingham Drive and Mockingbird Lane. The property is located in a Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district. A single family residence is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variance with conditions (6-0) (V02-0031) BACKGROUND Mr. Greg Edwards, P.E., applicant, representing Mr. Jay Johnson of Johnson Properties, the developer/owner of this property, has applied for an exaction variance of Section 35.19.6.C.1 of the Code of Ordinances. Section 35.19.6.C. 1 requires that an enclosed underground storm drain system is provided with capacity for the one-hundred year frequency flood discharge up to 300 cubic feet per second (cfs), when the ground slope is less than 0.5 percent. The engineer met with staff prior to applying for this variance to discuss possible alternatives for conveying drainage northward from East Oaks Addition Phase II through the site to Audra Lane and an alternative acceptable to City staff was not identified. After the engineer submitted the variance request for consideration, the property owner/developer Mr. Jay Johnson met jointly with Parks and Recreation (P&R) and Engineering Departments to explore the possibility of integrating the variance request with P&R plans for the park development. During this meeting the alternative identified below was identified and agreed to by the developer and city staff which can benefit the City and the developer. The developer proposes to install curb inlets on the westernmost street that runs North/South and extend a 30-inch storm sewer eastward into the proposed park area. A connection with the existing 36-inch storm sewer will be installed using a combination grate inlet/junction box. The existing ditch running through the center of the tract would be filled and the area re-graded by the developer, creating a contiguous flat area needed for a soccer field. The developer would then construct a realigned ditch in a northerly direction running along the east side of the park/open space to provide 100-year frequency storm conveyance capacity for the excess flow that cannot enter the existing pipe. Ditch grading would direct the overland flow into a new grate inlet placed near the northeast comer of the park area to intercept the overland flow into a storm sewer system before it reaches Audra Lane. Drainage easements would be limited within the park/open space area to encompass the existing storm sewer pipe and realigned ditch. An existing 36-inch storm sewer and overflow swale were previously constructed through the middle of the proposed park site to convey drainage from the East Oaks Addition Phase II property northward, to Audra Lane. Because the overland flow in the ditch would be increased by this development, it would be less than 300 cfs and not piped. The current Code requirement would not be met by this Page 1 alternative. The estimated 100-year frequency flow in the existing ditch and 36-inch storm pipe to Audra Lane is 115.5 cfs, under fully developed conditions. The existing 36-inch pipe provides capacity for about 36 cfs. This pipe met the code requirements for offsite drainage from East Oaks Subdivision when it was developed. To meet the new Code requirement, a parallel storm sewer pipe would have to be installed for the additional 79.5 cfs. Without additional storm sewer improvements, this flow would be unable to enter the underground storm sewer, and would travel overland in the existing ditch. The applicant based the reason for the variance request on the additional cost for the subject improvement in comparison to the size and type of development being proposed. The variance may be approved by the City Council if the following criterion is met: Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exaction's, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. The price the applicant(s) paid for the parcel, or the cost of the proposed building improvements is not a factor in determining reasonable costs. The question is, are the costs associated with the public improvement reasonable and consistent with the type of development proposed and the demand for services created by the development? OPTIONS 1. Approve Full variance 2. Approve Full variance with conditions 3. Deny variance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended approval of the variance to the Planning & Zoning Commission on January 22, 2003. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variance as described, by a vote of 6-0 (Apple absent). The City Parks and Recreation Department is planning to construct neighborhood park amenities on the 7.18-acres to be dedicated as park/open space, including playground equipment, and a soccer field area. In addition, the size and depth of storm sewer pipe across the proposed park area is limited by a crossing over an existing gasoline pipeline running through the area. The additional costs to relocate this pipeline would be the developer's responsibility, and make this option infeasible for a development of this size. Grate inlets are allowed only with prior consent from the director of engineering (Drainage Criteria Manual Sec. 6.1.B.). Without proper routine maintenance, grate inlet openings tend to clog and flow capacity can be reduced significantly. Parks & Recreation had requested the use of grate inlets in the park area to eliminate the tripping hazard to park users. With regular Parks & Recreation maintenance, these inlets will remain unclogged and fully functional. Engineering can recommend their use in this instance because of their location in a maintained park area. Page 2 During minor rainfall events, the grate inlet/junction box would intercept surface flows in the swale from East Oaks Addition, and these flows would be carried in the existing 36-inch pipe. About three developed acres from the proposed Audra Oaks development, which includes 480 feet of paved street, will generate increased flows in the existing 36-inch pipe during minor storms. Flows would be reduced in the ditch north of the inlet/junction box during minor rainfall events. During larger storms, the 36-inch pipe would surcharge, and flow would exit the grate inlet increasing the total flow in the ditch. The ditch would be sized to contain the fully developed 100-year flow. This flow would remain in the ditch and re-enter the storm sewer system in the second grate inlet at the northeast comer of the park/open space tract before reaching Audra Lane. The City will benefit from the site grading being provided by the developer for the soccer field use. P&R believes the realigned drainage ditch will not impair the designated uses planned for the park/open space. P&R has also agreed to maintain the grates and ditch, and believes this maintenance will not impose an extra cost burden on their program. The developer will benefit from reduced infrastructure costs for storm sewer system installation. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the variance on January 22, 2003 as proposed by staff and agreed to by the property owner with an added condition that Park Dedication and Development fees are worked out between the Parks & Recreation Department and the owner. Based on information received from the Parks & Recreation Department, those fees have been negotiated and agreed to by both the City staff and the developer. FISCAL INFORMATION Staff estimates the following construction cost savings for storm sewer granted. installation if the variance is Item Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price 30" storm sewer 500 L.F. $51.00 $25,500 Junction Box 1 Each. $3500.00 $ 3,500 TOTAL $29,000 The additional developer costs for the excavation of the ditch and site grading were not estimated, because the developer has agreed to construct these elements of the project if the variance request is approved, and it is difficult to accurately estimate the additional cost. The developer will have grading and compaction equipment onsite to construct the subdivision, which makes it economical to perform the grading in the park area. Also, the developer will have excess soil material to dispose of when installing the site utilities. This excess material can be used for the park area regarding, reducing the contractor's haul and disposal costs for the subdivision construction. ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant's Letter 2. Site Location Map 3. Staff Recommended Drainage Plan 4. Owner/Developer Correspondence 5. Existing Site Photograph 6. Minutes from P&Z 7. Park Dedication Letter Page 3 Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Charles Fiedler Director, Engineering Page 4 Audra Oaks Attachment 01 Applicant's Letter Surveyors & Engineers of North Texas 1621 Amanda Court Ponder, Texas 76259 Ph: (940) 482-2906 FAX: (940) 482-0009 Metre: (940) 243-3832 www.sentcorp.corn Friday, November 15 2002 City of Denton, Engineering Department Attn: Dave Salmon, P.E. City Hall East 601 E. Hickory, Suite B Denton, TX 76205 Re: Audra Oaks - Variance Request Dear Dave, Audra Oaks is a proposed Single Family Residential Development north of the existing East Oaks Addition and south of the Bellaire North Addition that is under construction. Prior to plan approval of the Bellaire North Addition we met with Julia Skare and advised her that we were concerned with the volume of nm-off that was being concentrated in Audra Lane and in the locations nm-off was to be picked up in the proposed system. She apparently chose to do nothing about tiffs situation. Our preliminary plat shows that after Development of the Bellaire North Addition, the nm-off from a 100-year storm will be approximately 14" deep in the Audra Lane gutter. This is in violation of the old subdivision Ordinance requirement of not exceeding 10" of depth on a 100-year storm. Because the City of Denton did not enforce this portion of the old Subdivision Ordinance on the Bellaire North Addition, our client may be spending an extra $100,000 to address the surface drainage in Audra Lane. To meet the flow requirements with the available capacities stubbed to our property, we have to assume times of concentration in excess of 15 minutes. Per discussion with Ed Witkowski we have assumed maximum "initial" time of concentration for overland flow in accordance with the City of Denton Drainage Criteria Manual. Because of ordinance changes, the existing pipe system from East Oaks Addition does not contain mn-off from the 100-year storm. Since this pipe system is located in a proposed open space area, we consulted Ed Witkowski about a variance to allow the extra flow to remain on the surface. Ed indicated that if we would provide hydraulic grade line (HGL) computations to show that the proposed system would not adversely impact the design criteria for the East Oaks Addition, that he would support the variance. We provided the data with our next submission of the Preliminary plat. Ed agreed that our HGL computations did not adversely impact East Oaks Addition, but could not support the variance based on the direction of Dave Salmon and Charles Feidler. Per our last discussion, Ed Witkowski agreed that the overland flow through the open space represented no damage to the City of Denton. Z:\Sent Records\700-800\740\740 - LT02 Kevin Roberts - variance.doc Audra Oaks Attachment 01 Applicant's Letter City of Denton, Engineering Department Arm: Kevin Roberts, P.E. Friday, November 15, 2002 Page 2 The Preliminary plat shows the alternate pipe system required to meet the Denton Development Code requirement, that mn-off concentrations of less than 300 cubic feet per second from a 100-year storm be contained within a pipe system. With the proposed design the overland run-offin the open space area would be reduced from existing conditions. We are requesting that for the existing and proposed pipe systems through the open space, that the requirement for the 100-year storm to be contained in the pipe system to be waived in accordance with the attached plan. Since the new ordinances does not give a maximum concentration of surface flow in an open space before it is required to be picked-up, we do not see the subdivision ordinance required pipe system through the open space as providing any significant benefit or value to the adjacent lots or owner, while costing approximately $92,400. We believe that cost of these required improvements "exceed any reasonable benefit to the property owner" and request that exaction variance be approved in accordance with your subdivision ordinance. Sincerely, Greg ~Wards, P. E. SEN+r~orp. Z:\Sent Records\700-800\740\740 - LT02 Kevin Roberts - variance.doc Audra Oaks Attachment 02 Site Location Map University Mingo Road Mockingbird Ln Audra Lane SITE Loop 288 Not to Scale North 0 0 Audra Oaks Attachment 04 Owner/Developer Correspondence FROM: "J. Johnson" <gljiii@Earthlink. NET> "TO: dwsalmon@cityofdenton.com'" <dwsalmon@cityofdenton.com>, Subject: Audra Oaks David, I enjoyed meeting with you regarding the Audra project. It was a productive meeting and I think that our solution will be beneficial to the City as well as the future home owners. I want to summarize what we agreed on, 1st The city will grant the 2 variance request (block length and drainage). 2nd We will dedicate the area defined as "open area" to the parks department for a city park. 3rd We will grade an area to handle excess storm water to the east side of the park. We are currently negotiating with the parks dept the exact details on the dedication of the property. I look forward to working with the city to see this project to a successful completion. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call Thanks, George L. (Jay) Johnson III G LJ I I I ("~_.Earthlin k. Net Audra Oaks Attachment 05 Existing Site Photograph CondenseItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. VOKOUN: The applicant is saying that it's about three feet deep. COMMISSIONER ROY: And that's going to be okay in a residential arcs? MR. VOKOtrN: The gas line also goes down into this residential area to the south. So, yes, it's sufficiently deep for that purpose, but it wouldn't be deep enough for a road to be built over it. COMMISSIONER ROY: thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions of staff at this time? MR. VOtCOt.~: 'the applicant is here tonight? COMMISSIONER POWELL: would the applicant like to speak? MR. BUSSELL: commissioners, my name is Allen Bussell, Oreg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Page 7 subdivision. Our Development Code typically requires that the 100-year storm be handled in an underground pipe system under most circumstances. And in this particular case, what's being proposed are some inlets on the street that runs north and south and tying into an existing storm sewer that was built many years ago when East Oaks was developed. The storm sewer will not carry a 100-year storm, nor will it even carry a ten-year storm. However, given the fact that this is a relatively small subdivision with not a lot of lots because it's NR-2 zoning, the cost associated with upgrading the existing storm sewer system to carry a 100-year storm was considerable. In addition, the applicant or thc owner has agreed that he will do some dirt work in this park, Amanda Court, Ponder. I'm here for any questions that you may have. A good example, I think, of infill using NR-2 and clustering the design and giving the Parks Dcparunent a park in the area. COMMiSSiONeR t~OWELL: Anybody have any questions of the applicant.9 That's the fastest I've ever seen you sit down, sir. MR. BUSSELC: I like it. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other comments or Page 6 questions from the members? is there a motion to be had here? I'm sorry, I don't have anything up here on the board. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval, Mr. Chair. 1 2 3 4 5 6 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a motion and a 8 second to approve it as is. Any other comments? Let's 9 vote. Vote is 6-0 in favor. 10 We'll go to Item No. 7 -- excuse me, item 11 No. 5. Additional item for individual consideration, 12 consider a variance of Section 35.19.6(c)1 of the 13 Development Code considering drainage, specifically 14 underground storm sewer requirements, and make a 15 recommendation to the City Council. 16 The 17.94 acre parcel is located on the 17 south side of Audra Lane between Nottinghmn Drive and :18 Mockingbird Lane. The property is a Neighborhood 19 Residential, NR-2 zoning district. A single-family 20 subdivision is proposed. Mr. Salmon. 21 MR. SALMON: Thank you. Good evening, Vice 22 Chair and members of the Cormnission. This variance on a 23 very similar vein to the one that you just heard, although 24 this one is an exaction variance, deals with how the 25 drainage is going to be handled through the proposed 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed park area to push the overland flow off to one side while he's out there doing the dirt work for the remainder of the subdivision so that when the property is dedicated to the Parks Department, they't[ have more usable space. So this has really been a good workout between the Parks and Recreation Department and the Engineering Department and the owner of the property to come up with a solution that I think works for everybody Page 8 1 that's been involved in the project. We think it meets 2 the intent of the Code, but not the letter of the Code. 3 And because of the extra cost associated with actually 4 following the Code to the letter, we're recommending that 5 this variance be granted based on the exaction criteria. 6 I'll be glad to answer any questions you may have. And, 7 again, the applicant is in the audience, 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Questions of staff at 9 this time? Mr. Mulroy. l0 COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may just 11 cmrauent. Appreciate the presentation. It was very well 12 done, well written. Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: ^ny other questions 14 of staff?. Mr. Roy. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes. I'm a little 16 confused. We have in our backup some letters which I read 17 which indicate the applicant is not in agreement with what 18 has been proposed tonight. So I was expecting you to say 19 something different. Is the information that's in the 20 backup -- it's dated, I notice in November, and so this 21 position is no longer -- 22 MR. SALMON: YOU'Ve got two letters. One, 23 the applicant in this case for this variance was actually 24 the engineering firm. And back in November, they applied 25 for the variance of this drainage requirement. After a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 5 - Page 8 CondenseltTM Page 9 I lot of discussion and several meetings which included the 2 owner of the property -- well, let me back up. We 3 originally, staff, were not in favor of the variance as 4 originally presented. 5 Then the Parks and Recreation Department 6 becm~e involved in the discussions. And then we also got 7 the owner involved in the discussions in addition to the 8 engineering firm. And so after this first letter was 9 submitted, we worked out this other agreement with the 10 parks dedication and doing the additional dirt work which 11 really made it a palatable deal for everybody involved. 12 After we had those meetings, we received 13 the other -- actually, you should have in your backup a 14 copy of an E-mail that I received from the owner of Mr. 15 Johnson. I think it's Attactunent No. 5. And at that 16 point, and I guess we probably should have dated this, but 17 this, the E-mail that I got from Mr. Johnson came in after 18 we had additional meetings and came up with this plan to 19 dedicate parkland and do some dirt work and things of that 20 nature. 21 And as you can tell by Attacl~nent No. 5, 22 the owner is in favor of what's being proposed with thc 23 park dedication and he's willing to, while he's out there 24 doing dirt work for the subdivision, also do a little bit 25 of dirt work in the park area. So that may be where the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lg 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 11 motion is to approve. Do we know what we're approving? That's what's bothering me here. There's so much back and forth in this backup. If we have an understanding of what we're approving, and we're not going to get in trouble down the road because we don't know what we approved, then I'm fine with it. MS. PALUMBO: The variance that you're approving, and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, is for the storm drainage requirements, not putting in a closed sys~n. :aR. S^LMON: Right. The variance would be to allow the developer to not put the entire 100-year storm underground, which is what is typically required. But in addition to that, I guess as a condition, this property is going to be dedicated to the Parks and Recreation Department understanding that they still have some negotiations to work out in terms of park fees, and that's ongoing; and with the understanding that the developer is willing to do, at this point we don't know how much, but some amount of dirt work in the process of moving dirt around within the subdivision so that we can get the overland flow pushed off to, I guess, what would be the east side of the property to make mom usable space. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. Now Page 12 confusion is coming in. This evolved, obviously, over a period of about two months starting in November. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you vm'y much. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions of staff here? I'd ask the applicant if he'd like to speak to us. Give us your name and address, sir. MR. EDWARDS: chairman, members of the Conunission, my name is Crmg Edwards. I'm with Ores Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 gananda Court, Ponder, ~v¢ have a motion to approve and we have two understandings here. Now, I'm not trying to make a mountain out of this molehill but arc we all clear on what we're doing and is the applicant clear on what we're doing? He's shaking his head. I'm going to go along with him. COMMISSIONER MULROY: And if I may, Mr. Chairman, my motion is to approve the variance as recommmded by staff in the package. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. Texas. I'm just here if you have any questions. We agree with the presentation by Mr. Sahnon and appreciate the efforts that he's made to make this thing work, and hope you can support their recommendation. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. I don't see any questions. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy, go ahead and make that motion. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I move approval, please. COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS there a second? COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Motion has been inade and secondexl. Now I have a question of counsel. The 10 11 12 13 .14 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 The second is also that way. If there are no other questions or conunents -- there is from Mr. Roy. And, Mr. Johnson, and I missed him. I'll catch Mr. Roy and come back to you, if I may, sir. Thank you. COMMISSIONER ROY: So we're approving the -- we will b~ voting to approve the variance as stated by staff, but staff has stated a whole bunch of assumptions and things that are supposed to happen, and I'm a little bit uncomfortable with that. Maybe I would be comfortable if the applicant got up and' on public record stated that he was going to mcct and work along those lines and do as David says. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we'll bring him forward then as soon as we hear from Mr. Johnson because he may want to speak to the applicant also. Sir. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: well, nay question PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 9 - Page 12 CondcnscltTM Page 13 1 was similar to that. Wouldn't it be appropriate to 2 approve the -- to maybe to amend the motion to approve the 3 variance with conditions and then specify the conditions? 4 Is that really what werre doing? 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: l'lll not SUm and I'm 6 going to ask Ms. Palumbo. She's asking to get in here and 7 I'm welcoming it. 8 MS. PALUMBO: If the Cormnission is 9 uncomfortable with the representations that the applicant 10 has made and staff has made, then they could either table 11 it, request it to come back when there's a more firm 12 agremnent made, or state the conditions on the record and 13 have the developer come up and agree to those conditions. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: If I may, you have 15 stated the conditions. 16 Ma. S^t. MON: Yes. If it might clear it up 17 a little bit, I think the only thing that hasn't been 100 18 percent worked out is that the developer or owner of the 19 property is in the midst of negotiating with our Parks and 20 Recreation Deparmaent the appropriate parks fee to be paid 21 when the plat is filed and when building permits are 22 pulled. Understanding that they're dedicating more 23 property than wliat would typically be required under the 24 park dedication requirements, which is something that's in 25 the Parks and Recreation Department's purview, they can 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 15 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: And if they don't 2 achieve that final conclusion, it vacates the whole 3 action. So I don't think we need -- in my mind, wc don't 4 need to define technically much more of what's going to 5 happen because if it doesn't come tree, it will just be 6 vacated. 7 MR. SALMON: well, and I would agree. I 8 really wouldn't expect it to happen based on the tone of 9 our last mo~ting. But if for some strange reason there 10 wasn't an agreement made on the park fees and the thing 11 cratered, we'd obviously have to come back with something 12 different. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'd ask the applicant 14 to come back up, if I may, and give us your concept of 15 this also, if you still agree with Mr. Salmon or if you 16 don't. 17 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, I still agree with Mr. 18 Salmon. Basically, the drainage variance, as I see it, 19 from what we originally requested, the -- we originally 20 asked for, suggested two yard inlets that are now going to 21 be grade inlets. 22 And there is an existing channel associated 23 with the 36-inch pipe. We were planning on using that as 24 the overland channel for overland relief througll this 25 area. The City is asking that we realign that to the Page 14 negotiate those fees with the developer when the develop chooses to dedicate additional property. It's my understanding based on the last meeting we had that the owner is really quite happy to dedicate this property to the Parks and Recreation Department because he doesn't want to have to maintain it. And the Parks and Recreation Department specifically indicated that they were open to reducing the mnount of park fees that they would typically cotlect based on the fact that he's dedicating more property than what would normally be required. The only thing I don't know is if they have ever come to thc exact figure. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we'll hear from Mr. Mulroy. Then I'll ask for the applicant to come back up. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO, Mr. Satmon, there's no question, at least there's not in my mind, and I would ask you and the applicant, from the engineering standpoint, the platting process, the layout, what's physically going to happen to the field and the drainage, all that is a high degree of certainty as far as this motion and this package is. And the unknown, you're saying, is a final negotiation between Parks and thc owner on the trade-off between the dedicated land and the fee. MR. SALMON: YeS. That's the way I would put it. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 16 eastern part of the park so that the remaining portion of the park is more usable, and we have no problen~ with that. We think that's, you know, a wonderful compromise. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO we*re all in agreement here? MR. EDW~a~DS: Yes. If the stuff falls apart with the Parks Department -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: It'S going to be coming back to us anyway. MR. EDWARDS: Yeah. Well, if the variance was there, you know, we would probably follow through with thc drainage improvements as shown on the staff recommendations. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Johnson, have you got a question of this man? COMMISSIONER JOItNSON: well, no, I think maybe of the City staff or somebody. Well, remember now, what we're doing here is we're recmmnending that the City Council approve this. We're not actually approving it ourselves. So after we get done with this, our recommendation is going to go to the City Council and our recommendation is going to be to approve the variance. Okay. Right now, the conditions are implicit within the variance that we're recormnending. PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 13 - Page 16 CondenseltTM Page 17 1 Now, my question would be will all this be 2 worked out before this is taken to the City Council so 3 flint they won't be hearing the same thing we are. They're 4 going to be approving something that's not completed. 5 MR. SALMON: Typically, it takes nearly a 6 month to get from Planning and Zoning Cormnission to City 7 Council with a variance. So, I mean, I can certainly do 8 anything i can within my powers, you know, I can inform 9 the Parks and Recreation Department that it would be 10 really good to have this worked out before it goes in 11 front of the City Council. 12 And, frankly, given the fact that it's 13 probably going to be three weeks to a month at least 14 anyway, I would certainly hope that that would be a 15 reasonable time to have those issues worked out because 16 it's already been probably two to ttwee weeks since we had 17 our last meeting with the applicant and the Parks 18 Department. And I wouldn't be entirely surprised if maybe 19 they're not already close to working it out, but it just 20 hasn't been confirmed. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Chairman, I would 23 like to amend my motion and add the qualifier that the 24 agreement with the Parks Department be finalized pr/or to 25 submission to City Council. 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 2I 22 23 24 25 Page 19 change no matter who develops this property unless you upzone it a lot to figure out that gas problem, the gas line. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR, BUSSELL: YeS, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other conunents? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. My comment would be if it were as close to an agreement as was stated, then my amendment shouldn't be offensive to any party. COMMISSIONER POWELL: seeing no other names up on the board, I will call for a vote. Motion passes 6-0 of the members present. We go into public hearings, Item No. 6. I will open the public hearing and consider making a recormnendation to City Council regarding amending the detailed plan for Planned Development 170, 172, and 176, formerly I guess m-17o. 172,176. The approximate 253 acres of land commonly known as the Wheeler Ridge Addition is located south of Nowlin and Robinson Roads on the east side of Farm to Market 2181, Teasley Lane, generally opposite Hickory Creek Road. The amendment will alter the number of lots and increase the open space. Single-family residential subdivision and open space parkland are Page 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Does the seconder go along with that? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion as made before with the qualifier that the full agreement be in place before it goes to Council. Is there any other comments or questions from the floor? Staff has something else? We have somebody coming up here and we'll ask for his name and address again. MR. BUSSELL: Allen Bussell, Greg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Court, Ponder. I just want to again point out, whether or not this goes through the Parks Department, the layout is not going to change. This is the stone layout I had before any discussion was with the Parks. Tiffs is NR-2 zoning. You can only get so many lots on here. You need to cluster them on this side of the gas line. That's not going to change. The other lots are NR-4 and NR-2 combined. That's not going to change. The only thing is taking this channel on this side. We don't have a problem with that. It's not so much working a fee out with the Park. That fee is not paid until the end of the platting process. It shouldn't be holding up a variance for something that needs to be done engineering-wise anyway. The layout is not going to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 il0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 Page 20 proposed. Tiffanie. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MS. WILLIS: commission, before you this evening is the Wheeler Ridge, Phase In zoning request, as thc Commissioner read so distinctly. They're requesting to allow an adjustment on lot layout in their 253-acre subdivision. They're off Teasley Road for two parcel On your screen before you, you see your site location, the area notified, and the future land use map does show you a few features. This area is an existing Neighborhood Center, future land use designation. Our zoning, as stated, is I'DqTo, t72, and 176 with adjacent properties, NR-2, 4, and 6, as well as to the SOUI~i NRMU and t,,RMU42, and then Planned Development 111 there to the City limit boundary. In die chart included in your backup, we just give you a brief synopsis of the change and request. As you notice, the lot width is increasing from 45 feet to 55 feet, as well as the size, the lot size is changing from 72,000 square feet to 6,000. And the area being affected, I don't have a pendant, but on the screen before you, if you can kind of use your 3D eyes, see your box there to your upper left-hand corner of the screen, that's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 17 - Page 20 ~E~--0~--0~ 05:~0 AM $OH~O~ PROP~RTI~8 9?2 294 8894 P.01 ~'~-U3A1i:49 RCYD 321 E, McKINNEY · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (940) 349.PARK · FAX 1940) . Mr. Jay Johnson Jo~u~on C2t Pearl Cov~ Oak Point, TX 75O68 RE: DEDICATION OF LA.ND FOR PARK IN AUDRA OAIiS SUBBM$ION, . Dear lVir, Johnson: i You hav~ proposed a siuglo-tamily d~vdopagnt (Audra Oaks) with 411ors on 1'/,94 acres within Denton ciU/limils, . As we lmv¢ discussed, thc Park Land Dedication Ordinance (Ordinance No. 98-039) applk~ to your development. 'The Ordinanc~ rgluirgs tusidential suMMsious to &xii~at~ land ~oz park uso basud on thc lypa of &'velopmcnt .irwolv~ (single family and/or multi-family) and abe number of units, TI~ formula fi-om tbe Ordinang is 2.5 ~'res dmcs the number of units times thc average number ofper~ons l~r unit divided by 1,000, In your case, the fotinula is 2.5 acres x 4! units x 2.$ persons divided by 1,000 for a total of 0.257 acres of land requirexl for Pa~ dedication, You ~ve proposed to dedicate a park area of approximately 7.18 acr~, which is in exc~s oftbe rtxptirod &die'tieR amount. We thank you for thig proposed ger~rous donation of hind to t~ l~ncfit of thc City of Denton. You tr~ 5: .able to usc the exgss dedication as a tax,dcdu~bla ~ntril~tion. You may ~sh Zo discuss thi~ with yom. tax ,The City of Denton has a Park Naming Poli~y ~t w~ich I have enclosc, d a copy for your rcvi~'w, Pl~s~ ffyou wish to provi& a suSl~'stion for ~nming tt~ The Park Dedication O~dinanc~ also provides for d-welopment of a park by a Park Development fee, This fee is 'paid at thc time a Imild~r secures a bulldin8 lmnuit. The f~ amount Is $291.00 ~ n~identla{ unit. Fees tYomlyour &'vclopm~t will be combin~ with other developments within a P'~ 1o 1-mile radius of il~ ikdicaled park slt~ to 'construct a playground and other lark improvements ~ Nils, md prs~ sports rields, ~c, · Sing ~ Planning Commission placod a condign of a~roval for fig variance of pablio imixovomants for your ~,mdxlivision bagd on an agreement of park land d~lication and park dcvelopment fees, please sign below thai you i are in agreement with the dedication of al:l~ximetcly 7.18 acres and payment of Park &velopment fins as building 'pernUts are imgd per the Park Dedication Ordinance. I have cn¢los~ an cnv¢lop for return to us, Tha~kyou for your COolgration. If you hav~ any furthc, r questions, pl~ase call me at (940) 349-8271, Singr¢ly, :Patios and P,~crcation Depart~em *I ara in agreement with this let~ otPark Dedication roquirement~ for the Audra Oaks subdivision 02/17~O3 #4M AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 18, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Water and Wastewater Utilities ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas calling a Public Hearing of the DeNon City Council on Land Use Assumptions, a Capital Improvemems Plan, and a Proposed Amendment to Impact Fees related to the possible adoption of Amended Water and Wastewater Impact Fees in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code; requiring the City Secretary to post notice of the public hearing and to provide additional notice of the public hearing as set forth in the body of this ordinance; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND On February 3, 2003 the Council was presemed the Duncan and Associates Impact Fee Study. The impact fees calculated in the study were based on land use assumptions, population projections and the 1 O-year water and wastewater capital improvemem plan (CIP) approved by the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee. The land use assumptions and population projections were prepared by the City's Planning Departmem and the CIP was prepared by Allan Plummer and Associates. Impact Fees are governed by §395 of the Texas Local Governmem Code and require certain procedures to be followed in order to revise an existing impact fee. §395.042 requires an "ordinance be adopted establishing a public hearing date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvemems plan for the designated service area." This ordinance is required in order to give a 30-day notice to the public of the public hearing. After the public hearing council will be asked to approve or disapprove the land use assumptions, the capital improvemem plan and the impact fees to be implememed. The public hearing will be scheduled for March 25, 2003. OPTIONS 1. Approve the 30-day notice for a public hearing for March 25, 2003, regarding the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. 2. Set a different date for the 30-day notice. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends setting a date of March 25, 2003 for the public hearing. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission) On December 18, 2002, the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee approved the land use assumptions and 10-year capital improvement plan as it relates to impact fees. On February 3, 2003 the Public Utilities Board was presented the Duncan and Associates Impact Fee Study and made the following recommendations regarding the implementation of the impact fees. Single Zone Impact Fee for Water Zone Impact Fees for Wastewater - 2 zones Hickory/Pecan Creek Clear Creek 3. Collecting the maximum fee allowable by imposing a fee based on the calculated credit Water Single Zone $3,155 Wastewater Hickory/Pecan Creek $1,703 Clear Creek $2,614 Staff presented the Duncan and Associates Impact Fee Study, as well as, the Public Utilities Board recommendations to Council on February 4, 2003. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance Respectfully submitted: Howard Martin ACM, Utilities ORDINANCE NO. 2003- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CALL- lNG A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE DENTON CITY COUNCIL ON LAND USE ASSUMP- TIONS, A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, AND A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO IMPACT FEES RELATED TO THE POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF AMENDED WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; REQUIRING THE CITY SECRETARY TO POST NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AS SET FORTH IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on the 15th day of October, 2002, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2002-342 appointing the City of Denton, Texas Planning and Zoning Commission members and one (1) additional ad hoc committee member from the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City as the Denton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (the "Committee"), in accordance with Texas Local Government Code §395.058, to study and to make recommendations concerning the imposition of amended impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Committee has met as required by law since the enactment of the above- referenced Ordinance No. 2002-342 to consider land use assumptions and a capital improve- ments plan related to the possible adoption of amended impact fees to recover those costs related to water and wastewater facilities, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council should hold a public hearing in accordance with the re- quirements of subchapter C of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code to obtain pub- lic input on the land use assumptions, to the capital improvements plan, and relating to the possi- ble adoption of such amended impact fees; and WHEREAS, the Committee shall, as required by §395.056 file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and proposed amended impact fees before the 5th business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments, which is scheduled for Tuesday, March 25, 2003, at 6:30 p.m. and shall make its recommendations to the City Council known, with regard to land use assumptions, capital im- provements plan, and amended impact fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to set a public heating on the subject of land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, and relating to the possible adop- tion of amended impact fees; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby calls a public hearing to be held in the City Council Chambers in the City Hall, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 at 6:30 p.m. on March 25, 2003 to consider the adoption of land use assumptions within a designated EXHIBIT 1 service area that includes an area both within the corporate city limits of Denton and portions of its extraterritorial jurisdiction, to consider the capital improvements plan as proposed, and to consider, as more fully shown on the attached notice of public hearing, the possible adoption of amended impact fees to recover costs related to water and wastewater facilities. The land use assumptions will be used to develop a Capital Improvements Plan. SECTION 2. That the City Secretary and the Director of Water Utilities of the City of Denton, Texas are hereby directed to publish notice of the public hearing on one occasion, before the 30th day before the date set for the heating, in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation in Denton County, Texas; said notice to be substantially in accordance with the notice of public hearing which is attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all pur- poses and in compliance with Texas Local Government Code §395.055(b). Further, on or before the 30th day before the date of the public hearing on land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and proposed amended impact fees, the City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas shall send a notice of the public heating by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the City Secretary, as the designated official of the City of Denton, Texas, requesting notice of the public hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution setting the public hearing. SECTION 3. That on or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the pub- lic heating on the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and proposed amended im- pact fees, the City Secretary shall make available to the public the City's land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of the general nature of the capital improve- ment facilities, that may be proposed in accordance with Texas Local Government Code §395.043, in the office of the City Secretary in the City Hall at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201. SECTION 4. 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: Page 2 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\03~Amendment of Impact Fee - Public Heating Notice 021703.doc Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO THE POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES A public hearing of the Denton City Council will be convened at 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 25, 2003 at the Denton City Council chambers, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201 on the above and foregoing issues. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions and capital improve- ments plan under which amended impact fees may be proposed. Any member of the public has the right to appear at the public hearing and present evi- dence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. Page 4 02/17~03 #5A AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 .~";~ SUBJECT - Z02-0060 (The Timbers at Denton) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a Specific Use Permit to allow outdoor recreation use on approximately 84 acres located in a Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road, east of 1-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartment units are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0. BACKGROUND Applicant: Kim Fugitt on behalf of the Lindsey Company Fayetteville, Arkansas The applicant has submitted a request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) proposing a nine-hole golf course. In the NRMU-12 zoning district a SUP is required for any outdoor recreational use. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 3. As of this writing, staff has received two responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site, one neutral and one in opposition. Staff has also received two favorable responses from the subject site property owners. Current opposition is less than 20%. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0, Commissioner Apple was absent) with the following conditions: 1. The revised site plan submitted at the Planning and Zoning meeting does not change in regard to prohibiting apartments on the eastern portion of the site. 2. The Water Utility Department is to reach an agreement with the applicant concerning the ESA issues and the golf course maintenance. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The property must be platted prior to any development. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0060, commonly known as The Timbers at Demon: Application Date - DRC Date - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - November 7, 2002 November 21, 2002 December 18, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city. short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map, Owner Responses) 4. Minutes from December 18 Planning and Zoning Meeting 5. Draft Ordinance and Exhibits 6. Applicam submittal Prepared by: It will require no Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: Rei AICP :Assistant Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The applicant is proposing a multi-family development with a nine-hole golf course. The multi- family use is permitted in the Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12), however the golf course is classified as outdoor recreation and requires a Specific Use Permit (SUP). Existing Condition of Proper .ty Property History. February 20, 2002 - Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use 12 classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Planned Development 99 (PD 99), which contained a mix of multi-family and single-family residential homes. The subject property is vacant and contains a large portion of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, including Upland Habitat. The subject property was placed in the (NRMU-12) zoning district and land use Upland Habitat and ESA disturbance - 35.17.9A 1 & 3 - The applicant is proposing to remove 52% of the total ESA Upland Habitat, Stream Buffer, and Flood Plain area. The applicant has provided the following information: Total Acreage = 84 acres Existing ESA/Upland Habitat Existing Open space *ESA Upland Habitat to be removed for Golf Course *Permitted = 66 acres 79% = 18 acres 21% = 19.5 acres or 29% of ESA The following are permitted in the "Undeveloped Flood Plain" according to 35.17.7: 1. The planting of new trees or vegetation. 2. Restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian buffers, upland habitats, wetlands and streams as required by federal and state standards. 3. The placement of public or private utility facilities as needed, provided impacts to environmentally sensitive areas are not negative. 4. Measures to remove or abate nuisances. 5. Parking lots constructed of pervious materials. 6. Parks, open space, and trails. 7. New storm water pre-treatment facilities. 8. Routine maintenance. 9. Construction of a private driveway. According to 35.17.7 C any new structures or additions and the removal of tree and understory vegetation are prohibited in the undeveloped flood plain area. Subchapter 17 35.17.9 - Upland Habitat Development Standards Non-residential developmem may remove any or all of the Upland Habitat. The Upland Habitat to be removed for the golf course is approximately 29% based on the applicam's calculations. See item 8 on applicant letter. The western border of the property comains undeveloped floodplain. The proposed golf course will cause disturbance to this area. However, if the golf course is designed and maimained properly, environmemal impacts should be minimal although this activity will have an environmental impact that is greater than leaving the property in its current state. Adjacem zoning: North: Industrial Cemer General (IC-G) zoning district - DeNon Landfill South: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) zoning district - Andrews Corporation and Single-family residemial East: Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and ETJ zoning districts - Single-family residemial West: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) zoning district - Single-family residemial/mobile home park and Andrews Corporation Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" and "Flood Plain" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. Currently the areas surrounding the site are a mix of industrial uses, single-family homes and vacant land. The proposed specific use permit would not be detrimental to the existing or future development of this area. Development Code/Zoning Analysis The applicant has proposed the development of a nine-hole golf course, which requires a Specific Use Permit in the NRMU-12 zoning district. Section 35-112 of the Zoning Ordinance (69-01) states that a Specific Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the following conditions have been found: That the specific use will be compatible with and not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The development of a golf course should not diminish or impair property values in the immediate vicinity. e That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; It is unlikely that establishment of this specific use will impede the normal and orderly development of surrounding property. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; All necessary supporting facilities will be provided. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; All proposed parking areas and driveways will be required to meet the requirements of the City of Denton at the time of platting. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; Adequate nuisance prevention measures will be taken. No odors, dust, noise, or vibration will occur after initial development. e That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and Proposed lighting will not adversely affect neighboring properties. 7. That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property. Specific landscaping information will be determined at time of platting. However, Section 35-113 allows the Commission to recommend additional conditions on the proposal to protect the public imerest and the welfare of the community. STAFF FINDINGS The proposed use is compatible with The DeNon Plan and the DeNon Developmem Code. The applicam has met all requiremems of a Specific Use Permit. The proposed disturbance to the Upland Habitat is permitted and the disturbance to the Undeveloped Floodplain for the golf course is compatible. Staff Recommendation Based on above findings staff recommends approval of the Specific Use Permit as requested. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location/Zoning Map NORTH Scale: None Maps ESA Map NORTH Scale: None Future Land Use Map NORTH Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Newspaper Notification Date: December 5, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 8 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 2 (subject property owners) · Neutral: 1 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: approximately 0 % Scale: None *Sites in the 500' notification area without addresses are not notified via courtesy notice. *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Guy Wade Willis Opposed "Too much multi-family in area that was always to 5367 Edwards Road be single-family, new use of property will destroy Denton, Texas 76208 area." Bonnie Coonrod Neutral NA 4410 Swisher Road Denton, Texas 76208 Khosrow Favor West Parcel Owner Sadeghian/Amy Pennington PO Box 50593 Denton, Texas 76206 James Brown Favor East Parcel Owner 6750 Hillcrest Plaza "This represents a serious upgrade of the Dallas, Texas 75230 surrounding mobile homes, landfill, etc." *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 CondcnseItTM ! 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 11 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 Page 37 COMMISSIONER POWELL: we'll move on to the Itcan No. 8, which is a public hearing. It's to hoId a public hearing and consider making recommendation to City Council rc>garding Specific Use Permit application for outdoor recreation use on approximately 84 acres located in a neighborhood residential mixed use I2 zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road east of 1-35. A nine hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartment units are proposed. The Timbers at D~nton would be the name and Autmnn Spccr wilt be presenting. MS. SPEER: Good evening again, Colmnissioners. Agenda Item 8 does concern tile request for 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 a Specific Use Permit to allow for outdoor recreation. The existing site is an 84, approximately 84 acre site located in a neighborhood residential mixed use 12 zoning district. The outdoor recreation use is only permitted per a Specific Usc Penni[ The property was -- prior to the Development Code, prior to the NRMU-12, this property was part of a planned development in '99. And the subject property is currently vacant and contains a large portion of ~s^. If I can direct you to the site, the NRMU-12. tile 80 acres in the center. This is file site north of Edwards Road. This is the ES^ map that it contains. The dark green is the Page 39 In order to meet the requirements for a Specific Use Permit, tile applicant must meet seven conditions. Staff finds the proposed application has met all the requirements for the Specific Use Permit. Staff also finds the proposed use is compatible plan and the Denton Development Code and the proposed disturbance to the upland habitat is pemfitted and the disturbance to tile undeveloped flood plain for the golf course is compatible and minimal. Based on the above finding, staff reconunends approval of the requested Specific Use Permit as requested. The applicant is here for questioning. COMMISSIONER POWELL: All right. Before Page 3 8 I upland habitat area. The pink is the stremu buffer and 2 then the light pail green dots is the flood plain area of 3 the site. The proposed site plan -- let me let you see 4 this one. This one is a little easier to see. tt does 5 include the nine hole golf course and that's what we're 6 considering right now for the Specific Use Permit. 7 Based on the applicant's information, the 8 existing RS^ upland habitat area is approximately 55 9 acres, 69 percent of the site. The proposed golf course 10 is going to be 48 acres, 60 percent of the ES^. They're 11 proposing to remove 16 acres of the ESA, the upland 12 habitat area which is 29 percent of the total ESA. Our 13 Code does allow the removal of all upland habitat area for 14 nonresidential uses. 15 The site also has flood plain area in the 16 northwestern section. In your backup, water resources 17 management has provided a report. They've met with the 18 applicant and they've discussed the minimal dmnagc that 19 this will do to the flood plain based on the golf course 20 usc. Currently, the area surrounding the site is a mix of 21 single family uses. The industrial uses, of course, the 22 landfill to the north, mobile home park to the west. And 23 the ETJ to the south and to the east. The proposed golf 24 course would be compatible with the existing uses in the 25 area. 14 the applicant comes up, let me officially open the public 15 hearing that I forgot to do again. And I believe Ms. Holt 16 would like to talk to staff. 17 COMMISSIONER HOLT: could you point out on 18 this map where the single family homes are? 19 MS. SPEER: YOU cai1 see,, the mouse right 20 here. This ET~ area over here, there's a home located 21 right here and there arc single family homes located in 22 this area. 23 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. Could you put 24 that previous picture up that showed the development? The 25 site plan -- now, could you show me on that where the Page 40 1 single fmniIy goes? 2 MS. SPEEa: Certainly. Thc single family 3 homes are located right in here around the 480. 4 COMMISSIONER HOLT: okay. 5 MS. SPEER: And south of Edwards Road right 6 here. This development -- well, we'll talk about that 7 when we get to the next agenda item. But there are single 8 fmnily homes in this area. The landfill is to the north 9 and the mobile home park is right here. Andrews 10 Corporation owns this section. 11 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you. 12 MS. SPEER: You're welcome. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a question for 14 staff. I didn't see any other names. As I understand 15 this, the multi-family is already zoned for? i6 MS. SPEER: correct. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO they wouldn't need 18 to put in the golf course. It could ali be multi-family? 19 MS. SPEER: NO, sir, not based on the 20 property situation of the flood plain and upland habitat. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: well, I don't mean 22 the whole site, but, I mean, there's no -- 23 MS. SPEER: YOU're correct. The 24 multi-fmnily is by use allowed. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: SO assuming it met PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 37 - Page 40 Condons¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 :25 Page 4 ali the other requirenlents, there's no need -- MS. SPEER: correct. GOMMISSIONER POWELL: -- for any additional development for a golf course or anything like that? MS. SPEER: C0rrl~t. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. Is there any other comments or questions for staff from the members? We'll ask for the applicant. MR. LINDSAY: Y~S~ sir. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Lindsny. I'm from Fayetteville, Arkansas. live at 1165 -- or my office is I 165 Joy Strogt in Fayerteville, Arkansas. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you for coming, sir. MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. I'm glad to be here. When we come to a town or look at a town we survey a lot of dmnographic analysis. And for what we do, and -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: Excuse Ole for interrupting you, sir. "We" -- help us out. Who is this "We"? MR. LINDSAY: JllSt Lindsay Company and with our partners which are Joe Hickman and the Jones' fmnily. We have been friends with Jerry Jones and his family all the way back to Arkansas. And that was our relationship. We did the project at McKinney that's being done right Page 42 I now, The Greens at McKinney. And we looked at these 2 market places and we saw Denton to bo what we think is an 3 ideal situation for what we're talking about here. 4 I don't know how to approach this exactly. 5 I'd like to be real open and up front about saying, do we 6 tell you our whole story so you could try to understand 7 maybe whether or not it made sense to approve the golf 8 course, because to approve the golf course and not tile 9 apartments would be something that would not be workable 10 for us. 11 And I would like to show y'ali and I think 12 the Chairman makes a very good point, what could be done. 13 i think -- and I stand to be corrected on anything I say 14 here. Larry is an expert on this and, also, Autmnn knows 15 far more about it than I know. But we would show you what 16 we think we could do and then show you what we would tike 17 to do. 18 We still don't have tile northern border. I 19 can move it down a little bit. And that's what's up 20 against the landfill. We have the rule about tile 600 foot 21 spacing of streets, that they would face -- the buildings 22 would face on the street with the parking in the rear. 23 That street that exists over here -- 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: EXCUSe irlt3. Point of 25 order, Mr. Chairman. We're overlapping into the next I Page 43 I Agenda Item. And we're really venturing into his 2 alternate development plan. I'm not opposed to opening 3 that public hearing and hearing it all at once. But we're 4 -- technically have strayed off base from the golf course. 5 MR. LINDSAY: I'111 willing to do that. I 6 just was wanting fall to hear that. 7 COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's all right. 8 Thank you. And I want to go along with that and tell you 9 since I'm always the guy that wants to eat this elephant 10 one bite at a time, let's just stick with the golf course 11 here. Go ahead, sir. 12 MR. LINDSAY: Then we would show our golf PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 13 course -- we would show our golf course with a little 14 amended version of it due to a neighbor's concern. And 15 this would be -- this would be our golf course as it is 16 laid out, It's designed to try to insulate the parameter. 17 If there are residcmtial over here, we did have four 18 buildings in here that one of the neighbors protested. We 19 have changed that, and have adjusted this plan to where we 20 would hope it would be in agreement with our neighbor. 21 And if it is, then we would feel good about that. 22 The thing is here, it is mainly perimeter 23 golf, internal multi-family. Y'all know that we could 24 have 960 units here. But our thought process here right 25 now is to insulate the whole golf course for the benefit Page 44 I of both tile multi-family and the neighbors around it. 2 Now, we've done that in many places. We have 22 of these. 3 Ten of them are executive or par threes like this course 4 is. And 12 of them are big full scale 18 hole 5 championship courses. 6 And with that as a backdrop, we would just 7 say that we would ask for that to be approved and 8 consistent with file Planning Cormnission's reco~muendation 9 and the Planning Department, I mean, not the Conunission, 10 and would ask for that to be approved on that basis. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any questions of the 12 applicant? Stay up, sir, until we find that out. I guess 13 I asked you to stay up for no reason. Nobody has any 14 questions. t 5 COMMISSIONER HOLT: [ do. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Hel~ it Comes. It 17 wasn't there when I said that. 18 COMMISSIONER HOLT: NO, it wasn't. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: vicki, please. 20 COMMISSIONER HOLT: YeS, There are a lot 21 of things associated with a golf course that might not 22 nmke a good neighbor, fertilizer, run off, maintenance 23 things, buildings, drainage. Truthfully, being next to 24 the landfill, got a lot working there. What do you 25 propose to do to alleviate these problems? 12/18/2002 Page 41 - Page 44 CondenscltTM Page 45 1 MR. LINDSAY: AS far as runoff from 2 insecticides or che~nicals that are for -- on the golf 3 course, we would have four hays up and down where we would 4 enter a lake. We would have a what you might call a 5 little catch pond that filters the water that comes in. 6 If you have a big giant rain and there's a big mn off, 7 then that's a whole question. We have just not had 8 measurable problems at any golf course we've ever done due 9 to this. And we have one in Springfield, Missouri that 10 runs into the Springfield Water Supply. The creek that 11 goes through our course is one of the main creeks sent to 12 the Sringfield Water Supply. They cheak it all the time. 13 We have not had any type of measurable problem with that. 14 To say that it's possible, I guess it is. 15 But from our point of view, we have not had that at all. 16 And in this case, we're insulating this with many acres of 17 woods, 31 acres of woods that's going to be both 18 insulating coming off of the apartments and off of the 19 golf holes themselves. 20 COMMISSIONER HOLT: And I understand from 21 our backup that you did talk with our Water Resource 22 Program? i23 MR. LINDSAY: I didn't, but we sent our 24 superintendent of all of our golf courses who's the 25 supervisor of all of that because he understands more about it than I do standing here tonight, he went and visited with hiln about the possibility of the four bays Page 46 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 work with our people here in Denton to do that? MR. LINDSAY: Yes, ma'am. We're willing to monitor that. We're doing it now in Springfield. We've absolutely had no problmn with it. It's an 18-hole course. And like I say, literally, the creek that runs through it fills the lake that they pmnp their water from. Now, we -- we had extensive four bays. We did a [et of things that are designed to filter that water. We did. And so there's no question about it. COMMiSSiONER HOLT: okay. Thank you. MR. LINDSAY: Thank you, Ms. Holt. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: YC:S. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. Sir, you're requesting an sup tonight. And the nature that this sue would be permanent, but we can condition it, would you be opposed to conditions for compliance with our Water Utilities' recorm:aendations and monitoring by them as a condition of the sue? MR. L[NDSAY: what does that mean? If something happened, how long would I have to correct it or create -- COMMiSSiONER MULROY: well, it means everything you just stood here and said you're going to do that you're going to do. MR. LINDSA¥: Yeah. We'[1 be willing to do Page 48 1 that. We'll submit that as part of our detail plan to the 2 City. I mean, I'm certainly willing to do that and build 1 2 3 and the potentiality of making sure that we insulate that. 4 In this case, the main water stream docs 5 run off and goes into the landfill area. And I don't want 6 to, you know, be presumptuous at all. But I would 7 probably suggest that the water coming out the other side 8 of the landfill area will not be anywhere near as clear as 9 it is when it leaves our golf course. l0 COMMISSIONER HO~T: well, in our backup, 11 there were several rccormnendations made by our water 12 management that I wondered if you were aware of and would 13 be willing to do? 14 MR. LINDSAY: We saw all of those and 15 certainly, we're willing to agree to what's in there. I 16 mean, there's really -- I don't know what it means to join 17 the Autobahn Society. I've not done that. Butifithas 18 positive implication of what we're trying to do -- we have 19 no desire to contaminate one spec of water with what we 20 are going to attempt to do. 21 COMMISSIONER HOLT: well, and considering 22 it is in an gsA. it's a sanctuary, too. And, I mcan, it 23 can all work together. And, I mean, it can be a very 24 positive thing. But I think it has to be very carefully 25 done and monitored. And are y'all willing to do that and 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 it by that plan. COMMISSIONER MULP, OY: And I would -- don't think anyone would be capricious or arbitrary. If' there were some violations, you would have, I'm assuming, ample time, 30, 60, 90 day notification to -- MR, LINDSAY: we'll correct it, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: -- get it together. MR. LINDSAY: YeS, sir. We would enter into that. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO yOU would not be opposed to conditional -- MR. LINDSAY: NO. Pd be willing for the plans to show that. We'd be willing for the plans to show that. And, also, that we built it by the plans, that we agree in advance what the plans would be, and we build it by the plans. COMMISSIONER M~JLROY: And your operating conditions would be monitored? MR. LINDSAY: YeS, sir. We're willing to do that, sm,e. We'd like a -- like I say, 90 days or some period of time, if we've have got some kind of problem, that we'd like to diagnose where it's coming from. Maybe it's not on us. It's coming from somewhere upstream or PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 45 - Page 48 Condens¢ItTM 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1§ 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 49 something, you know. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Then my next question on the -- this portion, the sue, I think it's important to most of the mmnbers to fie this down fairly, but tightly, so we're not ambiguous about it. On your time frame, would a postponement for approval to the next meeting to allow you and thc water utilities to come up with a docmnent of monitoring and conditions to uphold and remedy Page 51 1 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Including for 2 dealing with water runoff?. 3 MS. SPEER: Water runoff' is not one of the 4 seven criteria. The seven criteria that are provided in 5 your backup is that the specific usc will be compatible, 6 not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, 7 that the establistmaent of the specific use will not impede 8 development of surrounding property, that adequate that we could formally adopt as a condition of the sut,? MR, LINDSAY: well, at the point in time that, you know -- it's the time of the year we like to IBove as fast as we can. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. MR. LINDSAY: But, hey, yOU know, fall are the boss. We're willing to do whatever makes sense. Werre in a total cooperative mood to make it fair and right. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I think that would make it concrete and it would avoid problems before they happen and we'd have a clear understanding. MR. LINDSAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we have a conmlent from our attorney. It says Ed Snyder, but I know that's not correct. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary and supporting facilities have been or will be provided. So the details -- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Okay. But it does include drainage? MS. SPEER: It do~s. And the only thing -- we don't have a detailed plan for drainage and I can't speak for that department. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. We have a comment from our attorney again. MS. PALUMBO: YeS. The Specific Use Pen'nit even though it does meet all of the seven requirements, it's discretionary, so it doesn't automatically get granted just because it meets the seven requirements. You are allowed as the Planning and Zoning Cmmnission to recorm,nend additional conditions. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Roy. Page 50 MS. PALUMBO: The Specific Use Permit provisions provide for notice and a hearing before the Council before it's revoked, so we already have that in the Code. And that would be a condition of the Specific Use Permit. So you could possibly adopt the condition that's outlined in the report by thc Water Department. COMMISSIONER MULROY: And then ask them to prepare a document before it goes forward? MS. PALUMBO: Thatts correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Good. Thank you, Counselor. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Reichhart. MR. REICHHART: I was heading the same place. place. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Heading the same Mr. Johnson. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: It is interesting, though, that this application meets all the City's requirements in all areas as is without throwing a bunch of restrictions on them. Is that not right? MS. PALUMBO: DO you want llle to answer that? COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's what staff' said earlier. It said it met the seven -- staff might help me out. It met the seven criteria. Page 52 I COMMISSIONER ROY: I was just going to 2 state that was my understanding is why we were going 3 through the consideration of these standards so I couldn't 4 have said it better. 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Watkins. 6 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. 7 Chairman. I have a real queasy feeling about this. We 8 have at least two other golf courses in Denton. And I 9 don't think we have any agreement with them on what water 10 that they use. If you build a golf course just outside of 11 the City limits, it goes into our water supply and we 12 don't have anything with thmn. Perhaps, this is an issue 13 that should be addressed for large acreages rather than 14 for this situation. 15 It almost secans like we're singling out 16 this individual that wants to build something, but we've 17 got two golf courses that have been here 50 years. And as 18 far as I know, there's never anything -- we've never 19 checked their water. Should we not do that, also? Thank 20 you. 21 COMMISSIONER ?OWELL: Mr. Reicl~hart. 22 MR. REICHHART: AS far as I kllow, 23 fortunately or unfortunately, both golf cern'se are State 24 owned and we have very little regulations that we can 25 apply to them. I could say that if there is another golf PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 49 - Page 52 CondenseltTM i course developed, we would have thc same concerns. 2 a Specific Use Permit would be required, we'd probably 3 have the same conditions on that, As we've developed, 4 those golf courses have been alo[~g for quite a while, our 5 knowledge of the effects or the pesticides, chemicals used 6 on the golf course has increased, and our awareness of 7 those have increased and that's why our concern 8 associating even with a nine hole golf course is where it 9 is right now, where we would like to monitor the type of 10 chemicals used on there. 11 There are environmentally safe chemicals 12 that can be used, improper maintenance practices would 13 minimize the effect on the environment. 14 COMM£SSIONER WATKINS: well, I totally 15 agree with the pesticides, I totally agree. But here's a 16 gentleman that has 84 acres. He wants to build a golf 17 course. And because we can't control what the State does, 18 we say, well, we're going to twist his neck, It doesn't 19 seem hardly fair. 20 MR, REICItHART' The focus -- what I was 21 saying is that those golf courses were really developed :22 quite a while ago. And as our regulations have changed -- 23 I mean, thc-ce is development that the City's even done 24 years ago that was built in flood plains. We don't do 25 that anymore. I mean, our knowledge has increased oa the Page 53 And if Page 55 I will, as opposed to, you know, requiring them to be -- 2 join the Autobahn Society. 3 MR. LINDSAY: Mr. Chairman, can I make one 4 conunent? 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, you may, sir. 6 And then I've got to go to our attorney. 7 MR. LINDSAY: These drains that go through 8 here, quite interestingly, basically run through the woods 9 on both sides, barely touching the golf course area. It 10 does cross this hole here and there's an area right in 11 there that it touches. But most of these go through the 12 woods, they're going to be a lot of filtration. We've 13 certainly got to be conscious and aware of what we put out 14 there anyway. And I don't want to be in some restrictive 15 mode that's outside the reahn of reason. But I don't 16 think that would happen and we're willing to -- we're 17 willing to accept that as part of the thought process and 18 want to be a good neighbor and want to prove our intent 19 that we want to do right by the City~ and the people 20 down stream. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Ma'am. 22 MS, PALUMBO: ~just wanted to mention that 23 the Robison Ranch connuunity, it was a planned development 24 which is kind of similar to a Specific Use Penuit, and it 25 does -- their golf course docs adhere to the Page 54 I effects of building in the flood plains, what these type 2 of environments do, the golf courses and the maintenance 3 of such. And that's why it wasn't even considered back 4 then, now it's very at the top of our list right now of 5 concerns. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr, Johnson. 7 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: IS there any other 8 development in town where the developer has had to join 9 the Autobahn Society? 10 MR. REICHHART: NOt my knowicdge. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have to tell you 11 12 that one really does bother me. 13 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON': And does beIonging 14 to a society buy anything? I mcan, what does it get you a 15 magazine or what? 16 MR. REiCHHART: I believe the intent was 17 that the Autobahn Society and if you read it further, k's 18 really to seek sanctuary status for the golf course. And 19 that has pesticide and chemical use associated with it. 20 If they do develop the pond, it's very likely that 21 waterfowl would migrate to it. 22 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: And maybe other i23 things, too. 24 MR. REICHHART: And other things, too. And i25 it's more of an environmentalty friendly practice, if you Page 56 1 environmentally sensitive area principles, They even have 2 signs posted to try to keep the players out of the ESA's. 3 So we are -~ that is a requirement of golf courses. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 5 from members? At this stage then I'1l ask you to be 6 seated, sir, And we have two speakers -- two people who 7 wish to speak on this issue. One in support and one 8 against. I'll ask the person in support and it looks like 9 Rick Barton (sic), 5138 Edwards Lane. Is he here and 10 would he like to speak? If you'd give us your name and 11 address, sir. 12 MR. BARIA: I'm sorry for my penmanship, 13 thafls Rick Baria. I live just south of the property, and 14 I guess -- can you see any finger? 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Push it up, sir, and 16 then we could see your finger. There we go. 17 MR. BARIA: My house is somewhere in here. 18 And I would say that I'm generally in support of it. I 19 think that the zoning allows for considerably more density 20 and [ think, as a neighbor, I'm just gratified that there 21 won't be quite so many houses there. And it looks like 22 it's been welt thought out. But I do have a couple of 23 concerns and that is, can I play golf there? I'm just 24 kidding, i don't play golf. But if it's going to be 25 public, where will people park? PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 53 - Page 56 CondenscltTM Page 57 1 And I guess other than a few other 2 questions about the environmental sensitivity of the land 3 which I think they've got a good start on, I'm in support 4 of it, so thank you. 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: we'll ask the 6 applicant to answer that when he comes back up later. Is 7 there anyone else to speak in favor? Yes, sir. Come on 8 up, please. Can I have your card, sir? Thank you very 9 much. Give us your name and address. 10 MR. SADEGHIAN: My name is Khosrow 11 Sadeghian, 3501 Sundown Boulevard, Denton, Texas. And I'm 12 here to support this project. I'm the owner of this 60 -- 13 out of 84 acres here. And we bought this property, 14 frankly, for an invest~nent, and for the purpose that it 15 was intended by the City, ?o-~9 and PD-99 was to make -- 16 to basically build a cement city in here. And when I see 17 these people here, when the City took it away from us and 18 said, well, half of it needs to be grass land and you 19 can't use it, that really hit me and a neighbor of mine 20 pretty hard. 21 Actually it landed us in the wrong 22 directions. But this is a blessing, this gentleman from 23 Arkansas, where I used to live. And Fayetteville, 24 Arkansas is where I got my Master's Degree in Microbiology 25 and I loved it. And they have a good track record in Page 58 1 every City they have been. And I feel like this is truly 2 a first class deal. They're thinking of Denton as a top 3 City to go to to put something as nice. 4 So I support it 100 percent and frankly, 5 you know, Pre seen different co~mnents about this property 6 and Mr. Watkins mentioned that, you know -- you know, we 7 can't really push them too hard to get them out of this 8 town when they're trying to help us out. And especially 9 the way they designed it and hundreds of thousands of 10 dollars they already spent to make this work for 11 everybody. 12 So I definitely rccotnmcnd it. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, 14 sir. i have a card to speak from an Amy Pennington- 15 Sadcghian. And I hope I pronounce that last name 16 con~ectly. I bet I got the Pcnnington right. l 7 MS. PENNINOTON-SADEGHIAN: My name is gany 18 Pennington-Sadeghian. And my address is 3501 Sundown 19 Boulevard, Denton, Texas 76210. I'm also part owner of 20 the property next to the 24 acres. I'm in support of this 21 project, I think it would be good for the City. The 22 land, as you know, is located next to the landfill. And 23 so this would provide a nice -- I feel, that would pro¢ide 24 a nice buffer zone to the landfill. I think we should let 25 them save taxpayer's money by letting them make Page 59 1 improvements to that area. 2 It would increase tax revenue for the City. 3 I think it would be a plus to the area. And they have a 4 proven track record as they spoke to you about, that they 5 have done this before. It looks like they're going to do 6 a nice project and having a go£f course there. And 7 they've taken into consideration all of the environmental 8 issues as well. And as before, it was zoned a PD-99 that 9 was -- and, of course, that wouId have been another cement 10 city, but they want to put something nice in there. As 11 you know, nice apartments and a nice golf course. 12 So I'm in favor of the project and I just 13 wanted to voice my concern. Thank you very much for 14 listening. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other persons 16 here to speak in favor? All right. I have a card 17 speaking -- would like to speak in opposition, Mr. Wade 18 Willis. If you'd come forward, sir, and give us your name 19 and address. 20 MR. WILLIS: My nmne is Wade Wil[~s and I 21 [lye at 5367 Edwards Road. And I was up here about a 22 month ago talking before you about the road from the 23 Preserve and all of that. And I appreciate y'all's 24 support on that. And it just seems like I know what the 25 guys at the Alamo felt like. You get one fire put out PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Page 60 I over here and you've got to go fight another fire over 2 here. I've lived out in this area for 25 years. And this 3 is my property here on this side of the property. 4 I own enough property there to be 5 considered the 20 percent rule. But part of my property 6 is in the City and part of it [s in the ETJ. So Catch 22, 7 I don't qualify for forcing it to a supermajority at 8 Council. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Speak more into the 10 mike, sir. 11 MR. MORRIS: sure. When I came up here I 12 was going to speak in opposition to this. I must say that 13 I had several sleepless nights over this when I looked at 14 this initial plan by the developer, when I saw apartment 15 houses and a parking lot next to my fence line. This is 16 my house. This is the fence line. I was aghast and 17 appalled and almost fell over. 18 Since then, I've thought and thought about 19 this thing. I said, would I be shooting myself in the 20 foot to oppose this or say, let's work with these people? 21 Because after getting a landfill put in behind you, which 22 I opposed and fought like a crazy man -- I couldn't ever 23 figure out why the City would put a landfill right in the 24 middle of the City. But that's neither here nor there, is i25 it? 12/18/2002 Page 57 - Page 60 CondcnscltTM Page 61 1 I will say that the City came in here and 2 zoned me ~- will y'all bear with me for a moment, please? 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YO~lrVe got some time, 4 yes, sir. 5 MR. MORRIS: Thank you. The City rezoned 6 me after this was eD. I never did get a card or anything 7 in the mail to say, do you want to be multi-family or the 8 MY-12 or this type zoning? I would have said, no, I would 9 prefer single family. There again, that's neither here 10 nor there because the dent's already over. 11 I called the developer and told them my 12 concerns. I said, I can't live with this over here on 13 this side. And they said, well, what can we do? And I 14 said, well, get rid of it and put the golf course and give 15 me some buffcr over here. Theysaid, okay. Let's meet at 16 the meeting. 17 So I came up to the meeting and they've got 18 this. So what I'm doing and I'm honoring my cmm~fitment to 19 them in saying that I will come out in support of this 20 project for tiffs reason. And I think -- if you will 21 please bear with me some more. 22 COMMISSIONER POWELL: ell give you another 23 minule, sir. 24 MR. MOP, mS: ^11 right. This 23 acres over 25 Im'e was apart from this acreage over here. This used to Page 63 1 rebuttal and answer any questions that you wish, sir. 2 MR. L1NDSAY: well, I think the point that 3 I woutd make is that we have heard our neighbor and heard 4 him loud and clear. And we think that is important. I 5 mean, it needs to be done that way. We appreciate the 6 people across the street totally unsolicited speaking up 7 for us. And what was his question again? 8 MR. REICHHART: Parking. 9 MR. LINDSAY: Oh, yeah. We'll have 100 10 outside members is what we'll have. And the rest of it is 11 for the people that live there. It is part of the rent. 12 It is an amenity for them. But we'll have 100 outside 13 members. And with that, they definitely can join and play 14 golf. That's for sure. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And then I'll have to 16 assmne that there will be parking for those out -- 17 MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. He made that 18 statement. Here's our -- this is ali -- you come to this 19 little circle and this whole area down to here, that's our 20 little cart barn there. That's our clubhouse. This is, 21 of course, is the pool area. And that whole area right 22 there is parking on that side of the street for the golf 23 course and the clubhouse. 24 COMMISSIONER POWELL: AS long as it meets 25 City requirements, that's fine. Any other questions of Page 62 1 belong to Walt Parker, Senior. Walt Parker bought this 2 land because it has -- this is an incredibly beautiful 3 little valley through here. 4 tf the proposal as they had shown it was in 5 there, all of these trees right here would be gone. These 6 trees would be gone~ This is thc hole right here, this 7 golf hole right here looking back towards my house, these 8 trees would be gone. 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YouYe running out of 10 time, sir. Get to the point. 11 MR. WILLIS: My point is, is that this is 12 in the upland habitat, upland wildlife habitat. It's very 13 sensitive, t appreciate the developer coming in here and 14 changing it up. I hope that by this, they will keep as 15 much of the upland habitat as possible, contiguous areas 16 and all of that and make this a nice deal. If they will 17 honor their agreement to leave me alone, give me some 18 buffer, then I will put my support for them and say that 19 we need something like this. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. 21 MR. WILLIS: Thank you. 22 COMMISSIONER POWELL: ^nyone else to speak 23 against the motion -- or excuse rae, against the item? 24 There is no motion. No other speakers against, I'll now 25 ask the developer to come back and give us a final Page 64 1 the developer? All right. I will then close the public 2 hearing and wait for discussion or a motion from the 3 members. 4 COMMISSIONER MULROY: [ would like to make 5 a motion, Mr. Chainnam I move approval of tile Special 6 Use Pemfit with two conditions, one is that a compliance 7 with the reconunendafions from the Water Utility Department 8 not necessarily as exactly written, but the applicant and 9 the Water Utility Department need to sit down and create a 10 docmnent they can go both live with. 11 And number two, that the site plan be 12 revised to reflect no apartment units to the south side. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: TO tile south side? 14 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Or as presented 15 tonight -- east side. 16 COMMISSIONER HOLT: second. 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a motion and a 18 second. It's a motion to approve with conditions. Is 19 there any discussion on this motion? Seeing no 20 discussion, I'll ask for a vote. TEe vote is in favor 6-0 21 of all meanbcrs present. 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 61 - Page 64 ORDINANCE I BXAS, P~R~OX, ID[NC:,, ~OR,A SPECIF[( USE PE~M!T OF ALLOWING OUTD©OR ,[{JECRE. AT[©N} BEING A NINE l'[O~g COLF COURSE ON AN APPROXIMATE 84 ACRE SiTE I.OCATED NORTH OF F~DWARDS ROAD~ EAST TEXAS; PROViI~ING FOR A PENALTY ~N THE MA, X[M:LTM AMOI ~NT OF Sg~000~00 FOR VT[OI..AT[ONS ~[HEREOF; AND PROVID}NG A SEVERArBH3TY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE~ (Z024/0~/~0, WHEREAS~ o~ D~cember 18. A~.~ i:he Plam~i:rtg and Z~uiu,¥r,..g Core,mission mcomme:n~ed approval of al:lc r~lUCsle~ :speck:lie lise pe~:i~ :~r oui. d~<r recreation 2, Tl:'m Pmp~y wil~ be devdopcd ir:~ acc.~rd:~nce witP ~he site !~[an Den P'l~m po Iici NO'W, T14EREFORE'., THE C©I.,NCi[ OF 'File CITY' OF DENTO~N ltEREBY ORDAINS: SECT]ON ~, Tbi~ ordimm.ce shail become efl~fi¥¢ tb,ullee~.~ (!4! ~!ay.s fi:(>:l'~ the 8a~.e PASSED AND APPROVED 'l;l'!~e _ ........... day of ,RO ,..K, MAS: OR PA.GB 2 A1'TES,T: JE~'[FER WALTER;S, C!TY SECRET^R,Y APPRO¥I~[) AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L, P'~©I~,~'Y'~ C~:FY AITO:RNEY PAGE: 3 ] 165 Joyce B,>ulevmd, F~ye~ev[~le~ AR 72703 ~utiin=,s ,5, when c×¢eede~¢e of abe Te~ Commi~sioa Ea¥immmemai QuaJi~'~ S~f~,~ Wa~ Q~uai:~' ,St~dard~ L~:n&~· M~emem agra,es m m~ ~a~ City ~f Erosio~ ~41~ be pamcutm-ly pmnom~e:d m; the gro~, ~ ~ep~ed for turf !~a,glng io '~ate:t :mso'urces wi:[~ no~; be: a problem ? Exhibit: B gement Co., :b f~mp[~a~d by :iq,eadf~dnE ~:Ne ~(~ so~ddw ~m~a[ ~f ~'~' ~olf ti fr~m ~lae ~mn~ce~W uae:, Simil~ly,, we ~'ppiy m~ny :h~b4~:i,d,¢~ heft>J:8, cmerge~,e ~¢ ~i~e tar,ge~: weed,, If we a~l~' fli~ weed to ~com, e establbhad~ we acma!ly bare ~:o u~e nmm h~rbMd~ t~ cmffi,cate il, D~e 1:~ lh~ I~a~i,~n e~f ~:h¢ ;~emcrbnce w~th ~a~! ~comme:~,dafiom,, will he moflJtot am~od~al~] weather con,d~fion~ daily. We aL~o make ,dai[~ i~b~'v::~do~, our m~ior st~ffwill mo:nilor ~:mh oo¢lldil~ol~ o~'~ the com~e ,a~s ~oil mo~sl:ure, 02/17~03 #5B AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 Planning and Developmem Departmem Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 SUBJECT - SP02-0009 (The Timbers at Denton) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving an Alternative Developmem Plan for approximately 84 acres located in a Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road, east ofi-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartmem units are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0. BACKGROUND Applicam: Kim Fugitt on behalf of Lindsey Company Fayetteville, Arkansas The applicant is requesting the Alternative Development Plan to allow a nine-hole golf course, clubhouse, and 480 multi-family residemial units. The proposed Alternative Developmem Plan, as submitted, is not compatible with The DeNon Plan and surrounding land uses. The applicant presented a revised site plan in order to mitigate neighborhood concerns at the December 18th Planning and Zoning public hearing. After reviewing the revised site plan (Exhibit A) staff finds the same issues remain with the revised site plan. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachmem 3. As of this writing, staff has received two responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site, one in opposition and one neutral. Staff has also received three favorable responses from the subject site property owners. Currem opposition is less than 20%. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. The approval of a preliminary and final plat will be required prior to any development. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of SP02-0009, commonly known as The Timbers at DeNon: Application Date - DRC Date- Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - Resubmitted - Planning and Zoning Public Hearing - Date: November 7, 2002 Date: November 21, 2002 Date: December 18, 2002 Date: December 26, 2002 Date: January 8, 2002 No Neighborhood meeting was held. FISCAL INFORMATION Future developmem of this property under the new Alternative Developmem Plan will increase the assessed value of the city. No short-term public improvemems that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification Map and Responses 4. December 18 and January 8 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes 5. Draft Ordinance and Exhibit 6. Applicam Submission Prepared by: Autumn Speer Planner I Respectfully submitted: A~ Developmem AICP Lg and ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Request The site is approximately 84 acres. A nine-hole golf course, clubhouse and 480 multi-family residential units are proposed. The applicant is requesting approval of an Alternative Development Plan to allow for alternative site designs to the following: 1. The oriemation of the buildings 2. Parking location on imerior streets 3. Exterior standards See Developmem Code/Zoning analysis for detailed analysis of the request. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to this the property was zoned PD-99 allowing for multi family to the west and single family to the east. Environmentally Sensitive Area restrictions did not apply with the original approval of the Planned Developmem in 1986. The subject property is vacam and also comains a large portion of ESA including upland habitat, stream buffer, and floodplain. Based on a survey provided by the applicam the subject site contains 78% ESA. The applicant is proposing to remove 52% of the total ESA Upland Habitat, Stream Buffer, and Flood Plain area. Adjacem zoning: North: Industrial Cemer General (IC-G) zoning district - DeNon Landfill South: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) zoning district - Andrews Corporation and Single-family residemial East: Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) and ETJ zoning districts - Single-family residemial West: Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ET J) zoning district - Single-family residemial/mobile home park and Andrews Corporation Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" and "Floodplain" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood cemers'. Neighborhood cemers are oriemed inwardly, focusing on the cemer of the neighborhood and comaining facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Demon Plan idemifies the following Primary Residemial Land Use Principles: Preserve Neighborhoods: The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be achieved by demanding and establishing design and construction standards that are fair and evenly applied. (page 35) Curremly the areas surrounding the site are a mix of industrial uses, single-family homes and vacant land. The proposed use in the alternative development plan would not be detrimental to the existing or future developmem of this area. New developmem will be compatible with the existing uses and zoning of the surrounding properties at this time. A buffer will be required between the multi-family use to the east of the site and the existing single-family residential use. Alternatively, because this site also falls into the "Flood Plain" Future Land Use category the proposed development would be detrimental to the preservation of the ESA on the site. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Currem Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning allows for the developmem of multi-family units on the property at a density of 12 units per acre. The proposed density is approximately 5.7 units per acre. The following are the poims of reason that the application for an Alternative Developmem Plan is necessary: 1. & 2. Orientation - 35.13.13.2 and Parking Location on Interior Streets - 35.13.13.2 - Multiple unit residemial shall have at least 50% of the from yard fromage comaining buildings within 30 feet of the property line. Buildings that are located within 30 feet of the property line adjacent to a from yard shall have at least 25% of the wall facing the street in window or door areas. A project greater than 3 acres must contain a public or private street system that creates blocks of three acres or less. The intent of this section is to develop a road system throughom a developmem enabling the buildings to be placed along the road system with parking located along the sides of the buildings or behind them. With the orientation of the buildings towards the street, a streetscape is created while minimizing the impact of parking areas. On street parking is allowed when groups of four spaces are created in conjunction with landscaping and medians. The applicam is proposing three "pods" of apartments located off of a public road system. Due to the introduction of the golf course amenity, the applicam is proposing a more traditional pattern of developmem and changing the major oriemation of the buildings from the "road" system towards the golf course and open space. It should be noted that no parking lots are located along the public road system associated with the development. The applicant is proposing traditional parking between the private streets and the residential units, which is not permitted by code. See items 3, 4 and 5 on applicant letter dated November 26. 3. Exterior Standards - 35.13.13.2 - Large scale Multi-Family Developments over 30 units cannot use the same exterior design for more than 30 units and/or more than 3 buildings in a project. The applicam is proposing 40 buildings, clubhouse and cart storage. 40 multi- family buildings would require 13-14 differem building facades. The applicam is proposing 7 exterior facades. The "pod" grouping would allow the applicam to group several differem facades into each area. See item 6 on applicant letter. Since the original staff report the applicant has agreed to add another design as provided in Attachment 4. The largest 4 grouping of buildings contains 21 buildings, which would be mitigated with the 7 different faqade styles. 4. Upland Habitat and ESA disturbance - 35.17.9A 1 & 3 - The applicant is proposing to remove 52% of the total ESA Upland Habitat, Stream Buffer, and Flood Plain area. The applicant has provided the following information: Total Acreage = 84 acres Existing ESA/Upland Habitat Existing Open space = 66 acres 78% = 18 acres 22% Total ESA To be Removed = 34.5 acres 52% of ESA ESA Upland Habitat to be removed for Multi Family = 15 acres 23% of total ESA *ESA Upland Habitat to be removed for Golf Course =19.5 acres 29% of total ESA *Permitted The following are permitted in the "Undeveloped Flood Plain" according to 35.17.7: 1. The planting of new trees or vegetation. 2. Restoration or enhancement of floodplains, riparian buffers, upland habitats, wetlands and streams as required by federal and state standards. 3. The placement of public or private utility facilities as needed, provided impacts to environmentally sensitive areas are not negative. 4. Measures to remove or abate nuisances. 5. Parking lots constructed of pervious materials. 6. Parks, open space, and trails. 7. New storm water pre-treatment facilities. 8. Routine maintenance. 9. Construction of a private driveway. According to 35.17.7 C any new structures or additions and the removal of tree and understory vegetation are prohibited in the "Undeveloped Flood Plain" area. The western border of the property contains undeveloped floodplain. The proposed multi- family disturbance to this area is not permitted. Subchapter 17 35.17.9 - Upland Habitat Development Standards Residential development shall be designed to retain a contiguous fifty percent tree canopy, which shall remain predominantly in its natural state. Non-residential development may remove any or all of the Upland Habitat. The Upland Habitat to be removed for the apartmem dwellings is approximately 23% based on the applicam's calculations. While this percemage is under 50% the removal does not create a contiguous area of habitat, but rather strips along the golf course limits. See item 8 on applicant letter. Alternative Development Plan Criteria An applicant may propose an Alternative Development Plan, which meets or exceeds the objectives of Subchapter 35.13. but does not meet the specific 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. a. The proposed development and structure would preserve the existing neighborhood, however the effects to the ESA on the site would be detrimemal. 2. Assure quality development that fits with the character of Denton. a. The proposed development does not meet all of the criteria of the Denton Development Code, and the construction and site design will not be compatible with the character of DeNon and the specific area. 3. Focus on new development to activity centers to curb strip development and urban sprawl. a. The proposed developmem provides infill developmem. The site is a large vacam parcel of land very limited in its development potential. 4. Ensure that infrastructure is capable of accommodating development prior to the development occurring. a. The limited access to the site from Edwards Road may not be adequate to serve the proposed development. Staff Findings 1. The proposed Alternative Development Plan is not compatible with The Denton Plan. 2. The proposed design does not meet the intent of the Denton Development Code and the development does not coincide with the character of Denton. Staff Recommendation Based on above findings staff recommends denial of the requested Alternative Development Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location/Zoning Map NORTH Scale: None Maps ESA Map NORTH Scale: None Future Land Use Map NORTH ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH NOTIFICATION MAP Newspaper Notification Date: December 5, 2002 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 8 · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 3 (subject property owners) · Neutral: 1 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: less than 20% Scale: None *Sites in the 500' notification area without addresses are not notified via courtesy notice. *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Guy Wade Willis Opposed "Too much multi-family in single-family area and 5367 Edwards Road new use of property will destroy area." Denton, Texas 76208 Bonnie Coonrod Neutral NA 4410 Swisher Road Denton, Texas 76208 Khosrow Sadeghian Favor West Parcel Owner PO Box 50593 Denton, Texas 76206 James Brown Favor East Parcel Owner 6750 Hillcrest Plaza "This represents a serious upgrade of the Dallas, Texas 75230 surrounding mobile homes, landfill, etc." Mariam Sadeghian Favor West Parcel Owner 200 S Bonnie Brae #1206 Denton, Texas 76201 *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 i3 14 15 16 17 18 2O 21 23 24 25 Page 65 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And we will go to Item 9, hold a public hearing and consider making a recmra~endation to City Council regarding the alternative development plan for approximately 84 acres tocated in a neighborhood residential mixed use-12 zoning district, The property is located north of Edwards Road east of 1-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartment units are proposed. The Timbers at Denton. Autumn Speer. MS. SPEER: Good evening once again, Cmmnissioncrs. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Let me not make the mistake three times. I'm opening the public hearing. MS. SPEER: Agenda Item No. 9 concerns the request for an alternative development plan for approximately 84 acres of land located to the neighborhood residential mixed use zoning district. The property is located north of Edwards Road east of 1-35. A nine-hole golf course and 480 multi-family apartments are proposed. Basically, the alternative development plan is being requested for four reasons. The orientation of the buildings, the parking location on the interior streets, exterior standards of actual apartment buildings and the upland habitant and the £SA disturbance allowed in a residential use. Page 66 I The area is currently in a neighborhood 2 centers and flood plain future land use plan. As you can 3 see on our Comp Plan map, this area allows for compatible 4 neighborhood center compatible type activity. And then 5 the flood plain allows -- it's an undeveloped flood plain 6 that doesn't allow it to be disturbed. Currently, the 7 area surrounding the site, as I said before, mix of 8 industrial uses, single family homes and vacant land. 9 The proposed development as is with the 10 multi-family is compatible with the existing use; however, 11 due to the flood plain area and the detrimental impacts on 12 the flood plain and thc upland habitat in a residential 13 use is not compatible to the site itself. 14 The orientation that the applicants are 15 proposing, the parking location on the interior streets, 16 our Code requires that multiple unit residentials should 17 have at least 50 percent of the front yard frontage 18 containing buildings within 30 feet of the property line. 19 And then buildings that are located within 30 feet of the 2O 21 22 23 24 25 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I4 t5 I6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 67 with the requirement to create a public street system of three blocks or mom in a multi-unit residential complex is to create a street scape for people as they go through the complex to actually sec. The proposed site, them is parking ~- parking requirmnents also are not supposed to be on the front. This is basically a traditional apartment complex design. You drive in, the parking is on the front. The apartment complexes are viewing out toward the back. Our current Code requires that all parking be located on the sides or behind the buildings and if they are located on a street system, that every four spaces there should be landscaping and a median requirement. And we don't see that proposed as well. The next major requirmnent that's not being met involves exterior standards of the complex, There are 480 units, there are 40 buildings and a clubhouse and a cart storage. According to Code, large scale multi-family deveiopments over 30 units cannot use the same exterior design for more than 30 units and/or more than three buildings in a project. Based on our Code, the applicant would require 13 to 14 different building facades. They're proposing six, however, they do have -- they only have a three-pod grouping. They did have four. I have never Page 68 1 seen this. It does allow them -- or did allow them to 2 group different facades together with the six. However, 3 this group, and we'll have to take a new look at it, if 4 this is the way it's going to end up being. 5 The final major point for the alternative 6 development plan is upland habitat and ~^ disturbance. 7 Our Code did not -- allows the applicants for residential 8 use to remove up to 50 percent of upland habitat. 9 However, what remains must be in a continuous grouping. 10 What they're proposing -- all of this is upland habitat. 11 This new plan reanoves more upland habitat than was t2 provided prior to the meeting. And the only -- it's not 13 continuous. 14 The idea of the strips provided with the 15 golf eom'se invasion and the multi-family does not meet 16 our Code requirements. The flood plain that comes across 17 this alW._a, We don't allow development in the undevcloped 18 flood plain. We prohibit new construction. The string 19 buffer area as well. Based on the application as property line adjacent to a front yard shall have at least 25 percent of the wall facing the street and window or door areas. The applicant is proposing orientation to the golf course site instead of the street area. And the purpose of this requirement is to create that and along 20 21 22 23 24 25 submitted, staff finds the proposed alternative development plan does not mitigate the effects on the The proposed alternative development plan is not compatible with the Denton plan and the surrounding land uses. And based on tile futt~re land use and tile flood plain land use, and file proposed design does not meet the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 65 - Page 68 CondcnseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 69 intent of the Denton Development Code. And the Development does not coincide with the character of Denton. Staff recormnends denial of the requested alternative development plan. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Reichhart. And then I have a question of Ms. Spa:r, also. MR. REICHHART: well, I just wanted to Page 71 either. But we did draw this. And I asked him to draw what we could do there. That's 588 units based on two-story buildings not based on three-story buildings. I don't know how many you can get. We know the Ordinance calls, that you could get 960 or more. We an: just saying here that even at that, it's not 12 units to the acre. This is point out that we are seeing this site plan for the first time tonight. Basically, the alternative development plan deviations, if you will, are very similar to thc previous plan. To some extent, by moving the apartanents in -- more internal to the development, he created one larger pod of apartlnents which increases the elevation problem a little bit more. By breaking it up into the four pods, we thought that was reasonable. And then whenever you were 8 just 7.35 units to the acre. When you study all of this, 9 we would meet the upland habitat rules as we understand 10 them. 11 These units would have be taken out back 12 over on this side. I believe they would anyway from what 13 I understand about where the flood plain is. But anyway, 14 trying to say how we could figure this out, this is what i5 we came up with to say what could bc done there. Now, 16 we're recognizing that we're asking for some adjustments within each individual pod, there would be enough variation. You know, I don't know if an additional analysis on our part is going to give you any more information other than that, to continue this case to us time to review that. The streetscape system, it's still the same as we've identified in the staff report. give 17 18 19 2O 21 22 in several areas to take it and transform it into this layout here. We have had an engineer. We should have done this earlier. We did not get an engineer to certify the acreages. As you can see here, all of these areas are not in upland habitat as designed and designated by our upland man that went out and said, what's not in upland You know, along the public streets, the buildings are up to the public streets. It's all internal to this Page 70 development. We did have some concerns at one time regarding fire lanes and fire access and the applicant did revise their site plans to address that. But the Development Review Committee has not reviewed this. We don't know how much upland habitat. 24 habitat? He concluded that these areas were not in upland habitat. And, therefore, were not in the process of the Page 72 acreage count. Now, we need to get over here so y'all can see the acreage count. We're looking at a total acreage of 83 acres. Sixty of that is either in the sensitive area, the flood plain or the upland habitat. Twenty-three 1 2 3 4 5 6 It's reasonable to assume that it's less than 50 percent 7 just for the apartments. But, again, it's not contiguous. 8 So I just wanted to point out that this was the first time 9 we have seen this plan tonight. 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 11 of staff?. Seeing none, we'll ask for Mr. Lindsay to come 12 back up. I'm assuming that you're speaking on this. 13 MR. LINDSAY: Yes. I would like to make a 14 presentation on this from our point of view recognizing 15 that certainly this is y'all's town, not mine. And I 16 cm'tainly respect that. Can they zoom in .. anyway, if 17 that's as big as it gets there, this is a system that we 18 understand. And I stand to be corrected by Larry. He 19 knows ten times more about this than I do. 20 But this is a method on this track of land 21 that I believe is legal under your ordinance right now. 22 It has driveways. It connects to the adjacent properly an 23 ever so distance 660 feet, I think it is. It ties 24 through. Larry would have to look at it and really study 25 it because it's not fair because he has not seen this 6 was then in these areas here, which is not under y'all's 7 jurisdiction as we understand it. Those 23 are not under 8 y'all's jurisdiction. There's 11.6 acres -- 9 COMMISSIONER POWELL: what do you mean, not 10 under our jurisdiction? Help me out there. 11 MR. LINDSAY: well, what I meant by that, 12 they're not in the upland habitat as designated by our guy 13 who went out and designated the upland habitat. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. 15 MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. He's approved by 16 the City, I think. We're clearing 16.72 of upland habitat 17 acres for the golf course. That's where the fairways go 18 through it. The remaining upland habitat is 31.68 acres. 19 Now, that's on this revised plan. And so when you do 20 right maybe by your neighbor, maybe it comes on to help 21 you. We're looking at 60 acres totally of upland habitat. 22 We say there's 31.68 left afterwards. What we're also 23 saying here is that of that 31.68 acres, we are going to 24 be up front and honest with y'alL We've got to have 25 easements to get across to get the sewer lines and water PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 69 - Page 72 Condcns¢ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 lines, I don't know what that's going to take up. Sitting here today, I don't have a clue. But some trees will either die or have to be moved to put sewer and water lines in. So with that as a backdrop, what we're offering, I think is a compromise of what may be a minimum of 588 units with a complex that has in lieu of upland habitat, 16.72 acres is green space and golf course. And some of the oilier areas that's in the flood plain is used for that purpose. And Iql really be honest about this. We have never been to a place where we Page 75 1 in some ways that -- in most places as driveways. But on 2 the other hand, we are -- the only way we can see how to 3 retain the upland habitat. 4 Now, you start expanding this and putting 5 driveways through here and try to figure out how many 6 acres you're going to use up, then you're going to go back 7 to something similar to this and you're not going to be 8 able to certainly insert a golf course into it and all the 9 other pluses. 10 All we would say is that this is a million 11 and a half dollar golf course, It's a wonderful amenity couldn't put golf course in a flood plain~ never ever. Never have had that as a question. Yes, the water conditions to be taken care of. Yes, that we -- like the lake there, should help runoff. That shouId be a retention assister as far as runoff is concerned. We have never been mid that we could not put a golf course in a flood plain, yet every City is different and that's okay. I'm just saying, we are saying to you-all we think we have a real good proposal. I frankly think this is far superior to this. Some people may not. And all I would say to y'atl is that we would certainly get back with Larry, certainly sit down with him and measure -- this was done in Arkansas by a company called Crafton, Tull and Associates, big engineoring firm 12 for us and the people who use it. We think it's a nice 13 amenity for Denton. Certainly, we recognize that it is 14 not just exactly what y'all's ordinance calls for. But on 15 the other hand, I do feel real sure that the 31.68 is an 16 accurate figure as this is laid out today, 17 Now, what will happen exactly in the field, 18 I'm praying and hoping that we certainty will survey it. 19 We certainly will flag it. We certainly will do 20 everything we can to get the exact picture we have here 21 laid on the ground here in Denton. We have an acre and 22 1.68 acres to spare. That's all we've got. We have to 23 cross this with the sewer and water deal, then that's 24 where we'd be. 25 Klm just got this yesterday, k is really Page 74 who measured our acreages here. We -- our engineer is sitting here, Mr. Breedlove, and he has not measured these acreages. I can't confirm that it's 31.68. We haven't staked it in the field. You go through here and clear a fairway and a man with a dozer hit a tree that' s right there in the edge of the fairway. And the canopy that you're taking out right then may turn Page 76 I a little blindside lick on Larry and Autumn. They should 2 have been -- somehow we should have had this in their 3 possession, but we didn't have it. And when we looked at 4 this, I said, we need to make sure by an engineer's 5 analysis, not just by drawing and calculating the square 6 footage, we need to know exactly how many upland acres 7 we've got here. me into a liar by saying that this is going to be this way. It's not going to be easy to finish this. But if anybody we think can and do it well and do it in a way that we can be proud we did it. And we're going to spend here some 30 million dollars. This is not some small thing out of the clear blue. We believe in Denton to that extent. We think it will impact their economy. We'll look for subcontractors here first. We'll contribute to the City's sales tax base. We recognize -- and to the school base, We will have fewer children here, We only -- we have a very limited number of children per unit, just the way our multi-family works out. This will be normally an upscale young, some college students, yes, but mainly an upscale young place to live before you get your first home. And in all of that, I guess what we're saying is, yes, the buildings are turned a little bit. Yes, we're using the parking lot 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Obviously, we know we're cotmnittcd to 50 percent, assmning the golf course is part of that. If fl~e golf course is not part of it -- is it not? If the golf course is not part of it, then 16.72 comes off of the 60. Now, we're only talking about 43.28 acres. And we've got 31.68 left. They're not contiguous everywhere. But there is no way that -- I don't think, that somebody could come up with a plan on this particular piece of land where they tell me this is one of the major stands and groves of upland habitat y'all have got, and more consistently keep a higher percentage of it and keep it inside y'all's ordinance, and with the point that it's not part of it, which I understand right now it's not, then we would have 16.72 plus 1.68. We would have 18.60 acres of extra for the percentage of what we have taken. So, to me, that would be a real good trade off. Yes, the buildings -- you get into buildings, we're talking about doing six buildings, different elevations. PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 73 - Page 76 CondcnscItTM t 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I5 i6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 77 You know, y'all tell us. I mean, eight, some nmnber. We'll try to do that. Thirteen buildings to me would not look very good somehow there. I don't quite understand the full reasoning of that. Yet, somethnes I see our buildings lined up and I say, gosh, we should have broke Page 79 have a question, really one major question. On one hand you're very complimentary and forwarding the idea that you can work most of this out with staff or at least distill it down to maybe two or three conceptual variances that we may have to discuss; but on the other hand, you've said these up somehow. I've had that feeling. And we're open to some number that makes sense and maybe it's 13. If it takes 13, then, you know, I don't know exactly how our architect will get 13 for sure. But we'll try. We really will. And I'll say this, 6 7 8 9 10 they just have seen this tonight. MR~ LINDSAY: This one here they've seen tonight, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Right. And I didn't bring my architectural scale, so are you -- do you feel Larry and Autmun and the whole group has been very helpful in trying to nudge us towards more buildings and also that there's ways to do it. You don't have to change it radically. I mcan, you can do something just with donners and different looks. So, you know, I'm not saying that 13 is a deal killer. We propose six with the thought that that was reasonable. We would ask y'all to consider the fact that our buildings cannot be -- if they're done this way, then, obviously, we cannot have the views rooking back through the upland habitat and out over the golf course and have the whole feel that we have here. There is no way that that's there. So for whatever that variance is, we would say, we think it wouId be in the best interest of everyone. But that's your Page 78 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 !18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 confident in a two week time frame or a four week time frame you can bring actually -- what you actually want to propose into the staff and work with them and flush this out, this revision, flush it out and distill it down to the two or tluee issues that we really need to talk about in a futur~ meeting? MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. I think that's fair, really I do, with them being blindsided by it. I really do. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. Thank you. And as part of that, we'd certainly like to see elevations on the next submit~'fl. MR. LINDSAY: we'll bring some pictures. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Roy. Page 80 decision to make, and we recognize that, like I say, we're in your town. We are proud of this plan. We are proud -- we're ready to do this plan. We're willing to overcome the fact that some people would consider very negative areas around us with the dump and with some of the other area there, and certainly some beautiful areas around us, too, and beautiful residential that we would want to insulate and protect. So anyway, from that as a backdrop, we request approval. We request that you-alt look at it, and certainly recognize and certainly as far as Larry is concerned for him to calculate these acres. But only the connection issue will be an issue if the golf course does not count against us. It will only be thc connecting issue that would be the issue. So -- and a lot of this 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: sir, th~ was a lot of talk about building in the flood plain. Now, would you clarify for me exactly what you're talking about. You're building fairway in the flood plain. Are you building -- or proposing any structures in the -- MR. LINDSAY: NO, sir. No structures at all. We'd be building some tees that might be above elevation and some greens that might be right at the flood plain level, just simply to keep the water off' the greeos. And that's what we would be deemed as building in the flood plain. As far as the golf course is concerned, we have done that many times. We really have. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONFA~ POWELL: If there's no other connects. You know, I don't know -- you know, you can go in behind a green here, like right here. You could take some woods and put a strip of woods in behind that green. There's things we could do to say we met this ordinance. We would hope that the fact that we would have met the ordinance with 18 acres to spare would give us some consideration. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mulroy. Staff here, sir, t think he's got a -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you, Larry. I 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 questions from the members, I have a request to speak in support fi'om a Mr. Ronald Linam. Come up here, sir, and give us your name and address in case I haven't pronounced it correctly. MR. LINAM: My name is Ronald Linmn. I live at 2108 Malone Street. Last time I got to talk to you folks is when I brought the Robison people here, if you'll recall, Mr. Reicl~hart. And I'm really proud to bring these people here. You get a lot of developers and they have pretty pictures and pretty words. But some of PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 77 - Page 80 CondenseltTM 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 them really come through. The main thing I want to say to you is that when we went around Denton with the City moderators to show them the Denton Plan, the subject came up what would Page 83 commercial, maybe warehouses and take -- what's funny about the whole thing is we could go 100 percent commercial where every tree can be taken in this new plan, and put office warehouses, metal buildings. ever happen if you got a property that was mostly in trees and, counselor, if you'I1 trust an old Baylor debater to give you some verbatim words, the moderator said, in the unlikely event that ever happened, we would get a variance from -- the people could get a variance from the City Council. They were implying at that point that that variance would be given. They were also implying it was unlikely that would ever happen. So what I'm speaking and saying to you is everybody is addressing the plan. I'm telling you, it wasn't just implied. It was said to us out there in the City, that if this ever happened, a variance would be given and I don't mean to beat you with that, but that was said. And I'm -- as a principle that was laid out there in front of us. Now, I'd like to speak as an engineer real quickly on two things. One, the amount of water runoff on a golf course like this is much, much less than the runoff in streets that would probably otherwise happen if these people walk away and someone else develops this property. And number two, every study I have read 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, I don't know who wants to see that as opposed to this beautiful plan. So I'm 100 percent for it. it's a win-win situation for the City and the citizens and taxpayers and like every one of us here. Because it's going to help us. It's not going to get us into a problem of -- this is one of the unusual properties that's right next to the dm~p site, that these people are willing to come and help Denton, build it up. It doesn't cost the City anything or us as the landowners. One other -- how many more minutes do I have? COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOU have a minute left, sir. MR. SADEGHIAN: Thank you, Bob. And so my upland habitat and all of that, it's good. I'm an environmentalist myself but I feel like with hundreds of thousands they've already spent just to find out exactly what is upland, what is inland -- I don't know all of those terms. But, you know, we need to look at people's lives. Let's put every one of us in my shoe as a Page 82 i shows that you get incredibly more pollution coming out of 2 people's yards and quickly running down the streets than 3 you do off of a golf course. 4 COMMISSIONER ~'OWELL: Thank you very much, 5 sir. Anyone else to speak in the affirmative? Ycs~ Come 6 up, please. Give us your name and address, sir, 7 recognizing you already have, but please do it again. 8 MR. SADEGHIAN: Yes. My name is Khosrow 9 Sadeghian, 3501 Sundown Boulevard in Denton. I'm in 10 support of this plan. And I am very surprised if there is 11 anythi~g else here because as I indicated, I own 60 acres 12 of this and tile City was telling us after we bought it, a 13 couple of years after that, that you cannot have what you 14 want, what you bought it for. And they had approved it. 15 PD-99 means I was to build a third right here, even in the 16 flood plain, all the way to tbe edge of this creek, we 17 were going to build aparnnents, duplexes, et cetera. So 18 this gentleman that come from Arkansas looks like they're 19 potting only 20 -- from what I see, only 20 percent is 20 covered with buildings. 21 And I don't see what the problem is here. 22 And ~neeting Denton Plan -- do you know another plan I was 23 going to go when the City told me, come back, we'll work 24 with you. I said, how are we going to do it? You've got 25 to either buy it, expensive, or we're going to go Page 84 i landowner. Would you want the City to say, well, 75 2 percent of this is tree and you can't build on it. I 3 don't think any one -- none of you would agree to that. 4 And I appreciate you all. 5 COMMiSSiONER POWELL; Thank you for your 6 time. Is there anyone else that would tlke to speak in 7 favor. I have two and l'll ask tile lady first, if I may, 8 sir. Please come down. She had her hand up, first, sir. 9 Give us your name and address, please. l0 MS~ PENNINGTON-SADEGInAN: My name is Amy 11 Pennington-Sadeghian. I live at 3501 Sundown Boulevard, 12 Denton, Texas 76210. I'm in support of this project as I 13 said earlier. As has been stated before, the area was 14 PD-99 all the way up to the creek. And I don't know of 15 anyone that would want the City to be able to come in and 16 say, well, you can't build on 50 percent of that property 17 when before it was zoned to where you could build on all 18 of it. 19 And it looks like from the plan that only 20 about maybe twenty percent of the property is aparnnents. 21 They've definitely tried to accommodate the City in 22 leaving as many trees as they can, with the golf course 23 with greenery and ail. I hope that you will support this 24 project and not ~-y to run them out of the town, so to 25 speak. PLANNYNG AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 81 - Page 84 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 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 85 1 i think it would be a plus. As Mr. Watkins 2 had said earlier, he didn't really understand why we're 3 singling them out on certain issues. I hope that you will 4 support it. I think it would be a plus for the cmmnunity. And thank you very much. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, rna'mn. Page 87 I adjustments in what they want to do to make this thing 2 happen. Because like everybody else says, it can be a 3 good thing. I'd much prefer this over the high density 4 plan on the bottom down here. 5 So if we can't have a golf course and the 6 apartments, then I don't want anything. So my support Sir. MR. BUCKALEW: Yes. My name is Bill Buckalew. I'm at 2765 PR 816. That's in Denton just south of this property. COMMISSIONER POWELL: would you give us your last name again, sir? 7 fails in support as long as there's a golf course and it 8 runs contiguous and with what we have here, but I don't 9 support the multi-family high density plan. [0 So I would say -- you have passed the idea 11 of a golf course, now let's work the other part in with 12 the golf course and make it all work together. MR. BUCr, ALEW: Buckalew, B-U-C-K-A-L-E-W. Quite frankly, I'm blown away with this plan here. I expected to coane up here and see a mobile home park or some kind of junk like that. And this second thing that he has proposed here tonight is far and away something that I would like to live across from. We've got bobcats out there. There was one sitting on my porch just the other day. We have coyotes coming through there all the time. This looks to me like it would very definitely support the wildlife that we have. And we have plenty of wildlife out there. I don't think if you whack a tree down that's going to bother them a bit. Page 86 I am definitely behind this. I was talking to Rick, my next-door neighbor. He's behind it. I like it. I wish you all would like it, too. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Appreciate your time, 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, 14 sir. Anyone else to spcak in favor? I've got one other 15 one over here on my left. Did I see another hand in the 16 back? No, okay. Sir, your name and address. 17 MR. HICKMAN: Yes, sir. I'm Joe Hickman 18 from 4437 Hallmark Drive, Dallas, Texas. I'm the other 19 part of Lindsay Management, represent the Jones family. 20 COMMISSIONER POWE1..L: JUSt a second here. 21 I'm not sure that -- can he speak in favor here? 22 MS. PALUMBO: It's a public hearing. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Public hearing, I'ln 24 sorry. And sorry I interrupted you, sir. 25 MR. HICKMAN: But my point is that we -- Page 88 1 I've been in Dallas for 13 years. We currently have other 2 projects that -- Starwood in Frisco, Texas; the Greens of 3 McKinney in McKinney. Texas which is a 576 unit apamnent 4 project with a golf course. Starwood is a 550 acre sir. Anyone else that would like to speak in favor? Did you say you want to speak, sir? Please. MR. Wl~[IS: Thank you. Wade Willis. 5367 Edwards Road. I just want to admonish our landowner of the 60 acres because when the idea of upland habitat idea came about to save the trees and ail of that, they came in with bulldozers -- were out them bulldozing the trees. So he can say he's an environmentalist but he bulldozes the trees. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We're not interested in interaction here, sir. MR~ WILLIS: I know that. COMMISSIONER POWELL:Tell US why you're in favor of this motion or this item. 5 6 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 community with 1,000 homes with a major creek running through it. Since the 13 years that we've been de~eloping, we have nmnerous other developments throughout the metroplex, Fort Worth, Colleyville. I understand that cities have changed. I understand the importance of the water issues and the trees. Trees add value to properties. We are probably and I would challenge anybody to go to any of our projects. The City of -- we are proud to have the mayor of Frisco live in our community. But we are very sensitive to trees and understand the importance of trying to develop a project, but, also, the environmental issues that come with it. All I'd say with Mr. Lindsay and tkrough McKinney, it's MR. WILLIS: I have two minutes to speak up here. I can speak on whatever I want to, I think. But I appreciate them saving this environmentally sensitive area right over here. This is the nmnber one sensitive area right here. These people have come in here and done some things. I think the City needs to make some 19 just been a great joy to see someone who is as sensitive 20 as we are and could come into an area that has changed 21 because of these habitat, these tree ordinances, these 22 creek ordinances and things that now the City are imposing 23 on the developers. And we want to continue to be a good 24 citizen, but be also good developers and work with the 25 City. So we would appreciate your support. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 85 - Page 88 CondcnscItTM 1 2 3 4 6 g 9 ]0 12 13 14 2O 2~ 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. Anyone else to speak in favor? I'd ask Mr. Lin&ay if he would like to give a rebuttal? MR, LINDSAY: NO, sir. I just thank the Commission for staying this lale. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry, Mr. Lindsay. I have messed up again. I'm going to have to ask you to sit down a second, sir. MR, LINDS^Y: I'm all right. I'll be glad to sit down. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I can't imagine I'd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Page 91 COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: TO tabling it? MR. LINDSAY: YeS) sir, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: For -- and our next meeting, I think, is the 8th of January. Till then? MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. We want to make it -- everybody have fuI1 time to look at it. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: In that case, I'll second fl~e motion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion and a second. I have Ma'. Roy on the list. COMMISSIONER ROY: I think it would be do this -- MR. UNDS^¥: I get up quick and down in a hurry. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I didn't ask if anybody was opposed. Is fl~ere anybody out fl~ere opposed? Seeing none, now I'I1 ask Mr. Lindsay to come back. And I'm sorry to have you jumping up and down, sir. Ma. [INDS^¥: I will say this. It was very refreshing to me to have these people here because I did not know a one of them before tonight, had not spoken to any of them. Certainly, Kim has spoken -- give me your name again, sir, to Mr. Willis. Sure had. And other than that, I had not spoken to thegn. It was refreshing to have some people just Page 90 spontaneously speak for us. And we feel positive about that. We put ourselves in your hands. Larry, like I say, has went beyond the call of duty to show us and let us know the futl impact of these ordinances. And we have tried to compromise to the level that it would make sense. And our hope would be that we would be able to at the end of the day make sense of it. And we're willing to do what is necessary to take the thne to make that happen. 12 helpful if we give a little direction about the areas fl~at 13 concern us. And I am not particularly concerned about the 14 orientation of the homes because I understand this is a 15 unique colmnunlty and it's a golf course co~mnunity. And it 16 only makes sense that the homes look out over the golf 17 course. 18 I am concerned about the upIand habitat and 19 the fact that so much of it is being basically destroyed 20 and the noncontiguous nature of the upland habitat, I 21 think, is going to make a major difference in what we're 22 trying to accomplish by designating upland habitat. And I 23 would like to hear our experts explain to me that it's 24 okay. There's a short paraga'aph in the backup, but it's 25 not really anywhere near to the extent that I would like Page 92 to have. So that's my area of concem. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. Any other discussion on this motion? I've got Mr. Mulroy and then Mr. Watkins following. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Very quickly, to address the upland habitat issue, and I would like to have this reaffirmed by staff at the next meeting. But my understanding would be this is NRMU-12 zoned, so if they elected not to go with a residential-type construction, COMMISSIONER POWELL' Thank you very much, sir. MR. LINDSAY: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy has got his name on the Board. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes. Mr. Chairman, before you close the public hearing, I'd like to move that we continue that to January 8th to allow the applicant to take his revised plan back to staff' and distill it down to the few issues we need to look at. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion to continue to January 8th. I have Mr. Johnson on the list. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Before we vote on that or even take a second, I'd like to ask Mr. Lindsay, I think I heard earlier that you were agreeable to that? MR. LINDSAY: Yes, sir. 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 but to go with light industrial coJm:aercial, there is no requirement to preserve the upland habitat. So under this present zoning, to go residential, we're going to gain and not lose. So if they can get close to these percentages, looking at the NRMU-12, We need to be flexible. COMMISSIONER POWELL: This is all in the interest of discussion. Mr. Watkins. MR. WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems that the neighbors are all in line on this thing and that's wonderful I'm concerned about access to the property. When I was out there, Edwards Road is rather small and I know that the developer doesn't want to cause the people that already live there problems, so they might address that in a little more detail in the next go round. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. Any other PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 89 - Page 92 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 93 discuss[on on this issue? Seeing none, I wilt call for a vote because we have a motion and a second. Mr. Johnson, your vote is not counted yet. Thank you. We have a vote of 6-0 ~n favor of all the members present. That is thc end of our act[on itelns. Any future agenda items to discuss tonight? Seeing none, we will close the meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 12/18/2002 Page 93 - Page 93 1 L~y, Page' 29 * Pa;~ 3~ :F~ 3'7 - Pa~ 4,0 And &~ 1%~ ~ I~ w~ ~ k~ W~ e~y ~',~ ~ P~:~NO A~ ZO~O COM~$SiON ! ? 1 t8~oo3 '. 940 6865=~B I ;2 IS ]4 24 ;ra~. 16 2~3; ~3;~PM P1,2 ~ 4B ~ls, ~d nC ~ f~ ;~ ~; ~a,tfi ¢it,~, ~J~ 400 way ,~: ~ao r,_,.~,~ OUt ho~ l~ ~ $~ ~ ~ ~,!,lL ~ ~"., ba,,~ h~,~d~lly l:~,d~ ,~: eot ~d P~ 45 * Pa~ 4~ ? 8 ; ORDIN E NO, AN ORDINANCE OF FHE CITY OF I}ENTQN. TEXAS:. PR©VID[NG FOR AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A NE~GII~O D [{fE, g~ [)E~NXJ [AL M] X~ED USE ~2 ~NRMU- ~2) ZONING DISTR](7 CLASS~FiCA:T1ON AND USE DESIGNATION FOR AND FACADE DEflrGN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY g4 A,C~ SITE LOCATED NORTH Oi: EDWARDS ROAD EAST OE L3fi WITIIIN TI]E GIDEON WALKER SURVEY, IN THE CITY OF DE , TEXAS: PROVI~iNG FOR A PENALTY IN T[tE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF Sz~OOB,O0 FOR V~OLAT~ONS THER, EOF~, AND PROVIDING A SEV'B. RAS[L]Fy CI.AUSE AND &N EFFi'z~CTIVE DATE~ f SP02-0009k ' '' Et HEREAS. Thc ptope~y owne, an:,d dt:,,'cl~ per of die suhjecl pmpc~y has, ap ,1 ed p .... ~n~ WHEREAS. or~ JanuaW ~, 20(,!3.= the P~mmi~g and Z~min,g CammLssmn recommead=d d~e Ca,mprehen~dYe PIlmx, N'OW~ TIlEREFORE THE COL NCIL OF TltE CiTY OF DENTON E EREBY ORDAiNS:~ p~b,l:is:l']aj mdce n : .... ", AND APPROVED APPROVED AS TO I;;,EGAL FOg, M;: E:x:hib~t A P lJ G IT T ASSOC!ATES &'R~CH ~TI!iCTS AUTUMN. PLANN:ING CEP¢ OF 221 N, ELM D~NTON, It!E: THE 21MBIERS APT COM~g~NFI% FL!SASE, MND CC~II}I~ED C©PlIE~; OF TI,lB N:(OPC~ED WOULD [qLC)POSE A 7m WHICH WOULD IidEN AIZCAV I]:.fE~E TO BE NO [ AM SURI'~ YOU Alii:,!. AI,ZJS,M.~'~ AWA,RP;, (,,J~,' THIS 3U'I; OUI lE~kSON FOR NOT EO~NG T[,,~}2 D1}~VEIZ)PMi;~NT COD.Ii GUID~gI~NES FOR BU[IZ~ING OgJENT?,i~ON THAT ~N THE CODE. 1717 DOES NOT OONSIDI*J~ TIll5 PG~$8!BM.TY OF A SI"i"L~ATION N Aa."t.:;B,~..~ ENV~.~ON~NT BY OR.II~NT[NG T!'!I:i BL,[LDiNGS 'FO:~;5.1~} THAI' ENV]RON>~LENT BZ'EHEZ TH'AN T},Ii~ CONC~, OF E[TH. ER ~,~ STIUg~ Oil qtt]! ~%I'L}C~NG ].C;rl", ALSO, PROPOSAL $~N<CI~ ]lie IN"I'~OR CIP, CULATION IS NO"F "PL?BMC% THE FRObTFAG, IL [1~' TI:[E PUBliC ;,]~BT 5Y57T;M %~qTl-EiN THE SITE ~2BEE BI~O%~9 B ],]{[S AgRiI,1Mli~T ES ONLY REINFORCED ~[J35 ~,~fl< VE.A PHOk~B ~LST THE T.rAI:A% SITE ACRIEAGE 115 ~.~r, AMD '11D¥1; :8,2 OF T[KYS:I:~, ,&<ZI¢!4 WH~I~: O'RIG1HAM:,Z CEIL&R C,,)l~ ANY UPL,i~ND HAAITA'T OB !dPAItI, AN ZC}.N'E {MI.KiIq' AND C,&H ~i VEIdt:~IEiIt i~Altl;~ :itO~D PUICDI;Egl? 2Z) 1'1III 'WI~T ONLY SIIRVIiD I ]1AVE EN'C[~S'F.I) A: fiKl'~7, CH OF $OMll PO§SIBLE C:I 'ANGES liN THIS I~ST PLAN FOR AL6. TOTAL E,$,A~ (L1PLAND HABITAT, Fi.(~')DPLAIN, RIPARIAN) ........ 66,26 REMA N'ON-ESA 1 ~ND USE ......APARTMENTS 23~0 ~ND USE ~,-(~LFCOURSE ......................................................... UPLAND HABI'.TAT ~.MO'VED FOR (3'OIW CO;[JRSE .................... 1 U HABITAT REMOVED FOR~ RESIDENTIAL .................... 15 REMA~FNG UPLAND HABITAT REQUIRI~2D* ~i 5,0 .REMAiN[NO' UIS~LAND HABITAT, .................................................. 3 l (~MAiN~'G UPLAND HABI~fWF }~2P[~SENTS 211% OF '1tt g REQU1RI;~ AMOUNT TO BE PRESERVED WHEN US[;NG [~SIDEN T'BkL USE ONE BEDRM UN[TS DENSITY~ GOD; COURSE 3Q00' YDS, PAR 35 BEEN APPRO'~ ED)IS NON~. *AS THE OOLF COURSE AREA (WHICH HAS "~'' ' RESIDENTIAL'~ I'ItE AMOUNT' OF UPLAND HABITAT REQUIR.ED TO REM, MN W!i,L ~E ] HE SAME AS THAT REMOVED FOR RILSIDEAITML (50% RULE), AS 5~5 ACRES WERE RFSMOVED F,OR RI:$iZ EN.~i(4L, IT FOLI,OWS TI4AT 155 ACRES SHOULD REMAIN. 02/17~O3 #5C AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: February 18, 2003 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ?.;..;~ SUBJECT - SD02-0003 (Southern Hills Plaza) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance creating a Special Sign District for a 6.71 acre site, commonly known as the Southern Hills Plaza development. The property is generally located at the southwest comer of Brinker Road and Colorado Boulevard with street frontage on I35E South. The purpose of the Special Sign District is to allow signage to deviate from the requirements of Subchapter 15 of the Development Code, formerly Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances, the Sign Ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval, 5-2. BACKGROUND Applicant: Quadrant Southern Hills Partners Dallas, Texas The applicant is proposing the creation of a Special Sign District. Subchapter 15 of the Development Code, authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council if it finds that the five criteria (Attachment 1) are met and that the proposal is "clearly superior" to what would be permitted without the plan. Staff has received 1 response in favor and no opposition to the request from property owners within the 200 feet of the subject site. As opposition is less than 20% a simple majority vote 4-3 by City Council will be required to approve this request. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval, 5-2 (Mulroy & Holt opposed). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is platted. The next step is the issuance of building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of SD02-0003, commonly known as Southern Hills Plaza: Application Date - P&Z Date - P&Z Date - Neighborhood Meeting - October 14, 2002 December 18, 2002 Continued January 8, 2003 None ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Location Map 3. Public Notification Map 4. Planning & Zoning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2003 5. Ordinance Prepared by: Donna Batema-~ t Development Review Manager Respectfully submitted: L RLA, ASLA Assistant Director of Planning & Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Request The applicant is proposing the creation of a Special Sign District. Subchapter 15 of the Development Code authorizes the Planning and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation to the City Council if it finds the five criteria are met and that the proposal is "clearly superior" to what would be permitted without the plan. The ordinance states: The City Council may approve the creation of a sign district for any property which has more than three hundred (300)feet of continuous street frontage on one (1)public street if it finds the district: g. Provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior to what would be allowed without the plan; Would be compatible with surrounding properties. In considering whether a district and sign plan is "compatible" and "clearly superior", the commission and council shall consider, but are not limited to considering the following: 1. Scale. The relationship between and compatibility of sign scale, site scale and the scale of nearby buildings. 2. Color. The relationship between and compatibility of sign color to the color of nearby buildings and landscaping: The degree to which sign colors are complimentary to its surroundings. 3. Material. The materials of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. 4. Shape. The shape and design of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. 5. Landscaping. The relationship of signs to landscaped features in and outside the district. 6. Trqffic Sqfet_v and Trqffic Circulation. The impact of the signs on driver's view, the degree to which view obstructions are created or improved, avoidance of confusion with or obstruction of traffic control signs and devices, and the time it takes a motorist to read the sign. 7. Illumination. The impact and compatibility of sign illumination within the district and in relation to neighboring properties. The avoidance of glare and light pollution. 8. Integration. How the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development concept with the topography, building design, other signs, landscaping, traffic circulation and other development features on the district and nearby property. C. Is not being used merely to avoid or gain a variance of the sign regulations; D. Does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign regulations; and E. Complies with the requirements of this section. 3 Existing Condition of Proper .ty Property_ I-Iisto~ February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Regional Center Commercial -Neighborhood (RCC-N) by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, this property was zoned (C) Commercial District. Building permits, signs permits and Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for the Texas Roadhouse and On The Border restaurants that are adjacent to the subject property. Olive Garden restaurant has been issued a building permit. Adjacent Zoning North: South: East: West: Regional Center Residential 2 (RCR-2) and Regional Center Commercial Neighborhood (RCC-N) Regional Center Commercial Neighborhood (RCC-N) Regional Center Commercial Neighborhood (RCC-N) Regional Center Residential 2 (RCR-2) and Regional Center Residential 1 (RCR-1) The subject property has an odd configuration, providing frontage along three thoroughfares: I35E, Brinker Road, and Colorado Boulevard. An existing off-premise ground sign (billboard) that is currently located on the property will be removed. Sign District Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Regional Mixed Use Center" future land use area. Regional Mixed Use Centers are intended to contain the shopping, services, recreation, employment and institutional facilities supported by and serving an entire region. A regional activity center could contain developments such as a regional shopping mall, big box retail, superstores, restaurant and entertainment facilities, a high school or community college, and high-density housing. Staff' s analysis for the Special Sign District requires the review of the criteria stated in the ordinance and reiterated in the summary above and then is followed by a Staff finding: The City Council may approve the creation of a sign district for any property which has more than three hundred (300)feet of continuous street frontage on one (1)public street if#finds the district: Staff Finding: The subject property has approximately 270 feet of street frontage along I35E South, 502 feet of street frontage along Colorado Boulevard, and 318 feet of street frontage along Brinker Road. g. Provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior to what would be allowed without the plan; 1. A site plan has been submitted by the applicant (Attachment 5). A comparison of what is proposed compared to what is permitted by the sign ordinance is shown in the following table: Based on Street Fronta Ground Signs Max. Height Maximum Size Permitted by 8~ R~te~ Permitted Permitted by by Ordinance ~qu~ Ordinance per Sign Ordinance fee 1 Sign 40 feet 250 sq. ft. ~ f~ 2 Signs 2 ~numnt~ 6 Feet 60 sq. ft. a~measu ~ or~ ~ g~inke~ Rd l~f~ 1 Signs S 6 Feet N~ne 60 sq. ft. N~ne ~om~ar,son i i ma~um ger~lted aei~t. Staff Finding: The applicant's proposal would decrease the overall number of proposed signs along Brinker Road but is proposing an area and height increase of all permitted signs. B. Would be compatible with surrounding properties. Staff Finding: Within the surrounding area, there is a variety of building and sign styles and materials. The applicant is proposing using the owner/tenant's own criteria for sign content and a consistent use of material, color, and architecture features for the two proposed monument signs. In considering whether a district and sign plan is "compatible" and "clearly superior", the commission and council shall consider, but are not limited to considering the following: 1. Scale. The relationship between and compatibility of sign scale, site scale and the scale of nearby buildings. Staff Finding: The subject site is a 6.71-acre tract of land where an undetermined area of mixed use is proposed at this time. The proposed development provides a mixture of restaurants and/or retail and a hotel. Two developments, Texas Roadhouse and On The Border, are located in the same subdivision. A third development, Olive Garden, is currently under construction and will have a separate advertising sign. Jefferson Commons Apartments is located on the north side of the development. Jefferson Commons has a small monument sign fronting Colorado Blvd with no signs fronting I35E. Texas Roadhouse and On The Border both have typical pole signs at the maximum height and just under the maximum area allowed. The area just east of the property is undeveloped and the property to the west has no signs at this time. Color. The relationship between and compatibility of sign color to the color of nearby buildings and landscaping: The degree to which sign colors are complimentary to its surroundings. Staff Finding: The proposed signs may or may not compliment the proposed buildings of the subject development. The exact color and design for the proposed signs will be determined by the tenants. 3. Material. The materials of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. Staff Finding: The supporting structure for each sign will consist of the same material. The size of each individual tenant sign will be dictated by the overall size allowed for the sign. 4. Shape. The shape and design of the signs and how they relate to their surroundings. Staff Finding: Signs proposed would be of standard geometric shapes that are comparable to other signs throughout Denton. 5. Landscaping. The relationship of signs to landscaped features in and outside the district. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to locate the monument signs in landscaped beds; however, schematics submitted do not show the landscaping. 6. Trqffic Sqfet_v and Trqffic Circulation. The impact of the signs on driver's view, the degree to which view obstructions are created or improved, avoidance of confusion with or obstruction of traffic control signs and devices, and the time it takes a motorist to read the sign. Staff Finding: The locations of all proposed monument signs are according to the sign location requirements. Illumination. The impact and compatibility of sign illumination within the district and in relation to neighboring properties. The avoidance of glare and light pollution. Staff Finding: All signage to contain internal lighting, however, no language related to prevention of light pollution or lighting standards has been added to the signage plan. Clarification in this regard may be necessary. Integration. How the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development concept with the topography, building design, other signs, landscaping, traffic circulation and other development features on the district and nearby property. Staff Finding: The applicant has not indicated whether they will integrate the architecture features of the proposed buildings into the design of the monument signs. C. Is not being used merely to avoid or gain a variance of the sign regulations; Staff Finding: Three sign variances would be necessary for the approval of the signs as proposed. However, an off- premise sign would not be gained with a variance as off-premise signs have been prohibited by the sign ordinance since 1997. D. Does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign regulations; and The spirit and intent of the sign regulations is to regulate signs according to type, number, size, setback, classification and height. The "spirit" of the ordinance, as noted on the sign ordinance at the time of its adoption stated "WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of DeNon finds that the use of signs and other outdoor advertising devices and structures, if unregulated, can, because of their number, placemem, and characteristics, adversely affect property values; aesthetically damage the overall environment; create an unfavorable business climate which hampers attempts to attract and retain desirable commercial and business emerprises; and foster conditions that lessen the enjoyment and desirability of the City of DeNon as a place in which to visit, live and work." Staff Finding: The proposed special sign district will regulate signs according to number, size, and height. E. Complies with the requirements of this section. Staff Finding: All submittal requiremems of the Special Sign District have been met. This section of the ordinance allows the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend and the City Council to impose appropriate conditions concerning the placement, design or use of signs in the district in order to protect surrounding properties, the community, and comply with the imem of the sign ordinance. ATTACHMENT 2 Location Map NORTH ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Public Notification Date: December 4, 2002 200i begal otices* sent ~ia ~e~ified ail see ~eur~esy Ne~ices sent ~ia ;; lass Mail Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice Percent of land within 200' in oppositioni e % *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ~ GTGMOJG- FAX NO. CondcnsoltTM Page 5 1 MS; VIRRA: That's correct. 2 COMMIS,SIONBR ROY; Okay. ~a~k you. 4 COMMISSIO~R MUI.ROY: YeS. l'I~ r~y to 5 m~ a motion, I moro appr~al. 6 C0~I$$IO~R HOLT'. ~ond. 7 EO~i~StON~ ~PLE: We hav~ a mo~ ~d 8 ~cond for approva, Is them any ~scussi~? Hc~ng 9 no~, yom pl¢~so. Mo~ ~ies 7-0. .lO MovMg on ~ 1~ No. 6 w~ch is a : 11 ~nfin~tion of a pubEo be~ing, ~d ~nna Ba~an ~11 12 ~n pm~nt. I~E op~ ~d c~tin~ th~ pubEe he~ng, 13 MS, BA~MAN: F~ ~0~ Of yo~ thai w~c 14 ~~ at ~ Ia~t ~ti~, I .[~ want to go ~d 15 ~d c~er ~s one mom time, ~ ~ a request for a 16 speei~ si~ ~atrict. ~at ~ app~t is ~st[ng 17 ~ s~cwMt differ~t ~ ~ or~an~ stand,ds m I~ t~ ordiu~ ~Uir~ts ~lows ~ to have f0~ 20 ~at. ~ey ~o reque~ing ~ qui~ a bit I~ ~d miler 2i ~n what the ~ 22 l ~ow at thc l~t ~t[~ thc 23 used for ~o~ ~t~ on what ~1¢ signs wz~ going to look 24 1~¢ and what I w~t ~ do ia j~ go ~d ~d 25 or zxplaia s~ of ~ ~ Kel¢ bit. ~sz w~c Jan. 16 2003 03:23PM P2 Paso 6 I suba~ttt, xl to the department yesterday, The request for 2 ~e special sign d~stfict stated that ~e sign here would 3 be 432 sa.~m'~ feet: Based on our sign 4 st~, tkis -- I'm not sure exactly what this size is. 5 I'm guessing it looks like it's about two feet mid I'm 6 goia$ ba.~ed on s~e~ tl~s is three f~ect. Aad we wouM ? inetu~ t~s in the square footag~ of t~ siga which would g make this 468 and not the 432 that was origint~y 9 requested. 10 Another altematiem based ~ the staff 1 t report would include th~w two si~s, Both of thego in I 2 your backup, ~ say that the request is for two ten-foot la signs and six-foot is the maximum heist that the 14 ordinance allows. While this one would now m~'~ the 15 height requirement mad flae sh'e requirement, this ~cond 16 sig~ would be railer ~d larger than w1~t the ordinance 17 al.tows. And what they were requesting were two sig~s 15 1~0 square feet each. 19 I'd be happy to answer say questions that 20 you have, sad I'm not sure ff t~ applicant is here. 1 21 ~d kind of look around <d w~sn't able to t~k to bi.re, 29 COM. MISglONER AP¥1.~: C0lBmissi0nerg. 23 Conmaissionor Powel!. ~4 COMMI$;SIO~ff~R POwE[,L: I don~t hitv~ ~- 25 question but I have ~ conunent. It's wonderful to get thig Page 7 i kind of graphics, lt re',dlyls. It makes all th¢ ~ differcncz. I ~ould ~ immex~ately that thcrc were only 3 thre~ signs being ~kcd for and I could see that onc 4 big taU. one a~d tl~ off, er two were what~ver tt~y'~ 5 culled, monurr~t signs, 6 And all the desc~iptions in the world, all 7 the verbal descriptions arid all thc text descriptions 8 don't do ten peremu of what this graphics flo~, 9 want to ~ank you for asking them to do it or however we to got it. It's great. Thank you, 11 MS. BATF. MAN': If I could rtote~ tO ~0 ahead 12 and answer a question that you had earlier, the mthacks 13 that. a~e shown on thc,.'sc diagrams ~ not the actual 14 ~tbacks. They would still have to meat thc 15 ordinance standards which is 20 foot baok from the curb. 16 I know a couple of pictures looks like it's aetualty 17 sitting on the si~walk bat it's just for a vi~al effect 1 $ ~,ere, 19 C. OMMI$$ION~R APPLE: Commi,si0ner Hok. 20 ' COMMLe~IONER HOLT: YeS, If th.ig 2 ! this large sign, it' that does not go through, what are we 22 go~ng to g~t basically? 23 MS. BATEMAN': The ~igP. ord~1~arlc~ W0tlld 24 aD. OW thmu to have otl~ gigtl 250 eqtmr~ [~t and ~0 feet it) 9.~ he~ht which this is thc height of what's e~rrmtly Page allowed. It woald bo a little le.~s than half or a Littl~ m0r~ than haft of this ~iz~, Ia this mom - that is nll0wed. Th~s~ ~ ham, thi~. allowed? l 2 3 4 5 6 MS. BAI'EMAN: corrt~t, '~0$e ~ 7 ~at -- bo~ t~ On ~ B0r~ sign, as ~ as 8 Rna~o~ a~ bo~ si~s ~at am ~in o~ 9 o~am~cc grand,ds. I 0 COM~t~a ~.mL'r: O~y. So, basically, I we wo~ ~ going from ~e, ~ of ~1~$~ ~J~s ~ one 12 of ~oso 1~ 14 ~a~ ri~t wh~ ~ a~. ~s is M ad~tion to ~ 15 si~aa. ~ a~ not on ~ pro~y ~a~ ~ sign 16 dls~ot is ~u~¢tM for. ~7 I wo~d al~o Hko ~ nO~ ~at ~ ! R if a~mv~, would ~ co~id~ an off-p~i~e ~ign. ~d 19 n~y you're p~¢m~ng a bi,board, but it's 20 coa~i~ an off-p~i$~ si~ and ~at's ~a~fly what 21 ~a ~i~ wouki ~. And om' $i~ ordinm~ d~ 22 ~, sh~co '97 p~hibffed off-p~s~ 23 COM~s~o~ Ho~': So, ~plain K~ m~ W~t 24 ~t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/8/2003 Page 5 - Page 8 FROM : GTGMSJG- FAX NO, Jan. 16 2803 03:24PM P3 : 940 6865348 CondenseltTM 2 screening ~'s not at th~ l~tiou of the si~ and &cy'm c~sidcred off-pm~ ~s, %i~. while 5 mp<~. If m~ were m go to ~is sign, ~ would 6 not fred ~e business. %ay would ~ve to go f~her 7 back m to ~e propc~ that frets Colorado or that 8 fronB B~ ~d fl~ woMd -- to get m 9 ~y wouldn't be at that k~m like thc Texas Roadtm~, 1o or ~ ~e horde. ' 11 CO~SSIONER 11Ot .T: ~ yOU. 12 ~issioner Mukoy. 13 CO~Ig8IONga ~nOY'. Y~. 14 mupI~ of q~ions. ~e ple~ ~'~ loo~g at now 1~ with ~ tim ~s in a row, ~ ~at ~re~nmCiw of 16 ~e height of ~ propo~g 17 MS, BA~MaN: ~ 40 foot in Mi~[, I 18 ~heve i~ would a~aaEy look la~ am ~a., I don't 21 CO~ISSIO~R ae~I,~: cx~m~i~er (sic) 22 ~io~m would ~ m Md. 2~ MR, ~I~T~ TM~ you, 24 COM~SSIO~R APP.; i ~aB, 25 Coo~tor R,ichh~. Page 10 I Mrc ~cH~, tf you can look at this 2 sign or this photo, you eau aotiee that the On Th~ Border 3 trod Texa~ Roadhous~ sign is jugt barely undo' 4 of wires while the proposed sign is abOut halfway to that 5 height. So you would really aced to project that if you 6 peegpec'dw-vOse n~xl tO be a liflo bit umk-r, fight 7 about ther~ is where that actual height would be. 8 CX.JMMI$~IONEg; A*PLE: TI~tlk yOU. i} COMMISSIONER ~x~H.l~o¥: 'thank you, Mr. 10 Raichhart, I would ceminly liko to appreciate th~ 11 graphic represeatation but I would really ask that it 12 would bo to stile if tlmt'g how w~r~ going to make a 13 judg~mnt. So I would no~ b~ abJo to vo~c for i~ without 14 having a olo$~ to scalo r~pxv~utation. 15 And my s~eond question is on the 16 disu'icL how do~ thio - what's Ilx~ in,lay 17 llm ciiffm-~nt prop~ty ownca:s and how [bio digt,iet, is it 18 going m ~mm-tmpas~ all th~ pr. ope~'o~ owning there or is it 19 one owner Or how d~.~ this ],ay ouq DOnna? 20 Ms. ~T~M^~'- 'rl~ property is planc~ right 21 now Mto five, I believe i*'s tiro aeparat~ lots. And 22 with these hath On Tho Border, Texas Roadhouse, and Olive 23 Gard~% which I'm gorry, Conm, nissioner IlolI, I forgot to ~4 mention Olivo Oarden would be havh~g a sign there, aK 25 v0Bll, ov~n th0agh th~? doll't right now. Tho~o thn~ Page l 1 1 Un6er separate own~mb, ip right now. 2 Currently, all fids remairfing property from 3 this point al! the way over i$ under one ownersl~/p. I'm 4 not sure, and ! know Larry could probably ,xplain it 5 better, if this ~s platted a.¢ one lot and if m, then they 6 would most likely repla~ it before they would end up 7 ~lling it off' or would be able to ~ell it off. 8 COMMISglONRR Mu~oY: Go ahead, Larry, 9 MIL rc~cm~am': They ar~ plaid as 10 individlm] lots under one owrlersh~p currc-ntly. 11 COMMI8glON'BR MULt~.O¥; Okay. So that's why, 12 numbe~ one, it would be off-precni~ fol' the e.~tablishrneut t3 arotmd the comer to have the sign out on th~ highway. 14 But, number two, a sign dLqcrlet would just be the lots 15 trader the oveaershlp, the coramon owneI'$hip of this one 16 entity. It would not include thc.se other pad 17 ,as. ~^'mM~.N: No. The si~ district would lg follow th, property and not the owner. Aad I think you 19 ~id just the opposite. 20 MR. REICHHAR. T: BUt in theory, the distriut 2l do~ not ~n¢lud¢ the three 22 MS. B^TEMAN: 23 Mit., REICWrI^RT: Thc Olive Garden, T~xa8 ~4 Roadhouse, or On T}~ Border, it would not in¢ludr 25 lots'?. Page 12 I MS. IIATEMAN': l'Irt So1Ty. 2 COMMI$$1ON~.R MULRO¥: okay. Thank you, 3 COMMI,~,.~IONF_,R APPL~ commissioner Roy. 4 COMMISSIONER ROY: rm $urprisod that .5 applicant i~ not horn, Mayb~ thtm~'S a good t~ason for 6 that. gui: I ranmnb~r him making a point that I think 7 imp0rmnt and that i~, yes, th/~ sign is bigger than the 8 Code a!low~. But if you'll look at what's the~e, there's 9 thr~ businesses rt, p~eg~nmd on this semo sisn. Wl~ams, l0 th~e'g one for On The Border trod there's a sign for the I 1 Roadhou~. ,SO il would bo r~pr~'nting 12 And tb~ off-pre~rds~ aslxct of it, it t3 do~ll't bothm' m~ much heaauge thoso busln~ssea 14 tocal~x[ buck behind ~ otter busine~sen cad could Ix: kind 15 of hard k~ ~ind unl~qn we gc~ attracted to them. 16 I'm Struggling a hi'tlc bit about this 17 iaauo of tlx~ repr~s~mtation ~ b~:a~l~o you ~aid thcy'~ ! g both, On Tho Bordor and Texau Roadhou$o ~igns ~m 40 feet t 9 ~all, according to ol~r standard.% and this on~ would be 40 20 fc~t mil. I'm wondering if somehow w,'m looking at it 21 fimppropriat~ly bccaus~ of the topography of tM gr0mad. 22 ! don't !m0w. 23 MS. ~'r~ms: Tim way the Sign ordinanc~ :-4 made a~ far as measuring thc he/ght, it would bo b,scd on 25 40 re~t from th, ground, thc scrv{c~ road, or ',ho PLANNING AND ZONING COMIdlSSION 1/8/2003 Page 9 - Page 12 FRDM ; GTGMO~G- FAX NO. 940 6@6534B ~ano 16 2003 03:25PM P4 CondcnsoJtTM P~go 13i whichever is higher', So in their ~;~©, it would bo 40 l~'t from th~ ~'ound w~ch woutd giro a~ fl~e b~ COMM~iO~R R~: on~ ~ ~ ~as ~ mon~ ~i~, H~lp me ~md ~a~ vn~ 7 I ) O~y, I~ ~S our h~sht' ~en~ but S{~ 3 I2 not 13 ~. ~a'm~ Co~t, Height 0~ ~. 14 CO~I~tON~ROY~ Did ~ ~plaln w~y h~ ,15 coul~'t m~ ~ s~ad~d for that one? t 8 ~ f~ cads, And, app~fly, ~ ~t back 19 ~ - I ~ got *o sp~k ~ fl~. ~ just had a 20 coml~ d~Hv~ 21 ~d ~ wcn~ ba~ ~d ~ ~ork~] ~ ~ but ~ c~d~ ~p ~ot~ it ~o wh~ only ant would 23 m~ ~ ~mn~ds, ~i~ ~s one co~d m~t ~ 24 ~mnd~ - ~o m~ flint I ~h~nt'k~, iF ~ tm~k 25 ~ of ~oso ~s o~t ba~ed on ~o ~'aphics and ~ Page 14 1 ordinance, you would ua longer Jncluck: tiffs into the 2 square footage. 3 COMMISSIONER P. oY; 'that seems so simple. 4 MS. SA'lEMAN: ! know. So it would make it $ b.~low the 60 square l'ect, but they would stir be over the 7 COMMmSlONER I~O¥: l~uL the last time they 8 had ton fen owr the height, I mcan, they had ten-foot p height, and now they're raven f'c~ stnuething, 10 Mb. BA'rt~MAN: Right. If you'll recall at !I 1 the last one, they bad what fl~ey wore somewhat looking il2 included be'cms so they w¢te going to have ~o build up that 13 area. It was for the pot~ sign and then this for the ~4 ground sign $o wc would be including all of this 15 additional arc'a, 1~ COMMISSIONER ROY,. 'l']~ank you, 17 cOMMIg~?ON~.R ~.WPLU: CO~=ni~ionc~ Powe, ll, 18 COMMISSIONER rOw~/~:t.: Going b~k {.o Sign 19 do you ~ whor~ the Texas Koadhouee act,~al sign ~md 20 On The Border actual ,~ig~ is there, Fv¢ got to ag~ume :!! that thi~ three-tier sign would be on the othex side of 22 tho poles and fl~e other side of the $idawalk the same as 23 thc first two, right? 24 MS. BATEMAN: correct 25 C. OMMISSIONER POWELL:~ okay. How many sign,' I wound thc:y bo ¢igibl~ tbr if ~oro was no sp~ial siL~n district? How many $i~s would ~e ~t~ ~ digiblo f~ 3 arid w~'e woMd ~cy ~ approxknately? 4 MS. ~A'i'~AN: okay. Aooording t0 ordinan~, ~ey'd be a~o~ 6 or f~mta~, on a $~araw s~ ~onm~. 5o ~ wo~d 7 bo allow~ o~a sign on 8 on Brit~ Road $~co jus~ 9 ~nmage, and fl~'d bo a~t ~O si~s on Co~mdo. So 10 ~ wa~d bo ~ fo~ si~s. ~ of ~ fo= wo~fld 11 ~ a maxim~ hfi~t 12 ~ti~ a~, An~ ~ ~ one on 3~ wouId bo ~-f~t 14 ~l~lO~g POW~L: cou~ ~ one on .- I 15 ~css l'm ausw~ng my q~on a~' I ~nk aborn it. lb Tho one on a~ in~smt~, ~17 disPeL wo~d only bo able to adv~fis~ ~e p~PaW On ~t 8 ~t ~t 2, woul~'t i O 19 MS. BA'f~,. ~ght, 20 ~MMIS$1ON~ POWEL~ 21 to ~dv~isc ~c ~o back pmp~ b~auso flint'S who 22 m~ k an off$~is~ 23 Mb. BATEMAN; ~4 C~IO~R ~OWtLL: ~h~k you, 25 thh~ ~at one throush. Pag® 16 1 COMML~IONER APPLE: Coml~$$1Onea' 2 ('~Ml~.~tO~rag wa-r~s: ~ank you, Ma~ 7 pla~ ~t ~ ~a~on ~s ~n ~uc~, So y~'g 8 sayit~ 40 f~ from ~o h~ght of fl~ roadway, 9 MS. BA'I~; T~ ~i~ road or l I ~MMI~8[O~ WA~INS: okay. ~81~ y~, 12 ~MMI~XON~P~: ~ssion~ ~ohnsou, 13 CO~l~ ~O~ON; Thank you. Back 14 Sib~ l, Vi~ C, ~ On Thc Bor~ and ~c T~xas R~muso I 5 ~igas ~ bo~ 40 f~t high? 17 (:O~msrO~o~soN~ So ~¢ n~w si~ ~at 20 C~t~lON~ JO~ON; okay, ~O it's 2~ ~lly ~t a q~losfion 0f how hi~ it is, It's h0w f~' 22 do~l it ~nds9 23 MS, BATa~NI Wi~ ~S Sign it woMd 24 ~o iss~. On~ i$ ~$ ~x~ squa~ foOm~. 5 COMMI$51ONSRIO~ON; Thflt'~ how you get PLANNING AND ZONiNG COMMISSION 118/2003 Page I3 - Page 16 FROM : GTGMOJG- FRX NO, ; 940 6865~48 Cond~nseltTM Jan, 16 2003 0~:26PM P5 2 6 7 9 JO 11 12 14 15 16 20 24 ~5 1 2 3 4 $ 6 7 9 11 14 15 19 ~0 21 23 24 25 Page 17 the square footage is to bring it lower, right? ' MS, BATBM~: q'hllt's d~ilni~ly ~ opti~, ~¢11~ i~ ~is ~c I'm not ~ ~t ~pi.~ down si~ or ~opp/ng doTM ~ h~i~ht would aclu~ly help b~a~a if you cut ~ ~i~ll~ ~rom ~is ~a d~ht in h~, it st~ would not change thc ~a f~. ~ mc~od ~t yoa'd c~a~ the sq~ fao[~c would still ~ ~ s~e. But ff you reek p~ of thi~ ~a right in h~ to ~u~ ~ ~ you'~ also ~d~i~8 thc ~q~ f~tagc. COM~K~IONEK JOHNSON: Okay. B~[ wh~t ~oom$c M[owed is b~a~ ~ ~d ~op thc bottem do~, d~h~, to m~c the si~ b[~er, the squat fix~u~gc MS, BATEMAN': COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: if yOU rilad~ that 12 f~, wo~d k bo okay MS. BA'rE~: V~ ~au~ you'd ~ below CO~8$~O~ JO~ON: okay. IF you m~ ~t 30 f~ it wo~'t b~ okay, M$, BATE~N: CO~L Page 18 COMMISSIONER $OItNSON: That'8 what I'm 6aying. They didn't m¢~s with the top part. The 40 feet is still 40 feet. Wlmt they did is drop the bottom to Pag~ 19 ] MS, BATEMA~: if l~mt wa8 l.ho auttml we 2 wo~ld mice it I?om fi~ low~ side. 3 ~M~ION~ ~L~; O~y, ~rnk you, 4 ~ am no f~ qu~fionS, ~ you, 5 app~c~t p~nt? ~ y0u'~ ~ve your name and ad~s, 6 7 ~. $IL~: Oo~ ov~, My 8 ~mald Silv~m~, 14~00 Lanark Bou~d, ~s, 7~254, 9 l'm a priu~ip~ w~ ~o o~s~p of ~o prop~, I 10 want to apolo~ f~ ~ttin8 ~ paCk~ ~ YOU ~. 12 holidays bu~ you know, it's s~t~ h~d 13 they'~ ~ittjng on a b~Ch S0m~la~. 14 $O anyway, we appr<ia~ yo~ consid~afion 15 of ~ sJ~ dls~ot. W~'~ ~x~y pl~q~ ~ f~ 18 wiflt ~ ~¢p~on ~at ~o ~u~n~ haw ~v~ 17 ~ City of ~n~n. By ~ m~ wc ~d~nd ~t I g ~'w go~n a ~c ~fioa, Thc ~t dirtiest 19 pat ~ut ~ ig ~g a par~ spot in t~ bt. W¢'d ~0 llk~ to a~ some mo~ ~a~W nagonal ~R u~s out 22 packa~ i~ c~ what wa felt ~ ~c cad of ~ ~y 23 1~ ~u~ ~ ~n mom. 24 Ii'~ ~ obvious from ~e t~* of 25 ,~ ~mt w~ ~ ~geu~slng wi~ going out ~ mal~ th~ are,~ of the sign larg~T. MS. BATEMAN: ~a as being ~e COM~SIONER JOI-~SON: MS. BA~; okay, COMMISSiO~R it's impu'~6vo ~t they l~ve some vi.~ibilky from thc inua'smto. Aud, tlmus, rather than atl~npting to come up with $omo ¢oufigm'afion wh~r~ ~ ar~ p01e gigni aR r~lly no tailor than the other two signs ak'~ady in pl. ac~ out there? Mg. BATEMAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER IOIINSON: okay. Thamk you. COMMISSIONER APPLE; S~'flC~ tj~er~ are no further q~stlons, I haw a quest, ion, Ms. Batcm~m. Sign 3, and this could just. be a gti.t.d~ in their rendering, but. whor: tha, Mgn .qts from -- MS. BATEMAN: YeS, this one. COMML~SIOIVER APPI.E: It mpp.cars that it's sloph~g and R's much towe~ towards thc sidewalk amd it goes up a~d k looks lik~ thc ha,va, which we wer~ including in the height, is abou: halfway duck in Q-mt. Would the height b~;"judgcd from th~ left siilc which 'would be on the lower side, or would it be, it' this is tho acuml drawing, would it be judged from -- OVer tI~ site, wc just f~lt that w~ could, by incorporating tho identity for ~e ~ng out p~cols ltl On~ ~ W~'C, One, 8i~ng &~ ~t i~fiW and, ~o, minimizing ~ clutl~ us b~t we could. W~ ~ ~d of ~t ugly biEboaM, ~ ~t of fl~c billboards ~at ~'ve got on ~t si~ ~t's ~ud Page 20 10 of disappearing by itsdf, but w~ would c~.ainly tear 11 that down, as ~H, And wi~ r~rd ~ 12 mon~t~ we'd ~sc be m~tifl~ ~, ~'ve llmi~ 13 flint io ~O. l ~s, ~¢ S~n 3 ~'~, w~'d probably t5 ~ ~nd of it. But one for ~o Hard Com~ site and 16 one tO ~ve ~m¢ {~n~ on ~lorado For h~uUy what 17 ~ b~ieve wi~ b~, · not a [ 8 W¢'~ h~ to ~sw~ any qu~tion& We 19 app~ Y0~ consid~a~on. 20 com~IO~R~PL~; Thank yo~. C~nunissionurs, any qu~fion6? Thank you. 15 th¢c¢ auyon~ els~ who ~l~ lo ad~s ~s ~nda i~? S~ng no onu coming f~ar~ I'll close ~c public h~ing, Commission~ ~O~$On. 2t 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/8/2003 Page I7 - Page 20 FROM : GTGMOJG- FAX NO, ; 940 ~B~5~4~ 5~n, ~B 200~ ~;~?PR P6 Condcns~lt TM Page ! makn a mellon flmr we approve 2 sp~i~l s~n di¢~ct ~ lald ou~ ~ C. OMMt~ION~R POWEI.L: ~fission~ lo~son and a s~oud from ~mmis~ioncr 6 P~. ~ ~ ~y discussion? I'I~Mg Do,c, vote Th~ks. Motion c~ios 5-2, 10 o~POS~oN.) 11 CO~I~ION~ ~PL~: T~ final 1~ A~da is No, ? which is a public h~ing, and Au~n 13 Sp~ wi~ ~ Civ stuff wiB 14 pubEc h~rMg, 1 ~ ~s. 8~: o00d ~mi~, 16 ~a~ I~ N0. ~ is ~ contin~ 17 c0~id~ ~ki~g a ~o~n~dafion ~ouc~ ~o approval 12 of an ~ma~vc ~v~p~nt plan [0r ~x~a~ty 84 19 ac~ locust in a N~b~ood ~id~al Mix~ Usa 12 ~20 ~ning dt~icL A ~iuc-holc go~ c0~SO mud 4BO 23 ~ng, ~c applicant ~b~ 24 od~ ~ app~sc n~ghbot ~u~, 25 ~ ~vis~ si~ phn and p~ily ~c s~ L~su~ ~ist, Page 22 1 Tho USA did go dorm six pero~t, thc removal along this 2 portion of the s-b~, Staff p~y Ms &e issues with 3 t~ l~yout of the si~, ~c ~t~i~ of ~o builds, 4 t~ fac~ desi~ of t~ ap~, As is wi~ thc S nmh~ of buildings, wc would ~qui~ 13 to I4 d~ffe~nt 6 fa;~. 7 ' ~ appli~ Mve ~d~ an a~iti~ 8 f~do to g[w a total of ~n diff~mt ~si~s as w~ 9 mclu~ in yo~ b~p. 10 si~ is ~ ~ back. ~le golf co~ ~ ~d th~ wooded 11 aceas, ow Code ~quires a ~t ~tmu -- wkh thi~ 12 layout, bo wo~d ~qulre a ~t: system. With paring D spa~s ~ong ~e s~ as th~'vc propo~ we would 14 mq~ a l~&;apc b~f~ eve~ four ~p~s, We wo~d 15 mqu~ 45 ~ ~ ~a~e[ p~g. And those ~ the 16 prhn~ issu~ for th, almmative t7 ~ k is ~bmitiec~ 18 moonnn;nd appeova[ of lP CO~ISSiONER APPI.R~ Tlmuk yOU. Mr. 20 Rei~m wo~d !~e m ~d something. 21 MU. amC~A~z: ~ust ~o clarify h~aum at 22 ~e last ~ti~ ~e RS~ roue was a f~.rly big issue. 23 But b~au~ the go~ co.sc iS a pcmi~d ~c ~ough the 24 uplmd ~bimt ma~ [t'~ · n~m~t[al u~. And the 25 fa~t ~a~ ~e m~&nfia[ po~ion of Page 23 I taking less than 50 percent, m~d I believe it's 24 2 percent -- 3 MS. $t'EER: 17, 4 Mit.. fLEICI-iI--IART: 17 percent., excuse me, the $ ~.SA issue iS not an issue. Their development is staying 6 out of the--all thc other ~& tl~ stre2au buffers. Sol 7 just w~ntcd to clar/[y ttmt that is no longer an [~sue ii that tmeds to be di.qcussed, 9 COIvlMISSIONRI% APPLfi: Thal'~ you, 10 Gommi$$iouer Pow¢ll, I 1 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YeS, ma'am, C~I yo~l ] 2 cxp 'lain ~;o ln~ what k~nd lB and off-street? 14 MS, gi'SEm 8~x~ o~ what is submitted, 15 tMy have on-street parking, As a traditional sputum'ut !~ complex, you drive through and you park on the start in 17 front of the apartments, Tlmy do have some parking are.~ 18 on th~se type of art, as. Our Code ro:tuims all parking to 19 the roar of the site, o£ [h~ apartment buildings, or if 20 you create a street system, you would have to divide it 21 into three-acre blocks and each of the street,,, to 22 thc streetscape, you would require the si&walks, street 23 trees, and a landscape buffer between every tbur .~paces. 24 COMMIgSION35R POWELL: ! gllegg y0tl'v~ · 25 answered the question I asked and I didn't ask the right Page 24 I question. Let me try it again becaum you did answer _~ exactly what I asked, It doesn't appear to me from the 3 scale of tke drawings that [he street is wide mough re 4 have p~rking on both sicks and stil2 neet traffic $ reqalrements, 1~ that ju.~t bee'-,m~e it doem't look that 6 way, but it. really would be that way? 7 Ms. ~1~£I~1~ Y,s, it really would be that 8 way. 9 COMMISSIONER POWgLL: All tight, ThlLnk yOU 10 very much. 11 MS. SPEER: ¥OUrro 12 COMMIS~iON'~R APPLE: ComrrllS~{0,aet Mil!roy. I3 COMMISSIONER. MULROY: YC~. Th~k you, I 14 have another point I would like to hav~ clarified, tn the ,1 $ backup we have a letter from thc Water Resource Ih'curare 16 manager, And is that generic to the ukimam developmeat i17 plan'.> I thought wc Mmdl~ that in th~ zaning with the 18 coudkion Olaf we put Cai tl~ -- not the zoning. 19 MS. SPaEK: The 8UP for the golf course? 20 COMML~SI©NER MULRO¥: Yea.h, ~e SUP. 21 MS, seF..~.n: we talked about it in both 22 bcc'.aus~ of the ES^ disturbanc~ so it's included in both. 2~ Wi; could clarify ir with a condition On the SUP. ~ think 24 my ~mder~tandlng is you eau require a condition witk m~ 25 alternative development plun, as well. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 11812003 Page 21 - Page 24 SD02-0003 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT PLAN WiTHiN A REGIONAL CENTER COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICT ON AN APPROXIMATE 6.7 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COLORADO BOULEVARD AND BRINKER ROAD BETWEEN INTERSTATE 35E SERVICE ROAD AND COLORADO BOULEVARD iN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR ViOLATiONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (SD02-0003) WHEREAS, Southern Hills Plaza, has applied for approval of a Special Sign District on real property comaining approximately 6.7 acres of land in Regional Cemer Commercial Neighborhood (RCC-N) zoning district, such real property being more particularly described as Lots 4, 5 and 6, Block 1, Southern Hills Plaza Addition, and addition to the City of Demon, Texas (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on January 8, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission, after a public hearing, recommended approval of the Special Sign District; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Special Sign District is in compliance with the Article Vii of Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Demon, and is consistem with the Denton Plan; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Special Sign District is hereby approved on the Property subject to the following conditions: Signage on the Property shall be developed, constructed, used and maimained in accordance with and limited to the Special Sign District Plan and Regulations attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" (the "Special Sign District Plan and Regulations"). SECTION 2. This ordinance shall supercede all requiremems of Chapter 33 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of DeNon (the "Sign Ordinance") affecting the Property that are in conflict with or addressed by the Special Sign District Plan and Regulations established by this ordinance. All other provisions of the Sign Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect against the Property. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Demon Record Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Demon, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __day of ,2003. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 Ill 02/17~03 #5D AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: February 18, 2003 Planning and Development Department Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ~):~r SUBJECT - Z02-0061 (Wheeler Ridge Phase II) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending the Detailed Plan for Planned Development 170, 172 and 176 (PD-170, 172 and 176). The approximately 253 acres of land, commonly known as The Wheeler Ridge Addition, is located south of Nowlin and Robinson Roads on the east side of FM 2181 (Teasley Lane) generally opposite Hickory Creek Road. The amendment will alter the number of lots and increase the open space for this property. Single-Family residential subdivision and open space parkland are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0. BACKGROUND Applicant: Dowdey, Anderson and Associates Plano, Texas The applicant has submitted an application to allow for a decrease in the minimum lot size on parcel 2 from 7,200 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft., decrease the total number of lots by four and increase the open space an additional 2.7 acres. The current PD allows development of 306 lots in Parcel 1 and 276 lots in Parcel 2. The proposed decrease in minimum lot size would decrease the total number of lots by four and increase the PD's open space by 2.7 acres. Public notification and property owner responses were mailed to the landowners on January 8, 2003. As of this date staff has not received any opposing, in favor or neutral responses from property owners within 200 feet of the subject site. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0 (Commissioner Apple absent). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE An approved final plat is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0061, commonly known as Wheeler Ridge Phase II: Case # Action Z99-025 - PD-172 (65.17 acres) approved August 3, 1999 (Ord. No. 99-257) Z99-053 - PD-176 (167.47 acres) approved October 5, 1999 (Ord. No. 99-367) Z99-065 - PD-170 (38.6 acres) approved November 2, 1999 (Ord. No. 99-405) Z00-007 - PD-176, Detailed Plan for cell tower (0.8 acres) approved June 6, 2000 Ord. No. 2000-200) Z99-104 - PD-170, 172, 176, Detailed Plan (253 acres) approved June 20, 2000 (Ord. No. 2000-216) PP00-0052 - Wheeler Ridge Preliminary Plat approved July 12, 2000 FP00-0101 - Wheeler Ridge Phase 1 Final Plat approved, September 25, 2002 FISCAL INFORMATION Future development of this property under the previously approved Planned Development zoning (PD-170, 172 and 176) will increase the assessed value of the property. No short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map, Property Owner Responses) 4. Photographs 5. Ordinance 2000-216 6. Amended Detailed Plan (See map provided in packet) 7. Minutes from January 22, 2003 Planning and Zoning Meeting 8. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Tiffanie Willis Planner I Respectfully submitted: La~eichhafASLA, AICP Assista' ~ nt Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting an amendment to the minimum lot size on parcel 2 from 7, 200 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft., decrease the total number of lots by four and increase in the open space 2.7 acres. The requested amendment to the detailed plan allows the applicant to use the existing residential lot layout for additional single-family lots. (see table below). Minimum Lot 6,000 s.f No Change 7,200 s.f 6,000 s.f Size for this Property (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot 45' (40' along No Change 55' (50' along 45' (40' Width for this B.L.) B.L.) along B.L.) Property (sq. ft.) Minimum Lot 100' (90' Cai) No Change 100' (90' Cai) No Change Depth for this Property (sq. ft.) Minimum 20' No Change 20' No Change Front Yard for this Property (sq. ft.) Minimum Side 5'/15' Corner No Change 5'/15' Corner No Change Yard Lots Lots Minimum 10' No Change 10' No Change Rear Yard Minimum 45% No Change 45% No Change Building Coverage Max. Bldg. 2.5 Stories No Change 2.5 Stories No Change Height Single Family 306 276 149 175 Lots/Units Density 3.5 3.2 3.4 4 Open Space 20.2 22.9 0 No Change Existing Condition of Property Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Planned Development 170, 172, 176. Except as amended herein, this Planned Development District shall conform to any and all applicable articles and sections of the approved ordinance, as it presently exits. The subject property contains vacant, currently under development. Adjacent zoning: agricultural land and scattered structures. Section 1 is North: South: East: West: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district - occupied single family, Parkland Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use and Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use - 12 (NRMU and NRMU - 12) zoning districts - vacant land Planned Development 170 (PD-170) and PD-111- ETJ, scattered single-family and vacant land Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts - vacant land and single-family residential Development Code and Zoning Analysis The proposed changes will have no effect on public infrastructure and transportation impacts or required mitigation. Development Code/Zoning Analysis No impact - development must conform to approved Detailed Plans. Staff Findings 1. The proposed Detailed Plan is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Although lot sizes decrease the amount of open space increases and the total number of lots decreases. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps Location/Zoning Map NORTH ETJ Scale: None Future Land Use Map NORTH Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Scale: None Public Notification Date ...... 200' Legal Notices * sent via Certified Mail: 500" Courtesy Notices* sent via 1 st Class Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 January 11,2003 14 31 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photographs AN @~,A~NCE OF ~,tE CITY @~ D~ON~ TEXAS ~END~NG ORDINANCE NO, 99- 257~ O~,~AN'CE NO, 99.,3;67~ A~ OR)~N~CE NO~ 99405 TO PROVUE FOR A DET~LED PLguN FOg ,~PROXIMATELY 253 ACRES LOCATED Wm~:~ PL~N'~ DEVELOPMENT 170 ~D..17~), P DEVELO~E~ PLaNeD DEVELOPMENT 176 ~D-176)ZONING DIS~CTS ~D L~ USE CLASSW'}CATIONS; T~E SL~ PROPE;RI~ BEING GE LY LOCATED EAST OF TEASLEY BETX~EN ROBESON A~ HICKORY C~ ~ THE C!~~ OF DENTON~ DE~'ON COU~Y~ TE;~S; PgOV~FNG A SAVINGS CI~,L}SE; PROVinG FOR A PEN~TY IN THE MAX~ ~OL~NT OF $2~0~ FOR VIOLATIONS PRO IDING FOR ~ EFFECT~ E DATE W'NE~AS, on Aug~ia!; 3,, 1999, by Ordinance No. 9%257, ~.he C:[~ .c~nge in. zon:i:ng g~t" 65.17 a~'~ or [and i~ Pla~ed Development. !72 a eh~e iu~ ~ning for 38~6 ac=es of lind in PN~n®d De~elopmen~ I70 (PD? 170)Zo~g :Di~'triet; '~q~iEREAS~ o~ De, ember 7~ i9~ Whaler RM~e L& ~ubmi~:ed a located i~ the PD. IT0 PD~I 72; ~ PD-176 ~x~ning diz~c~:;s: with app~wl of~ D~ied Plm £~r such 253~,36 ~¢r~:; ~ ~E COL~CiL OF THE CITY OF DENTON Pi~o~ De~e:lopmen~ Zoning Diz:~et: Cla~ifica~:ions ,~efi~ a~ PD-170, PD-172 ,~ PD~176 are, h=~y PD.-IT0, PD-172 ~d PD. 176, more pmicular[y d~:fi~d by il, City of'Dentoe~ staffdaied M~.y 2,, 2000 a~d a~tacb~d b~re~o ~ Exi~bii D, 3. A 4(} to 50 fm~t wide pedesi~an ~c,~s e~me~l, sMll be provided commit,cia[ area aha ~i~ential :a.re~ a~ thc north, wes1 c~>rne~' of~e (lmail~ · The prow~mns ofthJs o~inance ~, Iliey appl:y m ~e 253.36 acre~ ~ho~ ia · e d~ai~e~ plan hem~n spayed, sha]~ go~em m~.d con,mi ov~ a~y cmffik!ing provido~ of Or~kmnce No~ 99-257, Or~inm'~ce No_ 99-367. m~d 'Ordinal:ce No,, ~-4(:~5~ buf ali ~e pmvi,~an~ of Ordiamce No~ 99-257; O~inaaee No. 99-367. a~ Ordinate No~ 99-405, ~ they appty io ~hall ~pply, to ~he ~'maJnder orsaid distriel:. Ordinance N~, 99.~367, a~d ,Or~inm~.ce No 99~4'05 ah.ow.i~lg lJl,e mendm~, herei'r~ approved. be i},~cd a s~m nm ~cee,~mg $2.,¢~L0O, E~h day ~a,t a provision of t,h~ ~i,n~ce is viotae~ ~,al] c~nslimte a separate aad disl:i~cl offe4~se. il:s passage, ~d the City $~re~a7 ~s hereby dimct~ to cause the e.~pfion of ~is o~inaaee to be pabi~sbed rwke ~n ~e D~ton, R~otd Chmicle, orfiml newsp~er of ~e C~y of D'~tom Tex~s, within tm, (10) day~ of the date' o.f [t~  day PASSED AN~ ~PROVED l:h[s the , ....... ,2000, EUL~, BROCK,, ~I&YOR A~EST: PAGE 2 ~PRO~D AS TO L~G~ FORM; ~ERT L, ~OUTY, C[~ PAG~ ~ q~, T~ ~m,~ be~n~ mm,re port~cu~o~r~y de:~cribe~ o~ ~qENCE N 89'J!'08" W, 4.77 feet leo~ng ~Se southerly ~i~e o~ s~id e~s~me,nt lo o poi~t ~or ~rner: THENC~ 5 0~'52"~3' E. ~.14 ~ee~ to o po~n~ for c~rn~r be~n9 em ~he so]:d~ ~ou~herJ~ ~seme~ line THLNC[ N. 89'40:50' W. 60.04 ~'eet [o o po,lnI ~or '~ENCE 5 89'~0'50' E. 60.04 ~e~t ~g o poin,~ ~r comer; ch, etd beor]n,g of N. 68'39'00" W,;: nord beorlng of N 78'49'55' W4 ~E~,CE N. 02'07'00' W.~ 22'23,,45 ~eet o,~o~g ~he ~e;¢ ~,st li~e at Teos~ey Lone Ia o pob, t for P4ENCE ~ 87~5Y00' ~.,. 640,.45 feet feo~]n,9 the s,oi;d e,~st I]~e o¢ Teorey L~e ia o po~i. tar c~ner: E:×~iB!T B ATTACHMENT 6 Amended Detailed Plan CondenseltTM Page 17 1 Now, my question would be will all this be 2 worked out before this is taken to the City Council so 3 flint they won't be hearing the same thing we are. They're 4 going to be approving something that's not completed. 5 MR. SALMON: Typically, it takes nearly a 6 month to get from Planning and Zoning Cormnission to City 7 Council with a variance. So, I mean, I can certainly do 8 anything i can within my powers, you know, I can inform 9 the Parks and Recreation Department that it would be 10 really good to have this worked out before it goes in 11 front of the City Council. 12 And, frankly, given the fact that it's 13 probably going to be three weeks to a month at least 14 anyway, I would certainly hope that that would be a 15 reasonable time to have those issues worked out because 16 it's already been probably two to ttwee weeks since we had 17 our last meeting with the applicant and the Parks 18 Department. And I wouldn't be entirely surprised if maybe 19 they're not already close to working it out, but it just 20 hasn't been confirmed. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Chairman, I would 23 like to amend my motion and add the qualifier that the 24 agreement with the Parks Department be finalized pr/or to 25 submission to City Council. 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 2I 22 23 24 25 Page 19 change no matter who develops this property unless you upzone it a lot to figure out that gas problem, the gas line. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR, BUSSELL: YeS, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other conunents? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. My comment would be if it were as close to an agreement as was stated, then my amendment shouldn't be offensive to any party. COMMISSIONER POWELL: seeing no other names up on the board, I will call for a vote. Motion passes 6-0 of the members present. We go into public hearings, Item No. 6. I will open the public hearing and consider making a recormnendation to City Council regarding amending the detailed plan for Planned Development 170, 172, and 176, formerly I guess m-17o. 172,176. The approximate 253 acres of land commonly known as the Wheeler Ridge Addition is located south of Nowlin and Robinson Roads on the east side of Farm to Market 2181, Teasley Lane, generally opposite Hickory Creek Road. The amendment will alter the number of lots and increase the open space. Single-family residential subdivision and open space parkland are Page 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Does the seconder go along with that? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion as made before with the qualifier that the full agreement be in place before it goes to Council. Is there any other comments or questions from the floor? Staff has something else? We have somebody coming up here and we'll ask for his name and address again. MR. BUSSELL: Allen Bussell, Greg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Court, Ponder. I just want to again point out, whether or not this goes through the Parks Department, the layout is not going to change. This is the stone layout I had before any discussion was with the Parks. Tiffs is NR-2 zoning. You can only get so many lots on here. You need to cluster them on this side of the gas line. That's not going to change. The other lots are NR-4 and NR-2 combined. That's not going to change. The only thing is taking this channel on this side. We don't have a problem with that. It's not so much working a fee out with the Park. That fee is not paid until the end of the platting process. It shouldn't be holding up a variance for something that needs to be done engineering-wise anyway. The layout is not going to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 il0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 Page 20 proposed. Tiffanie. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MS. WILLIS: commission, before you this evening is the Wheeler Ridge, Phase In zoning request, as thc Commissioner read so distinctly. They're requesting to allow an adjustment on lot layout in their 253-acre subdivision. They're off Teasley Road for two parcel On your screen before you, you see your site location, the area notified, and the future land use map does show you a few features. This area is an existing Neighborhood Center, future land use designation. Our zoning, as stated, is I'DqTo, t72, and 176 with adjacent properties, NR-2, 4, and 6, as well as to the SOUI~i NRMU and t,,RMU42, and then Planned Development 111 there to the City limit boundary. In die chart included in your backup, we just give you a brief synopsis of the change and request. As you notice, the lot width is increasing from 45 feet to 55 feet, as well as the size, the lot size is changing from 72,000 square feet to 6,000. And the area being affected, I don't have a pendant, but on the screen before you, if you can kind of use your 3D eyes, see your box there to your upper left-hand corner of the screen, that's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 17 - Page 20 Condens¢ItTM Page 21 1 primarily where Parcels 1 and 2 reside. And this is a 2 color photo. The site is currently vacant. There's some 3 infrastructure being placed at the site currently and 4 they're making preparations for development. And that 5 concludes my presentation. 6 COMMISS[ONER POWELL: Any questions of 7 staff at this time? Since this is a public hearing, I'll 8 ask if anybody is here and would like to speak in favor of 9 this particular item. Anybody in the audience want to 10 speak in favor.'? Apparently, I should have asked for the 11 applicant first and I apologize. I bet she wants to speak 12 in favor. 13 MS. HURST: Yes. My name is Rhonda Hurst. 14 Fm with Dowdey, Anderson and Associates engineering firm. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And your address, I1~ MS. HURST: 5225 village Creek Drive, please. 18 Piano, Texas. 9 COMMiSSiONER POWELL: Thank you. 20 MS. mJ~T: we're asking for this amenchnent 21 to our detailed plan. We're increasing the amount of open 22 space. We're reducing the total nmnber of lots in tiffs 23 area. I have a big -- and I'll show you the area. We're 24 not increasing the nmnber of lots. We've taken lots out 25 from here to do more open space land features here. We've Page 23 i square feet, 70 feet width. Parcel 7 which is right here, 2 6,000 square feet with a 45-foot minimum width. 3 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO you're completely 4 eliminating all of the 7,200 square foot lots that were 5 originally approved in the PD?. 6 MS. HURST: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: 7hank you. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 9 of the applicant? Go ahead, ma'am. 10 COMMISSIONER HOLT: When all the parcels 11 are full, how many homes will be in this area? 12 MS. HURST: There will be four less than 13 originally. 14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Okay. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 16 of the applicant from here? Thank you, ma'am. 17 MS. HURST: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL; NOW I'll go back to 19 is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 20 speak in favor? Seeing nobody else in the audience on 21 this item, is there anybody else in the audience who would 22 like to speak against? Anybody in the audience that would 23 like to speak against the motion, against the item? No 24 one speaking up, I'll close the public hearing and go back 25 up here and see if there's any further comments or Page 22 I taken lots out here and we've taken out lots in here. 2 And so the -- asking for a 50-foot lot 3 width allows us to, in Parcel 2, make up for -- we're 4 having some more open space but we still don't lose as 5 many lots. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Questions of the 7 applicant? Yes, Mr. Roy. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: YOU talk about Parcel 1 9 and Parcel 2. Roughly, where is Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 and 10 how many other parcels are there going to be? 11 MS. HURST: There's seven parcels that were 12 part of this PD. Parcel I and 2 -- Parcel 1 is this area 13 right here. Parcel 2 is this area right here. We're only 14 looking at amending Parcel 1 and 2. There's Parcels 3, 4, 15 5, 6, and 7 remaining unchanged. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: Are those Parcels 3, 4, 17 5, 6, and 7 residential parcels primarily? 18 MS. HURST: Yes. They're all residential 19 parcels. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: what is the minimum lots 21 size of those parcels and the minimum lot width? 22 MS. HURST: Parcel 3, the minimum lot size 23 is 6,000 square feet, 45 width, building width. Parcel 4, 24 5,750 square feet, 50-foot width. Parcel 5, 5,750 square 25 feet, 50-foot width. Parcel 6 which is down here, 10000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 24 questions or a motion. COMMISSIONER MULROY: £'m ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we have a motion from -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Move approval as presented. COMMISSIONER POWELL: -- Mr, Mulroy. Mr. Johnson, you're up here, also. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second from Mr. Johnson. Any other co~ranents? We'll vote. The motion is approved 6-0 of the members present. I'll open a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 36.6 acres of land, Planned Development 191. Well, I guess formerly eo-wL The zoning district to Neighborhood Residential 2 and Neighborhood Residential 3 and Neighborhood Residential 4 and Neighborhood Residential 6 zoning districts. The property is generally located north and south of Audra Lane, west of Mayhill Road, and east of Loop 288. Single-family subdivision and open space is proposed. Tiffanie Willis again. MS. WtLLm: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Before you this evening is a case entitled Prominence Square, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 21 - Page 24 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING ORDINANCES NO. 99-257, 99-367, 99-405, AND 2000-216 TO PROVIDE FOR A DETAILED PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 253 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS 170, 172 AND 176; THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF TEASLEY BETWEEN ROBINSON AND HICKORY CREEK IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROViDiNG A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROViDiNG FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-02-0061). WHEREAS, on August 3, 1999, by Ordinance No. 99-257, the City Council approved a change in zoning for 65.17 acres of land in Planned Development 172 (PD-172) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 1999, by Ordinance No. 99-367, the City Council approved a change in zoning for 167.477 acres of land in Planned Development 176 (PD-176) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on November 2, 1999, by Ordinance No. 99-405, the City Council approved a change in zoning for 38.6 acres of land in Planned Development 170 (PD-170) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on June 20, 2000 in Ordinance No. 2000-216 the City Council approved a detailed plan (the "Prior Detailed Plan") for 253.36 acres located in the PD-170, PD-172 and PD- 176 zoning districts which property is more particularly described in said ordinance (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the property owner has applied for a new detailed plan to supercede and take the place of the Prior Detailed Plan, the original of which is on file in the Office of the Denton Planning Department and a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" (the "Detailed Plan"); and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the Detailed Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Detailed Plan is consistent with the approved Concept Plans for PD-170, PD-172 and PD-176 and is consistent with the 1999-2020 Denton Comprehensive 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. The Detailed Plan is hereby approved for the Property thereby superceding and taking the place of the Prior Detailed Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the three conditions contained in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 2000-216 have not been fully met they shall remain in full force and effect. S:\O~ Docaments\Ordinances\03~Z 02 0061.doc SECTION 2. The provisions of this ordinance as they apply to the Property shall govern and control over any conflicting provisions of Ordinance No. 99-257, Ordinance No. 99-367, and Ordinance No. 99-405, but all the provisions of Ordinance No. 99-257, Ordinance No. 99-367, and Ordinance No. 99-405, as they apply to that remaining portion of the planned developmem district not herein amended, shall cominue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of said district. SECTION 3. A copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 99-257, Ordinance No. 99-367, and Ordinance No. 99-405 showing the amendmem herein approved. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the DeNon Record Chronicle, official newspaper of the City of DeNon, 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 BY: PAGE 2 S:\O~ Docttments\Ordinances\03kZ 02 0061.doc EXHIBIT "A" DETAILED PLAN PAGE 3 S:\O~ Docmnents\Ordinances\03kZ 02 0061.doc PAGE 4 02/17~03 #5E AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 18, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Developmem Department CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ~>~¥~ ~' SUBJECT - Z02-0062 (Prominence Square) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 36.6 acres of land from Planned Developmem 191 (PD-191) zoning district to Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3) Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The property is generally located north and south of Audra, west of Mayhill Road, and east of Loop 288. A single-family subdivision and open space are proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0. BACKGROUND Applicam: Millennium Home Builders, Ronald Slovecek DeNon, Texas This application is similar to a recem request (Z02-0045), which was not approved. The applicam has decreased the density along the southern portion of the developmem (see Attachmem 3) and has reached an agreement with the adjacem property owners to the south to construct an 8' high wood fence (Attachmem 5). Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachmem 4. As of this writing, staff has received two (2) responses in favor, two (2) responses neutral and no responses opposed to the request from the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0 (Apple, absem). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. Platting is required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z02-0062, commonly known as Prominence Square: October 23, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial ofZ02-0045. November 19, 2002 City Council votes 5-2 to approve Z02-0045, application fails due to lack of supermajority (6 vote required based on Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation of denial). FISCAL INFORMATION Future development of this property will increase the assessed value of the property. No short- term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city will be necessary. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps. 3. Zoning Plan & Applicants Justification. 4. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map and Property Owner Responses). 5. Applicants Correspondence & Memorandum of Agreement. 6. Neighborhood Meeting Minutes. 7. PD- 191 Ordinance 2000-417. 8. Photographs. 9. Planning and Zoning Commission January 22, 2003 Minutes. 10. Draft Ordinance. Prepared by: Tiffanie Willis Planner I Respectfully submitted: RLA, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zonin~ Request The applicant is requesting four (4) tracts of land totaling approximately plus or minus 36 acres of land to be rezoned from Planned Development 191 (PD-191) to Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential 3 (NR-3) Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning districts. The proposed zoning request will increase the number of units per acre should this request be granted. PD-191 allows for a density of 3.6 units per acre (125 units) and the proposed zoning would result in an overall maximum density of 4.78 units per acre (156.8 units on 32.8 acres). The actual density will decrease slightly with the final design of the subdivision and taking into account that actual density per zoning district cannot be increased. For example, the table below identifies that the maximum density within the NR-3 area is 8.4 units, the actual number of lots is likely to be 7 or 8, which would decrease the overall density of the subdivision. NR-2 YES No No 2 units / acre NR-3 YES No SUP 3 units / acre NR-4 YES L(3) SUP 4 units / acre NR-6 YES Yes Yes 6 units / acre NR-2 2.2 2 units/acre 2* NR-3 2.8 3.5 units/acre 8.4 NR-4 15.8 4 units/acre 63.2 NR-6 14.2 6 units/acre 85.2 Total** 32.8 4.78 units/acre 156.8 (average) * NR-2 area is proposed Parkland ** Total does not include NR-2 property The subject site is generally located west of Mayhill and north and south of Audra. This property is in a Planned Development (PD-191) zoning district. PD-191 encompasses approximately 112 acres and was approved as a mixed-use development with approximately 35 acres of single family residential, 10 acres of attached single-family residential, 48 acres of office/retail uses, 4 acres of light industrial uses, and a considerable amount of land will be dedicated for public parkland. Existing Condition of Property Property History. November 7, 2000 - PD- 191 approved (Ordinance 2000-417, Attachmem 7). April 1, 2001 - A General Developmem Plan (GDP01-0001) was approved for this emire developmem allowing for a variety of uses. The GDP idemified major infrastructure improvements associated with the development. February 20, 2002 - The subject property maimained the Planned Developmem 191 (PD-191) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. June 26, 2002 - A zoning change request to rezone PD 191 to NR-6 zoning classification was processed. Although The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval the applicam withdrew the application due to neighborhood opposition. October 23, 2002 - The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the zoning request (Z02-0045). November 19, 2002 - City Council approves the request (5-2, Burroughs & Brock opposed), however, the request fails because of the lack of six (6) votes (required supermajority vote based on Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation for denial). Adjacem zoning: North: South: East: West: Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district - vacam land (zoning allows for retail, attached single family and park land) Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district - single-family residences Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET J) -single-family & vacam land Planned Developmem 191 (PD 191) zoning district -vacam land (zoning allows for retail uses) The property is curremly undeveloped. Adjacem to the subject site PD-191 includes retail and office use along Loop 288 and attached single family and parkland to the north. Adjacem property to the south is single-family and ranges from 2.5 acres to 5 acres of land in size. Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject property is located within the "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in convemional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood cemers are oriemed inwardly, focusing on the cemer of the neighborhood and comaining facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elememary school. The DeNon Plan idemifies the following Primary Residemial Land use Principles and Goals: Preserve Neighborhoods: The preservation of existing and future neighborhoods can be achieved by demanding high-quality developmem and establishing design and construction standards that are fair and evenly applied. Promote a Diverse Housing Stock: The residential component of the Land Use Plan allows all types of people who live in Denton by allowing a variety of housing types, sizes and types. The housings stock should reflect the demographics and economic structure of the community. Limit Sprawl: The residential component of the Land Use Plan should guide development patterns that limit sprawl, accommodate projected housing demand and allows quality high density development where it is close to jobs, shopping, schools and transit. (page 35) The proposed zoning is consistem with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Development Review Analysis The proposed new developmem will be compatible with the existing uses although slightly denser than the zoning of the surrounding properties at this time. The general area surrounding the site includes a variety of Neighborhood Residemial uses. New developmem in this area would improve the viability of surrounding residemial properties. The construction of single- family homes would ensure the accessibility of quality housing within the City limits of DeNon. Transportation As part of the PD-191 rezoning, a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was submitted. The TIA identified required road improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts associated with the developmem. The increased density may require an amendmem to the TIA to address that increase. Access and Connectivity The General Developmem Plan (GDP) for Prominence Square developmem idemifies that access for this parcel will be from an imernal road running east/west between Loop 288 and Mayhill Road. Additionally, connectivity to adjacem property to the south will be required. It is anticipated the surrounding road system will be sufficient to handle increased traffic generated from this proposal. Public Infrastructure A drainage study for the emire Prominence Square developmem is curremly underway and required prior to platting. Environmental Quality Impacts No negative environmental impacts have been identified. Development Code/Zoning Analysis As this is a Planned Developmem, the details of the proposed single family would be considered with a Detailed Plan submission. If this property is rezoned to NR-2, NR-3, NR-4 and NR-6 developmem would be subject to the requiremems of the DeNon Developmem Code. If rezoned any proposed developmem: 1) Must meet the minimum requirements for transportation and road capacity; pedestrian linkages; utilities; drainage and topography; signs; landscaping; open space; lighting and environmem quality impacts and Will be required to be in compliance with the standards of the Demon Developmem Code, including subdivision and site design. Staff Findings The proposed zoning is consistem with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation: Based on the above findings staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Existing Zoning Scale: None NORTH Location/Zoning Map Proposed Zoning Scale: None Land Use Map NORTH Ce,~tter Scale: None Prominence Square Single Fam~iy ~ced ~m ~h~ pmpe~ ~ ~emu~s [Exempt:' ~n ~' m~s~ w~li alon~ De~l~pmen~ ~de was ~dop~ ~e ~opedy :SO~ and ~ja~n~: m this tmc.~ N~ ~ e~ti~g PD ~S Mu~i~famil,y~"sin~le family a,~ched ~2 u~, T~ prepused ~t~m~ cban~e ~[~ NR2, NR3, NR,4 arid NE6 wou~d provi~ m~e c~m~i~e~ an~ l.rans]~n~ ~en ~e ~ pra~.ies ~.w a~d ~ de, element5 t~ occur i~ ~e ~e. N~ is used for w.a~d ~n 8~ ma~n~ well ~d ~ger !~ ~ ~is pmper'~, The ~E3 ~u!~ ~on~'ly ~!!~' 10 [o~ !~ be p~ce~ ,~or~in9 o~ ~:l~ p~i~ ~o ~e sou~h. N~8 is placed ~:~e~ 1:~ the ~J~y c~mmemial a~d m~l[~am~ ~re~s S~ncerely, Allen R~ B~s~eli SENT Cor~ ATTACHMENT 4 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map City ~J Scale: None Public Notification Date: January 11,2003 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 2 · Neutral: 2 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 0% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Henry Rife In favor (Land 2248 Stone Gate Owner) See attached agreement. Denton, TX 76205 JC Wallace In favor 1018 Lindale See letter Richardson, TX 75080 Charles Smelser Neutral Tentative agreement with the developer was 3850 Holland Lane worked out during neighborhood meeting Jan. Denton 76208 14th. I will not oppose rezoning request, but will remain neutral. L.T. Holland Neutral Considering the Memorandum of Agreement, I 3760 Holland Lane will not oppose there request for rezoning, but Denton, Texas 76208 chose to remain neutral, *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 5 Applicant's Correspondence ? ATTACHMENT 6 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes Prominence Square January 14, 2003 Z02-0062 (Prominence Square) Neighborhood Meeting - Minutes - PRESENT: Deborah Viera, Kyle Robertson, Ronald Slovacek, Allen Bussell, Sherran Smelser, Charles Smelser, Nancy Tunnell, Mary Holland, and L.T. Holland 1. Mr. Slovacek explained that current zoning request is a new application and the intent of the meeting was to get an agreement between the applicants and the adjacent property owners to the south. Mr. Slovacek proposed a 6-foot wood fence per the Development Code to be located between the proposed development and Mr. Holland's and Mr. Smelser's properties. Mr. Slovacek and Mr. Bussell discussed the design standard, per Code, of the proposed residential units and the screening fence along the proposed Prominence Parkway. Mr. Holland expressed concerns about the drainage of the subject site and surrounding properties. Mr. Robertson explained that a row of large lots (NR-2) would be developed to the north of Mr. Holland's and Mr. Smeller's properties. Mr. Robertson explained that park amenities would be provided at the proposed park. Mr. Robertson indicated that the proposed subdivision is not targeting first- homebuyers. Mrs. Tunnell asked if the residential units will be 100% masonry or if the rear and sides will be made of wood siding. The applicants were not certain about the masonry percentages of the units. Staff indicated that the Code does not require masonry as building material. Mrs. Tunnell asked about the price range of the units. The applicants indicated that the price range is $120,000 - $160,000. 10. The neighbors discussed the option of having the screening fence made of concrete panels. The applicant indicated that concrete panels are not aesthetically pleasing and are cost prohibited. 11. Mrs. Tunnell indicated that the Power Point presentation shown at the City Council (for the previous zoning application Z02-0045) showed the screening fences along Mayhill Road and Prominence Parkway as masonry walls. She questioned why the masonry fence requested by the neighbors is a burden for the applicant. Mr. Slovacek indicated that the design of those screening fences shown on the presentation was conceptual and that the applicant is more inclined to a wrought iron fence with masonry columns and landscape. 12. Mr. Holland believes that having backyard fences backing his property will decrease the value of his property. 13. Mr. Holland and Mr. Smelser requested an 8-foot wood fence with the following specifications: board-on-board fence, 6-foot concrete columns every 100 feet, and top cap. 14. Mr. Holland will provide a document to Mr. Slovacek with all the specifications for the fence prior January 22 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 15. The applicant indicated that the screening fence (along Mr. Holland's and Mr. Smelser's properties) would be built after the grading for the drainage and the fence is done. 16. Mr. Slovacek and Mr. Holland agreed that a homeowner association (HOA) would be established and the maintenance of the screening fence (along Mr. Holland's and Mr. Smelser's properties) would be transferred to the HOA after the association is legally established and funded. ATTACHMENT 7 Ordinance 2000-417 A~ACH MENT 4 ~q O~'~ANCE QP "f'Hg CITY OF DBNTON~ ?~.S TO PROVmE t:OR A ZON~G (GR)~ .~D SINGLE F~flLY {~SF.7 )7~3NIN ~ DI Sq'~;f g; TO CtlANGB TO A P L~D DEVELOPM~' CD) :s':rmcr :o ~LOW FOR SINGLE F~MILY~ R~;rA!L~ PA , A~D L~GHT INDU~Fg~L USE,g; T,[~ ~,~A~D AT THE SOUTH~ABW ~J.RNF~ OF LoOP 28;g .~D ~D:[~ OF $2,000,00 FOR VIOI~ONS TH EF:F:gC'T~E DATB (ZP-O0~I 1 ), 199:9~-202'0 D~l,a~ Comp~eh,en~i'v¢: Plan; NOW, ~'E~FOrRE, THE COUNCIL OF T'J:~ CITY ©F D'~ON H:E:REB¥' ORDA~$:: 'under d.~s:tdct cla,ss~f~t,~:un, ,, P,A,,GE 2 AND ~?ROVED ~:1~,~ J'h~ 2000. AS ~ LEG,,;~ FOILM: ATTACHMENT 8 Site Photographs I,'~r o m i Il eric ¢ S q u are CondenseltTM Page 17 1 Now, my question would be will all this be 2 worked out before this is taken to the City Council so 3 flint they won't be hearing the same thing we are. They're 4 going to be approving something that's not completed. 5 MR. SALMON: Typically, it takes nearly a 6 month to get from Planning and Zoning Cormnission to City 7 Council with a variance. So, I mean, I can certainly do 8 anything i can within my powers, you know, I can inform 9 the Parks and Recreation Department that it would be 10 really good to have this worked out before it goes in 11 front of the City Council. 12 And, frankly, given the fact that it's 13 probably going to be three weeks to a month at least 14 anyway, I would certainly hope that that would be a 15 reasonable time to have those issues worked out because 16 it's already been probably two to ttwee weeks since we had 17 our last meeting with the applicant and the Parks 18 Department. And I wouldn't be entirely surprised if maybe 19 they're not already close to working it out, but it just 20 hasn't been confirmed. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. 22 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Chairman, I would 23 like to amend my motion and add the qualifier that the 24 agreement with the Parks Department be finalized pr/or to 25 submission to City Council. 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 2I 22 23 24 25 Page 19 change no matter who develops this property unless you upzone it a lot to figure out that gas problem, the gas line. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR, BUSSELL: YeS, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other conunents? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. My comment would be if it were as close to an agreement as was stated, then my amendment shouldn't be offensive to any party. COMMISSIONER POWELL: seeing no other names up on the board, I will call for a vote. Motion passes 6-0 of the members present. We go into public hearings, Item No. 6. I will open the public hearing and consider making a recormnendation to City Council regarding amending the detailed plan for Planned Development 170, 172, and 176, formerly I guess m-17o. 172,176. The approximate 253 acres of land commonly known as the Wheeler Ridge Addition is located south of Nowlin and Robinson Roads on the east side of Farm to Market 2181, Teasley Lane, generally opposite Hickory Creek Road. The amendment will alter the number of lots and increase the open space. Single-family residential subdivision and open space parkland are Page 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Does the seconder go along with that? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion as made before with the qualifier that the full agreement be in place before it goes to Council. Is there any other comments or questions from the floor? Staff has something else? We have somebody coming up here and we'll ask for his name and address again. MR. BUSSELL: Allen Bussell, Greg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Court, Ponder. I just want to again point out, whether or not this goes through the Parks Department, the layout is not going to change. This is the stone layout I had before any discussion was with the Parks. Tiffs is NR-2 zoning. You can only get so many lots on here. You need to cluster them on this side of the gas line. That's not going to change. The other lots are NR-4 and NR-2 combined. That's not going to change. The only thing is taking this channel on this side. We don't have a problem with that. It's not so much working a fee out with the Park. That fee is not paid until the end of the platting process. It shouldn't be holding up a variance for something that needs to be done engineering-wise anyway. The layout is not going to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 il0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 Page 20 proposed. Tiffanie. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Powell. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MS. WILLIS: commission, before you this evening is the Wheeler Ridge, Phase In zoning request, as thc Commissioner read so distinctly. They're requesting to allow an adjustment on lot layout in their 253-acre subdivision. They're off Teasley Road for two parcel On your screen before you, you see your site location, the area notified, and the future land use map does show you a few features. This area is an existing Neighborhood Center, future land use designation. Our zoning, as stated, is I'DqTo, t72, and 176 with adjacent properties, NR-2, 4, and 6, as well as to the SOUI~i NRMU and t,,RMU42, and then Planned Development 111 there to the City limit boundary. In die chart included in your backup, we just give you a brief synopsis of the change and request. As you notice, the lot width is increasing from 45 feet to 55 feet, as well as the size, the lot size is changing from 72,000 square feet to 6,000. And the area being affected, I don't have a pendant, but on the screen before you, if you can kind of use your 3D eyes, see your box there to your upper left-hand corner of the screen, that's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 17 - Page 20 Condens¢ItTM Page 21 1 primarily where Parcels 1 and 2 reside. And this is a 2 color photo. The site is currently vacant. There's some 3 infrastructure being placed at the site currently and 4 they're making preparations for development. And that 5 concludes my presentation. 6 COMMISS[ONER POWELL: Any questions of 7 staff at this time? Since this is a public hearing, I'll 8 ask if anybody is here and would like to speak in favor of 9 this particular item. Anybody in the audience want to 10 speak in favor.'? Apparently, I should have asked for the 11 applicant first and I apologize. I bet she wants to speak 12 in favor. 13 MS. HURST: Yes. My name is Rhonda Hurst. 14 Fm with Dowdey, Anderson and Associates engineering firm. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: And your address, I1~ MS. HURST: 5225 village Creek Drive, please. 18 Piano, Texas. 9 COMMiSSiONER POWELL: Thank you. 20 MS. mJ~T: we're asking for this amenchnent 21 to our detailed plan. We're increasing the amount of open 22 space. We're reducing the total nmnber of lots in tiffs 23 area. I have a big -- and I'll show you the area. We're 24 not increasing the nmnber of lots. We've taken lots out 25 from here to do more open space land features here. We've Page 23 i square feet, 70 feet width. Parcel 7 which is right here, 2 6,000 square feet with a 45-foot minimum width. 3 COMMISSIONER ROY: SO you're completely 4 eliminating all of the 7,200 square foot lots that were 5 originally approved in the PD?. 6 MS. HURST: Yes, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER ROY: 7hank you. 8 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 9 of the applicant? Go ahead, ma'am. 10 COMMISSIONER HOLT: When all the parcels 11 are full, how many homes will be in this area? 12 MS. HURST: There will be four less than 13 originally. 14 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Okay. Thank you. 15 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 16 of the applicant from here? Thank you, ma'am. 17 MS. HURST: Thank you. 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL; NOW I'll go back to 19 is there anyone else in the audience that would like to 20 speak in favor? Seeing nobody else in the audience on 21 this item, is there anybody else in the audience who would 22 like to speak against? Anybody in the audience that would 23 like to speak against the motion, against the item? No 24 one speaking up, I'll close the public hearing and go back 25 up here and see if there's any further comments or Page 22 I taken lots out here and we've taken out lots in here. 2 And so the -- asking for a 50-foot lot 3 width allows us to, in Parcel 2, make up for -- we're 4 having some more open space but we still don't lose as 5 many lots. 6 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Questions of the 7 applicant? Yes, Mr. Roy. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: YOU talk about Parcel 1 9 and Parcel 2. Roughly, where is Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 and 10 how many other parcels are there going to be? 11 MS. HURST: There's seven parcels that were 12 part of this PD. Parcel I and 2 -- Parcel 1 is this area 13 right here. Parcel 2 is this area right here. We're only 14 looking at amending Parcel 1 and 2. There's Parcels 3, 4, 15 5, 6, and 7 remaining unchanged. 16 COMMISSIONER ROY: Are those Parcels 3, 4, 17 5, 6, and 7 residential parcels primarily? 18 MS. HURST: Yes. They're all residential 19 parcels. 20 COMMISSIONER ROY: what is the minimum lots 21 size of those parcels and the minimum lot width? 22 MS. HURST: Parcel 3, the minimum lot size 23 is 6,000 square feet, 45 width, building width. Parcel 4, 24 5,750 square feet, 50-foot width. Parcel 5, 5,750 square 25 feet, 50-foot width. Parcel 6 which is down here, 10000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 24 questions or a motion. COMMISSIONER MULROY: £'m ready to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we have a motion from -- COMMISSIONER MULROY: Move approval as presented. COMMISSIONER POWELL: -- Mr, Mulroy. Mr. Johnson, you're up here, also. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second from Mr. Johnson. Any other co~ranents? We'll vote. The motion is approved 6-0 of the members present. I'll open a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding rezoning approximately 36.6 acres of land, Planned Development 191. Well, I guess formerly eo-wL The zoning district to Neighborhood Residential 2 and Neighborhood Residential 3 and Neighborhood Residential 4 and Neighborhood Residential 6 zoning districts. The property is generally located north and south of Audra Lane, west of Mayhill Road, and east of Loop 288. Single-family subdivision and open space is proposed. Tiffanie Willis again. MS. WtLLm: Thank you, Mr. Powell. Before you this evening is a case entitled Prominence Square, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 21 - Page 24 CondenseItTM 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 Zoning Case 62. The applicant for this case is Millennium and they're coming before you requesting a zoning request change for quite a few tracts of land within the ?Dqg~ for Prominence Square. The applicant is proposing to rezone 36 acres of land to accommodate future residential development. Before you on your screen is the area tlmt was notified for this Prominence Square case. And moved forward at this time, we have not received any opposition for this case. However, we have received motions in neutral and one in favor. In your backup presented to you this evening as an attachment Agenda item, we did provide for you a letter in favor froln Mr. Jeff Wallace, and you might want to review that. He's basically rendering his position of in favor. Before you on your screen is the future land use map here featuring this area as a Neighborhood Center, southern portions of Employment Center, east and west, existing neighborhood, as well as Neighborhood Center uses. The zoning in this particular area, as we stated, is a Planned Development, PD-19I. We do have abutting uses to the south that you might want to focus on, NRMU, NRMU-12, and NR-4 which are compatible with what our applicant is requesting this evening. This is a photo of the site. And that concludes my PowerPoint Page 27 I Neighborhood Residential 4 which matches the southern 2 existing zoning. Then we added some NR-2 because of the 3 request from the neighbors to do that, and those are much 4 larger lots. Not only are they larger lots, they're 5 larger because they have larger side yard setbacks of ten 6 foot minimums, so you've got 20 feet between the houses. 7 So as you're driving by, it lends itself to much larger 8 more open lots than any of the other classifications. 9 The fencing issue, there's a signed 10 agreement between Mr. Rife, Mr. Slovecek, Mr. Rife is the 11 owner, Mr. Slovecek the developer, Mr. Holland, and Mr. 12 Smelser, who arc the two owners adjacent to the site on 13 the south. Basically, what you see in yellow there is an 14 eight-foot fence, and you see that in your backup of the 15 specifics of that fence with the brick columns every 100 16 feet, the steel poles every six feet, the cedar fence, 17 treated, blah, blah, blah. 18 And then additionally, instead of building 19 the fence continuing to Loop 288 here, it was agreed to 20 that we would build a fence along the western line which 21 would leave their road open until the cormnercial land was 22 developed. So that when they drive in, they don't feel 23 closed in there. They get that natural look while at the 24 same time being protected from the development here. 25 Everybody was pretty happy with that. Page 26 presentation. The applicant is hem tonight and I'm sure would like to speak for the case. If you have any questions, I'll answer those at this time. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any questions of staff at this time? We'll ask for the applicant -- thank you, Tiffanie. MR. BUSSELL: My name is Allen Bussell. I work with Oreg Edwards Engineering Services, 1621 Amanda Page 28 1 That's it. I'm here to answer any 2 questions. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any questions of the 4 developer? i can't believe that. Mr. Roy, go ahead. 5 COMMISSIONER ROY: Yes, Mr. BusselL I 6 think you may have answered my question in one of your 7 slides but we're being asked to rezone only 36 acres of 8 the PD-191. And PD-191 was vgry large. 9 MR. BUSSELL: It'S about 100 acres. Yes, Court, Ponder, Texas. We're back before you again on this. We listened to the Cormnission, listened to the neighbors, listened to the Council, and Ron is very tenacious. We made a lot of changes and worked with the neighbors to come up with an agreement on the buffering. I'm not going to go through everything I went through last time and bore you with that. You guys know where it is. You guys know what the circumstances are. You know pretty much that this is the location and Tiffanie went over that really well with Audra on the north and Loop 288 not adjacent but on the west, Mayhill Road on the east, and then DeS and FEMA to the south there. This is what we're proposing with Sa-2 as i~mnediate parkland, sa-6 is a transitional. Thc Na-6 area was reduced from our last request. NR-4, 10 sir. 11 COMMISSIONER ROY: 100 acres. And I wanted 12 to know what the rest of PD-191 was going to look like. 13 MR. BUSSELL: It'S still commercial land. 14 Let me get back up to the vicinity map here because this 15 will show you. It's commercial land here, all the way up 16 here. Much of the land is floodplain so it will be 17 parkland dedication, over 20 acres of parkland in thc 18 Cooper Creek area in here. And that's what the two acres 19 her~ was adjoining for us to do that immediately as part 20 of that. And then, of course, up here you guys had 21 rezoned recently some ECC land so it would meld better up 22 there for the Quick Trip site up there. So that was part 23 of this site, also. So the rest of the land is commercial 24 land and parkland. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: Are yOU saying that this PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 25 - Page 28 Condens¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 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 29 is the only portion of PD-191 -- MR. BUSSELL: oh, I take that back. You're right. I take that back. l'm sorry. This area right in here is multi-fmnily, 12 units per acre. COMMISSIONER ROY: Perhaps the next slide. MR. BUSSELL: That helps. There we go right there. COMMISSIONER ROY: Everything that I see on that slide other than what's in the dark area, the dark area is what you're proposing to change, and the rest of Page 31 1 Maybe twice. It's got to be third, isn't it? 2 MR. BUSSELL: Third or fourth. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I never dreamed we 4 would settle this with Mr. Holland being happy. Mr. 5 Holland is not here tonight. I hope he's watching. He is 6 here. I apologize, Mr. Holland. I didn't see you up 7 there. You're kind of in the shadow. I have to assume 8 you're happy since you haven't spoken. I'm proud to say 9 that it finally finished and I'm glad everybody is happy. 10 At that stage of the game, I'll hush and see if there's it is remaining as originally proposed in PD-191; is that correct? MR. BUSSELL: That's COllECt. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. MR. BUSSELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 11 any other comments. 12 MR. HOLLAND: YOU finally get worn out. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Who cares why. Being 14 no further comments, 1'11 ask for a vote. Motion passes 15 6-0 of the members present. I6 With that done, we'll go on to No, 8. of the applicant? I don't have any names on the board. I guess you're free to go to your chair. MR. BUSSELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item? 17 I'll open a public hearing and consider making a 18 recommendation to City Council regarding a specific use 19 permit for a gas well on approximately 62.6 acres of land. 20 The site is in a Neighborhood Residential, NR-6 zoning 21 district. The subject property is located south of Anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the item? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the item? Page 30 22 23 24 25 Mission, north of Hobson Lane, and east of U.S. 377, Fort Worth Drive. One gas well is proposed. Tiffanie Willis. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Co~mnissioners. Before you tonight is a request for gas well production Page 32 Seeing no speakers, we'll not have to get into a rebuttal. And I'll close the public hearing and open it to our floor up here for discussion, motions, whatever. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I'd like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Go right ahead, Mr. Watkins. Z02 -- sir. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Move approval of COMMISSIONER POWELL: Your mike is not on, COMMISSIONER WATKINS: EXCUSe me. [ move approval of Z02-062, Prominence Square. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion from Mr. Watkins. Ms. Holt, do you have a second? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'll third. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Is there any discussion at this time? Well, I'm telling you I'm going to have some, My first or second hitch on this fine group here was at least four or six years ago and this cm~e up. And it came up and it crone up again since I've been back. This is the third time I think since I've been back. 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 site and the NR-6 zone. According to our Development Code, we are encourage. At to not allow this use in that zoning designation. The applicant before you, as stated, is requesting this use on a 40-acre tract of land located there south of Mission Road near Hobson Lane. Thank you. The applicant is requesting this use in the ~a-6 zone. Tonight R.L. Atkins and his r~resentatives are hem to present to you tonight. Basically, that is our issue. Staff has reviewed the Development Code and aptly notes in your staff backup that during the review process under the development plat, we did notice that the wellhead could not remain within the zoning and so we bring before you tonight the request for the s~JP for this use in the ~R-a zoning. Just to quickly travel through our PowerPoint presentation, your site is located there from Fort Worth Drive, south of Mission and north of Hobson Road. The notified ama as d/splayed before you present. We did have respondents, three in favor as provided in your backup, additional notes in Itmn 8. And then four without, as you see coming on your screen the areas of in favor are listed here. And then we have in opposition areas. Ms. Butt, Ragle, and Coulter, landowners, Pmett and Ragle. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 29 - Page 32 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REZONING APPROXIMATELY 35.30 ACRES OF LAND FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 191 (PD-191) ZONING DISTRICT TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 3 (NR-3), NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) AND NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENDITAL 6 (NR-6); SAID REAL PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DENTON IN THE W. LLOYD SURVEY AND THE M.E.P. & P. R.R. SURVEY AND BEING BETWEEN MAYHILL ROAD AND LOOP 288 SOUTH OF BLAGG ROAD, PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE WITH A MAXIMI22d FINE OF $2000.00 PER DAY FOR A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; A SEVER_ABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z02-0062). WHEREAS, the owner has initiated a change in zoning for approximately 35.30 acres of land from a Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential - 2 (NR-2), Neighborhood Residential - 3 (NR-3), Neighborhood Residential - 4 (NR-4), and Neighborhood Residential - 6 (NR-6) zoning district; and WHEREAS, said 35.30 acres of land is described in four tracts or parcels of land being an approximate 2.28 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "2.28 Acre Tract"), an approximate 2.88 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "2.88 Acre Tract"), an approximate 15.89 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "C' attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "15.89 Acre Tract"), and an approximate 14.26 acre parcel or tract of land more particularly described in Exhibit "D" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "14.26 Acre Tract"); and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, NOW, 'THEREFORE THE coUNcIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The 2.28-Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Development i91 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential - 2 (NR- 2) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. The 2.88-Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential - 3 (NR-3) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. The 15.89-Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Development 191 (PD. 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential - 4 (NR-4) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. The 14.26-Acre Tract is hereby changed from Planned Development 191 (PD 191) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential - 6 (NR-6) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classifications. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application there of to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days fi.om 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: IENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ATTORNEY I-IERBERT  ITYL. BY: Page 2 of 6 Exhibit "A" NR-2 ZONING CHANGE FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land. situated in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. Co. Survey Abstract Number 1469, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and a part of the called 64.073 acre tract described in the deed from Leslie T. Holland to Junction 288 Partners recorded in Volume 347, Page 152 in the said Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows, using bearings based on the East line of the 36.666 acre tract; BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract on the centerline of a proposed road, South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes West a distance of 32.5 feet and North 89 Degrees 30 Minutes West a distance of 380 feet from the Northeast comer of the said 36.666 acre tract; THENCE'North 89 Degrees 30 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract with the centerline of a proposed road a distance of 104.9 feet; THENCE North '00 Degrees 28 Minutes East a across the 36.666 acre tract, passing at a distance of 32.5 feet the North line thereof and continuing across the said 64.073 acre tract, in all, a total distance of 319.6 feet; THENCE North 88 Degrees 49 Minutes West across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 207.6 feet; THENCE North 34 Degrees 15 Minutes West across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 172.5 feet; THENCE North 85 Degrees 24 Minutes East across the 64.073 acre tract a distance of 437.8 feet to the northwest comer of the City of Denton tract recorded in Volume 545, Page 102 of the said Deed Records; THENCE South 03 Degrees 21 Minutes West with the East line of the 64.073 acre tract, passing at a distance of 470.8 feet the Southeast comer thereof and continuing across the 36.666 acre tract in all, a total distance of 503.4 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 2.28 acres of land. Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT "B" NR-3 ZONING CHANGE FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. CO. Survey Abstract Number 1469, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed fi.om H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00~R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows, using bearings based on the East line of the 36.666 acre tract: BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract on the South line of the 36.666 acre tract, North 89 Degrees 39 Minutes West a distance of 548.9 feet from the Southeast comer thereof in Mayhill Road; THENCE North 89 Degrees 39 Minutes West with the South line of the said 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 130.9 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found on the East line of the 5.00 acre tract, described in the deed fi'om John L. Stallings et ux to Charley Lesley Smelter recorded in Volume 1177, Page 436 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE North 01 Degrees 01 Minutes East with the East line of the said 5.00 acre tract, a distance of 77.1 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found at the Northeast comer thereof; THENCE North 89 Degrees 38 Minutes West with the South line of the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 762.8 feet, to a 1/2 inch iron rod found with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" for the Southwest comer of the herein described tract; THENCE North 03 Degrees 56 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 130.3 feet; THENCE South 89 Degrees 38 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract parallel to the South line thereof a distance of 884.7 feet; THENCE South 00 Degrees 22 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 207.1 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 2.88 acres of land. Page 4 of 6 EXHIBIT "C" NR-4 ZONING CHANGE FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Number 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. CO. Survey Abstract Number 1469, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows, using bearings based on the East line of the 36.666 acre tract: BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract, at the Southeast comer of the 36.666 acre tract in Mayhill Road, South 89 Degrees 38 Minutes 41 Seconds East a distance of 17.0 feet from a ½ inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" on the proposed West line of Mayhill Road; THENCE North 89 Degrees 39 Minutes West with the South tine of the said 36.666 acre tract a distance of 548.9 feet; THENCE North 00 Degrees 22 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 207.1 feet; THENCE North 89 Degrees 38 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract paralleI to the South line thereof a distance of 884.7 feet; THENCE North 03 Degrees 56 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 405.8 feet; THENCE South 89 Degrees 25 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 1431.0 feet to the East tine of the 36.666 acre tract in Mayhill Road; THENCE South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes West along Mayhill Road with the East line of the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 606.7 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 15.89 acres oftand. Page 5 of 6 EXHIBIT"D" NR-6 · ZONING CHANGE FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the W. Lloyd Survey Abstract Numb~ 774 and in the M. E. P. & P. R.R. CO. Survey Abstract Number 1469, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being apart of the called 36.666 acre tract described in the deed from H. Edward Downs et ux to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0096311 in the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and a part of the called 13.815 acre Tract 1 described in the deed from Frances Kathryn Cluck to Henry Rife recorded under Clerk's File Number 00-R0075751 in the said Real Property Records; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows, using bearings based on the East line of the 36.666 acre tract; BEGINNING for the Southeast comer of the herein described tract on the East line of the 36.666 acre tmet in Mayhill Road, North 02 Degrees 30 Minutes East a distance of 606.7 feet from the Southeast comer thereof; THENCE North 89 Degrees 25 Minutes West across the 36.666 acre tract, passing a West.line thereof and the East line of the 13.815 acre tract and continuing, in all, a distance of 1431.0 feet; THENCE North 03 Degrees 56 Minutes East across the 36.666 acre tract, passing the North line thereof and continuing across the 13.815 acre tract, passing at a distance of 143.6 feet, a 1/2 inch iron rod with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" found and continuing, in all, a total distance of 205.2 feet to the centerline of a proposed street; THENCE with the centerline of a proposed street the following 3 calls: 1. North 40 Degrees 13 Minutes 51 Seconds East a distance of 115.43 feet, to the beginning of a curve to the right having a radius of 450.00 feet from which a i/2 inch iron rod set w/th a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" bears South 49 Degrees 46 Minutes East a distance of 36.5 feet; 2. With the said curve an arc length of 394.82 feet, (chord bearing North 65 Degrees 21 Minutes 56 Seconds East a distance of 382.27 feet) to the end of curve, from which a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" bears South 00 Degrees 30 Minutes 01 Seconds West a distance of 32.5 feet; 3. South 89 Degrees 30 Minutes East, 32.5 feet South of and parallel to the North line of the 13.815 acre tract and the 36.666 acre tract, a distance of 1014.87 to the East line thereof in. Mayhill Road, South 02 Degrees 30.Minutes 00 Seconds West a distance of 32.5 feet from the Northeast comer of the 36.666 acre tract fi:om which a 1/2 inch iron rod set with a yellow plastic cap stamped "SENTCORP RPLS 4001" bears South 29 Degrees 40 Minutes 31 Seconds West a distance of 37.22 feet; THENCE South 02 Degrees 30 Minutes West along Mayhill Road with the East line of the 36.666 acre tract a distance of 458.5 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 14.26 acres of land. Page 6 of 6 02/17~03 #5F AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 18, 2003 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development Department CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, Assistant City Manager 349-8314 ,. '~"~-~' SUBJECT - Z03-0001 (Ragle Unit No. 1 Gas Well) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance for a specific use permit for a gas well site on approximately 62.6 acres of land. The site is in a Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR- 6) zoning district. The subject property is located south of Mission, north of Hobson Lane and east of U.S. 377 (Fort Worth Drive). One gas well is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0. BACKGROUND Applicant: Ken Seligman, R. L. Atkins Sweetwater, Texas The applicant has submitted a request for a Specific Use Permit (SUP) proposing one gas well on the subject property. The gas well regulations allow gas well development only with the approval of a Specific Use Permit in the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. During the review process, it was brought to staff's attention that some of the affected property owners were having difficulty coming to a consensus regarding the placement of the wellhead. This opposition arose following signing of land leases and prior to determining the well location. While staff was able to resolve gas well development issues, not all affected property owners are in agreement with the well location. Included in the backup are copies of signed land leases from the property owners authorizing the well placement and the distance from their residential structures. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in (Attachment 3). As of this writing, staff has received four (4) responses in favor, no neutral responses and three (3) responses opposed to the request from the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property. Current opposition is near 43.4 %; therefore, a super majority vote will be required for City Council to approve the zoning change requested. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 6-0 (Commissioner Apple absent). 1 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE A portion of the subject property is platted. A Gas Well Development Plat must be approved prior to obtaining Gas Well permit approval. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of Z03-0001, commonly known as Ragle Unit No. 1: Zoning Change: Platting: Development Plat: February 4, 2002, City initiated from Agricultural (A) to Neighborhood Residential -6 (NR-6) zoning district June 12, 2002, Villas of Forest Glen, 27.3 acres of land September 30, 2002 date applied FISCAL INFORMATION Future development of this property under the NR-6 zoning will increase the assessed value of the property. It will require no short-term public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map, Property Owner Responses) 4. Photograph 5. Minutes from January 22, 2003 Planning and Zoning Meeting 6. Applicants Correspondence 7. Development Plat 8. Oil, Gas and Mineral Lease 9. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Tiffanie Willis Planner I Respectfully submitted: Rei ASLA, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summar~ of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting the placement of a gas well for drilling and production on the subject property. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6). The Specific Use Permit (SUP) is required in the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district. The applicant must obtain the approval of a Specific Use Permit (SUP) to allow for the construction of a gas well site. The SUP is required in the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) because future developments may allow single-family homes. Gas well sites are not allowed within 500' of any residential structure, place of assembly, institution, or school. The requested SUP will allow the applicant to use the existing property for gas well production. The gas well sites will operate in the vicinity of existing and future residential areas. The proposed location and size of the gas well site will be determined at the Gas Well Plat phase. The drilling of wells and the production of natural gas will be monitored and regulated in accordance with the regulations set forth by the Railroad Commission of Texas, TCEQ, the city Gas Well Ordinance and Fire Code requirements. Existing Condition of Property Property History. February 20, 2002 - The subject property was placed in the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 2002-040. Prior to the adoption of the Development Code, the property was zoned Agricultural (A). AdJacent zoning: North: Industrial Center General (1C-G) zoning districts - agricultural and some scattered single family residences and structures South: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4), Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning districts - vacant and agricultural East: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district - agricultural and South Lakes Park and some single-family residential West: Community Mixed Use General (CM-G), Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district(s) - single-family residence and agricultural Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within a "Neighborhood Centers" future land use area. These areas may develop in conventional patterns or may be developed in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Neighborhood centers are oriented inwardly, focusing on the center of the neighborhood and containing facilities vital to the day-to-day activity of the neighborhood. A neighborhood center might contain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elementary school. The Proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Quality Impacts The drilling of the well will likely create short-term environmemal impacts in terms of noise and odor. Once the drilling is completed and the well is in operation, environmemal impacts are expected to be minimal. The Development Plat (Attachmem 7) addresses the requiremems for access to the gas well site, utilities, topography, drainage, signs, road maimenance, pad site location, secured emrance and tank construction. Development Code/Zoning Analysis Transportation Trip Generation. No significam vehicle trips will be generated. Analysis (TIA) for this gas well site is not required. A Traffic and Impact The applicam has proposed the construction of one gas well site. The Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) zoning designation allows gas well sites only with the approval of a specific use permit. Subchapter 6 Approval Criteria 35.6.5, Ordinance 2002-040 states that a Specific Use Permit shall be issued only if all of the following conditions have been found: That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; The location of the proposed well site is greater than 500' from any residential structure and should not have an effect nor diminish property values within the immediate area. e That the establishment of the specific use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property; The establishment of this specific use will not impede the normal and orderly developmem of surrounding property. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; All necessary supporting facilities will be provided. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; The proposed driveways meet the requiremems of the City of DeNon. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration; Adequate nuisance prevention measures will be taken. With the exception of drilling the well, no offensive noise, odor or fumes will be produced. e That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and Proposed lighting requirements as listed in The Denton Development Code when addressed will not adversely affect neighboring properties. 7. That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property. No landscaping or screening is proposed. However, Section 35-113 allows the Commission to recommend additional conditions on the proposal to protect the public imerest and the welfare of the community. STAFF FINDINGS The proposed use is compatible with The DeNon Plan and the DeNon Developmem Code. The applicam has met the requirements of a Specific Use Permit. The establishmem of one gas well site at this location will have minimal or no impacts on the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above findings staff recommends approval. ATTACHMENT 2 Maps NORTH Location/Zoning Map Scale: None NORTH Future Land Use Map Scale: None NORTH Map HOBSON SITE Pr':'P':'~ ~d I1 Gas Well LOCation Scale: None ATTACHMENT 3 Public Notification NORTH Notification Map Scale: None Public Notification Date: January 11, 2003 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 22 500" Courtesy Notices* sent via 1st Class Mail: 62 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice · In Opposition: 3 · In Favor: 4 · Neutral: 0 Percent of land within 200' in opposition: 43.4% *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 Property Owner Responses Richard Smith No objections as long as the well site is greater Villas of Forest Glen IN FAVOR than 250 feet from my North property line 721 W. Hobbson Denton, Tx 76205 Robert Pruett I did not agree with the zoning in this area. 500 Mission IN FAVOR Denton, Tx 76201 Ronnie Hillard Blank. 2523 Fort Worth Drive IN FAVOR Denton, Tx 76205 David Fulton Blank. 2707 Fort Worth Drive IN FAVOR Denton, Tx 76205 Sue Burt I am opposed to this SUP. This gas well 410 Mission OPPOSED prohibits any future development of my land. Denton, Tx 76201 Evalyn Coulter I am opposed to this SUP because the 210 Mission OPPOSED proposed gas well will prohibit any future Denton, Tx 76201 development of my property within 250' of the well.. Ralph and Charoltte Ragle We are strongly opposed to this SUP request. 202 and 418 Mission OPPOSED This gas well will prohibit any future Denton, Tx 76201 development of our property within 350 feet of the well. *A copy of the original notice can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Photograph Condens¢ItTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 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 29 is the only portion of PD-191 -- MR. BUSSELL: oh, I take that back. You're right. I take that back. l'm sorry. This area right in here is multi-fmnily, 12 units per acre. COMMISSIONER ROY: Perhaps the next slide. MR. BUSSELL: That helps. There we go right there. COMMISSIONER ROY: Everything that I see on that slide other than what's in the dark area, the dark area is what you're proposing to change, and the rest of Page 31 1 Maybe twice. It's got to be third, isn't it? 2 MR. BUSSELL: Third or fourth. 3 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I never dreamed we 4 would settle this with Mr. Holland being happy. Mr. 5 Holland is not here tonight. I hope he's watching. He is 6 here. I apologize, Mr. Holland. I didn't see you up 7 there. You're kind of in the shadow. I have to assume 8 you're happy since you haven't spoken. I'm proud to say 9 that it finally finished and I'm glad everybody is happy. 10 At that stage of the game, I'll hush and see if there's it is remaining as originally proposed in PD-191; is that correct? MR. BUSSELL: That's COllECt. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. MR. BUSSELL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions 11 any other comments. 12 MR. HOLLAND: YOU finally get worn out. 13 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Who cares why. Being 14 no further comments, 1'11 ask for a vote. Motion passes 15 6-0 of the members present. I6 With that done, we'll go on to No, 8. of the applicant? I don't have any names on the board. I guess you're free to go to your chair. MR. BUSSELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor of this item? 17 I'll open a public hearing and consider making a 18 recommendation to City Council regarding a specific use 19 permit for a gas well on approximately 62.6 acres of land. 20 The site is in a Neighborhood Residential, NR-6 zoning 21 district. The subject property is located south of Anyone in the audience that would like to speak in favor? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the item? Anyone in the audience that would like to speak against the item? Page 30 22 23 24 25 Mission, north of Hobson Lane, and east of U.S. 377, Fort Worth Drive. One gas well is proposed. Tiffanie Willis. MS. WILLIS: Thank you, Co~mnissioners. Before you tonight is a request for gas well production Page 32 Seeing no speakers, we'll not have to get into a rebuttal. And I'll close the public hearing and open it to our floor up here for discussion, motions, whatever. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: I'd like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Go right ahead, Mr. Watkins. Z02 -- sir. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Move approval of COMMISSIONER POWELL: Your mike is not on, COMMISSIONER WATKINS: EXCUSe me. [ move approval of Z02-062, Prominence Square. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion from Mr. Watkins. Ms. Holt, do you have a second? COMMISSIONER HOLT: Second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'll third. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Is there any discussion at this time? Well, I'm telling you I'm going to have some, My first or second hitch on this fine group here was at least four or six years ago and this cm~e up. And it came up and it crone up again since I've been back. This is the third time I think since I've been back. 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 site and the NR-6 zone. According to our Development Code, we are encourage. At to not allow this use in that zoning designation. The applicant before you, as stated, is requesting this use on a 40-acre tract of land located there south of Mission Road near Hobson Lane. Thank you. The applicant is requesting this use in the ~a-6 zone. Tonight R.L. Atkins and his r~resentatives are hem to present to you tonight. Basically, that is our issue. Staff has reviewed the Development Code and aptly notes in your staff backup that during the review process under the development plat, we did notice that the wellhead could not remain within the zoning and so we bring before you tonight the request for the s~JP for this use in the ~R-a zoning. Just to quickly travel through our PowerPoint presentation, your site is located there from Fort Worth Drive, south of Mission and north of Hobson Road. The notified ama as d/splayed before you present. We did have respondents, three in favor as provided in your backup, additional notes in Itmn 8. And then four without, as you see coming on your screen the areas of in favor are listed here. And then we have in opposition areas. Ms. Butt, Ragle, and Coulter, landowners, Pmett and Ragle. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 29 - Page 32 CondcnscltTM Page 33 I Moving on to that area, tho land use shown 2 before you is Neighborhood Center. The zoning of the site 3 again is N~t-6 and then we have adjacent NR-6, kind of a 4 pool of NR-6 into thc main drive there is CM-O. The 5 proposed site is here as displayed on your screen, and 6 then there's alternative site just to designate that on 7 the screen, not that that's of conversation this evening. 8 There's a visual of a Hobson Lane view. And that will 9 conclude my presentation. I'll just move back to the 10 notification, opposition screen. Does Cotmnission have any 11 questions at this time? I2 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Questions? Mr. 13 Reichhart would like to create some additional comments 14 here first. 15 MR. REICHHART: Just a point of 16 clarification. It wasn't -- the Code didn't intend not to 17 permit gas wells in the ~qR-6 zoning district. It was :18 assumed that if it was in the ~R-6, there might be il9 residential uses around that we want to take a closer look 0 at it. But if it met the criteria in the gas well 21 ordinance, that it was assumed that they'd be approved. I 22 mean, the assumption is NR-6, there's high density 23 development around it, and we want to take a closer look 24 at it based on the zoning. Not that it was prohibited. 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Roy, Page 34 i COMMISSIONER ROY: I would defer to -- 2 Counsel, I think has something to clarify. 3 MS. }'^LUMBO: Right. And I just wanted to 4 weigh in the clarification is the reason why the specific 5 use pentait process was developed was if there were 6 additional conditions that the Planning and Zoning 7 Commission might want to place on these gas wells if there 8 was resident/al development to -- that might be a little 9 bit more stringent than the standards set forth in the 10 ordinance, and this is the process for it. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Watkins. 12 COMMISSIONER WATK1NS: Thank you, Mr. 13 Chair. Am I incorrect or did we not long ago talk about 14 some gas wells possibly on the Acme Brick property slant 15 hole under the Southlake Park, which wouldn't be too far 16 from this, I suppose? 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll let staff worry 18 about that one. Go ahead, sir. 19 MR. REICHHART: And Tiffanie can correct me 20 if I'm wrong, but that is correct and I believe it's to 21 the north of this property. 22 MS. WILLIS: YeS. That's correct, Mr. 23 Reichhart. 24 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll go to Mr. Roy 25 and then to Ms. Holt. Page 35 1 COMMISSIONER ROY: The one on the -- you 2 mentioned something we reviewed earlier on Acme Brick. I 3 don't recall us approving and acting on that one. Do I 4 just have a bad memory on that? 5 MR. REmHH~t~r: well, you didn't, but it is 6 part of a -- that had to go forward because part of the 7 parkland was incorporated in that gas well. It went to 8 City Council. 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. it didn't come 10 through us? 11 MR. REICHHART: NO, sir. 12 COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. I have a 13 question. I see severaI people in the area opposed. 14 When we have, like, a rezoning case, as such, we have a 15 criteria for percentage of the property owners in the area 16 being opposed and it kicks in certain things. We don't 17 have that in this ordinance, do we? The fact that there's 18 so many people opposed doesn't require llke 19 super-majorities and such; is that correct? 20 MS, PALUMBO: That's incorrect. 21 COMMISSIONER ROY: Incorrect? 22 MS. t'ALUM~30: If the -- this is a zoning 23 request. A specific use permit is the same thing as a 24 rezoning of the property. 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: well, I didn't see any Page 36 1 kind of like percentages stated like 20 percent or 30 2 percent. 3 MS. PALUMBO: I'll defer to staff as far as 4 the nmnber. 5 MS. WILLIS: 20 percent. 6 MR. REICHHART: The issue is that these are 7 the property owners. So as the property owners are 8 opposed, this will require a super majority vote at City 9 Council. 10 COMMISSIONER ROY: That's what I'm trying 11 to get clear. Okay. 12 MS. WILLIS: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER ROY: One other thing for 14 staff. In your comments in the back on page 4, you talk 15 about Item 5, the no nuisance, no offensive noise or 16 vibrations. And, you know, I would suggest that you 17 conm~ent during normal operations because there will be 18 times when there will be offensive conditions at the site. 19 And the same thing for Item 6. I think the 20 lighting could be an issue at times after it's finished. 21 But certainly there's going to be a long period of time 22 and there's going to be a lot of lights in that area. 23 MS. WILLIS: That's true, Commissioner. 24 The Code aItows for requirements that the gas well 25 operator must comply with as it pertains to light and PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 33 - Page 36 CondensoltTM Page 37 1 things of that nature. 2 MR. REICHHART: Additionally, you could 3 require conditions that, you know, directional lighting be 4 used so it wouldn't spill out into the, you know, existing 5 residents in that area. And that, you know, maybe the 6 typical, the loudest is when they frack thc well, that 7 that doesn't commence until 7:00 or 8:00 o'clock in the 8 morning so they're, you know, not waking people up. I 9 mean, that could be a condition that you could look at, 10 too. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Co~mnissioner Holt. 12 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. Ms. Willis, are 13 these residences or are these just owners of the property? 14 Are these little houses or what are these? 15 MS. WILLIS: oh, no. Those are just placed 16 there, icons. The areas where you see the boxes, there's 17 a home -- 8 COMMISSIONER HOLT: There's a home down 19 here on Hobson. 20 MS. WILLIS: -- where you see the third 21 opposed, the third box in the center, there's a residence 22 on that property. And there's residences all along Fort 23 Worth Drive, the edge here. 24 MR. REICHHART: If you look at your -- in 25 the backup in the gas well development plat for this Page 38 property, it does show where the location of the houses are on this property. MS. WILLIS: I'm only aware, when I drove the site, identified, at least, on the Burt property. But the other areas within the 200 and 500 feet, it's vacant. But if you look at your development plat there before you, Page 3 9 I notice the 40-acre site that was included into this 2 property. And it is true the gas well is more centrally 3 located. And again on the development plat, I believe 4 they indicate, you know, any properties, we require any 5 properties within 500 feet be identified on the plat so 6 that is more pinpointing of what structures are within 7 that property. And I don't believe there's any, besides 8 the ones within that 40-acre site. So none of the 9 adjacent properties are affected. 10 COMMISSIONERWATKINS: okay. But am I 11 incorrect in that a gas or oil well, you're allowed one 12 per 40 acres? So these people that are opposing and for 13 and against, as well as those not notified, should they be 14 lucky and -- 15 MR. REICHHART: The residents within there 16 -- excuse me. The residents within there should have been 17 notified, too. So we do the property and then 200 feet 18 outside the property, too. 19 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER POWELL: The Counselor's name 21 is still up on the board and she does not wish to speak so 22 we could pull her off, not to confuse the temporary 23 Chainuan. 24 We have speakers that wish to speak in 25 favor. I'm sorry. I have been chastised again. I Rightfully so. The developer, no doubt, would like to 2 speak at this time. 3 MS. WILLIS: nefore we move forward, Mr. 4 Chairman. 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Sllre, 6 MS. WILLm: The applicants or the Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 you will see we have projected boxes which indicate 8 residents, residential areas. 9 COMMISSIONER HOLT: Thank you. 10 MS. WILLIS: I'm sure the applicant can 11 speak more thoroughly to that than I. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Watkins. 13 COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. 14 Chairman. I guess somewhat of my question, I see the 15 200-foot notification, but I'm -~ when I rode by this 16 property, we're not talking about lots on Mission or 17 whatever. We're talking about a large area. And so why 18 does the 200-foot notification go over to, let's say, 19 James Street and Country Club Road? [ thought the gas 20 well was in the center of thc yellow, basically. And if 21 that's the case, how far to the nearest house, Pruett, 22 Ragle, Burt, Ragle, Coulter. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. R¢ichhart. 24 MR. REICHHART: when we notice for a 25 rezoning or an SUP, we do the whole property and so we 7 consultant brought to my attention that Mr. Pruett did 8 provide a letter of -- he was in favor of this request. 9 However, not supportive of the surrounding zoning that thc 10 City had adopted. Staff is in error. Stands corrected. 11 COMMISSIONER POWELL: NOW we'll ask for the 12 developer who will give us her name and address. 13 MS. MITCHELL: And probably more than y'aI1 14 ever wanted to know. Good evening, Mr. Chair and members 15 of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you for 16 allowing me to come before you this evening. My name is 17 Karen Mitchell with Mitchell Planning Group, 7823 Nine 18 Mile Bridge Road in Fort Worth. I'm here this evening on 19 behalf of R.L. Atkins Corp. who are under contract with 20 these property owners of this property here within thc 40 21 acres leased area in order for them to erect a gas well on 22 the site. 23 1'11 briefly go over the history of this 24 case. But at this time I would like to introduce what I 25 refer to as our resource team because this is an area that PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 37 - Page 40 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 41 is highly technical, both from the standpoint of scientific, as well as legal. And so this evening we have with us Mr. Ken Seligman and Mr. Rex Mathis, both with R.L. Atkins Corp. They are specialists in the field of the actual drilling process. We also have Ms. Shelly Hattan who is our civil engineer, as well as Mr. Dick Kelsey who is our attorney on staff with us to answer any legal questions that you-all may have. In your packets we provided for you a chronology of events particular to this site. As you can see, the lease agreements were tied down in the latter part of 2001. At that time that these property owners signed the lease agreement to allow us to drill on this site, no sue was required by the City. They could have gone in under the Ag zoning district and so long as they met the requirements of being 250 feet or 500 feet away from various structures, they could have come in and done this as a use by right. On December 19th of 2002, we submitted our gas well plat to the City to be processed. The plat was unofficially approved by the City staff, both verbally, as well as as it was posted on the internet tracking system. When we came to mm in our appropriate copies of the signed plat, we were told at that time, and this was on December the 27th, and the reason I'm giving you dates is Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 '.17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 43 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any questions of the developer at this time or of the applicant, excuse me? Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: J'clst one quick one. You mentioned about your agreements with the landowners and you need to meet that agreement. I'm a little bit confused because staff told us that there are many landowners, several landowners who are in opposition to this. So please clarify for me. MS. MITCHELL: In your backup we provided to you or to the staff, and hopefully you got it in your backup, all of thc signed lease agreements with these property owners. And one of the things that I failed to state that I'd like to state is that we are aware that there are some existing landowners that are having problems with this and we also recognize that these are civil in nature. And, again, although we don't want to discount the importance of their concerns, we are trying to uphold our end of the contract in getting approval of the sue, getting all the permits that are required by the City in order for us to go forward with this within the time period that's stated on their lease. But, again, in your backup, they have all signed leases. They have all accepted, I guess, the bonus sign-up that they received back in 2001. And it is a matter of working out this Page 44 because dates are very important at this time. On December 27th of last year, we were to£d that they processed the gas well plat, kind of putting the cart before the horse, that an sop was actually required on this. So everything just kind of went on hold at that point. We at that point did submit our application for the sup. And in order for us to get this done as soon as possible, and I have to thank staff for working with us on this, they realize that there was an error made and so they worked very diligently in getting this on the Agenda as soon as we could get on the Agenda, understanding that time is very critical. We have to adhere to our contractual obligation with the people that we did sign the lease agreements with. And in order for us to hold up our end of the contractual obligation, we have to have approval of the sue, as wei1 as approval of the gas well plat. We have followed the proper City processes and we meet the criteria as set forth in the Development Code with regard to the location of the well pad. Based on this information, we respectfully request a positive reco~mnendation from you-all. And, again, we have our entire specialty team here hopefully to be able to answer any questions that you-all may have. Thank you very much. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 situation, I guess, as far as where the well is to be located. Now, we're locating it at this area for the reason of staying away from the residences over here. I believe that Ms. Willis may have -- and I need direction on this. I may be wrong on this, but I think that she stated that there is a residence on Ms. Burt's property. And I believe that property is vacant. I'm not 100 percent sure of that, but I believe her property is vacant. And that's the reason that we chose to go ahead and put the street on the far eastern property line of her property to bring it down and to keep the pad as far from the residences as we possibly could. And so that's the reason why we have picked this location to put this. COMMISSIONER ROY: okay. So you have signed agreements with these landowners but they are in opposition to the approval of the suP. I guess that's what's happening here tonight. I guess we'll find out more later. Thank you. MS. MITCHELL: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, Ms. Mitchell. I have a question. When is -- will you repeat for me the drop dead date as far as prosecuting the terms of the lease or the contract as far as beginning drilling? PLANNING AND ZONING COIvlI~flSSION 112212003 Page 41 - Page 44 CondenseltTM Page 45 1 MS. MITCHELL: Right. We had to, from what 2 I understand and I have the R.L. Atkins folks here that 3 can probably be a littIe bit more specific, but it's my 4 understanding that thc beginning of January, the first 5 week of January was the date that we had to commence 6 construction in order to stay iu compliance with our 7 lease. That is why we submitted the gas welt plat and got 8 approval at the timing that we did and it through us off 9 at thc very end of December. II0 COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO what is the 11 consequence to the gas operator if he doesn't fulfill his 12 end of the lease? 13 MS. MITCHELL: I guess ultimately we could 14 be found in breach of contract. 15 COMMISSIONER MULROY: well, maybe he can 16 give us an answer. 17 MS. MITCHELL: Mr. Kelsey is probably -- 18 because he's a real attorney -- better to answer that. 19 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Kelsey, would you 20 give us your name and address, please? 21 MR. KELSEY: Cexlaiuly. My name is Dick 22 Kelsey, 2225 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. I know 23 many of you and I've been practicing law here for a little 24 over 30 years. I do have the privilege of being a third 25 generation oil and gas person. I'm probably the only one 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 46 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 dead date, Mr. Kelsey, that they would lapse? MR. KELSEY: The leases are, I think they're one-year, aren't they? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: January 4th. MR. KELSEY: January 4th was the drop dead date had we not started to prepare the site. Now, the preparation for the site does not require the sue permit. It is only when you go beyond that point. And we're at that point. The sites are prepared and we need to go ahead as quickly as we possibly can. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. But I'm understanding you've edified two points for us is that rather than doing as a lease, it is a sale with a fixed timeframe. MR. KELSEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MIJLROY: And if you don't perform within that timeframe, it lapses. MR. KELSEY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: But the owner of the mineral rights has received payanent and affected that sale. MR. KEDSEY: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO that's -- now, how many times can you sell those minerals? I guess if you can sell them and block the drilling, you could -~ hem in Denton County that grew up in the west Texas in the oil patch so I say I'm an oil field brat and sand rat. But, anyway, I do want to answer the questions because these are legal in nature and I think they do need to be addressed. The leases have an expiration date on them. They're attached. An oil and gas lease is not a lease. It is an actual sale of the minerals in place. I know it says lease: It is not a lease. And what has happened here, in addressing Mr. Roy's conunents, is these people have sold the right to develop their oil and gas and received payment for that. And now are coming before this body saying we've got their money but now we don't want them to drill a well. And we 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 48 don't understand that. We've got copies of thc checks where they cashed them. But in answer to your question, you have to commence the operations within the term of the lease. That has been done. The problem with it is we can't proceexl with this to locate the drill site, to build the roads, to spud the welt in, to get the drilling equipment on site without the sue permit, which was not required at thc time the leases were signed. So we're caught in the position that we must go ahead or run the risk of having the leases lapse. If they lapse, they are gone. COMMISSIONER MULROY: And when is the drop 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. ICEt~SE¥: well, if these folks are able to stop this well, then they will have received the money and at the stone time have frustrated the development of the property under the leases which they signed. COMMISSIONER MULROY: But they would be free to sell them again. MR. KELSEY: Then they could turn around and sell them to somebody else and then oppose somebody else for another su? permit. COMMISSIONER MLILROY: okay. Thank you. MR. KELSEY: SO there's no end to that. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. MR. KELSEY: And I'll be happy to answer -- Mr. Roy, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. Mr. Roy is on the board and I was about to get to him. COMMISSIONER ROY: YOU stated that at the thne you signed the lease with the landowners that the gas well ordinance was not in place, and I suspect that's true. But at the time you began, your company began to take action at the site and implement your lease, the gas well ordinance had been in place for many months. And I suspect, sir, that the Atkins company knew about this ordinance at that time so I'm confused as to why you're PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 45 - Page 48 CondenseItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1I 12 13 I4 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 49 bringing that point up. MR. KELSEY: Let me coimnent about that. They made the proper application for the platting of the welt location. COMMISSIONER ROY: what day was that? MR. KELSEY: I don't know. That was -- we've got the application form in here. That was -- COMMISSIONER ROY: Before the ordinance or Page 51 1 analysis of this site. You know, in a perfect world, we 2 would have gotten the application and within the week had 3 notified them that they needed the su? additionally, but 4 that didn't happen. 5 MR. KELSEY: I hope that explains the 6 problem. I think this is one where it got rezoned by the 7 master rezoning plan. And when that did, that triggered a 8 new requirement that had not been there before. I don't after the ordinance, I guess? MS. MITCHELL: It was after the ordinance. MR. KELSEY: It was after thc ordinance. COMMISSIONER ROY: After the ordinance, okay. MR. KELSEY: But thc property had been zoned Agriculture so it did not require an SLIP permit. COMMISSIONER ROY: Agricultural? MR. KEI~SEY' That'S my understanding. Is that right? COMMISSIONER ROY: I don't think so. We haven't had that zoning for -- since 2000, I think. 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 know if that's a fair way to put that. So, anyway. The issue that we are before now is fairly simple. The ordinance is designed with objective criteria and ail those criteria have been satisfied. So there were some questions, I think, and you'll look in the log book, there are some questions. We have the technical people here. The lighting issue has been addressed, The noise and other issues have all been addressed by the technical people. They're here to respond to any question you may have about how that's going to bc done. This is a long way from any personal residence and that's why thc well was located where it was MS. PALUMBO: They submitted a letter which outlined the dates that they did everything. On November 20th of 2001, they tied the leases down. And at that point, the Development Code had not been passed because that passed in February of 2002. The gas well ordinance Page 50 passed in December of 2001. So what they would be under was the old Code, which in the Ag district did require an suP. And we had one in process. It was on the Hunter Ranch property that y'all, I think, considered. MR. KELSEY: when we processed the application, I don't think anybody really understood that an sue was necessary. I know staff did not. We did not. And it was not until we actually crone for final approval and couldn't figure out why we hadn't gotten a signed copy of the plat back that it was disclosed that, oops, we all, -- we need an su?. And that's why we're here. COMMISSIONER ROY: May I have staff's cmmnent on that? MS. PALUMBO: And just kind of to answer that, they got caught in the rezoning of this process. It was NR4 or NR-2 originally and then it got upzoned to NR-6. MR. KELSEY: That's right. Larry, go ahead. MR. REICHHART: Thank you. The property was Agrieulturak And then with the adoption of the Code, it got the NR-6 zoning. It was upzoned a little bit. The other issue is staff did miss the fact that this was zoned NR-6 and it did require an sup until very late in the process. So we also missed that in our 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 in the hope that we wouldn't have any issues like that, any intrusive issues. If there's no other questions, I'll yield back to you, Karen. MS. MITCHELL: I'm available to answer any Page 52 questions you-all have. MR. KELSEY: ^nd also we have the technical people here if you want to know what happens during the drilling process, how long it takes. All that we're prepared to answer. COMMISSIONER POWELL: [ havo some questions of staff. I don't know if they're of legal staff or staff staff. But if they starled this application under the old ordinance, do they still have to go t/tough this sve process now? MR. REICHU~a~T: My understanding, they started working with the property owners in tying down their leases prior to the adoption of the gas well ordinance. And at that time, what we had assumed, because we only had a couple, is that they needed an sue. xhey didn't make application to the City for the development plat until after the Development Code had been adopted which identified NR~6 property as needing the sue. so they started their process well before they came to the City to submit the application. COMMISSIONER POWELE: But they didn't contact us, us being the City? MR. REICHHART: Based on their application date, they do need the suP. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Got yOU. 1VIr. Mukoy. PLANN1NG AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 49 - Page 52 Condens¢ItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 53 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'll try not to get us all in trouble here but to follow through on that, under the old Code under Ag, an SUe was required. So at the time the leases were signed by the surface owners, the law was an sup was required. So whether it's zoned Ag or NR-6, the requirement of sue has not changed. So the condition in which these folks signed the lease and took the money has not changed. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. The Page 55 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Larry has the old Code here, I guess, and he's about to explain that. MR. REICHHART: The use was identified as petroleum or gas well. It was an sue in Ag and Light Industrial, not permitted in any other district, but it was permitted by right in Heavy Industrial and Pos. MS. MITCHELL: Then I apologize. I stand corrected on that. COMMISSIONER POWELL: DO you have any applicant applicant incorrect Palumbo ahead. still has the floor and I don't know if the is complete yet or not. MS. MITCHELL: If I may, if I gave information, i apologize. If I may as Ms. a question with regard to that. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, ma'am. Go MS. MITCHELL: I was under the impression 10 further comments under the time allotted for the 11 applicant? 12 MS. MITCHELL: No further comments. I 13 would like to have an opportunity to rebut at that time. 14 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes, ma'am. 15 MS. MITCHELL: Thank you. 16 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have two speakers 17 who have signed up to speak in favor and I have two that that under the old regulations that there were two zoning districts that they could go by right and that was in the Ag district and in the Industrial district under thc original many years ago regulations that were in place. But now I'm hearing that -- and I thought I had actually seen a copy of that ordinance but now I'm hearing that you're saying that under the Ag an sup was required. Can you tell me about that because I apologize if I misspoke. Page 54 I was doing that off of memory on that. MS. PALUMBO: That's correct. Under the old Code if you were in an Agricultural district an sup was required. And we only had one request which was the Hunter Ranch property to drill a gas well. MS. MITCHELL: when did the ordinance come into play that allowed Ag and Industrial districts? MS. PALUMBO: I believe that was in the 1969 zoning ordinance. MS. MITCHELL: okay. I guess I'm not understanding. The ordinance that I read allowed for a gas well to go in or any kind of drilling, regardless of whether it was a gas well -- oil and gas, to go into place in an Ag district or Industrial district by right without an SU?, but an sup was required in all the other zoning districts. MS. PALUMBO: I believe that's incorrect. I believe it required an sup and it was called mineral extraction. MS. MITCHELL: Right. COMMISSIONER MULROY: If I may, my poor recollection is heavy industrial was the only one area by right in the previous Code. MS. MITCHELL: Okay. Then I stand corrected. I apologize for the nfisinformation on that. 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 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 have signed up to speak against, and then I have some that wish to be noted on both sides of the issue and I will do that. Mr. Kelsey, you signed up to speak in favor. Have you done that or are you going to do that? MR. KELgEY: I have done that unless you-all have other questions. Thank you. But I'm happy to respond to any questions you might have. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a Shelly Page 56 Hattan who signed up to speak in support. MS. HATrAN: My name is Shelly Hattan and I'm with Civil Girl Engineering. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And your address is? MS. HATrAN: 6109 Estill Drive, Watauga, Texas, 76148. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MS. HATTAN: I'm just here in a resource capacity but I mn in favor of this. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. I have two more people that would like to speak in favor. Mr. Rex Mathis. Mr. Math[s, would you give us your full name and address, sir? M[~. MATHIS: Yes. Rex Mathis. I live in Jacksboro, Texas, 1992 Sand Flat Road. I work for R.L Atkins Corporation. My home office is in Sweetwater. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. MR. MATHIS: l know some of this group up here, Larry and Dottie. We've worked quite a bit with them. And I thank all of you for your time tonight. I've worked for Atkins for some time and we feel like we've got a lease here to drill on. We have tried to go through the proper channels to do it as far as City regulations as far as we knew them. And we are drilling our fifteenth well here in or in close proximity of Denton PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 53 - Page 56 CondcnscItTM Page 57 1 now. And if there's any questions that y'all would like 2 to ask, we're here to try to answer them. If we can't 3 answer them, we'll find out the answers. 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, 5 sir. I have a Mr. Seligman, Ken Seligman. And I hope I 6 pronounced that properly, sir. 7 MR. SELIGMAN: correct. $ COMMISSIONER POWELL: would you give us 9 your address? 10 MR. SELIGMAN: Ken Seligman, 124 Miller I 1 Street, Albany, Texas. I'm employed by R.L. Atkins 12 Corporation. I want to speak in favor that this special 13 use permit be granted. 14 We have, since R.L. Atkins has taken control 15 of this operation, we have worked diligently with all of 16 the property owners involved in this project to try to 17 satisfy them all. It's been very complicated because I 18 think there's seven different leases in the project area. 19 And up until -- I would just refer to the chronology of 20 events that you have as exhibits. Up until late December 21 when all this crone about about the need for a special use 22 perm[t, we had the agreement of all the property owners 23 that -- with regard to where we'd place the well, how we'd 24 file the plat. We had communicated with all of them the 25 information given to you about where the well is and how 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 58 it is platted. And we have done the best job we can to develop the property consistent with their desires. And we hope that you will allow us to exercise our legal rights in carrying t~ough with the agreements that we've entered into. Thank you, COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. Anyone else that wishes to speak in favor of this item? Anyone else in the audience wish to speak in favor? I have two cards who wish to speak against or, excuse me, in opposition. Ms. Charlotte Ragle. Ms. Ragle, would you give us your address, please? MS. RAGLE: Yes. My nmne is Charlotte Ragle and I live at t429 Hidden Oaks Circle in Corinth, Texas and I own two tracts of land in this. We have three rental properties and then my mother also owns seven acres in between the two tracts that we have. But we lived out there for over 20 years. I would like to address the Commission on why the landowners changed their mind. We did sign a lease with Nations Gas 18 months ago and we were very excited about a gas well coming into our neighborhood. And in a meeting of all the residents we were told that this gas well, maybe we were naive, but we were told in a group meeting of 15 people that this gas well would cover a 30 by 30 foot section of land. It Page 59 1 would be nicely landscaped around and it would be on 2 Robert Pmett's property at fl~e end of Mission Street 3 close to Southlake's park, Eureka Park. And after that, 4 we didn't hear anything from the gas companies. This was 5 fine. Robert Pruett was in agreement to that. He wanted 6 it because he thought he was going to get some extra 7 revenue from that. 8 But after that we found out that when the 9 Atkins Drilling Company bought the lease from Nations Gas 10 that this was going to take over two acres of our land, 11 not a 30 by 30 foot section, and that we would never be 12 able to build anything within 250 feet of that well. They 13 never told us that. They never told us that there would 14 be trucks coming down our little read, Mission Street, 15 where my mother lives that would have to service these big 16 tanks of water. They never told us that there would be 17 sledge pits on our property. They never told us this well t 8 could be on our property. We had always hoped to develop I9 this land into a nice subdivision. And thank you, 20 Cmmnission, for the ~a-6 zoning. We like that zoning. 21 And we were told that the present and the future use of 22 our property would not change. That's why we've changed 123 our mind on this project. If I could give them their 24 money back, I would do that gladly to get out of this 25 deal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i3 14 ]5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 60 I'd like to also address the fact on the leases. They were due to expire the first week in January. We didn't hear anything from this company until December. They didn't even start contacting us with what was going to be happening with our land until December right before the leases expired. To get our leases, they forced our leases into continuation by bringing out a bulldozer onto Sue Burt's property and getting it stuck in the mud the day before the leases expired. They moved a little bit of dirt around to force it into being able to say that they had started the drilling, without a permit, without plat approval. And we all had thought, well, the leases are going to expire and we're going to be able to just say, okay, we made a mistake signing these leases originally. They weren't honest with us. Now we're going to be able to get out of this. We were shocked to see that bulldozer out there with just a little bit of dirt moved around and for them to say that they have started the project. COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's the end of your time and I'll have to get pen~ission if you want to extend. Would you like to extend some more time? MS. RAGLE: I think I'm done. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, ma'am, we have a question, we have a question PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 57 - Page 60 Condens¢ItTM 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 61 for you. Mr. Mulroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yes, if you don't mind. I really have a question of our counsel to address one of your comments. On the being able to build 250 feet, I need to have that verified. I know that you cannot drill a well within 250 feet of a structure but there's no prohibition after the well is in place to come build a structure closer to that; is that correct? MS, PALUMBO: That is correct. The gas well ordinance reads that it can't be drilled when there's an existing residence no closer than 250 feet. But if the well is there and somebody wants to locate a residence close to the well, the Fire Code says the distance would 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 63 What I would like to see is Atkins Gas get with the residents and see if they couldn't adequately come to some resolution on some of these issues. Most of the residents can't afford legal representation. And a little bit of courtesy from the company would go a long way in resolving some of these issues. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I do have a question. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry. We have a question. Mr. Mutroy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Coulter. be 100 feet. MS. RAGLE: i00 feet. MS. PALUMBO: So if the property owner that's going to live in that house chooses to locate 100 feet from the wel[, it's their option. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry, ma'am. I'm sorry. We have another question. COMMISSIONER ROY: l'm curious. You say there were scvcraI of you, five or six or seven of you 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 MR. COULTER: YeS, sir. COMMISSIONER MULROY: NiCe tO have you here, Jim, to the best of your understanding, what are the issues? MR. COULTER: Basically, to the best of my understanding, it's where the site is going to be located, where the road was going to go in. Where the residents were originally told where these things were going to happen is not what they're understanding right now. Again, I think some meetings with the company probably signed a lease. time? Did you have legal representation at that 24 could have resolved that. Okay. Ragle. I'm sorry, we just heard frOlYl Charlotte Ragle. Page 62 MS. RAGLE: NO. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions? also have a speaker in opposition. Charlotte 25 didn't occur. But to my knowledge, that Page 64 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: without parlaying 2 some intangibles here, did you have a sense that there's 3 some mitigation that could be done on this? 4 MR. COULTER: I think they could probably 5 get together and work out some agreement probably without Mr. Jim Coulter. MR. COULTER: Good evcning. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Coulter, your address, sir. MR. COULTER: Yes, sir. My name is Jim 6 additional financial consideration, but just a little 7 cormnon consideration of the residents out there. These 8 gas wells are starting to go into some higher neighborhood 9 density areas and some of those issues are starting to 10 come to light, especially in this case. Coulter. I reside at 573 Granite Circle in Argyle, Texas. I'm here representing my mother. She resides at 210 Mission, Denton, Texas. I understand the issues associated with the gas well platting process. I am disappointed that when the Nations Gas sold to Atkins that we don't feel that they did the due diligence necessary to get with the property owners to explain the changes in the platting or their well sites that were going on. That's the contention. I don't appreciate Mr. Kelsey's insinuation that these property owners are going to be out there selling and reselling these gas plats. I think my mother got $1,050.00 associated with this project. It's not something that is the residents' wish to continue. I 1 COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you. 12 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Stay with us, sir. 13 We have a question from Mr. Roy. 14 MR. COULTER: Yes, sir. 15 COMMISSIONER ROY: I heard you say and the 16 previous speaker say that what is now being proposed or 17 planned by the current lease holder is different than what 18 the residents were told. Do you know if there's anything 19 in writing, any handouts that were given by the original 20 lease holder? I think it was mentioned Nations Gas. Did 21 they present any documents at the meetings that showed the 22 well location, the road locations? 23 MR. COULTER: I believe they showed where 24 the gas site was going to be, where the road was going to 25 be, What came up subsequently to that was different, the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 61 - Page 64 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 ~3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2~ 22 23 24 25 Page 65 size of the actual area and where the road was going to be. COMMISSIONER ROY: But you think there are documents in existence that -- MR. COULTER: I believe there are. I have not seen them. I'm relying on talking with some of my relatives in that area. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ?OWELL: Any other questions of this gentleman? Seeing none, thank you. MR. COULTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: TWO people gave us cards. One in support and one in opposition and asked not to speak. Mr. Robert Pruett, 2114 North Lake Trail, Denton, said I would like to have the opportunity to retrieve the minerals from this location. He is in favor. Ms. Sue Burr, 216 West Oak is in opposition. If I read this correctly, tenant wants to place/drill well in a different location than originally promised. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in opposition? Is there anyone else here who would like to speak in favor? I will give the applicant a chance to rebut at this time. Ma. KELSEY: Thank you. If it's all right, Page 66 I will start again. I'm Dick Kelsey for the record. Karen is going to try to fill in. And I want to apologize. I understood that Ag use was pen~aitted and I apologize for not being better informed on that. You've got a negotiational log attached to all of this that no one is disputing this negotiational log, and it shows from beginning to end all of the contact that was made with these folks. And I highly reemmnend that you take a look because not only was the location discussed, but they were even willing to pay additional compensation for the use of the surface land which they're technically not even required to do under the lease. So the idea that R.L. Atkins has promised these folks or said anything to these folks that they have not done is simply not right. Now, there was another company. They bought these leases in the first place. For those of you who are not familiar, an oil and gas lease is a cormaodity. It is traded like m~ything else. And when they buy a lease, they look at the lease, they read the lease, they have what's available to them to read, and that's what they buy. So if there were other things said or done that are not in that lease, they have no knowledge of that, and there's no way for them to have knowledge of that. The only time that they have had any 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 67 communication, as you can see, is that this is a little bit of an envy situation. They want the well but they don't want it on their particular tract. The difficulty with this is the goal of the ordinance, as we understand it, was to make sure that you had a second look at where the well was going to be and how that was going to impact certain people. Larry has said that. I think Ms. Palumbo has said thafs the goal of the ordinance. If the sue procedure is going to be used to allow folks who have signed leases, taken the money, and agreed to do what allowed the oil company and lease says they can do, then they can defeat all of that process by comiog in and having the zoning issue denied. Then no one knows where they are on the oil and gas leases, at least in the City of Denton. And I don't think that was the intent of the sue ordinance. Now, in regard to the specifics, as far as more time, time is a precious commodity. As Mr. Mulroy points out, if this lease does not go forward, if the construction docs not go forward, then the next argument we'll get is that the leases have lapsed because you didn't go forward. So this is just an attempt for, as we see it, for people who signed a legal document, agreed to take the money, did it. Now they know that there's nothing they can do about what they signed. That's the Page 68 deal they made. That Atkins purchased these leases in good faith, and based on the docmxtents that were placed of record and that these folks signed. They negotiated with them~ They did everything they could do to try to locate this well as far away from their tracts as possible. They even moved the location once from where the original location was proposed up in the comer. They meet all the spacing requirements of the Railroad Commission. They have bought this lease. They have a 62-acre tract. This amounts to less than two percent of the land on the drill site. Now, after the drilling is finished, and that's three months, maybe four months, after all this is finished, what's going to be located on a small tract of land is a simple physical piece of tubing that's probably not much larger than what this is square. And it will be connected to a pipeline. There will be no pump jack. There will be no piece of heavy equipment operating. There will be no lighting system except -- I don't think the ordinance requires it after production. If it docs, whatever it is will be done. It will be fenced as is required to be fenced. All those matters have bccn addressed by the City staff. They have been approved. They have recommended approval. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 65 - Page 68 Condc~sgltTM ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 69 We don't know what else we can do. We've tried to follow every one of the ordinances the best way possible. We've tried to take the contractual agreements and apply them exactly as they have been written. That's all I know that we can do. And I'll answer any questions. Karen, do you have any comments? MS. MITCHELL: NO cor~Leflents, just if yOU have any questions. MR. KELSEY: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy has a question, and Ms. Holt. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I have a question of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page 71 resolve it. MR. KEL<IEY: NOt quite correct. It is true that if the mineral -- if the surface owners feel that the use of the minerals, the surface is excessive or not reasonable, they have a right of legal redress under the contract. They have the absolute right to do that. In other words, if, for example, I know the lease doesn't really permit this, but if you take the old producer's lease, theoretically they used to say you could drill a well through the middle of the living room, if you followed the terms of the lease. That's the old producer's lease. That's not true anymore. The leases Mr. Kelsey. Am I first on the que, Bob? COMMISSIONER POWELL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Mr. Kelsey, we'll solicit some free legal advice. MR. KELSEY: ^11 right. You have a fine lawyer. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Lean into your oil and gas experience. Mr. Kelsey, if we put this sup requirement aside, and we're just looking at a gas lease, and the mineral rights versus the surface rights, the language in the leases non,sally run that there will be a level of coordination as to where roads would go in or fences, et cetera, in general language. But there's no 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a separation with improvements. You can't drill closer than a certain nmnber of feet from existing improvements. But those are all contractural rights. Those are rights between the parties as opposed to the public interest involved. And I think that's what I'm concerned is -- is that what you-all may make a decision on is the fact that the parties want to change their minds as opposed to the actual text of the ordinance. COMMISSIONER MULROY: S~, my perspective is leaning towards that the sup process is being used to settle matters that are already settled in law. MR. KELSEY: ^nd I agree. And I think that -- I don't think anybody is going to argue there's a Page 70 language that precludes the mineral development once a lease is sold; is that my understanding? MR. KELSEY: Yes. Actually what the law says, the Supreme Court has said it many, many times, what Page 72 20-foot road that's planned. The engineer has done that. She's here to respond to that. It's an all-weather road as required. It's been moved over at Ms. Burt's request to the edge of her property instead of the middle of the happens is when you give an oil and gas lease, if you read the lease, it says together with the right to reasonable use of the surface to develop the minerals. Them is a body of law that talks about what's reasonable. But it is contemplated when you give an oil and gas lease, it has to be located on the land. It is also contmnplated that you have to get to and from the well site. It's also contmnplated that if you get production, you have to have production equipment that's placed on the well site that is safe, approved. OSHA apprOVeS all this stuff and all the design is approved. tt is ali contemplated in the oil and gas lease. When you sign an oil and gas lease, it says together with the right to reasonably use the surface to develop the minerals. Otherwise, the minerals are valneless and we couldn't develop an oil and gas property. COMMISSIONER MULROY: SO for my purposes in viewing this ease, the discussion or the dialogue or lack of dialogue or argumentative stance, if we remove the sv?, then the surface owners and the mineral owners would be having the same discussion and they would just have to 5 property so she has the maximmn use of her property. The 6 well site was coordinated with everyone and only, if 7 you'll look at the negotiation log that's attached, only 8 late in the game when in a sense, effectively, these 9 people said, well, here's an opportunity for us to boot i10 the contract that we made. 11 And in answer to your question, we think 12 it's a civil matter. If they think that they have rights 13 under this contract, then, fine, get an attorney and we'll 14 discuss them as a legal issue and see where we go from 15 there. But we think it's improper for people who have 16 signed a deal and made a deal, all of a sudden because now 17 the su? procedure is in force, that they can avoid the 18 deal they've made simply by coming before a public body 19 and saying we don't like it anymore. 20 COMMISSIONER MULROY: I do want to restate 21 one earlier point, that the SUP was always required so 22 that was a condition that the knowledge was available to 23 have at the thue or they did have the knowledge at the 24 time, 25 MR, KELSEY: And I -- apparently, that's PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 69 - Page 72 CondenseltTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 73 right. I was not aware of that. And as I pointed out before, I apologize for not being aware of that and commend your research because I was not aware of that. But you are correct. It still requires an suP. And, actually, I'll tell you what I've recormnended now to people taking new leases. I've told them put a clause in there, we will not oppose the application for an s~JP. otherwise, I mean, I've not put it in there, if you want our money and you want this well, then you agree, you contract you will not opposed the application for the sue. I'm trying to handle this contractually so this issue does not come up. COMMISSIONER MULROY: But it seems to me it would be implicit in signing the contract, at the time when the sm' was required. MR. KELSEY: I think it is. I think if you deliberately frustrate a contract you've signed, you've 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page 75 plat there is -- this is not quite accurate, but we have that data here, there is a road that is pla~cI into this propea-ty. And we have, okay, we have the details here if you want to see those. We really need -- COMMISSIONER HOLT: what happened to the original? The original, they said that it was going to bc on Mr. Picrce's (sic) property and they would use Mission Street. What happened to that? That's what they thought they were signed to -- signing to. MR. KELSEY: We have no knowledge of that. MS. MITCHELL: That was with a different company. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Right. MS. MITCHELL: *hat was with Nations Gas. And I don't know -- none of us know what was actually said between Nations Gas. Whenever they sell a lease -- COMMISSIONER HOLT: SO that wasn't written got potential legal liability, but we're not here to threaten people. That's not what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Thank you, Mr. Kelsey. MR. KERSEY: Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER POWELL: MS. Holt. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Yes. To me the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 down anywhere? MR. KELSEY: NOwhere. MS. MITCHELL: Nothing that we have was that written down anywhc~re. COMMISSiONF.~R HOLT: okay. Did Atkins go to these property owners and try to see what the problem was? MS. MITCHELL: Yes, ma'am. As a nmtter of question is these people obviously at one time wanted this Page 74 drilled. So something has happened to make them change their mind. Ms. Ragle said that they moved the well. They were only going to use Mission Street. Now, is this true or not, from what Nations Gas said? MR. KELSEY: Actually, that's an interesting point and we have more demi[ on that. Thc original request to access was from Hobson. That's the shortest route. And it's already -- the Woodson well is already in place over on the Woodson tract to the south. The gentleman who signed the lease is in the process of developing that property. He has a street platted in that property. And how far along is that? Do you know? I think it's fairly far along in the platting process. MS. MITCHELL: Larry, that's the one that is Mr. Smith's property and we already have a preliminary plat approved on it. They've submitted a final plat; is 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 fact, this is what is in your backup right here, and if Page 76 you will notice there are specific dates on here. The first one starting on 10-14-02 that was made, a call to Mr. Ragle to discuss our plans to place well on Burt tract next to his property line. I don't know, and maybe the folks with Atkins can answer this question, I don't know the time period that Nations held the leases to when Atkins purchased the leases. That may explain why there's a time difference there. It could be that at the time that they got the leases that they did start contacting the property owners to discuss, make sure that the property, you know, the wells were located in the proper site. But if you look at this, they have kept very, very, very careful -- they have to for this very reason, they have to keep very close records as to exactly what they do step by step. And on this it shows that they met with them numerous that correct? MR. REICHHART: If [ have remember right, I think Phase I final plat has been approved and they're processing Phase n right now. MRr KELSEY: And there is platted there, if I'm correct, now help me, Karcn, if this is right, there is a street platted into this property. And I try to do this. I'm not very good at this but let me try to do it. Hobson Lane, I believe, is along here. Okay. And in the 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 times. Maybe not collectively, but individually. COMMISSIONER HOLT: SO there's nothing written to what they originally agreed to? MS. MITCHELL: Not that we have. MS. KELSEY: If they agreed to it, we don't MS. MITCHELL: Ken. MR. SELIGMAN: There is nothing in our agreements, contracts regarding the location, the original PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 73 - Page 76 CondenseltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 77 proposed Iocation of a well. COMMISSIONER HOLT: Okay. MR. SELIGMAN: our only communications directly ourselves are given here. And as we walk through that with primarily Ms. Bur[ and Mr. Ragle because their properties were being directly affected with the well. We showed them the plats as proposed and they were in agreement. They gave us their agreernent. We discussed how it was going to be done. We discussed the financial compensation for putting it there, and they were in agreement until the fifth hour. MR. KELSEY: And the only other comment about that is that when you buy a commodity, you don't know what's happened previous to that time if there's no way to know. And when you buy an oil and gas lease, you don't go back around to all the people that have signed the oil and gas leases to inquire. You buy the oil and gas leases the way they are stated and you develop them according to their terms. That's just the way -- COMMISSIONER HOLT: I assume that would be part of their terms. It's located here. This is the way you get in and get out. But evidently it's not. MR. KELSEY: NO, ma'am. What happens is when you take a lease, you don't actually have a drill site planned, not at that time. You don't plan a drill Page 78 site until much later because, for one thing, you don't know what adjoining lands you're going to have because all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 79 early 20's. COMMISSIONER ROY: I accept that you have a lot of experience. And I understand your position is, as an attorney, that all the requirements you are legally obligated to follow are those that are stated in the lease agrecnncnt. MR. KELSEY: And the ordinances. COMMISSIONER ROY: Of course, the ordinances. Correct. It is my understanding that the practice in the industry in their negotiations with the landowners that the practice is to follow the agreements that are made, whether they're in the lease or not, they're verbally. Isn't that a correct observation? MR. KELSEY: If yOU made the agreements, yes. If you knew what they were and you made the agreements, a handshake deal, I grew up in a handshake deal and a handshake was a handshake. COMMISSIONER ROY: That's the oil industry practice. MR. KELSEY: That's the oil industry practice and I don't think there's anybody that's going to tell you it's any different. However, if you don't know the deal exists, what do you do when you're actually ready to plat your drill well, you well location, you start talking to people, and that's exactly what they did. Page 80 COMMISSIONER ROY: BUt you can understand the landowners, their expectation of what they agreed to 1 2 3 of the development of the field is nmster planned. You 4 don't just go put a wel[ some place. You master plan it 5 to develop the well, and you're required to do that by the 6 Raikoad Commission. 7 So when you buy a lease, there may have 8 been discussions about where they planned to put the well, 9 I do not know that. We have no idea. But as far as these 10 folks are concerned, and it is not unusual to wait till 11 the latter part of the lease to actually commence tlic t2 drilling operations because they have a number of leases 13 that are all maturing at different times and they all have 14 to be drilled within their regulated times. So you move 15 the rigs around as best you can to plug into the 16 expiration date of each lease. It's not that complicated. 17 It's just common sense. You just do one thing at a time I8 is basically what happens. I don't know if I adequately 19 answered your question. 20 COMMISSIONER. HOLT: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Roy. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY; SiT, you state that you 23 have a lot of experience in oil and gas leasing. 24 MR. KELSEY: well, my father was a lease 25 broker and my grandfather was a lease broker hack in the 3 when they signed the lease versus what's happening to them 4 now? 5 ~4a. ~E[sey: I can to this degree, I 6 represent mostly landowners because most of my clients arc 7 landowners here in the county, and I negotiate dozens of 8 leases. And, believe me, if we have a well, if we have a 9 development plan, it's in th~ lease. But my clients have 10 had the advantage of having an attorney draw this up for 11 them. I would hate to think tlmt people who have 12 exercised perfectly lawful rights to acquire these leases 13 are somehow punished for what somebody else has said. I 14 think that if Ken Seligman had shaken hands and said this 15 is where the well would go, he'd have been back talking to 16 them if he didn't want it to go there. 17 But what we're afraid of is they're going 18 to be punished after they've invested their money and 19 bought these leases for something they had absolutely 20 nothing to do with. And that's what's of great concern to 21 them. 22 COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you, sir. 23 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mulroy. 24 COMMISSIONER MULROY: YeS, IVIr, Kelsey. Mr. 25 Kelsey, on the leases and terms, are there not attachments PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 77 - Page 80 CondcnscltTM 5 6 7 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 81 that individuals add to the standard lease for special conditions? MR. KELSEY: Ye,g, generally so. if you want a well located in a certain place, you have an absolute right to put it in the lease. I even draw thegn that have a no drill clause on small tracts that say they will not drill on that tract. COMMISSIONER MULROY: okay. So there are attactunents to the standard lease? MR. KELSEY: And there are standard attaclunents, standard language. COMMISSIONER MULROY: With conditions? MR. KELSEY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MULROY: Yeah. That's my point. I have one. And as you negotiate your lease, you set out what's important to you and what's important to thc operator and you work it out and you attach it to your standard lease. And even if that lease was sold to another party, that atta¢lunent would follow. MR. KELSEY: B{X:aUSe file buyer has the lease to read and he knows what he's co~mnitted to when be buys it. And that's what's important in this industry because it is important to understand it's a commodity. It buys and sells and trades all the time. Those leases are a conm~odity. Page 82 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Counselor has a question. MS. PALUMBO: I just want to redirect the Commission to what you're here to do is to look at the specific use permit. Are there any conditions that anybody has raised that you need to ask questions about, that you want to place within the specific use permit concerning the gas well operation. For exmnple, lighting once the well is drilled. I do believe that the ordinance does not address that. So if you want to put a light when they have the Christmas tree there and the fence around it, if you want to require a &corative fence, If you want to require shrubbery, Additional things that you want to put, place in the sup that's within your zoning powers. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: I have yet to get the answer. I think that Cmmnissioner Holt raised it, Where Page 83 I suggestions that some of them weren't occupied. 2 MR. KELSEY: weli, there was a comment that 3 there was a residence on Ms. Burt's -- 4 COMMISSIONER POWELL: EXCUSe me. If I 5 might interrupt here, I think we have a plat or something, 6 don't we, that shows those? 7 MR. KEt~$E¥: I believe we do. If you look 8 up on the north side of the proposed development -- 9 COMMISSIONER ROY: ^ttachment 2, there's 10 some boxes. 11 MR. KELSEY: Yes. Those are the residences 12 along Mission Street. 13 MS. MITCHELL: Along this area here and 14 over here. 15 MR. KELSEY: what is that? 16 MS. MITCHELL: I think that these are 17 just -- 18 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Speak into the mike, 19 please, sir. 20 MR. KELSEY: oh, I'm sorry. I was asking 21 what this was because I did not prepare this. I think 22 it's some little barn or an out building of some kind. 23 But all the residences are up along Miss[on Street. 24 COMMISSIONER ROY: And about how far are 25 they away? Page 84 1 MR, KELSEY: Over 500 feet according to 2 staff's report. 3 MR. SELIGMAN: There's only one residence 4 with less than 500 feet, Mrs. Kelly's residence. Yeah. 5 Mrs. Kelly's residence right there is the only one closer 6 than 500 feet. It's greater than 250 feet and less than 7 500 feet. 8 COMMISSIONER ROY: And what is her 9 position; do you know? 10 MR. SELIGMAN: One of the other neighbors, 11 I don't know this for a fact, but one of the other 12 neighbors, property owners, Mr. Pruett, stated that she 13 was in favor. 14 MR. KELSEY: We don't know. 15 MR. SELIGMAN: I don't think she submitted 16 a written -- 17 COMMISSIONER POWELL: she's not here to 18 speak for herself, at any rate. are the nearest residences, existing residences to the decided well location? MR, KELSEY: All right. COMMISSIONER ROY: what is the distance? MR, KELSEY: You should have a diagram. They're the little boxes up on Mission Street. COMMISSIONER ROY: There was some 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER ROY: Okay. MR, SELIGMAN: I'd like to make one -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: Speak into the mike, if you would, sir. MR. SELIGMAN: I'd like to make one statement about the use of the land. One of the speakers, I think it was Ms. Ragle speaking in opposition of the PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 81 - Page 84 CondcnscltTM 1 2 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 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 89 my colleague's question, there's going to be a lot more of these. I wish that there was some way that we could cause better colnmunication. But still by the same token, I find myself in a position of having to support this motion simply for the fact if I don't, these people have been paid for mineral flint we would not let thegn extract. I guess we need to move forward. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Mr. Mu[roy, then I'll come back to Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I would ask Mr. Roy if he wanted to offer a friendly amendment and cover those two or three items. COMMISSIONER POWELL: HO~S considering it at the moment. While he's considering it, I'm going to say this. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: chairman Powcll, the Chapter 22, Subchaplex 22 of lite Development Code does say directional lighting shall be provided for the safety of gas well drilling and production operations and shall not be provided -- and shall be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect adjacent developments. That's what's in the Development Code right now. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Roy, do you have anything further? COMMISSIONER ROY: YeS, I do. I would like to ofl~ a friendly amendment that our approval is predicated on the requirement that the operator provide residences within 500 feet 24 hours of advanced notice before beginning the fracking operation. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: ~'11 agree. COMMISSIONER POWELL: IS there a second up Page 90 here? seconder. COMMISSIONER MULROY: I'm agreeable as the COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's a friendly amendment and it's been okayed by the motion maker and by the seconder, if that's proper terminology. We don't have to have a vote on that, do we, since it's a friendly amendment? MR. RE1CHHART: YOU can do it all at once. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Thank you. I do want to contingent here that it is our business here tonight to handle thc public interest and not the contract interest. And I want to apologize to the whole world for letting this get away from me. This went a lot longer than it needed to go because we didn't really need to get into all of this contract interest discussion back and forth. And I promised myself I wouldn't let it happen and I did. Glad I didn't promise the world. Any other comments or suggestions up hero? 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9I If not, I'm calling for a vote. Motion passes 6-0. And that is our last item this evening unless staff or someone has something to discuss about future items. Nothing. Then the meeting is adjourned. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 1/22/2003 Page 89 - Page 91 R. L Adkins Co~. Ken S~ligm~m R. L. Adkins Co . Raffle Uait: [ 1-204~ ! iO~16~Og !0~28.02 cab to M,~, Ragle i:o dise,ua~ onr p~m m pbee web o:a Bt;~ 'trued: City P~k, Fax; ~py of O:~ Well DeYeBpmen~: Second suNnit~:al ofd~¥~lop!'mm plat m City ]'hi~ ~ubmia~ ofd¢¥¢:Bpm~ni plm to City of l)~nlu~m thc ba~k of pro~y~ Rex Mai;his as pl~ ia,nd of $50~,i:~ ~ our l,ea~' ~teemem w~ukt ~ a,ccep,u~b~e add would [~ paid a~n ~ginni,ng o~r:afi~ms 12 26~2 Cbwl Cm'! Engi,n~ing fi]~ ~ppSemion for SUP- Opera,ions on ~tt m ~ a~e~ed ~m:ii appto¥~ of SUP. :~ 2-5 db~t:~a o~ phns ~, oNab his s~g~t'u~e on a ~a~ am~:nd~n'~ allo~sng Kc ~m ~:o~a (DRC e:agmeer) m~d posted on ~bsite ,wtra,ckia; ~ac~ ~%:m ~uipme'~, M',$~ B'u:~ did ~ ~t 1~ e:i~ek tb~ ~ym~ of ~o~eaing, Fedex $5D~),~ ~:~g~ cheek t,o $'~ Btm, ML, Pm~Ll was na bcafioa working wlm su,rv, e~m ~ Adkim, :~i:ved aM tihed e~l~ns:io:a o,a the Pm,~: le~, Turned :N aign~d ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A GAS WELL DEVELOPMENT ON 40 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE CITY OF DENTON IN THE WILLIAM DANIEL SURVEY AND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MISSION AVENUE, NORTH OF HOBSON LANE AND TO THE EAST OF U.S. 377 WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 6 (NR-6) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2000.00 FOR VIOLATION THEREOF; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z03-0001) WHEREAS, Ken Seligman, on behalf of R. L. Adkins Corporation, has applied for a specific use permit for gas well development on 40 acres of land more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property"), within the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, the application includes a site plan in the form of a development plat which was previously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof by reference (the "Site Plan'); and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a specific use permit for a gas welt site; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the specific use permit is consistent with the Denton Plan, and WHEREAS, the proposed gas well development meets the requirements of Subchapter 22 of the Development Code and in accordance with Section 35.6.5 of the Development Code, the City Council finds that all of the following conditions exist: That the use is in conformance with all the standards within the zoning district in which the use is proposed to be located, and in conformance with the Denton Plan and federal, state, or local law; That the gas well sites will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity; That the establishment of the gas well sites will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property; That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary supporting facilities have been or will be provided; That the design, location, and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces will be provided for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments; Page 1 of 6 That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, dust, noise; and vibration; That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties; and That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property; NOW, TIlER_FORE, 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. A specific use permit is hereby granted to allow one gas well site on the Property within the Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6) zoning district classification and use designation, subject to the following conditions: Gas well development will be conducted in accordance with the Site Plan and approved Development Plat and shall comply with the requirements of Subchapter 22 of the Development Code; 24 hour notice will be provided to residents within 500 feet of the well site prior to beginning any drilling; 3. fracing operations are restricted to daylight hours only. SECTION 2. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION 3. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 4. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days fi.om 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 Page 2 of 6 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Page 3 of 6 Exhibit "A" GAS; ~ DE'V.E. LOPM£NT PLAY FOR RAGEL 'UNIT Page 4 of 6 Exhibit B ~ WAI[R uNES HOBSON VICINfTY MAP NT5 NOR'll.I (~4~) 3~,~-:qT.r PRIER ~ ~LLiH~ 7211 H~ tEET 1 OF 2 · rl.i au B~II~AI.: ~ RC~'RT D & TA, ANY L BURT, ~ 1;OK PROETT, RC~FAfi' E 01'10t ~ ~"lOfl DRI~WAY DETAIL 12102/02 Page 6 of 6 02/17~03 #6A AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET February 18, 2003 City Manager's Office Mike Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND The following is a list of current Board/Commission vacancies: Jorge Urbina has resigned from the Community Development Advisory Committee. nomination for Mayor Brock. Rudy Moreno has resigned from the Library Board. Burroughs. Jim Wilson has resigned from the Public Utilities Board. Member Redmon. If you require any further information, please let me know. This is a This is a nomination for Mayor Pro Tem This is a nomination for Council Respectfully submitted: Jane Richardson Assistant City Secretary 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Minutes for Consent Agenda Item #4F DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 17, 2003 9:00 A. M. After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, February 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: Dick Norton Dick Smith rI MS FOR I IVmUAL CO $I ERATI0 ; 2) Consider approval of Bid No. 2947 to Jones & Jeffery for a metal storage building for Denton Municipal Electric in an amount not to exceed $131,638. Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, presented this item. Mays explained that the building has a dual purpose. It will be used for non-warehouse inventory for Electric Operations, Metering, Communications and Distribution, which is currently being stored in old cargo trailers adjacent to the Denton Municipal Electric pole yard. The cargo trailers have deteriorated so badly that they no longer protect stored equipment. Mays informed the Board that this building will also house three line body tracks, which dig, lift and set concrete poles that are now DlVlE's standard. The trucks are too tall for existing protective covers, which increase their useful life. The Board asked if there was space available in other buildings. Mays explained that there is no extra space available, even in the Purchasing warehouse. She also commented that there is a lot more equipment to store than there was in the past. Hopkins moved to approve Bid No. 2947 to Jones & Jeffery, with a second from Cheek. The motion was approve by a vote of 4-0. Page 1 of 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Minutes for Consent Agenda Item #41 DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 17, 2003 9:00 A. M. After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, February 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Don White and Bill Cheek EX OmCIO M M EI S Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: Dick Norton Dick Smith ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION; 1) Consider approval of Bid No. 2945 to Asplundh of Mansfield, Texas, for tree trimming around Denton Municipal Electric Power Lines in an mount not to exceed $2,662.40 per week for the term of the contract. Ray Wells, Assistant Director of Electric Operation, presented this item. Wells explained that Denton Municipal Electric (DME) trims trees from overhead power lines to prevent outages to the electric system and safeguard the public. DiME follows recommendations submitted by Texas A~M University regarding normal tree growth for this area. DME trims one fourth of the system per year in adhering to A&M recommendations. Board Member George Hopkins moved to approve Bid No. 2945 to Asplundh of Mansfield, Texas, with a second from Board Member Bill Cheek. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. Page 1 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Minutes for Consent Agenda Item #4K DRAFT PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING MINUTES February 17, 2003 9:00 A. M. A~er determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was present, the Public Utilities Board convened into an Open Meeting on Monday, February 17, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: George Hopkins, Charldean Newell, Don White and Bill Cheek Ex croci0 MEM WRS Mike Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: Dick Norton Dick Smith ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 3) Consider approval of Bid No. 2952 awarding the purchase of a D7R Track Tractor/Dozer to Holt Caterpillar of Fort Worth, Texas, in an amount not to exceed $515,043. Vance Kemler, Director of Solid Waste, presented this item. Kemler explained that the Solid Waste Department's track loader experienced a major breakdown. Fleet Services determined that it was not economically feasible to repair the unit and a rental unit was obtained to meet the daily landfill operation requirements. A public bid was issued and the City held pre-bid meeting for vendors. Two vendors attended the pre-bid meeting with both vendors expressing an interest in bidding. At bid opening, one bid was received from Holt Cat. John Deere responded with a no bid. Holt Cat's bid is a competitive bid, meets the bid specifications and contains optional guaranteed buy-back provisions at 18, 36, and 48 months. The bid also includes a 4,800-hour maintenance warranty, which Kemler estimates should last approximately 3 years. Kemler explained that the Track Tractor/Dozer replaces the function of a Track Loader purchased in 1985. The unit is designed to reduce maintenance and maximize operation time. Hopkins asked how much it is costing to rent the tractor Solid Waste Department is currently using. Kemler answered that the lease is costing $6,000 a month. He also explained that because of the wear on this type of equipment it is not considered to have good resale value. Page I of 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Minutes for Consent Agenda Item #4K White asked how the City of Denton would dispose of the old unit. Kemler responded that it would be auctioned with other City equipment. Board Member Don White asked if the new unit would be the same size as the one being replaced. Kemler explained that the new Tractor/Dozer would be comparable in size to the old track loader. Hopkins asked if the price was comparable to the government pricing structure and was delivery time a factor in the cost. Kemler explained that most vendors provide government pricing when bidding equipment for municipalities. He also commented that the delivery time is not unrealistic and would not adversely impact the price of the unit. In response to the Board's comments regarding the bid price for equipment system accessories, Martin explained that the savings for the GPS System are related to the compaction to the landfill. The unit could provide as much as a 10% increase in compaction density. A 1% saving in landfill air space would pay for equipment cost in less than two years. Charles Fiedler, Director of Engineering, informed the Board that the studies of other cities have revealed the time and money-saving benefits of this piece of equipment. He specified that the City of Salt River, Arizona, saved enough to pay for the equipment in an 8-month period of time. White moved to approve Bid No. 2952, with a second from Hopkins. The motion was approved by a vote of 4-0. Page 2 of 2 HANDOUT TO COUNCIL ~1\~\05 . 100)-101) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES . DENTON, TEXAS . prepared by duncan associates , I February 2003 . . CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Legal Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 Growth Context ........................................................... 2 Land Use Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Set\~ce Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SeMce Units .............................................................. 6 WKffiR............ ..... ..... ... .............. .......... ............... ........7 Service Units .............................................................. 7 Demand Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Water Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Water Supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cost pet Service Unit ...................................................... 12 Net Cost per Service Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Net Cost Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 WASTEWATER................................................................ 18 Service Units ............................................................. 18 Treatment Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Lift Stations and Forcc Mains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Intetceptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Cost per Service Unit ...................................................... 24 Net Cost pcr Service Unit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Net Cost Schedule. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT. .. . . ... . . .. ... .. ... .. ..... ... . 29 LIST OF TABLES . Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: POPULATION GROWTH, 1970-2002 ..................................2 METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS.................................. 6 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002....................................... 7 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2003-2013 .................................. 8 AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, 1988-2001 ..................9 PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND, 1988-2001 .............................9 AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013 ......... 10 ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST ............... 11 ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST ................ 12 LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST........................................ 12 WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 ........................ 13 WATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ...................................14 WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT. .. .. . .. .. .. . .. .. ...... ...... 15 WATER NET COST SCHEDULE.................................... 16 COMPARATIVE WATER FEES ..................................... 16 COMPARATIVE WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES, 2003-2013 ......... 17 . . . Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 31: Table 32: Table 33: WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS,2002............................... 18 PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND............................. 19 AVERAGE DEMAND PER SERVICE UNIT ..........................20 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 ........... 20 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 ........ 21 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 ...........21 WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013..22 TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACDY, 2003 . .. .. . . . .. .. . .. 22 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 ...........24 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 ........25 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 ...........25 WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 .................26 WASTEWATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT ............................26 WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT...................... 27 WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE............................. 27 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER FEES ...............................28 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013 ............... 28 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: DENTON POPULATION GRO\VTH ... .. ..... .. ..... .......... .. . .. .. 2 WATER AND WASTEWATERCCNs.................................. 4 HICKORY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN ............................... 5 CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN .................................. 5 TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND. . .... . . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. . .. .. 10 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ................................... II WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY ..........................22 . . . INTRODUCTION The City of Denton adopted water and wastewater impact fees in 1998.1 The current fees only cover the cost of centralized facilities, and exclude line costs. This study updates the water and wastewater impact fees, and adds the cost of water transmission lines and sewer interceptors. It also includes interest costs, which are eligible for impact fee funding under state law, but were not included in the original impact fee study. Finally, it develops options for possibly dividing the wastewater service area into two or three impact fce service areas. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Impact fees in Texas must be developed in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The srate law lays out very specific requirements for the technical development of these fees as well as the procedures necessary for enactment of such fee prq,>rams. The Texas legislature made some significant amendments to Chapter 395 in 20012 The revised statute, highlighting the changes, is included in the Appendix. The major change was on the issue of revenue credits. Credits against the impact fees for other taxes or fees that would be paid by new development and used for capital improvements of the same facility type as the impact fee are now required. As an alternative to perfonning a revenue credit calculation, cities can simply reduce the impact fees by fifty percent. Another change was to increase the rime between mandatory updates from three to five years. The requirement that the fees be recalculated after the Capital Improvements Plan is completed based on actual costs and any overcharge fees refunded if the recalculated fees exceeded the fees being charged by more than ten percent was eliminated. Finally, the number of public hearings required before impact fees could be updated was reduced from two to one (two are still required for initial adoption). Revised impact fees based on this study will not apply to lots platted while the current fee schedule was in place. Chapter 395 states that the impact fee schedule that is in effect at the rime a lot is platted is the one that applies to the property, regardless of when development occurs. This occurs through a process called "assessment." Assessment must occur at the time of plat recording, or, for property already platted or not required to be platted, at the time of development approval or building permit, whichever occurs first. The statute makes clear that no action by the local government is required for assessment to occur. Essentially, impact fee assessment locks in the fee schedule in place at the time assessment occurs. Any subsequent revision to the impact fee schedules does not affect the impact fees owed for the development. 1 Ordinance 98-301, adopted on September 15, 1998, was based on Duncan Associates, et. aI., Capital l"prot'ehlenls Plan for Water and Wastewater lntpact rees, May 1998. 2 Senate Bill 247 was signed by the govemoron May 26, 2001 and became effective on September 1, 2001. PENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 1 . . . GROWTH CONTEXT Impact fees arc most appropriate for communities experiencing rapid growth. Denton has experienced significant growth in recent years. The City's population has grown by about two percent annually since 1970. Denton County has grown significantly faster than the state average, and was the fourth fastest growing county in Texas during the last year. The City's growth has matched the vety rapid growth of the county since the year 2000. Table 1 POPULATION GROWTH, 1970-2002 City of Denton State of Denton Count Texas .39,87.4... .. 75,633. _ __.11,198,665_. .48,063 143,12.6. 14,229,19~ .66,270. ..... 273,525 . .....16,986,335. 80,537 .432,976 .20.,851,82<>.. 89,379 . 478,968 .21,518,555. 197.0 ~opulationJCensus,. ~/l/70)_ ~980 Population (Census, 411/~O} .1990_~opulation_(Census,_~/1/9.o) _._ 2000 Po.pulation. (C.efls~s, _4/1/00) - - -.-. 2002 Population (Estimate, 1/1/02) _ ~nnual ~Growth. Rate,.19?O.:80_ 1.9_% __6.6% An~uaL Gr~~th_Rat~, 1980-~O 3.3% ~.~% Anl')~.aJ<:i!.o~tl1 g~tE!,)9.~O:()Q 2.(to/1? _ _ __ _ _ 4.7% Annual Growth Rate 2000-02 6.1 % 5.9% Source: Texas State Data Center (growth rates are compounded). LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 2.~_%_ _ 1.8% f.J% 1.8% Figure 1 "Land Use Assumptions" is the term used in Chapter 395 to DENTON POPULATION GROWTH refer to growth projections. It is defined as a "description of 100,000 the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities and population in the service area over at least a 10'year period." The purpose of the Land Use 75,000 Assumptions is to project the demand for capital improvements that will be needed to serve anticipated growth. 50.000 The Land Use Assumptions must cover at least a 10'year period. The Capital Improvements Plan on which the impact fees are calculated must contain the projected demand for capital facilities required over a period not to exceed ten years. Since the two must be compatible, both the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital Improvements Plan should cover a 10.year period. 25,000 o 1970 1980 1990 2000 A document meeting the above requirements was completed by City planning staff in December 2002. The report contains 2003.2013 projections for population, dwelling units, nonresidential square footage, residential densities and nonresidential intensities for the City's water and wastewater service areas. PENTON, nXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 2 . . . SERVICE AREAS Chapter 395 lays down a number of requirements regarding service areas. The Land Use Assumptions must be prepared for each service area. The Capital Improvements Plan, in turn, must include a description of the capital improvements and costs for each sef\~ce area, based on the approved Land Use Assumptions. Finally, impact fees collected from development within a service area must be spent with the same service area. The Texas impact fee enabling act, in Sec. 395.001 (9), defines "service area" as: the arta within the corporate boundaries or extratmitorial jurisdiction. . . of the political subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan.... The service arta,JOr the purposes of this chapter, mqy include all orpart of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction. The City has considerable discretion in the designation of service areas within its jurisdiction. As a general rule, the fewer the number of service areas, the better. Since funds collected from a service area must be spent within the same service area, the creation of a large number of small service areas will restrict the flexibility of spending impact fee revenues and may make it difficult accumulate sufficient funds in some service areas within the five years allowed by law to spend them. The state statute specifically authorizes "systemwide" land use assumptions for water and wastewater facilities. A Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) must be approved by the Texas Commission on Em~ronmental Quality (formerly the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission) before services may be provided to properties within the designated area. The City's water and wastewater CCNs include all of the area within the City of Demon, plus different areas of the City's Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The wastewater service area includes all of the area within the water service area, plus two additional areas that are in the City's wastewater CCN but not in its water CCN. The water and wastewater CCNs are illustrated in Figure 2. The sef\~ce areas are required to be delineated in the Land Use Assumptions. The Land Use Assumptions identify the City's water CCN as the service area for water impact fees. The City's wastewater CCN may desif,J"flated as a single service area, or it may be divided into two or three service areas. The three potential service areas are the Pecan Creek. Hickory Creek and Clear Creek drainage basins. The Hickory Creek drainage basin is shown in Figure 3, and the Clear Creek drainage basin is shown in Figure 4. The remainder of the City's wastewater CCN comprises the Pecan Creek drainage basin. This report will calculate wastewater fees under three service area options: (I) a single semce area encompassing the Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek basins; (2) two service areas: Pecan/Hickory and Clear Creek; and (3) three service areas: Pecan Creek, Hickory Creek and Clear Creek. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17. 2003 DRAFT, Page 3 . Figure 2 WATER AND WASTEWATER CCNs . LEGEND: o City limNs CCN Boundry: Dsvwerunly Owaler&5OWfir . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DUFT, Page 4 . . Figure 4 CLEAR CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN I - ~ _.Jr ..;0 .ll."'---- '1 . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DIlAFI', Page 5 . . . SERVICE UNITS To calculate impact fees in accordance with Chapter 395, the growth in demand for capital facilities over the planning horizon must be expressed in "service units," which are defined in See. 395.001 (10) as: . . . a standardi<fd measlfre of conslfmption, Ifse, generation, or discharge attriblftable to an indi,Jidlfal Ifnit of development caleulated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a partiClflar category of capital improvements or facility expansions. Service units for water and wastewater impact fees are typically based upon the capacity attributable to water meters in the utility system. The reason for this is that water meters are physical elements that are under the control of the utility and that limit the maximum demand of various users. The current sen7ice unit for Denton's water and wastewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. An SFE is the water or wastewater demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4"), which is the meter typically used by a single. family residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter determines the SFE multiplier applied to each larger size meter. The City's current water impact fees are based on meter capacities from the American Water Works Association. In the opinion of the City's water division staff, the capacities as rated by the manufacturer that supplies the City's meters are more accurate for larger meters, and will be used in this study. Current and proposed service units per meter are compared in Table 2. Table 2 METER EQUIVALENCY FACTORS Current Factors Proposed Factors capacity SFEsj Capacity SFEsl Meter Size m Meter m Meter 3/~" 10 1.0 - 10 1.0 1" 25 2.5 25 2.5 1.112" 50 5.0 50 _5.'1.. - -- --- -- - - _.2" 8.0 8.Q , .8Q. . __8,0 3" 160 16.0 225 _22.S__ ---~ 4" 250 25.0 5.00 50.0 6", ~OO 50,0 _1,000 " 10.0.0. . ,8".. - 89.0. 8.0..0., _ _~2,09JL__., _ 200,0 10" 1 150 115.0 3250 325.0 Source: Current capacities are maximum continuous duty flow rates in gallons per minute for simple and compound meters from American Water Works Association, AWWA Standards C700, C701, C702, C703; proposed capacities are average normal operating capacities for T-IO residential meters and Trufflo compound commercial meters from the Neptune Technology Group. DENTON, TEXAS\2Q03-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 6 . . . WATER The City's current water impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of water supply and treatment. This study updates the fees and adds the costs of water transmission mains. It also adds the interest costs associated with funding capital projects through revenue bonds. SERVICE UNITS As discussed in the introduction, the current service unit for Denton's water impact fees is the "single. family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. The number of service units associated with meters of different sizes was calculated earlier. Multiplying the number of existing connections with each meter size by the service units per meter yields total service units for that meter size. Summing for all meter sizes yields the total number of water service units connected to the City's water system, as shown in Table 3. Wholesale customers have been excluded from these calculations because they are located outside the water service area. Table 3 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 Existing SFEsl Connections Meter Meter Size SFEs 21,012 2,498. .. .3,19IL .2,12l. ..2,228 3,350 8.0.0 800 325 43 305 3l4."_ 1" H/2~_ . ___ 2::"._ 3" 4" 21,012 999 ~. -~._-- -.- 620 J,1~9 . 99 67 8 4 1 23 959 1.0.. 2.5 5,0 ___8.0 22.5 50.0 ___I.oO.o._ 200.0 325.0 E5~~ _ 8" 10" Total Source: Number of active non-wholesale water connections by meter size from the City of Denton, October 2002; SFEs per meter from Table 2. The growth in water service units over the 2003.2013 phnning period is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. Total population in the water service area from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the estimated percent of households that are connected to the Denton water system to derive an estimate of the population served by the water system. The served population in 2002 is divided by the current number of service units from the previous table to determine the population per service unir. Using this ratio, the estimated number of service units are estimated for each year through 2013 in Table 4. PENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DIL\FI', Page 7 . . . Fiscal Year _2002 Table 4 WATER SERVICE UNITS, 2003-2013 Total Percent Served Pop.1 PODulatlon Served PODulation SFE . 99,28(}_ ___9~.5_6% ___ _ _ _ __8S,~_E59___ 1.97 SFEs 43,30.5 2003_ 9-",794_ 94.56% ,89,63L,,_1.97, _, ,45,501_ 2004 _ u 99,533 94.~6',',_^^ 94,11lL, }.97 u41,776 I- 2005. _ .104,510_ 9'1,56% 98,825, _. ),97,_ __.50,125 2006 109,,736 _ ~6.00%, _ 105,}4?_, U1.7, .53,4.76 2007._, ^' .115,222_, ,96,00%, , ,110,~13. 1.97. 5.6,H9 2008, ,,120,98L,9?gO,'I,_, 1.F,354 _.J9.?- __.. 5,9,~?1 2009___,,127,032 __ 97.00'.%'_u,123,221____ 1.97, ,62,549 2010 ,,133,384 97.00% 129,382_ 1..97 ,,65,676 ;20U _ .,1,,0,Q53. 97.000/" ,135,851._ ,_1.gL ,,68,969 2012 _147,056 97.00% ~42,644 1.97_ _ 72,408 2013 154409 97.00% 149777 1.97 76029 New 5FEs 2003'2013 30 528 Source: Total population for water service area from City of Denton, Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent served from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; population per SFE is 2002 served population divided by 2002 SFEs from Table 2, DEMAND PROJECTIONS Two types of water demand are relevant for water impact fees. Water treatment systems are sized to accommodate peak day demand requirements. Water supply facilities arc required only to accommodate average daily demand. Average daily per capita water demand can be determined based on histotie system,wide demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic service area population. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Average daily per capita demands over the last 14 years are presented in the following Table 5. These data show that water demand for retail customers has averaged 167 !,r.illons per capita per day (gpcd). The data also indicate that there is relatively little water lost in the process, with the raw water used exceeding fInished water produced by an average of only 5.1 percent. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 8 . Table 5 AVERAGE DAILY WATER PRODUCTION, 1988-2001 Water Production (mgd) Ratio of Retail Fiscal Whole- Total Total Raw to Served Demand Year Retail sale Finished Other Raw Finished Po ulation cd " _1_988 11.31 0.86 12.17" 0.39" ,,_ 12.56 ....J,_032 ~4,184 }7~ "" 1989_" 10,20 _0.Z8 10.98 0.22 11.20 1,020 ,,64,?6.'I " .,,_ _!~8 1990 11,28 0.93 1,,2,21 0.33 12.54 "._1,027_ """ _ ~4,817_n ..._ 174 1991 10,76. _ Oc~9. 11,75 0.40_ 12.15" _ 1.03-" _ _,,65,0.13 166 1992 9.83 0.95 _IQ.78" 0.53 .11.31.." 1.04J __ _..6.5,435 _..1.50 u_ 1993 10.Z8 0.91. ..11.69 0.87. 12.56 1,07.4_,,_ .._ ,,65,944 _ 163 1994 10.23 L!9 11,33 0.68 12.01 __ _1,060_ _ __?7,14?_ ,,1~2_ . .1995 10.49_ 1,44 11,93 .0.79" 12.72 1,066 __ _ ,,68,025 154 19~_",,__11.95__,,1,~9__ 13.54 _ 0.-',6__ "1,,.'~0,,_ _''1,(j7!_____.Y1'l,905'' _~1?2.... "" 1997 11.36. _1,.43_ " ,,_ _12.79 "OJ.5 13.5" ...1.059 ,,_ _ _ _99,8,,83 _ . 163 1998 13..2,,2 " ."O.9~ ,,_ 14.15 0.76 14.91.n 1_.0.54" _ "." Jl,~8""" _"",,1~__ _".1999___ _" ,,_.12.91___0.16__ __13.07_ ___ _ 1,07____1.4.1.4____1,082___73,6~9____1 Z5__. 2000 14.54 0.22 14.76 _0.71 1_5._47 1,04B 78'919 _184___ 2001 13.43 0.18 13.61 0.60 14.21 1,044 81 208 165 Avera e 1.051 167 Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities. Peak day demand over the last 14 years is compared to average daily demand in Table 6. These data indicate that peak day demand in Denton's water system averages 1.9 rimes average day demand. . Table 6 PEAK DAY WATER DEMAND, 1988-2001 Peak Day Fiscal Demand Year m d Ratio 1988 23.1Z 12.17 1,9 1989 _"........20,?,,2..._ _,,_ _lQ.98 1,9 1990 ._ 22..47...__ . ,,12.21 1,8 _1991 _ ,,___.2.3"47 _ ..1_L7? _ _,,___ _?".Q.. 1992_ 18.98 10.78__ 1.8 1993__?4.2,,__ ,,_ 11,69 _ __2.1 . " 1994 20.31 11.331,8 .1995_ __ __ _ 22.75" " 11,93_ 1,9 __1996_____,,_ 25.81" 13.54"" ____1,9 199? 24.76 .12.79 1.9 1998 " _26A"L .._ _14:.15_ 1,9" 1999 26.20 13.07 2.0 .._- - -.. - .-. -- _"_2000,,___2Z.85,, __.._ ,,14.Z6_ ___ .__1,9_ 2001 26.48 13.61 1,9 Average 1.9 Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities; figures represent total finished water production. . DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 9 . . . Based on these historical factors, average and peak day water demand from retail customers is projected for the 2003-2013 planning period in Table 7. Table 7 AVERAGE AND PEAK RETAIL WATER DEMAND, 2003-2013 Avg. Retail Ratio Raw Ratio Peak Fiscal Served Demand Demand of Raw to Water of Peak to Day Year Po ulatlon cd m d Finished m d Avera e m d 2003 __ _89,637_ .__16L____14.97.~__1.Q~1_.._1523__ _ 1.9.0_. 28,.~4,_ 200_4. 94,l1L_._16". _ . ,5.22, 1.051 16c.~~_____ L90 29c87__ 2005 _~ 98,825 167 . ..16.50. 1.051 .17..3~_ 1.9.0 _ ___31.35 . .2_006.__ 105,34L___16,,__ __._1.?S_9____1.O'~1 18.49 ___.L90 ___}3.42_. 20Q". ..110,613_n .. 1.6,,__ ___18.47 ).O_~l 19..41. 1,90_.. ._3_5.09 2008 117,354 167 19.60 1..o5L_ 20.60 __ _1.c9() _ _ 3.?..24_ 2009" _ 123,221 _ _. 167 .20.58 1.05121.63 190 39.10 2010 . .__12_9,382 16} 21.,?1_ _ _L051___22.7!___._1~'1.()_.___4!()6_ .20ll ____135,851 167 22.69_. __ LO.~l .23.85.. 1.90 .__43.11 2012. 142,644 167 23.82 .1.051 25.03. _L90__.._ 45.26 2013 149777 167 25.01 1.051 26.29 1.90 47.52 New Demand 2003-2013 10.04 10.56 19.08 Source: Served population from Table 4; average day per capita demand and ratio of raw to finished water production from Table 5; ratio of peak day to average day finished water production from Table 6; raw water and peak day demand exclude demand due to wholesale customers. WATER TREATMENT Water treatment facilities are sized to accommodate peak day demands. The maximum daily capacity of the Spencer Road water trcatment plant is 28.9 mgd. The City recently completed construction of a new water treatment plant near Lake Ray Roberts. The Ray Roberts plant has a peak capacity of 20 mgd. The City had originally planned to construct the facility in two 10-mgd phases, but subsequently determined that it was more cost-effective to construct the full 20-mgd plant. As summarized in Table 8, current retail demand plus wholesale watcr sales almost exactly cquals the capacity of the old Spencer Road plant. New development over the next ten years will consume virtually all of the capacity addcd by the construction ofthe new 20~mgd Ray Roberts plant. Figure 5 TREATMENT CAPACITY AND DEMAND 50 '045 g 40 i;' 35 ~ 30 ! 25 .e 20 1;1 Cl 15 ~ 10 :! 5 o 1999 r----- Capadly <> 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 BRAFf, Page 10 . . . growth. Projected growth ovet the planning period will consume all of this capacity and more, meaning that additional water will need to be purchased from the City of Dallas. Nevertheless, the City can recover the costs of the 47 percent of Lake Ray Roberts capacity that is currently available but will be consumed by new customers over the planning period. Table 9 ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST L~*_~~aY-B~o~e~~p~c:~tyJ~g~)____ _______ "__ _ _~!~.J~ Lake, Lewisville Capacity.(mgd), .4.34 E~IY~r1t R~turn_C!e~~s (~_gd) . _ _____ ___~___O_}3 Cit of Dallas-Contractual Rl hts m d 0.50 Total WaterSupplyCapa,city~(rng,j),..2.o.03,_..~,.._ ~.. n"_"n ..,2S.}3 Total Avera e Da Raw Water Demand m d 2003 15.98 Available ~ate~ ~upply <;:~p~~ity_ (rngd) _~_ ~__. _'U ___'_ _ _~ __.___ _~3S Needed Water Su I Ca aci m d 20.0.3-20.13 10..81 P.erc~~t oLAvailable Sypply _Capacity_Needed, ~003-201~__ lQ().'OO~/o Available as Percent of Lake Ra Roberts Ca aeit 47.32% Source: 2003 capacity from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; 2003 total average day demand is retail raw water demand from Table 7 plus 0.25 mgd wholesale demand from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; 2003-2013 needed capacity from Table 7. The original 1986 costto the City for its participation in the construction of Lake Ray Roberts was $70 million. In today's dollars, the cost of the City's share is $107 million, as summarized in Table 10. Table 10 LAKE RAY ROBERTS COST Qrigi~aL.Cost (1986)___ _ ,$~9,6}~,034 Cost Inflation Factor 1.532 Facility Cost in Current Dollars <t105 577 808 Source: Original cost from Denton Municipal Utilities, January 15, 2003; cost inflation factor based on Engineering News-RecordConstruction Cost Index for January 2003. COST PER SERVICE UNIT Capital improvements identified in the City's water master plan and by City staff as necessary to accommodate growth over the next ten years are summarized in Table 11. The portions of the costs of the Ray Roberts treatment plant, the Lake Ray Roberts reservoir and the main transmission line from the Ray Roberts treatment plant that is attributable to growth over the planning period arc based on the capacity of the facilities and the new demand generated by the anticipated b'fowth over the period. For pump stations, water storage tanks and other transmission lines, the portions of the costs attributable to growth are based on the year that the facility is anticipated to be put into service. For these facilities, the simplifying assumptions are made that they will accommodate 20 years of growth and that growth will be linear. In general these are conservative assumptions, and they affect only 12 percent of the total directly attributable costs. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DUFT, Page 12 . . . Table 8 ELIGIBLE PERCENT OF RAY ROBERTS PLANT COST .Re:ta!l. !,eak_pay-P~~anc! {~g~), _2003..__.____ _ __-1_8.40. Wholesale Peak Da Demand m d 2003 J"p~a~ ~~r~~n~Oer:t:lan.d (n..!9_d). S encer Road Plant Ca aci m d Exjs~jng Capa_city _Avajl~bl_eJmgd). _ __ _ __. .._ __ __ ~ 0.50 __ _ _ __ __2IL90 28.90 ,_ ,._0..0.0_ _Ne,~_R~ta!i ~~_~k_J.~~y_De~~n_dJr.!1gcJ), Zqp3-20n _ _19.0t,3 New Ra Roberts Plant Ca aci m d 20.00 Percent Needed for Growth 2003-2013 95.40% Source: 2003 retail peak day demand and 2003-2013 new retail peak day demand from Table 7; 2003 wholesale peak day demand and plant capacities from City of Denton Municipal Utilities. [n addition to constructing the plant in one phase, other changes were made from the preliminary plans for the Lake Ray Roberts plant. [n particular, tbe planned Hartlee Field Road booster pump station and ground storage facilities were incorporated into tbe redesigned plant. Thus, while these capital improvements no longer appear as separate listings in the water impact fee capital improvements plan, theit functional equivalents are still thete. WATER SUPPLY The City's water supply comes primarily from watet tights in Lake Lewisville and Lake Ray Roberts. The Lewis\~lle Reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Corps of Enb~neers to hold a total of 436,000 acre-feet of conservation storage, of which the City holds the right to 21,000 acre-feet of storage. Based on a safe yield of 90.2 mgd, tbe City receives 4.34 mgd in water rights from Lake Lewisville. Most of the City's temaining water needs are supplied by Lake Ray Roberts. The reservoir was constructed by the U.S. Corps of Engineets, with the cities of Denton and Dallas being tbe local sponsors and responsible (26% and 74% respectively) for repaying 50 percent of the total cost. The City has water rights of 19.8 mgd from this lake, Additional water supply capacity comes in the form of credits fat the portion of the City's wastewater that is returned to these water bodies, as well as contract rights witb the City of Dallas. The City's contract witb Dallas reserves a minimum of 0.50 mgd, tegatdless of whether the City needs it, and tbe City also has tbe right to purchase additional water as needed. The City's water supply is summarized in Table 9. After subtracting the City's current total average day demand, including botb retail and wholesale needs as well as lost and unaccounted for water, the City still has about 9.4 mgd available fot Figure 6 WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND 30 EKI.Hng Supply (25.33 mgd) '6" 25 '" .s 1;' 20 a Q; ~ 15 " .2 a 10 " & :ii 5 ~ ~ . Aetual - Projected o 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 11 . . . In addition to those costs direedy attributable to growth, there are the interest costs associated with funding capital improvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City traditionally funds all of its major water system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs. According to state law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs are estimated based on the most recent City of Denton utility bond issue. The final step in determining the cost per service unit is to divide the total capital cost attributable to growth over the next ten years by the anticipated growth in service units over the same time petiod. The result is a cost of $5,450 per new single-family or equivalent customer, as shown in Table 11. Table 11 WATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 Year In Attrlbu- Total Attributable ImDrovement Service table 0/0 Cost Cost B~Y_RQ~ert:~)y_~t~r Tr.~~J:r"-~nJ,I1<mt_ (29.J!]9Q) __ __. _ 20p3~ ~_ M~~.,4q~!o __ _$4J,-~fQ,P()Q.,_.._ _$~_~,419,7_8_Q_ Lake RaYi<obe_rt~ (<:.ity Sh~ret__ _ .__. ..__ _. 1989._ 47.32% _ _ $106,67?,.B08_ _ _$50,47~,939 tt~!:t!~gJ:i.~.td~~9.<!fLE!9g_stE!r_~urrlP_Station~_,___ __ __n/~___ __rJlcL_ __ __u_~n/C!_."~___"____n/a__ H~r~le_e Field Road BO_l:!~t~~Pur:nP?~a~l:!n Tie-in' _ _~__ rY~___u__ _ _!]/a__ ___ _._ ~~a~____ _ ___n~~ _ _ HctJ:~le.e_ Fiel(t9~q_u~cj_ ?JorageJ~__r:T.'g)1 ~_. __ flf"iJ __ fl/a._ _ _ _ __JJla. un/a Southwest Booster P~HT~P _~t~t~~~ (~.2_.mgd) _ _. ___ 2003_ _ _ ~Q.QO%________ $3,480,Ol~0_~___ $!,?4Q,00Q tiigt1_~~_hogL~o9~_tE!r'p'_u~pS.tatil?fl_p.8_mgd) _ _ _ __2007 __ _~Q,09_o~___ _"__ _._$2,~"69,909 ___ _$.1.3.8,00.0_ Northwest Elevated ~torClge Tan.k (1.0 I!lg) ~ ~903 + 50.00% _ __ $"~,.8~0,000 ___ __$J45,OO~ Roselal'ln.E1eyated_S!oragelank(2.5I11g) __ ___ 2004_ _. _ .40.00~/, _ ____$2,830,000_ .$1,132,0_00 Robson Ranch Elevated Stor~ge _Ta~"kJ1.0 rl}g) ___ 2006 35.00%__ _ __ _ $1,140,QOO _ _" $~_99,OqO LJ~i.v~r:sity FJeyaJ~QIi:lnk (Z.'pmg)2_ ~ _.__ _. __ _ nfeL _ .nja_____ __~.._ D/a __ .nlct__ __ Main Transmission Line From_~ay Roberts WTP ___ 2003 _ _ 40.000!~__ __ J?,~lQ,0.99__ d$?,644,OOO Lo()p ?_8+8."W~ct_~ef L,i~~_:...~!!~r~an t9_H\N'y~__~8.Q____ _ ____ZQQ_~ ~9_J)Q.~~ _ _uu $?,~3.9,()JtQ...____ $.1,2.1_5,90_0_ _~oop2~8 Water_~~f!~Shei.man to UNT 2003 50.00% $2,~~,000_~!,.445,gOO ~~m!3Jd -_.J~mE!~_?9" Wa.ter Line_ __ __ __ _ _ 20.o_~ _._ 5.0.00_% _ _$lA20,OO.o __~_ __$0710,0_00 Nort:~ =_South Water Line Phase 1__ n_ __ _ _ "_.2003 _ __ 50.00% u ._"" $.lA9g,ooo____ __$.~90,00.9 Noo:h - _So.uth Water Line Phase II __. _ _ 2004 _ _. .45.00'{o . _ __ _ $1,580,000 __ _ _$7.11,000 Roselawn Water Line _ _ 2004 ___ _ 45.00% $J,310,OOO _$_58~,5pO North - South Water Line Phase IIt__ ~.~ ~__ __2005 40~09,% _ __ __a$J,.s~.Q,Q9.o._ __ $&t?,99,Q N_orth~- ~f:luth Water Line ~ha_s~ IV _ + ~___._ __ 2Q9J _ _ 30:QQ.o~__~_ _ $?,!4Q,P.00 __ _$_~42,QOO Loon 2.B8 Water Line - UNT to IH-35 2007 30.00% <I 365000 <409 500 Total Dir_e:.ctAtt~i_b_l!tabl~"C;<?~.~ ___ _.'.__ _____ __ .__... .._.____. _____ ____ ._____ $104,631,219 Debt Service Interest Cost $61 7i2 4'19" TotaIAttributableC~s!.~ __ __ __ ._.__ __ __________ ___ .__._ __.__ _$1_6~,~6~,6}8 New Water Service Units 2003-2013 30 528 Cost oer Service Unit $5450 Notes: (1) incorporated into the high service pump station at the Ray Roberts WTP and no longer required; (2) replaced by the Roselawn Elevated Tank. Source: Alan Plummer Associates, "Water Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; cost of Lake Ray Roberts from Table 10; attributable percent of Ray Roberts WTP cost from Table 8; attributable percent of Lake Ray Roberts cost from Table 9; attributable percent of main transmission line from Ray Roberts WTP based on 2003-2013 share of ultimate SO mgd capacity; attributable percent of other improvements based on year placed in service (years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by 20 years); interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAn, Page 13 NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT . New water customers will help payoff outstanding debt incurred for existing facilities through their montWy rates. To avoid requiring new customers to pay twice for capital facilities, once through impact fees and again through rate payments, the impact fees should be reduced to account for debt service payments. In this section, a debt service credit per service unit is calculated for outstanding debt on existing water facilities. The methodology used was to divide each year's debt service paymenr by the projected nwnber of senTicc units in that year to determine an annual credit per service unit. The net present value of the future stream of debt sef\~ce payments is the debt service credit per service unit. . Table 12 WATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT Fiscal Debt service Water Credit! Year Pa ment SFEs SFE ,2003.11,819,579 , 15,501 _ _,___$260_, 2004 ),1,728,618 _ __ _ 47,7?6 _. .. ..$245. ,2005. ..11,80,4,155. .... .50,165_ ....._ __$235. ,,2006, _.., 11,?01,141...__ 53,.4?? _ _ ,...$21J,.. ,2007 11,748,123".. 56,149 _ _ $209 2008 1.1,,573,781, 59,571 $194_ 290,9 _ 11,573,801 _62,549. $185_ . 2010 11,60~,831 65,6?6 $177 2011 10,990,18,4,. 68,9,60_ $159 . ,20.12... ,,_,_ _. 10,~8~,3Q9_. '.. __7;!,,4Q8 _ _,$l.5?. 2013_ __11,340,0,40.., . ".., 76,029, . .___...$149,_ .2014, . 11,332,939 79,602 $14;!. ,2015__ ...._11,334,575. . .83,184_ $136_ 20}6.. 11,272,175 86,761 $130 2017 11,275,206, 90,318, $125., 20!8 11,164,438 93,931 $11,9, 2919_ , 11,182,23E;.__ . _... 97,5,00$115. 2020 11,192,882_ lOl,107 ,_..$111_ 2021 9,304,?80 ,10,1,8,48 ,. ..,_$89_ ?02?".. __...__ 7,777,294.__. _ 198,72'-__ _,_ ..$E_ 2023, __ ._5,295,422_112,750..___.. __$47. 2024, ,5,296,228, __ _116,922 'n ._ _ _.. $45" 2025_ , 5,298,359 _..1:<1,218_____, _.._ H4_ 2026 ,_ ,2,745,031. 1.25,734,_ ._' _.. $,22 2027, .2,745,359.. , 1~0,386 $21 . 2028 2,744,666 135,210 $20 ,,2029 .__..2,747;566,. _ 140,213,_ .. _. _,$20 2030 2748675 145401 19 Total _ ,$252,327,393_ .$3A61 Net Present Value 2 295 Source: Water system debt service payment from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; water SFEs for 2003-2013 from Table 4; water SFEs for succeeding years based on percent growth from 2002 water system forecast; net present value based on 4,8% discount rate, which is the average interest rate on 20-year AAA municipal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, bondsonline,com and fmsbonds.com on lanuary 30, 2003. . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 14 . . . The revenue credits calculated above were done using the same philosophy and methodology set forth in the original 1998 impact fee study. At that time, the state impact fee enabling act made no mention of revenue credits. The revisions to Chapter 395 made by the Texas legislature in 2001 now prescribe the following alternatives for addressing revenue credits in 395.014(a)(7): (..4) a credit jor the portion of ad valorem tax and utih'ty service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used fOr the payment of improvements, including the payment of deht, that are included in the capital improvements plan,. or (8) in the alternative, a credit equal to 50 percent of the total projected cost of implementing the capital improvements plan. Note that the credits calculated abovc differ in certain respects from the literal reading of the state law. Most significandy, the credit has been calculated for outstanding debt for existing facilities, rather than for future debt that will be issued to implement the projects in the capital improvements plan. It would make little sense to calculate a credit for the improvements in the capital improvements plan, since new development will be paying for such costs through impact fees, and at least in theory no rate revenues should be needed to fund such improvements. On the other hand, new development will be paying for the remaining debt service on past improvements, and if no credits were provided would be in effect paying for its costs through impact fees and some of existing development's costs through the portion of its rates that go to debt retirement. The other way in which the credits differ is that they are provided for future debt service payments beyond the ten-year planning period. Both of these differences result in credits that are larger than if they were calculated according to a literal reading of the state act. The alternativc to calculating a revenue credit is simply to di\~de the cost per service unit in half. The net costs resulting from deducting the revenue credit from the cost per service unit are compared in Table 13. Based on the debt set\~ce credit calculated above, the net cost is $3,155 per set\~ce unit. Using the alternative method authorized by state law, the net cost would be 16 percent lower, at $2,725 per service unit. Table 13 WATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Calculation Alternative Method Method Cost pe,.SFE $5,450______ _.$5,450 Revenue Credit er SFE 2 295 2 725 Net Cost er SFE 3 155 2 725 Source: Cost per 5FE from Table 11; revenue credit per SFE for calculation method from Table 12; revenue credit for alternative method is one-half of cost per SFE. NET COST SCHEDULE The two methods for calculating revenue credits give similar results, and the City Council could enact water impact fees at either of these levels, or at a reduced level. The following net cost schedule represents the maximum impact fees that may be charged by the City for water system facilities, based on the adopted Land Use Assumptions, the utility system evaluation and capital improvement cost estimates prepared by City Municipal Utilities staff and Alan Plummer Associates, and the additional DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 15 . . . data and analysis presented in this study. The City could adopt the fees at a lower level than the maximums shown, or phase the increases in over a period of time. In Table 14, the service units per meter are multiplied by the net cost per service unit derived from the calculated revenue credit methodology to determine the net cost per meter. Table 14 WATER NET COST SCHEDULE SFEsl Net Cost Net Costl Meter Size Meter er SFE Meter ,,3/4", ,1.0. ,,__ '$3,155'..,... $3,155. )" 2.5 .$3,~5,5 .__,.$7,888. .1-1/2" . ., _~.o._., ___$3,155. .$15,7Z5. 2:_. 8,0.,,_. $3,~55 $?5,210, 3"2~.5 _$3,1~5, .,__ .$10,9,88. 4;". 50.,0 $3,155 $157,750 . __6", 100.0 _$3,155. ._ .$315,500.. 8:, 2,Q0.0 __ .$3,155 ,$631,0.00 10." 325.0. 3 155 $1 0.25 375 Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE from Table 13. The maximum water impact fees calculated above are compared to the City's existing water impact fees in Table 15. The fees would increase by 54 percent for meters of two inches in diameter or less, and more for larger meters. Table 15 COMPARATIVE WATER FEES Potential Current Percent Meter Size Fees Fees Chan e _,_3/4'~___ __ _ $3,155__ ___$2,054____ __ _5~% 1" ,_ $7,888, ..$5,110 5~% _1-1/~~ _ _ _. _ $15,7}5_" _ __ $J.Q,~20_ 5:4~1o_ 2" __ $~5,24o.__ $16,352. 54% 3" ,..$70,988. . u .$32,704__ 117,% 4" _$tS7,~SO ...$5J/~()O_ 209% ,6" , _,$315,500. .$10.2,20..0, 20.9% 8'~__ _,' _ ,$631,0..00, $163,5?D 286% 10." 1 025 375 235 060 336% Source: Potential fees from Table 14; current fees from Denton City Code. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-Z013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 16 . . . Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the next ten years would be 68 percent higher under the potential fees calculated in this report than under the current fees, as shown in Table 16. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the annual projections of$5.8 million under the current fee schedule are considerably higher than the $3.4 million collected by the City in 2001. It should also be noted that the updated fees will not apply to properties platted under the pre\~ous impact fee schedule. Table 16 COMPARATIVE WATER IMPACT FEE REVENUES, 2003-2013 2003 New 03-13 Potential Current Percent Meter Size Connections Connections Revenues Revenues Chan e __.31!-: . ... ..22,078~. 14,81L _ _.H6,735,0IL.330,277,772. . 54.0/0. 1" 1,0~0 ...704 .t5,5.53,152 __ .$3,5.97,440....__5.4%. 1.1/2" 651 437.. .$6,893,675._..$4,466,140... ... .54%. 2" .... .P07... __ . 81.<>- m.$2.0,444,400_ $13,245,120 _. _. ..54~1o. ]' .....10!-. _ "'. .".. 70 ..... u$4,9.69,160... .$2,289,280_,. 11'1.0/0 . _4.".. _.......7,0 ." __ ..47" _____$7,414,250 $2,4~1,70q 2090~. 6" 8. ,,5 __ h $1,577,500_. $511,000. 209% .8". __.4..., 3 $1,893,000,. __ ,$490,560".. __ ,28.6%, 10" 1 1 1025 375 235 060 336% Total 25 173 16890 $96505527 $57514072 68% Source: 2003 connections estimated based on 2002 connections from Table 3 and percent growth in SFEs 2002~2003 from Table 4; new 2003-13 connections estimated based on percent growth in SFEs from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and current fees from Table 15. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DIlA.FT, Page 17 WASTEWATER . The City's currenr wasrewater impact fees, adopted in 1998, cover only the costs of wastewater treatment. This study updates the fees and adds the costs of interceptors and force mains. It also adds the interest costs associated with funding capital projects through revenue bonds. SERVICE UNITS The current service unit for Denton's wastewater impact fees is the "single-family equivalent" (SFE), which is based on the size of the water meter. This is reasonable, since wastewater generation is not metered directly and tends to be proportional to water usage. An SFE is the water demand associated with the smallest water meter used in the system (3/4"), which is the meter typically used by a single-family residence. The ratio of each larger meter's capacity to the capacity of the base meter determines the SFE multiplier applied to eaeh larger size meter. The number of service units associated with meters of different sizes was calculated earlier. Multiplying the number of existing wastewater connections with each meter size by the service units per meter yields total service units for that meter size. Summing for all meter sizes yields the total number of wastewater service units connected to the City's system, as shown in Table 17. Wholesale customers have been excluded from these calculations because they are located outside the wastewater sen~ce area. 3" , . . ... 4" 6" 8" I __n ... ... 10" Table 17 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, 2002 Existing SFEs/ Connections Meter SFEs . .20,668. 1.0 u. 20,668 _ __1:...... _.. __. ?~2 ..._._,.J~ .,..1,.98.0. _1-112: ... SJ~ 5,0.. _.2,525 __X_______Z?..2.. ._l!J1...._....i!,Ql~_ ..78 . 22.5... ..1,155. 60 50.0 3,000 ..~? _ . _. .1.0.0.0 _ __700 .....___..3 _ ._200.0 .__6.00 1 325.0 325 22876 37619 Meter Size 3(4" . Total Source: Average number of active non-wholesale wastewater connections by meter size for fiscal year 2002 from the City of Denton, October 2002 (based on water customers with wastewater service by meter size plus 116 residential customers with no water meter; SFEs per meter from Table 2. . Average per capita wastewater demands can be determined based on historic systcm~wide demand in millions of gallons per day (mgd) and historic service area populations. These per capita estimates represent both residential and nonresidential demand, and are useful for projecting future system requirements, particularly when no significant shifts of land use ratios are expected. Wastewater treatment facilities are primarily designed to accommodate average daily flows. As summarized in Table 18, per capita wastewater flows to the treatment plant have been remarkably consistent over the last five years, at 148 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). These calculations exclude wholesale wastewater flows from Corinth and Argyle. In addition, they represent flows per served or connected population, DENTON, TE)(AS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DKAn', Page 18 . . . which has bccn detennined based on tecent studies by the City of Demon to be about 97 petcent of total population. These factots will be used to project futute demand and service units in the Pecan Creek service area. However, because the Clear Creek service area will have relatively little infiltration (due to new lines) and little industry, Alan Plummet Associates has determined that 94 petcent connectivity and 100 gpcd should be used fot this area.' Table 18 PER CAPITA WASTEWATER DEMAND Fiscal Avg. Influent Served Per capita Year Flow m d Po ulation Flow cd 1997~ 11.18 75,306__ ___~ 148.46 192..8_~_~ ~ ~11.55 nZ9L 148~7__ 1999 11.9380,358 _. 148.46 ~2000 ~ _ .)2.32 _~~3,009 148.42 2001 12.68 85 549 148.22 Avera e 148 Source: City of Denton Municipal Utilities, cited in Alan Plummer Associates memorandum, December 11,2002 (average influent excludes wholesale flaws). The growth in wastewater service units and retail customer wastewater demand over the 2003-2013 planning period is derived from the Land Use Assumptions. The first step is to calculate the average demand per service unit. This will be applied to demand projections to project the growth in service units for each service area. Total 2002 population in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek basins from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the estimated percent of bousebolds that are connected to the Denton wastewater system to derive an estimate of the 2002 population served by the wastewater system (the population in the Clear Creek basin is excluded because there is no wastewater service presently available there). The served population is then multiplied by the average per capita demand to estimate total 2002 wastewater demand, exclusive of wholesale customers. Estimated demand in 2002 is divided by the current number of service units from the previous table to determine the average demand per service unit (see Table 19). 3Memorandum from Bryan Jann, P .E., Alan Plummer Associates, to P.S. Arora of City of Denton Municipal Utilities, December 11,2002. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 19 . . . Table 19 AVERAGE DEMAND PER SERVICE UNIT JEt9IJ:()P!!lt!t~I],.!yaste.~at~CQU~x_cJ.....fLe~, ~eek),_~QQ7 _~!,Q86 Percent Served 97% Was~~,^,ater _Se.r:veq ~<?p_l!I~tion,_ 200~ __ ~_ __ _88,~5} Wastewater Per Ca ita Demand cd 148 Talal ~_~~_~i1~~.aste,^,ater_D~t!!al!~ (gpd),._2QO}_ ___ .!3,QZ?,~4~ Wastewater SFEs 2002 37 619 Avera e Wastewater Demand er SFE d 348 Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002 (excludes 2,631 in Clear Creek basin where no service is available); percent served from Alan Plummer Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per capita demand from Table 18; 2002 SFEs from Table 17. For each service area, the total population from the Land Use Assumptions is multiplied by the percent served and the average per capita demand to determine total retail wastewater demand. The average demand per set\~ce unit is then divided inro total demand to determine the number of wastewater SFEs. Using this approach, the number of set\~ce units in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek drainage basins are estimated for each year through 2013 in Tables 20 and 21. Table 20 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 Per Capita Demand! Fiscal Total Percent Served Demand SFE Year Po ulatlon Served Po ulation cd d SFEs 2003 62,807 __ _ __97% ___60,923 _ _1~8 __ _9.02 ___3!18_____25,920n 2004 64,~65_____ 97% _63,_016 148 _ ___ ~_c~L __~]<lL___ __26,810 2005 67,021 _ 97% _ ~5,010 _ _ _148_ _ _ ___9"E;2_ _ _3~8 _ .41&4-4__ 2006 _, 6~,.2.49. ~7% ~1,17..2_ _ _ _ 1~8_ _ ____._ _9.94 ___34.8___ _ _ ?~,S_~3_ 2007. ____ 71,939 _ _ __ 97,% _69,781 148 10.33 348 29,684 2008 7<1,820 n_ 9j"Io, 72,575_ __ _ 148___10.?4__ 348 _ 30,862_ 2009, 7.7,478 _ __ 97% ?5,154_ ,_ 148_ 11.12 348__ __31,9S~, _~Ol<J.__'m ,_8g,345__ 97% 77,935 ____1~8 11.53_ __ ~48_____ 33,J32__ 2011 _____83,435, ___97_'/0 ___ u_80,932______1~8______,l1,98___ 3~8____3~,425_ 2012 86,757 9?'10 84,154 148_ 12.45 _ ~48__ _ _35,77_6_ 2013 90325 97% 87615 148 12.97 348 37270 New Demand and SFEs 2003-2013 3.95 11 350 Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent served from Alan Plummer Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per capita demand from Table 18; demand per SFE from Table 19; SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 20 . Table 21 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 Per Capita Retail Demandl Fiscal Total Percent Served Demand Demand SFE Year Po ulation Served Po ulation cd m d d SFEs ._20Jl3 30,5.58 __ m 97%._29,611. 118.. n_ 4.39_.. 318_....._ 12,61.5... 2091.. 32,086 _ 97'/,_ 31.1.2.3 148 4.6J. ___..348 __.. _1~,217... 2005__ 33,690. .....97.% __ _ _32,679 .148 4.84._...._..318_. .)3,9.08_ 2006 .~5,F~. 97% }4,~14.14.8_._ .._ _ 5,.2.8 348._._...J~,~98 .2007.. . 37,143_ 97'10 36,029 1.48.. _ _5,~3 _348.. ..._1.5,:ll6. 2008 .~9,OOO 97'f' _ n8.3D. 148 _.. .5.29__ ...._34~. 1.6,092_. .. 2009 .40,950 97% 39,722 .. 148 5.88 318 16,897. . 2010 . _42,998 97%. ._.4.1,708 148 _._._ 6J.7_ 348 1.7,730 2011 ..35,118 __97.'l" . . 43,79:1. .118__ .._6.48 .__318_..__18,621 ~OJ~__ _ _ _ .':l7,40S__. 97~/o_ _4S,9l?~..." 1~8 G.8L. ~)~~L _J9.,~6~_ 2013 49775 97% 48282 148 7.15 348 20546 New Demand and SFEs 2003-2013 2.76 7931 Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4, 2002; percent served from Alan Plummer Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; per capita demand from Table 18; demand per SFE from Table 19; SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE. The demand and service unit projections in the Clear Creek drainage basin are derived in similar fashion in Table 22. However, the percent connectivity and per capita demand assumptions arc somewhat lower, for the reasons desctibed earlier. In addition, there is currently no served population, because the proposed Clear Creek treatment plant will not be constructed until July 2004. . Table 22 WASTEWATER SERVICE UNITS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 Per Capita Retail Demandl Fiscal Total Percent Served Demand Demand SFE Year Po ulation Served Po ulation cd m d d SFEs 2Q03 __.....3,272 0%. _q n_ 0 .to.O. _ .0.00.. 348 O. 2004 ___,!,~?4 10% 442 __ _1QO__. _.9~04 _____348___ ~ __1.!?__ 2005 5,839.. 20% __.1,168d.. 100 .__.... .0.12. _. .348....__.__ 345.. _2jJ06____.7,2~4_ 30%.002,176.____100... u _...D"2L _.u_~4~_ _.. 632.. _20ge. .8,38.2 40% 3,356 _. . 100 0.3:1 348._ ... _.. 9L7 2008 9,524 50'/, .4,762 . }oq 0048 348 1,372 2009 11,084...60% 6,650. .100 n._ ..0.67. 348 ..1,925 20.10_._ _.. 12,644 70% .__8,851. 100.___._.. .o1l9 348. _ u2,~57_ 2011 14,20:1 80.% . .11,363. 100 1.14 348 _ 3,276. 2012 1?,??4 90% 1~,188 100 ___1.~2 348 4,080 2013 17 322 94% 16 283 100 1.63 348 4 684 New Demand and SFEs 2003-2013 1.63 4 684 Source: Total population from Land Use Assumptions, December 4,2002; percent served by 2013 and per capita demand from Alan Plummer Associates, December 12, 2002 memorandum; demand per SFE from Table 19; SFEs is total demand divided by demand per SFE. . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 BRAFf, Page 21 . Table 28 WASTEWATER COST PER SERVICE UNIT, 2003-2013 Attributable New Costj Draina e Basin Costs SFEs SFE p~c~nJ:;re_~k. _ ~$_77,~4,!?,6.?:Z_ ._U,~.5_0_ _$;Z,~_l5.2. Hicko Creek 27461259 7931 $3463 Subtotal, ~ecan/Hicko~y Creeks._ ___ $55,~9.6,88.6_ __ _ 19,281_ ~ .$2,87~_ Clear Creek 17 728 500 4 684 3 785 Total Wastewater CeN 73 135 386 23 965 3 052 Source: Attributable costs from Tables 25, 26 and 27; new SFEs from Table 23. NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT New wastewater customers will help payoff outstanding dcbt incurred for existing facilities through their monthly rates. The net present value of the future stream of debt service payments is the debt service credit per service unit. . Table 29 WASTEWATER DEBT SERVICE CREDIT Fiscal Debt Service Wastewater Creditl Year Payment SFEs SFE 2003 .. . .$5,623,62L.. ..... 38,535 .. .$l.~6._ 2.004 $.5,562,979..40,172 ... .$131l 2005.$5,352,725 41,89I. ..... ~ __ .$128. 2006 ...$.5,298,611 ~3,;>93 .. ____.._ $)?L 20n $5,~21,~38..... .45,97;> $118_ 2008.. $5,730,474 .~8,333. ...... $.1.19.. 2009. $5,615,421 u .. _.5.0,776. h.... ...$11J. ;.1010. .$.5,539,916. . ...53,419. . . . .$lQ4. 2011. . . $~,930,010.56,322..... ..$88 . .?Q.12 .h.. $4,997,3;3.6._59,425..__. ..._. _$Il.3. 2013 ._ $~,517,159. . 62,500.. . _ $72 2014.. .'_ _.. $4,484,~84. . .65,437. $69 2015 $~,1~1,971....__....68,382. _ .... __.. ..$61 2.016. . $3,984,621l ]1,322.._... $56 .2017 .$3,974,465 . 74,24.6 u. $54 2018 $3,878,~6~. .7.7,21.6 . $50 2019. $3,t;83,Zl6 ...80,1.50 __ .$.46. . 2020 . .$3,696,799..__. ..1l3,116.. .. .. ..$~4. 2021 ...$2,133,865 .1.l6,191._ __$25 2022 $1 373 500 89 380 $15 Total. . .$89,852,186. . ... .$l.64L Net Present Value $1 171 Source: Wastewater debt service payments from City of Denton Municipal Utilities; wastewater SFEs for 2003-2013 from Tables 20, 21 and 22; wastewater SFEs for succeeding years based on percent growth from 2002 water system forecast; net present value based on 4.8% discount rate, which is the average interest rate on 20-year AAA municipal bonds cited on bloomberg.com, bondsonline.com and fmsbonds.com on January 30, 2003. . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 26 Improvement Total Nee e Year table 0/0 Cost Cost fe'can f:r~ek. ~RP Expan~i_on_ 6.00 1.Bl nfa }0.17% $1~,~16,0.1?___ _ ~$?,65?,~~2 - -- , --. - " " Hickory Creek WWTP 0.95 0:95 nfa 100.00% $6 000 000 $6 000 000 .~lJbt1?ta!,J~ea_t!!1.e~t PlanJ:. - ---------- ". ----- 2,76 " f]/~._ - -- ,,$25,:l16,0~S_ _ ,$1l,B~7,!l,2 -- HlckolyCrk Lift Station Imp~ovements_____ , ----.-- --- ____.n{a__ 100.00% -- __ $300,000 __,,$300,000 .Hickory Cr~ek I_nterceRt~.re~~sE!:_I , -- ~ ~ - ,_.- "- --, -- " - ~9~0~ __~():OQo{C) __.. $2,909,9,0,0.._ $1,1,,69,000 Hic~orY ~J!=.~!<_ Ln.tgr_cl:p~Qr J:ha~e II, " .- , -- 2005 40.00% ,,- $1,B.7:3,000, _$749,200 Gravey~rd_l?r~nct! Interc~ptor.._ __ -_._~- - - -- 2003 , 50.00% ---- g658,44O, $1,829,~20 , N_Hickory_Cr~Jnterceptor_Oversizing ___ - - " ---- - 2003 , 50,00.% , , $2,000,000, ,$1,000,000 Roark Branch Interceptor Oversizinn 2003 50.00% <750000 <375 000 Direct Attnb_l:Itable Cost -- , - . , h --, ---- , .-.- -------. .--- __ __ $l},271,232 Debt Service Interest Cost $10 190 027 Total Attributable Cost $27 461 259 Table 26 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, HICKORY CREEK, 2003-2013 Capacity (mgd) d d Attrlbu- Total Attributable . Source: Project costs, capacity and in-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period from Table 23; attributable percent of improvements with in-service date shown based on years remaining in 2003- 2013 period divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. I Table 27 WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, CLEAR CREEK, 2003-2013 Capacity (mgd) Attribu- Total Attributable t TIN d d y t bl oA C C . mDrovemen ot. ee e e.r . e 0 ost ost _g~a-=- Cree.!<_ WRP,__~h~?E!:J 0,95 0,95 nfa .1()0.:.oQ~l?~ _$?,9.!)Q,QQO __ _ _$5,~50,OO.o. .., ____u__ ... -- Clear Creek WRP EXDansion 0,68 0,68 nfa 100.00% $2 700 000 $2 700 000 ?_ub~otal Treatm..~!1t ,=la.n!S.. _ __._ ---~.- ----- .. ---- -- --- 1.63 -.------ _..._____ _$8,6~0,000 _,_$8,650,qOO Clear/Milam Creek Intercentor 2003 50.00% <5 000 000 <2 500 000 Direct Attributable Cost - , - . , - ,-- ,. -- - - , ' $ll,I.?,o,OgO Debt Service Interest Cost <6 578 500 Total Attributable Cost $17 72B 500 Source: Project costs, capacity and in-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees," December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period from Table 23; attributable percent of improvements with in-service date shown based on years remaining in 2003- 2013 period divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rates of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. The cost per service unit is determined by dividing the total attributable cost over the 2003-2013 planning period by the new service units (SFEs) anticipated during the same time period. The average costs per SFE are shown for each drainage basin and for the entire wastewater CCN in Table 28 below. It is apparent that new development will be more cost-effective to serve in the Pecan Creek basin. due to the economies of scale at the large existing treatment plant. Since much of the new development in the Hickory Creek basin will also be served by the expansion of the existing plant, a reasonable case can be made for including both basins within the same sen.;ce area and charging the same fee in both areas. The Clear Creek basin, on the other hand, will be served by an entirely separate set of facilities, and the significantly higher cost to serve new customers in this area could be reflected in higher fees if it is designated as a separate service area. . DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 BRAFf, Page 25 . . . COST PER SERVICE UNIT Wastewater capital improvements identified by City Municipal Utilities staff as necessary to accommodate growth over the next ten years for each of the three drainage basins are summarized in Tables 25, 26 and 27. The portions of the costs of the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant expansion, the new Hickory Creek plant and the new Clear Creek plant that are attributable to growth over the planning period are based on the capacity of the facilities and the new demand generated by the anticipated growth over the period. Lift station and force main improvements included in the capital improvements plan are identified in the wastewater master plan, and the percent attributable to growth for these projects is based on the assumption that the facilities will be fully utilized by 2020. For interceptors, the portions of the costs attributable to growth are based on the year that the facility is anticipated to be put into service. For these facilities, the simplifying assumptions are made that they will accommodate 20 years of growth and that growth will be linear. In addition to those costs directly attributable to growth, there are the interest costs associated with funding capital improvements with revenue bonds or other forms of debt. The City traditionally funds all of its major wastewater system capital improvements with bonds, and consequently incurs interest costs. According to state law, these interest costs can be recovered through impact fees. Interest costs arc estimated based on the most recent City of Denton utility bond issue. The total costs of planned capital improvements attributable to growth in each of the three drainage basins are presented in the following three tables. Table 2S WASTEWATER CAPITAL COSTS, PECAN CREEK, 2003-2013 Capacity (mgd) Attrlbu- Total Attributable Imnrovement Total Needed Year table 0/0 Cost Cost ~~c_a~ _c;rl?ek _WR~_ ~~pan~LQn__ .. .. " . 6.'1.0 .-- 3,95 , __n/a _65.!l.3.%_ _ $1 ~,~)_6/0) 5. $12,?81,.!i6;J ~oop~L~xK blft?tc:tJiCln_&.~~r.ceMail1. . -- .. . .. .. .2Q03 ..5.9..9_()D~ . _$1,65.9,00.0 --. .$973,500. ~~~v.ieY!'/Gris~o_~_LS/~o!c~ _~ail") - - -~ ~- -- .. . .-. 2005 5}._OO~o . .$1,633,~00 ... $,86!i,490. .C:9g~~!_c:r_e_~K Jnt~r~eptoI_ . ...- .. .. -- 2003 ~O ,_.9Qo/~. ,.$1,5.0Q,QOjJ., ..... _F5.0,DQO ~ecC!"n C::r~ek !f}te~ceptor .- 2003 ~O,OQ~~_ .$),0.00,000_ .. $1,50.0,000 .. --_.- --- . .. .. Lakeview Ranch/Grissom I-n~;r~;~~~~- -- 200.5 40.00% $1 763 282 <70S 313 Direct Attributable Cost -- . .. .. . .. ... ___ .0_- . $17,57~,866 Debt Service Interest Cost <10 369 761 Total Attributable Cost <27 945 627 Source: Project costs, capacity and in-service dates from Alan Plummer Associates, "Wastewater Improvement Costs Applicable to Impact Fees, rr December 4, 2002; total capacity needed and new service units over 2003-2013 period from Table 23; attributable percent of Cooper Creek and lakeview lift station/force mains assumed to be fully utilized by 2020, so percent based on years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by remaining years before 2020; attributable percent of other improvements with in-service date shown based on years remaining in 2003-2013 period divided by 20 years; interest cost based on interest rateS of Series 2002A Utility System Revenue Bonds. PENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 24 . . . Based on information in the City of Denton wastewater master plan, three lift station projects are anticipated for the ten-year planning period. The Cooper Cteek Lift Station expansion is currently under design and will increase capacity to 12 mgd. A Lakeview Ranch/Grissom Lift Station and Force Main is also anticipated during the planning period. While no capacities are known at this time, a startup date of 200S is assumed. Fot the projects above, the assumption was made that each lift station will be constructed to meet 2020 flows. In addition, it was assumed that population growth would occur at a linear rate over the same period. Treatment capacity to serve the Clear Creek basin will be constructed in two phases. The first phase is the construction of a 0.9S mgd wastewater treatment plant, anticipated to be completed by July 2004. Later in the ten-year planning horizon, an expansion of the plant will take place to provide the additional 0.68 mgd of required capacity. The projected systemwide relationship between wastewater demand and treatment capacity is illustrated in Figure 7. LIFT STATIONS AND FORCE MAINS Figure 7 WASTEWATER DEMAND AND CAPACITY 25 120 ~ Q tl 15 ... ! ~ 10 I.:) ~ 5 ~ -,,;-- ,...-- J I . Actual Demand -Projected Demand - -C. o 1997 2005 21109 2013 2001 To convey additional wastewater resulting from growth in the Hickory Creek basin to the Pecan Creek plant will create the need for a 2 mgd capacity expansion of the current Hickory Creek lift station. The expansion of the existing Hickory Creek lift station will occur during the planning period and is anticipated to be fully utilized by 2013. INTERCEPTORS Several new interceptors are discussed in the City of Denton Wastewater Master Plan, many of which were considered developer-related projects. Many of these projects were not included in the update due to uncertainties of the required timing. The inclusion of the listed projects was based on current needs and input from City personnel. The underlying assumption for interceptor projects was that all interceptors would have a 20-year life. In addition, each interceptor was assigned an in-service date. The in-service dates are anticipated. The applicable percentages were calculated based on the ratio of the number of years in-sef\~ce during the planning period to 20, which is the life of the line. The North Hickory Creek Interceptor will serve both the City of Krurn, which is a wholesale wastewater customer, and a newly developing area within the Hickory Creek basin. The City of Krum will pay for the equivalent cost of a IS-inch line, and the City of Denton is responsible for the cost share above the IS-inch size, which ranges from 21 to 27 inches. DENTON, TEXAS\200)-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 23 . . . Projected 2003~2013 retail wastewater demand and wastewater service units are summarized for the three drainage basins in Table 23 below. Table 23 WASTEWATER DEMAND AND SERVICE UNIT SUMMARY, 2003-2013 Retail Demand (mgd) Service Units (SFEs) Dralnaae Basin 2003 2013 New 2003 2013 New P~can. Creek '- ---- 9.02 - 12.97 3.95 . - ----- 25,92Q - _ 37,llO, , 11,~5.o . Hickorv Creek 4.39 7.15 2.76 12615 20 546 7931 Sub~~l, P_e~an/Hic!5o~y Cr~ek~. 13.41 20.12 6.71 38,53.5 57,8,16 _ .19,2,81, . - .. . --- - - Clear Creek 0.00 1.63 1.63 0 4684 4684 Total Wastewater CeN 13.41 21.75 8.34 38 535 62 500 23 965 Source: Tables 20, 21 and 22. TREATMENT PLANTS In 1994, the City completed a $9.5 million expansion of its wastewater treatment plant. The Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant is now designed to treat up to 15 mgd, and is in compliance with all State and Federal discharge permits. With a projected demand in 2003 of 14.91 mgd, as shown in Table 24, the City has no existing capacity deficiencies with regard to wastewater treatment. It also has virtually no excess capacity to accommodate new customers. Table 24 TREATMENT PLANT DEMAND AND CAPACITY 2003 P.r_ojes..ted ~_~~_i~ Q.e_m31")~,_ 2_0~J!!!g~)______J~ ,_41. Pro"ected Wholesale Demand 2003 m d 1.50 .Total Prgj~c!~~ peman~,_2993. (mgd) _ j.4:!~l Existin Plant Ca aci m d 15.00 Available Excess Ca aci m d 0.09 Source: Projected 2003 retail demand from Table 23; projected wholesale demand is 110% of wholesale demand in FY 2002 from City of Denton Municipal Utilities, nFY 2002 Wastewater Customers and Volume Summary." To accommodate future growth in the Pecan Creek and Hickory Creek basins, the City is currently building a 6.00 mgd expansion to the Pecan Creek plant, and will also construct a new 0.95 mgd plant in the Hickory Creek basin. The Pecan Creek plant expansion is being constructed in modules, and some additional capacity will be available when the first new treatment train is completed in late January or early February 2003. The construction of the Hickory Creek plant is five years or so away. Currently, the flows from the Hickory Creek basin are conveyed to the Pecan Creek system by an existing lift station. In order to maximize the use of the Pecan Creek plant expansion already underway, it is anticipated that a sif,'tlificant portion of the new capacity required by growth in the Hickory Creek basin over the ten.year period will be met by that plant. Consequently, new development in the Hickory Creek basin will have its wastewater treated by both the Pecan Creek plant expansion and the new Hickory Creek plant. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 22 . . . The net cost per service unit is calculated by subtracting the revenue credit calculated above from the cost per service unit. As discussed in the water section, however, state law prescribes an alternative method of calculating the net cost per service unit, which is to divide the cost per service unit by two. These two methods of determining the net cost per ser\~ce unit arc presented in Table 30. As with the water fcc, the two methods )~cld very similar results for the wastewater fee for the Pecan Creek basin, with the alternative method resulting in a maximum fee that is only 5 percent lower than the calculated net cost. However, the alternative method would result in considerably lower fees for the other two drainage basins. Dralna e Basin Table 30 WASTEWATER NET COST PER SERVICE UNIT Alternative Max. Fee Alt. 0/0 of Net Pecan_Creek $1,231. 95% Hicko Creek 1 732 76% Subt~tal,_~~c:a_n/J:Hc-'<.ory_C~~eks_ __ u_~$1,4~Z~ _. 8.4.0,10 Clear Creek $1 893 72% Total Wastewater ceN 1 526 81 % Source: Cost per SFE from Table 28; credit per SFE from Table 29; alternative maximum fee is cost per SFE divided by 2. NET COST SCHEDULE Because the City has several options to choose from in terms of service areas, as many as five fee schedules could be generated for various geographic areas. The option of using the alternative method of calculating revenue credits authorized by state law increases the number of possible fee schedules to ten. For simplicity, the fee schedule presented will be based on the maximum fee for the entire wastewater service area. In Table 31, the service units per meter arc multiplied by the net cost per senrice unit derived from the calculated revenue credit methodology to determine the net cost per meter. Table 31 WASTEWATER NET COST SCHEDULE SFEs! Net Cost Net Cost! Meter Size Meter er SFE Meter H.3/4.".- .1.0 $1,881$1,881. u ~.._u U~UH..2'?U.. $l,881_u__$4,703 H/2" 5.0 .$1,881u U uuu.$9,405. 2" 8.0. $!,881 uu. u U . $1.5,04~ 3~u. 22.5....$1,881. $,,2,323 4" 50.0 .$1,881 $94,050 5". 100.0 ... .$1,881 .$188,lQQ 8" 200.0 $1,881 . $3Z5,2QOu 10" 325.0 1 881 511 325 Source: SFEs per meter from Table 2; net cost per SFE from Table 13. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 27 . . . The maximum wastewater impact fees calculated above are compared to the City's existing impact fees in Table 32. If adopted at the maximum level, the fees would increase by 289 percent for meters of two inches in diameter or less. The increase would be greater for larger meters, reflecting the revised SFEs pcr metcr bascd on the capacity data provided by the manufacturer of the meters used by the City. Table 32 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER FEES Meter Size Potential Fees Percent Chan e Current Fees . _ 3/.4:. .Al,881 _ __.. .$!l83_ _.. .289'10 1" $4,70.3_. ._. _.$1,20.8 _ ..._ .~89'," _ 1:1/2". u._$9,~05..._$2,~15....._ 289% __..2:.. $15,Q4!l_.. ._._ .$3,!l6<!. ..._ 289~/, 3~'_ _ _ __ __$42,323_ _ u __..$7,7.28 ___.~. _~48~1o 4" $94,0.50. $1?,075 679% 6:". $188,1.0.0._.. _ ..$.24,150.... 679%. 8~.._...J376,2()O. $38,6,,0. .._.!l74%_ 10." 611 325 55 545 10.0.1 % Source: Potential fees from Table 31; current fees from Denton City Code. Based on the growth projections in the Land Use Assumptions, potential revenues over the next ten years would be 323 percent higher under the potential fees calculated in this report than under the current fees, as shown in Table 28. These revenue projections should be viewed cautiously, since the annual projections of $1. I million underthe current fee schedule are considerably higher than the $0.8 million collected by the City in 2001. Table 33 COMPARATIVE WASTEWATER REVENUES, 2003-2013 2003 New 03-13 Potential Current Percent Meter Size Connections Connections Revenues Revenues Chan e . . .3/4.: ___.. _.21,1]1 .~ _~ 13,I~.L... .$2.4,765,24.6.. .$.6,359,17.8... .289.% ... X..... __. ..___811 5D~..._. . ,$2,370.,312.___ _$~8,8]~~890/~. __1:1/2: _ _ _..._ 528 328.. .$3,D8~,8!lD.. ... ....$792,120. _289%. _ 2" . T7.o._ . ._4~9 _~ $7,2()7,992 .$1,85D,!l~6. . J89"(,_ ..3" ~_..... 80.._ _. 0050.... ..$2,1)6,15.D.~. _$3.8.6.1,0.0..___4.4.8.'(0 ._ 4.". . .... _ 6! . 38. $3,57.3,~DD J458,85Q . 6~9% 6" 7.__ __... 4 . .___$752ADO . $96,60.0.__. 679.% . fi~_ __ ___ + __"_ .3_ . _ _ _ __.2 ___$?_5~,~9o _ __$Z?,2~(L. 87~o~~+ 10." 1 1 $611 325 55545 10.0.1% Total 23 432 14 572 45 234 565 10. 685 661 323% Source: 2003 connections estimated based on 2002 connections from Table 17 and percent growth in SFEs 2002-2003 from Table 4; new 2003-13 connections estimated based on percent growth in SFEs from Table 4; potential and current revenues based on new connections and potential and current fees from Table 32. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 28 . . . APPENDIX: TEXAS IMPACT FEE ENABLING ACT [Underline and strike-out indicates changes from SB 247, effective September 1, 2001] CHAPTER 395. FINANCING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MUNICIPALITIES, COUNTIES, AND CERTAIN OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 395.001. Definitions. In this chapter: (I) "Capital improvement" means any of the following facilities that have a life expectancy of three or more years and are owned and operated by or on behalf of a political subdivision: (A) water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities; whether or not they are located within the service area; and (B) roadway facilities. (2) "Capital improvements plan" means a plan required by this chapter that identifies capital improvements or facility expansions for which impact fees may be assessed. (3) "Facility expansion" means the expansion of the capacity of an existing facility that serves the same function as an othetwise necessary new capital improvement, in order that the existing facility may serve new development. The term does not include the repair, maintenance, modernization, or expansion of an existing facility to better serve existing development. (4) "Impact fee" means a charge or assessment imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the new development. The term includes amortized charges, lump-sum charges, capital recovery fees, contributions in aid of construction, and any other fee that functions as described by this defmition. The term does not include: (A) dedication of land for public parks or payment in lieu of the dedication to serve park needs; (B) dedication of rights-of-way or casements or construction or dedication of on-site or off-site water distribution, wastewater collection or drainage facilities. or streets, sidewalks, or curbs if the dedication or construction is required by a valid ordinance and is necessitated by and attributable to the new development; [or] DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 29 . . . (C) lot or acrea!,,,, fees to be placed in trust funds for the purpose of reimbursing developers for oversizing or constructing water or sewer mains or lines.i......Q! illl.. other pro rata fees for reimbursement of water or sewer mains or lines extended bv the political subdivision. (5) "Land use assumptions" includes a description of the service area and projections of changes in land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year period. (6) "New development" means the subdivision of land; the construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure; or any use or extension of the use of land; any of which increases the number of service units. (T) "Political subdivision" means a municipality, a district or authority created under Article Ill, Section 52, or Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution, or, for the purposes set forth by Section 395.079, certain counties described by that section. (8) "Roadway facilities" means arterial or collector streets or roads that have been desi!,'11ated on an officially adopted roadway plan of the political subdivision, together with all necessary appurtenances. The term includes the political subdivision's share of costs for [Jvc, Hvl ;HcluJc 4H )] roadways and [or] associated improvements designated on the federal or Texas highway system includinv local matching funds and costs related to utilit;y line relocation and the establishment of curbs. b>utters. sidewalks. drainage appurtenances. and ri"hts-of-wav. (9) "Service area" means the area within the corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdiction, as determined under Chapter 42, of the polirical subdivision to be served by the capital improvements or facilities expansions specified in the capital improvements plan, except roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. The service area, for the purposes of this chapter, may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, except for roadway facilities and storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities. For roadway facilities, the service area is limited to an area within the corporate boundaries of the political subdivision and shall not exceed six [4 dl,t""cc c'ju.J Lv Ll~\"- .n.....1-45..... L.L~l-' 1.....u5L1. [LVB! LI...... u\..w J\..~..Jvpul\...ul, Lul ~u (IV ...........ul UJVI'- tll<1.U It.u..\..] milesL; wl-,-~...l.L v.....L\~...1.. an.a. vllaH b", .::l\....LH...J b) tin.. .LVa.dW4) [a.....i:l:i.G'-v J'-;')~bual,--J ~u tIn... \"a.I-'~Ldi ~1.up.LVn...UH...lIL;) piAU]. For storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, the service area may include all or part of the land within the political subdivision or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, but shall not exceed the area actually served by the stonn water, drainage, and flood control facilities designated in the capital improvements plan and shall not extend across watershed boundaries. (10) "Service unit" means a standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, or discharge attributable to an indi\~dual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdi\~sion in which the individual unit of development is located during- the orevious 10 years lEv.! a. padj....ul.u \..tl.t....!:,V.L) v[ '-a.l-'~l.d ~U.Ll-'J..vv'--lw...ul;J V.L L......i1il) ....^l-'auv~uuv]. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DUFf, Page 30 . . . SUBCHAPTER B. AUTHORIZATION OF IMPACT FEE Sec. 395.011. Authorization of Fee. (a) Unless otherwise specifically authorized by state law or this chapter, a governmental entity or political subdivision may not enact or impose an impact fee. (b) Political subdivisions may enact or impose impact fees on land within their corporate boundaries or extraterritorial jurisdictions only by complying with this chapter, except that impact fees may not be enacted or imposed in the extraterritorial jurisdiction for roadway facilities. (c) A municipality may contract to provide capital improvements, except roadway facilities, to an area outside its corporate boundaries and extraterritorial jurisdiction and may charge an impact fee under the contract, but if an impact fee is charged in that area, the municipality must comply with this chapter. Added by Acts 1989,71 st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.012. Items Payable by Fee. (a) An impact fee may be imposed only to pay the costs of constructing capital improvements or facility expansions, including and limited to the: (1) construction contract price; (2) surveying and engineering fees; (3) land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorney's fees, and expert witness fees; and (4) fees actually paid or contracted to be paid to an independent qualified engineer or financial consultant preparing or updating the capital improvements plan who is not an employee of the political subdivision. (b) Projected interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of impact fees only if the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdi\~sion to finance the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan and are not used to reimburse bond funds expended for facilities that are not identified in the capital improvements plan. (c) Notwithstandingany otherpro~sion of this chapter, the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay a staff engineer who prepares or updates a capital improvements plan under this chapter. (d) A municipality may pledge an impact fee as security for the payment of debt service on a bond, note, or other obligation issued to finance a capital improvement or public facility expansion if: (1) the improvement or expansion is identified in a capital improvements plan; and DENTON. TEXAS\2003~2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 31 . . . (2) at the time of the pledge, the governing body of the municipality certifies in a written order, ordinance, or resolution that none of the impact fee will be used or expended for an improvement or expansion not identified in the plan. (e) A certification under Subsection (d)(2) is sufficient evidence that an impact fee pledged will not be used or expended for an improvement or expansion that is not identified in the capital improvements plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., eh. 1, Sec. 82(a), df. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 90, Sec. 1, eff. May 16, 1995. Sec. 395.013. Items Not Payable by Fee. Impact fees may not be adopted or used to pay for: (1) construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities or assets other than capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan; (2) repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements or facility expanslons; (3) upgrading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve eXlStlng development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards; (4) uPb>Tading, updating, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to provide better service to existing development; (5) administrative and operating costs of the political subdivision, except the Edwards Underground Water District or a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may use impact fees to pay its administrative and operating costs; (6) principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness, except as allowed by Section 395.012. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., eh. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.014. Capital Improvements Plan. (a) The political subdi\~sion shall use qualified professionals to prepare the capital improvements plan and to calculate the impact fee. The capital improvemcnts plan must contain specific enumeration of the following items: (1) a description of the existing capital improvements within the sernce area and the costs to upgrade, update, improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs and usage and stricter safety, efficiency, environmental, or regulatory standards, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (2) an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage, and commitments for usage of capacity of the existing capital improvements, which shall be prepared by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 32 . . . (3) a description of all or the parts of the capital improvements or facility expansions and their costs necessitated by and attributable to new development in the service area based on the approved land use assumptions, which shall be prepated by a qualified professional engineer licensed to perform the professional engineering services in this state; (4) a definitive table establishing the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit for each category of capital improvements or facility expansions and an equivalency or conversion table establishing the ratio of a service unit to various types of land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial; (5) the total number of projected sen~ce units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the sen~ce area based on the approved land use assumptions and calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning criteria; and (6) the projected demand for capital improvements or facility expansions required by new service units projected over a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years: and m a plan for awarding: .0} a credit for the Dortion of ad valorem tax and utility service revenues generated by new service units during the program period that is used for the payment of improvements. including the payment of debt. that are included in the capital imorovements plan: or L!.ll in the alternative. a credit equal to 50 percent of the total proiected cost of implementine: the capital improvements plan. (b) Thc analysis required by Subsection (a)(3) may be prepared on a systemwide basis within the service area for each major category of capital improvement or facility expansion for the designated service area. (c) The governing body of the political subdivision is responsible for supervIsing the implementation of the capital improvements plan in a timely manner. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.015. Maximum Fee Per Semce Unit. (a) The impact fee pcr service unit may not exceed the amount determined by subtracting the amount in Section 395.014(a)(7) from [Ji,;Jiugl the costs of the capital improvements dcscribed by Section 395.014(a)(3) and dividing that amount by the total numbcr of projected service units described by Section 395.014(a)(5). (b) If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of new service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the sen~ce area, the maximum impact fee pef service unit shall be calculated by di,~ding the costs of the patt of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to projected new service units described by Section 395.014(a)(6) by the projected new service DENTON. nXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 33 . units described in that section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.016. Time for Assessment and Collection of Fee. (a) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted and land platted before June 20,1987. For land that has been platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before June 20, 1987, or land on which new development occurs or is proposed without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development approval and building process. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (b) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted before June 20,1987, and land platted after that date. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after June 20,1987, the political subdi,~sion may assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation. Except as provided by Section 395.019, the political subdivision may collecrrhe fees at either the time of recordation of the subdivision plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the cettificate of occupancy. (c) This subsection applies only to impact fees adopted after June 20, 1987. For new development which is platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision before the adoption of an impact fee, an impact fee may not be collected on any service unit for which a valid building permit is issued within one year after the date of adoption of the impact fee. . (d) This subsection applies only to land platted in accordance with Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdivision or platting procedures of a political subdivision after adoption of an impact fee adopted after June 20, 1987. The political subdi,~sion shall assess the impact fees before or at the time of recordation of a subdivision plat or other plat under Subchapter A, Chapter 212, or the subdi,~sion or platting ordinance or procedures of any political subdivision in the official records of the county clerk of the county in which the tract is located. Except as provided by Section 395.019, if the political subdivision has water and wastewater capacity available: .ill the political subdivision shalllnmy] collect the fees taL \"'~llH....L tll\... b.IW... v[ .L\.-\..V.LJ4b.vu v[ lL..... ~u-'uJi~;;);VU pIaL V.L ....vuu........b.vu tv lll.....Pvn.b......J "u-LJ;~;,,;VU';:l wa.k.L VJ. <:l....w\..J. "y"L\..IU oil at the time the political subdivision issues !! [citl,c, d,c] building permit; ill for land platted outside the corporate boundaries of a municipality. the municipality shall collect the fees at the time an application for an individual meter connection to the municioalitv's water or wastewater system is filed: or . ill a political subdi,~sion that lacks authority to issue building permits in the area where the impact fee applies shall colleer the fees at the time an application is filed for an individual meter connection to the political subdivision's water or wastewater system [lIn., l,.\"'.Lb.h\.al\'" v[ ul,.\"'upa.LI\"')]. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DIlAFI', Page 34 . . . (e) For land on which new development occurs or is proposed to occur without platting, the political subdivision may assess the impact fees at any time during the development and building process and may collect the fees at either the time of recordation of the subdi,~sion plat or connection to the political subdivision's water or sewer system or at the time the political subdivision issues either the building permit or the certificate of occupancy. (f) An "assessment" means a determination of the amount of the impact fee in effect on the date or occurrence provided in this section and is the maximum amount that can be charged per service unit of such development. No specific act by the political subdivision is required. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.017. Additional Fee Prohibited; Exception. After assessment of the impact fees attributable to the new development or execution of an agreement for payment of impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed against the tract for any reason unless the number of service units to be developed on the tract increases. In the event of the increase in the number of sef\~ce units, the impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.018. Agreement With Owner Regarding Payment. A political subdivision is authorized to enter into an agreement with the owner of a tract of land for which the plat has been recorded providing for the time and method of payment of the impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.019. Collection of Fees if Services Not Available. Except for roadway facilities, impact fees may be assessed but may not be collected in areas where services are not currently available unless: (I) the collection is made to pay for a capital improvement or facility expansion that has been identified in the capital improvements plan and the political subdivision commits to commence construction within two years, under duly awarded and executed contracts or commitments of staff time covering substantially all of the work required to provide service, and to have the service available within a reasonable period of time considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event longer than five years; (2) the political subdivision agrees that the owner of a new development may construct or finance the capital improvements or facility expansions and agrees that the costs incurred or funds advanced will be credited against the impact fees otherwise due from the new development or agrees to reimburse the owner for such costs from impact fees paid from other new developments that will use such capital improvements or facility expansions, which fees shall be collected and reimbursed to the owner at the time the other new development records its plat; or (3) an owner voluntarily requests the political subdivision to reserve capacity to serve future development, and the political subdivision and owner enter into a valid written agreement. Added by Acts 1989, 7IstLeg., ch. I, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DBAFf, Page 3S Sec. 395.020. Entitlement to Services. . Any new development for which an impact fee has been paid is entitled to the permanent use and benefit of the services for which the fee was exacted and is entitled to receive immediate service from any existing facilities with actual capacity to serve the new service units, subject to compliance with other valid regulations. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.021. Authority of Political Subdivisions to Spend Funds to Reduce Fees. Political subdivisions may spend funds from any lawful source to pay for all or a part of the capital improvements ar facility expansions to reduce the amount of impact fees. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.022. Authority of Political Subdivision to Pay Fees. Political subdivisions and other governmental entities may pay impact fees imposed under this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.023. Credits Against Roadway Facilities Fees. Any construction of, contributions to, or dedications of off-site roadway facilities agreed to or required by a political subdivision as a condition of development approval shall be credited a/;ainst roadway facilities impact fees otherwise due from the development. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. . Sec. 395.024. Accounting For Fees and Interest. (a) The order, ordinance, or resolution levying an impact fee must provide that all funds collected through the adoption of an impact fee shall be deposited in interest-bcaring accounts clearly identif}~ng the category of capital improvements or faciliry expansions within the service area far which the fee was adopted. (b) I nterest earned on impact fees is considered funds of the account on which it is earned and is subject to all restrictions placed on use of impact fees under this chapter. (c) Impact fee funds may be spent only for the purposes for which the impact fee was imposed as shown by the capital improvements plan and as authorized by this chapter. (d) The records of the accounts into which impact fees are deposited shall be open for public inspection and cop)~ng duting ordinary business hours. Added by Acts 1989,71 st l,eg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.025. Refunds. . (a) On the request of an owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the fee when service was not available, failed to commence construction within two years or service is not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facility expansion to be constructed, but in no event later than five years from the date of payment under Section 395.019(1). PENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 36 . . . (b) Ou ....vuJpkbul, v[ tIn..- '-4p~l.J ~UJp.LV\"-lll"-'lb VI [4....;1;l) ....Ap4.U;:l;UU:l ;dLLd:;r;....J ;u tin.. \..41-';l& ;JUpHJ,....u"..ub pLuJ, llH... r'ub.b.....al ;:luLd;~;,,;vu ;:lllaH .L.........J....ulal\.. tIn.. ;IHp"....l K.'"- U;:l;Uc lL.... a....tua:\ ....U;:lL;:l V[ Lt..... ....4p;L.d ;IUP.LV\ ....UH..llL" VL [a.....i:lll) ....^Po.u,,;vu. If LlI'- ;uJpa....l [\,..\.. .....d....u:laL....J La;:>....J UlJ 4....Lu.d ....u;o,l;;:l k;:l;:l lLa.11 tIn_ ;uJpa\..l K..\.. p~J, Lln.. pvl)GLal ;:luDJ)v;;:l;vU "l..d:l u...[uuJ tit\.- JiJh....L....UO'...... ;[ lL.... J;rf.....u..Ill....... ....................J;:l d1\... ;.upa.d f\...... p~d D) IUVL.... LiM.!! 18 p....n.......llL (c) The political subdivision shall refund any impacr fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chapter within 10 years after the date of payment. (d) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Article 1.03, Title 79, Revised Statutes (Article 5069-1.03, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes), or its successor statute. (e) All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or governmental entiry, payment shall be made to the political subdi,~sion or governmental entiry. (I) The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entiry that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. SUBCHAPTER C. PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEE Sec. 395.041. Compliance With Procedures Required. Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, a political subdivision must comply with this subchapter to levy an impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.0411. Capital Improvements Plan. The political subdivision shall provide for a capital improvements plan to be developed bv qualified professionals using generally accepted engineering- and plannin~ practices in accordance with Section 395 014. Sec. 395.042. Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan. To impose an impact fee, a political subdivision must adopt an order, ordinance, or resolution establishing a public heating date to consider the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan for l:wrtmn] the designated service area [LL..L vv;H L.... \.I"",.] tv J...~....lvp Lit... ....4p;t.J. ;lup"v~""lu...uL" pIau]. Sec. 395.043. Information About Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Available to Public. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. the political subdivision shall make available to the public its land use assumptions, the time period of the projections, and a description of [tll.... b....U...i.a Ualu.i.... vi] the capital improvement facilities that may be proposed. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 BRAFf, Page 37 . . . Sec. 395.044. Notice of Hearing on Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan. (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order, ordinance, or resolution serting the public heating. (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing lUlIl_\.- d w\...Lk fu.L tiLL\...\... ,-vll;),,-\..ub~ I.- w......J...;:l, Li...... L.L;:'ll Hub\-..... Lv <lJJF....AI] before the 30th day ILul VB VL afl.....L lit.... 68111 J4)] before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authotity that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. [Tlt'- HUG,,-,,- v[ puLI:i..... ll....<u~llo 11M) HuL L,- ~H tL.... t-'A.l uf Lit\,. pap.....L ~1I wll~....L J....o.d lIVL.\"\";:I 4uJ \,.L.;).;);L\..J 4J;:'l 4t-'p...."U dUJ lOa.) Hul ~\.. ;:IUJa:lk.L lluu, UH\..--'-!u4.Lk.L pdbL v[ <l CllallJa.J.J-;)~L."" V.l L'l~lv;J-;:l;L..\'" l1\..W;:lpdp'--.L, a.uJ lL,- lILa.Jtu\,. Ull lllL Hub........ UJu;:ll L.... ;11 1 B pv;ul V.L 1Mb.....! l) 1-'.....] (c) The notice must contain: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC l-lEARlNG ON LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN RELATING TO POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the land use assumptions and I.l1u\.l wai h..... u.".....J tv d"-v.....lv!-' a] capital improvements plan under which an impact fee may be imposed; and (4) I.d.H .....<:l.,~l) uuJ......L::,[A.uJdLk Ulrtp u[ U.L..... .,.....H~\....... 4.1.....4 Lv wll~.....L lIt\..- ~uJ u::n... <l;);)UUJpGUIICl "1.1--'1--'1), aud [f-i)-] a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the heating and present evidence for or against the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan. Sec. 395.045. Required. Approval of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan (a) After the public hearing on the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan, the political subdi,~sion shall determine whether to adopt or reject an ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital imorovements plan. (b) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing, shall approve or disapprove the land use assumptions and capital improvements olano PENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 38 . . . (c) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Sec. 395.0455. Systemwide Land Use Assumptions. (a) In lieu of adopting land use assumptions for each service area, a political subdivision may, except for storm water, drainage, flood control, and roadway facilities, adopt systemwide land use assumptions, which cover all of the area subject to the jurisdiction of the political subdivision for the purpose of imposing impact fees under this chapter. (b) Prior to adopting systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdivision shaIl follow the public notice, hearing, and other requirements for adopting land use assumptions. (c) After adoption of systemwide land use assumptions, a political subdi\~sion is not required to adopt additional land use assumptions for a service area for water supply, treatment, and distribution facilities or wastewater collection and treatment facilities as a prerequisite to the adoption of a capital improvements plan or impact fee, provided the capital improvements plan and impact fee are consistent with the systemwide land use assumptions. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 566, Sec. 1(b), eff. Aug. 28,1989. $",,,,," 395.646. C....p~l41 L.up.l.un.uu...ltb PIau R...'!u.=.........d ,LUl"'L Apphnal ueLaud U..n. .L\nou.LupL~u.ho. If LIt'" c,U\ '-lll;UO LuJj aJupb au V.LJ)U<1.11L\.., V.LJ\...L, VL .Ll..;:)vlubvu <l-pp.LV \ lUb UIL 14uJ U;J\.. 4;);:l\.uupGuU;:l, tll\.. pvn.G.....a:l ;:lu'udiv;;:l~utl ;,11a:H p.Lv\~d..... [LH a. ....a.!-';l.d ;U1PUJ\"-IJH..ul;:l pl.l.U tv b..... d.....,\...lvj-'....d by 'iu.J}.G\,..J tl.Lvf...;:l;:l;vu.a;:l u;:);t1t; b\,..u\....L<J~) <'l.l..\.....pl....d ....115;"'...'-..1 ;110 a.uJ pl<uu"';'ub p..l4....h........~ ;11 4........V..lJ411....'-- w~llL S........GVll J?,j.014. Sec. 395.047. Hearing on [Cap~l.J. IJ.upivn..un..ul~ PI....u ....i....1] Impact Fcc. On adoption of the land use assumptions and Icu"'pkGuu u[ tl,,] capital improvements plan, the governing body shaIl adopt an order or resolution setting a public hearing to discuss the l.dupGuu u[ ll" pl.u ~,d] imposition of the impact fee. The public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution [,4JVpGlIe, 4 \..ap~la:l ~lIJpJ.V~""LB'--Bb p1411 411J] imposing an impact fee. S"''''. 395.848. Iufviul-allvu A:bv.....l Pl....il- Av....ildbl... lv P .....bli"'. 011 VL L....fvL'-- lIt.... J4l,-- v[ tL\,. G-,-"Lpu~h....ab.vu v[ di\,. lIVG\,..... v[ Lit\,. It\,.4J.;Ue, VB Lit\,. ....4p;W ~BJp..lV~""lW...lIb piall 4ud ~lupa\"L f\,.\,., LIt\,. pl<Ui ~liJ:1 L,-- IB4J\,. 4V~4'uk Lv tL'--puLb\,.. Sec. 395.049. Notice of Hearing on [C....p~L.J. IUl-pJ.vv"'l-Ud&t~ PIau ....u<1] Impact Fee. (a) Before the 30th day before the date of the hearing on the imposition of an lrnpita:! ~Uil"JV\\"iUUlb p14u <un.I] impact fee, the political subdivision shall send a notice of the hearing by certified mail to any person who has given written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdi\~sion requesting notice of the hearing within two years preceding the date of adoption of the order or resolution setting the public hearing. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DDAFI', Page 39 . . . (b) The political subdivision shall publish notice of the hearing [,-,uee . week fu, lluee \,..vlI"...........t:H. wl.-....l", L1..... E..Dl HVt:........ Lv 41-'.........4.] before the 30th day lbut Vll VI 4&....1 tl...... 60t1. d:ty] before the date set for the hearing, in one or more newspapers of general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the service area lies. [The HUG........ vf t-'1.l0h.... 11........L~uo UM) But 0... ~1I u..... !-uuL v[ tIll.- 1-'41''''.'- 11l .....ll~..JI l.....o.J Hull......'" auJ ....14,:).J~ELJ aJ.J 41-'1:-''-41 4ud IIla) Hut Ll... :HuAJ. tLau VlI\,..-';U4-Lt\...L pac."- v[ a ;)It\UJA.LJ-;J~L.'-- VL L'lLlu;J ;';..A. W...W"!-'ap.....L, dud lll\...- IH..-aJhu\". VB tin... uub......... IUl.l"l L....;u 18-pv;lIL VI 1.:"L5"-. lH.H.....] (c) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the adoption of an impact fee; (4) lau \...<l.Ji:l) uuJ.....L,~lauJaLk U14}-' v[ ll.\,.. .,...u;l.-l... <tH..a uu wl..;l.J. Lll\... P1Vpv.J\..J f....... wal ".H_ h:vittl; If-il] the amount of the proposed impact fee per service unit; and ill lf67J a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the heating and present evidence for or against the plan and proposed fee. Sec. 395.050. Advisory Committee Comments on [Cap~1cd I~up..u",-u.u.,u1., Pia.. a1~J] Impact Fees. The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall ftle its written comments on the proposed l'-..ap;La1 ;UIPLV\'-..IU'-..ub phm 4.l1J] impact fees before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the imposition of the [pl~, ~,J] fees. Sec. 395.051. Approval of [CdjJ;l.d I,uf>w.~u>eub Pld" dud] Impact Fee Required. (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the imposition of an l....ap~La1 ;WpIV\....lu....ub plall 4.IIJ] impact fee, shall approve or disapprove the laJul...ljvll uf Lll.... ....ap;lAl jul.PIU\....UJ....lll~ piau allJ] imposition of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the l'-..4p;la1 ;UJ.P1U\....IJI....llb p14J1 auJj imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. $",,,,. J9S.8S1S. Cu1~.,uKddt~vu ufLa..d. Vo", ..t"""uulp1~v..., a1~d Cap~l.di 1.."1'10.1,,'-1.1.1,-..1., Piall. (4) 111 I~'-..u uf .:>....palaL....l) 4JV.p[)uO tll....lauJ U;:l.... <l,;:l;:llUUp[)Ull;:l 411d ....ap~la1 ;UlP1U\....UJ....ub 'plall fU1 a ;:ll.-J \ ;1.-'-.. a1....a, a pub[)'-..a1 ;:luDJ) \ ~;:l;UII Jlla) l.-uu;:luI~JaL.... lll.... laud u.:>.... a;:l;:luuJ.p[)UU;:l allJ cll.... l.-ap~L.d ;lul"'IU\....uJ....ub p1411, aud aJu'pl LullJ pIau.:> 4UJ clJ.... ;Jupa....l f'-...... ;:l;uJuilall....uu;:lI). DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAn. Page 40 . . . (') u If <'1. pvhb.l.-& ;:IUL..1\~;1~Vl1 ",kd;) Lv l...vu;:lvliJa!\.. UH...l<l.lIJ U;:lL 4;:l;:lUIUpbuu,) aud l...ap~LA:l ;luf'l-V\\..lul...ub 1-'14.11 <1..;1 <1.udJUI.;,.....d ~y Su'u,)....'-~vu (4), duO'. punb.....d. .,u'uJ)\~;);VU ;:lL.d:l h.L;:lL l.-vlupl) w;lll S"'....L.vu 39,j.043 a.ud [uH:vw Lln.. pu'uhl.- HUG,-,,- a.uJ 11l,..a...L;'ub .u...'-1~I\...UH...lIb fvl. aJupL,uc, a. l.-a.p;'L,.l ;IUP.LV\ .....un..ute. piau a.ud ;ul}-'a....l f....\.., \..A........pl. (1) tin... 11\...aJnu.... [VI Ll!,,- uub.l.-.... L) puL.h....abvlI "ll<1.11 n..a.J <1.;' [uHvw;:l. "r.OTlcr: or PUBLIC I 1r:,\RlNG or. J,DOFTION or L\ND USE I\SSUryrrTIOr~s J.L:~D Thlf\\.CT r:CLS", (2) d1\.o' Hub....\.. luu;:lL ;:,la.l\..- tllal tL\... pulib....a:l ;:lu.Ldi\;;);'vu ;ut\..ud;:l Lv aJv!-,lla.uJ U;:'l\.. L\;:l;:lU1UPb.VU.:l, <l .....ap;l.J ;IUP.LV\ \..uH...ub pl4u, 4uJ ;lupa,,-l &.......;:1 ",l LIt"- lu...<ll;uc, 4uJ JU\";:l Hut ;llL......uJ LV lIvid ;:l\..p.'U.4L\.. 11\..4.1-;11.0;:) Lv aJupL LlR. 14.L1J u;:)\.. 4;:l;:lUIUpL.VII;:l, t...a.p;'la1 ;Ulp.LV\....UH...J.H,:l pIau, auJ ~~upal.-L fl.-l.-:l, (J) Lltl.- lIub.l.-l.- U~U:lL :lpl.-l.-~[)' a daLl.-. wl"';'l.-I~ Jak ~.. uuL l.-a~l:i.l.-L Lll<U1 60 JaY:l a[kL pululil...01.~uU u[ Lll\... GL:lL uuGl...l.-. auJ UlU:lL :ltak Ll1aL ~[ 4 Pl.-L;;>UU, Ly uut 101.tl.-L Llm..u Ll~l... Jak :lpl...l.-~.5.l.-d. ~u.a:k,-.. a WL~Lku L\"''iu\,.."L fVL :l'-palatl... 11l.-<l.L~ut.... LII..... t.u\I l.-U"';'IIt. ~vJy IIJU..t l~uld "\,..paLatl... lll.-<U~uo" Lu aJupL LlIl.- laud u,,\'" a":lUJ.u}-J~uu" aud l.-ap~W ;JIIPLU\ .....u~'-uL.. pla~~, (-4) Ll!\,.. UU~l.-'- UIU.:oL PIU\~Jl.- L1.\'" uauI'- auJ uI<l&ut. aJJ..l\,...." u[ Ll,l.- u[Gl.-~di V[ tl~,- pu1~l.-.J "uLJ~\~:l~UU LU W1.VUI a L\"''iu\,..:lL f...u "'-p<uatl.. 1.1..<l..l~Uo:l ..l~.d:l L.... """IIL, <UIJ (SJ lII.... .....\,....lb.Ll.-J uI~luvLll.-\"', ~[ appb.l.-aLk, "L.d:l l.-VIIW';'U tI~.... ~u[vulJab.vu ~u SuL:l.....l.-GvlI" (LJ(2)-(~. (c) III aJ..nb.vu, LII.... pvhGl.-a.1 "ubJi.v~;:>~vu ..II.d:l.....v~upI)' W~tIl.at v[ lL..... VtIll.-..l ..l....'i~..l'-IU.....llb fv..l aJvpGut. laud U:l'- a""UJlIpb.vlI:l. a '-dp~wl ;IUP..lvv\,..uI\,..ub pldu, dUJ ~~upal.-L [,-\,.., Cd) 1[. w~Ll,;u tL\,.. JdL\,.. "p\"',-~E,-J ~u SuL"l.-l.-b.vlJ CL?;(.3), d P\,..L..VU ~l.-'iu\"':lL.., ~u W..l~b.uo' :l.....paLaL.... II....a.L~uo" VlI tlll.-l<u~d u..\,.. a....lUup~VU" alJJ '-al-'~wI ~IUPLV\l.-u~....ul.. pldlJ, cl~l.- pvhb....aI "u.b&\~C1;VU JUdY uvL UWlLo'- LII~" "\.-l.-b.vu, III "ul.-l, \.-\l"'IIL, tIl\.- pvb.b....J. "uLJi.\~,,~vU IJM)' pLVl...l......J w;LL Lll\,.. puLhl... IIl.-dl~Llb [VL wIJ~l.-L IIVGl.-l.- 1M" IJl...l..u pu~l;"l,\"'J, LuL C1ul.-II IIl.-dl;Ub wal dJ~"';:l,., IauJ u..\,.. a:lClUulpb.vU", aud a :l...l.-vuJ II....aL;uo a.. 1'-'i~L....J Ly S,-,-b.'.HI;:) .39:;.046-~9S,0S1 wM ~l.- 11l.-...l...;:);:)dLY Lv ddJI...;:);:) LII.... "'dp~LJ. ~IIJpIV\l.-uJ....uL., pIa11 dllJ ;1.upd...L fl.-l.-, Sec. 395.052. Periodic Update of Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan Required. (a) A political subdi,~sion imposing an impact fee shall update the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every five Ithree] years. The initial five-vear [tlUCV) ca,] period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted. (b) The politieal subdi,~sion shall r"'~ew and evaluate its current land use assumptions and shall cause an update of the capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance wirh Subchapter B. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. I, Sec. 82 (a) , eff. Aug. 28, 1989. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 41 . . . Sec. 395.053. Hearing on Updated Land Use Assumptions and Capital Improvements Plan. The governing body of the political subdivision shall, within 60 days after the date it receives the update of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, adopt an order setting a public hearing to discuss and review the update and shall determine whether to amend the plan. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.054. Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee. A public hearing must be held by the governing body of the political subdivision to discuss the proposed ordinance, order, or resolution amending land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, or the impact fee. On or before the date of the first publication of the notice of the heating on the amendments, the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan, including the amount of any proposed amended impact fee per service unit, shall be made available to the public. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.055. Notice of Hearing on Amendments to Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan, or Impact Fee. (a) The notice and hearin.,. orocedures prescribed bv Sections 395.044(a) and (b) aoply to a hcarin~ on the amendment of land use assumptions. a caoital improvements plan. or an impact fee. LD....[v.L\,.. Lb.... 30tll da.y L....[un... lb"" Jak u[ tIn... ll....t\.l-~ub VB AI1H...UJul....UL, Lv lll"- lauJ u;:n.. a.:l:lUUll-'~VU;,), ....a.pll.J ~lul-nvH...ul\,..ub pIau, VL ~ulpa.d f........, Lit\.. pvhb......J "uLJ~v;;);VU .:llla.:ll ;,....ud a. uv~""l... vf lit.... L....<U~ub~) .........d:;.G....J lua;! tv AU) p.....L;)VU wluJ 1.14;' b;~""u WI;t1:\..U uvb......... Ly ........Lt.:f.....J V.L L'-!);;)t....l\..J luaillv tin... IJlUU;\...;Pa.1 ".........1.\...1.41) VI '-'.11H....L dL;);c,U4kJ v(1)\..-;.J v[ l.!.\,.. pvliG\..,J ::'Iu'uJ~\ ~;:>~UH H''''iU\...;:>~Hb HuG\..\.. V[ tin..: 11\..4.1~lb W~UI~H lwu )\..4.1;:> 1-'.1\..\..\..Jiub UI\.. Ja.k U[ a.JVI-'GUH U[ LIIl... UIJ\..L U.1 H...;:>UL....GVH ;:>d~1I0 lll.... l-'uLl~.... 11....<1.1-;,.1.10.] (b) lTII.... I-'vl:i~.....d ;:>u~Ji\;,;)~UII ;:>ll.dl puLl:i;:>lll1ub......... vf t.It.... 11....<I.1-~1I0 VII\..\.. a. w\..\..h. [VI lL.L\..\.. \..VIl;)\......Ub.V\.. w\..\..h.;:>. tin... .G.1;:>luv~........ tv a.}-,I-'\..<U ~....fv.L"" tIl\.. :'OlL da.) bul vU V.L a.fL.....L tlJ\.. 60111 Ja.) L....fv.L.... UI.... Ja.L.... ;:>....t fUI 11J....ll........L~1I0,;,1I vu.... V.L I11V.L.... u....w;:>p...I-'.....L;) vf O....II.....L.J ....;,.L\..ul...GVIl ~u ...........11 ....vulll) ~II wlJ~\..L lL....l-'vl:i~.....J ;:>uLJ~\~;:>;,vllb.....;:>. I Iuw\..\.....L.... .L~\\..1 "'UdlV.L~ly dl...l ;';:> <l.ullluI-;,L.....J d;:>....wL....l.... L) ;:>L<l.L....l<l.w tv \..lId.1!;\.. f....\..;:> tLa.l [uud';'uII <I.;:> ;'1111-'...\..l f\..\..;:> 111"') puLn;:>ll UI.... I-....\.f~I-....d II....W;:>I-'a.I-'....I- uvb......... ulily ~II ....4....11 ....vullty ~J.l wL.~",ll lll.... ;:>.....LV;,"'.... a.J.....4b.....;:>. Tit.... IIVG........ v[ I-'u~b..... 11....a.J.;,uo 1U4) IIVt L.... ~II tIl.... }-'....Ll v[ LII.... .I-'....I-'.....L ~1 wll~....11l....0J. IIVG........;:> <UIJ .J4;:>;:>;'C\..J 4J;:> 41-'1-'........L <l.IIJ U14) IIVt L.... ;:>111A.L tL"'1I VII....-\.fU4.Lt.....L p40.... V[ 4 ;:>t"'lId<uJ-;:>~L."" V.L ldLlv~d-;:>;'L.'" u....w;:>p...p.....L, ...lIJ Lil.... 11"'4db.u.... VU tll'" BVG........ l11U;)t ~.... ;'u 1 B-pv~lIl VI- 1<1.1-o.....L I) p"'. [{c7] The notice of a hearin... under this section must contain the following: (I) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT OF IMPACT FEES" (2) the time, date, and location of the hearing; (3) a statement that the purpose of the hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and a capital improvements plan and the imposition of an impact fee; and DENTON. nXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFI', Page 42 . . . (4) [All "'ACln.) uud"".l.-.:lla.uJa.'uk J"-.:l.....l~p~Vl1 A.UJ 11.141"' v[ lIt.... .;1,-"1- v ~.....I... AJ...."'" vu W L..;.....ll tL\,.. updat.... ~.J L....~ub l-'.L....pa..n..d, Aud It57J a statement that any member of the public has the right to appear at the hearing and present evidence for or against the update. Sec. 395.056. Advisory Committee Comments on Amendments. The advisory committee created under Section 395.058 shall file its written comments on the proposed amendments to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the date of the public hearing on the amendments. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.057. Approval of Amendments Required. (a) The political subdivision, within 30 days after the date of the public hearing on the amendments, shall approve or disapprove the amendments of the land use assumptions and the capital improvements plan and modification of an impact fee. (b) An ordinance, order, or resolution approving the amendments to the land use assumptions, the capital improvements plan, and imposition of an impact fee may not be adopted as an emergency measure. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.0575. Determination That No Update of Land Use Assumptions, Capital Improvements Plan or Impact Fees is Needed. (a) If, at the time an update under Section 395.052 is required, the governing body determines that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is needed, it may, as an alternative to the updating requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057, do the following: (1) The governing body of the political subdivision shall, upon determining that an update is unnecessary and 60 days before publishing the final notice under this section, send notice of its determination not to update the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee by certified mail to any person who has, within two years preceding the date that the final notice of this matter is to be published, give written notice by certified or registered mail to the municipal secretary or other designated official of the political subdivision requesting notice of hearings related to impact fees. The notice must contain the information in Subsections (b)(2)-(5). (2) The political subdivision shall publish notice of irs determination once a week for three consecutive weeks in one or morc newspapers with general circulation in each county in which the political subdivision lies. However, a river authority that is authorized elsewhere by state law to charge fees that function as impact fees may publish the required newspaper notice only in each county in which the sel'\~ce area lies. The notice of public hearing may not be in the part of the paper in which legal notices and classified ads appear and may not be smaller than one-quarter page of a srandard-size or tabloid-size newspaper, and the headline on the notice must be in 18-point or larger type. DENTON, TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 43 . . . (b) The notice must contain the following: (1) a headline to read as follows: "NOTICE OF DETERMlNATION NOT TO UPDATE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, OR IMPACT FEES"; (2) a statement that the governing body of the political subdivision has determined that no change to the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee is necessary; (3) an easily understandable description and a map of the service area in which the updating has been detennined to be unnecessary; (4) a statement that if, within a specified date, which date shall be at least 60 days after publication of the first notice, a person makes a written request to the designated official of the political subdivision requesting that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body must comply with the request by following the requirements of Sections 395.052-395.057; and (5) a statement identifying the name and mailing address of the official of the political subdivision to whom a request for an update should be sent. (c) The advisory committee shall file its written comments on the need for updating the land use assumptions, capital improvements plans, and impact fee before the fifth business day before the earliest notice of the government's decision that no update is necessary is mailed or published. (d) If, by the date specified in Subsection (b)(4), a person requests in writing that the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, or impact fee be updated, the governing body shall cause an update of the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan to be prepared in accordance with Sections 395.052-395.057. (e) An ordinance, order, or resolution determining the need for updating land use assumptions, a capital improvements plan, or an impact fee may not be adopted as an emeq,'Cncy measure. Added by Acts 1989, 7lst Leg., ch. 566, Sec. 1 (d), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.058. Advisory Committee. (a) On or before the date on which the order, ordinance, or resolution is adopted under Section 395.042, the political subdivision shall appoint a capital improvements advisory committee. (b) The advisory committee is composed of not less than five members who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the governing body of the political subdi\~sion. Not less than 40 percent of the membership of the advisory committee must be representatives of the real estate, development, or building industries who are not employees or officials of a political subdi\~sion or governmental entity. If the political subdivision has a planning and zoning commission, the commission may act as the advisory committee if the commission includes at least onc representative of the real estate, development, or building industry who is not DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DnAFT, Page 44 . . . an employee or official of a political subdi\~sion or governmental entity. If no such representative is a member of the planning and zoning commission, the commission may still act as the advisory committee if at least one such representative is appointed by the political subdivision as an ad hoc voting member of the planning and zoning commission when it acts as the advisory committee. If the impact fee is to be applied in the extratertitorial jurisdiction of the political subdivision, the membership must include a representative from that area. (c) The advisory committee serves in an advisory capacity and is established to: (1) advise and assist the political subdi~sion in adopting land use assumptions; (2) review the capital improvcments plan and file written comments; (3) monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan; (4) file semiannual reports with respect to the progress of the capital improvements plan and report to the political subdi~sion any perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee; and (5) ad\~se the political subdivision of the need to update or re\~se the land use assumptions, capital improvements plan, and impact fee. (d) The political subdi\~sion shall make available to the ad\~sory committee any professional reports with respect to developing and implementing the capital improvements plan. (e) The governing body of the political subdivision shall adopt procedural rules for the ad\~sory committee to follow in calT)~ng out its duties. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. SUBCHAPTER D. OTHER PROVISIONS Sec. 395.071. Duties to be Performed Within Time Limits. If the governing body of the political subdivision docs not perform a duty imposed under this chapter within the prescribed period, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of land on which an impact fee has been paid has the right to present a written request to the governing body of the political subdivision stating the nature of the unperformed duty and requesting that it be performed within 60 days after the date of the request. If the governing body of the political subdi~sion finds that the duty is required under this chapter and is late in being performed, it shall cause the duty to commence within 60 days after the date of the request and continue until completion. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.072. Records of Hearings. A record must be made of any public hearing provided for by this chapter. The record shall be maintained and be made available for public inspection by the political subdivision for at least 10 years after the date of the hearing. Added by Acts 1989, 7lst Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 45 Sec. 395.073. Cumulative Effect of State and Local Rcstrictions. . Any state or local restrictions that apply to the imposition of an impact fee in a political subdivision where an impact fee is proposed are cumulativc with the restrictions in this chapter. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.074. Prior Impact Fees Replaced by Fees Under This Chapter. An impact fee that is in place on June 20, 1987, must be replaced by an impact fee made under this chapter on or before June 20, 1990. However, any political subdivision having an impact fee that has not been replaced under this chapter on or before June 20, 1988, is liable to any party who, after June 20, 1988, pays an impact fee that exceeds the maximum permitted under Subchapter B by more than 10 percent for an amount equal to two times the difference between the maximum impact fee allowed and the actual impact fee imposed, plus reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.075. No Effect on Taxes or Other Charges. This chapter docs not prohibit, affect, or rcgulate any tax, fee, charb"', or assessment specifically authorized by state law. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.076. Moratorium on Development Prohibitcd. . A moratorium may not be placed on new development for the purpose of awaiting the completion of all or any patt of the process necessary to develop, adopt, or update the impact fee. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.077. Appeals. (a) A person who has exhausted all administrative remedies within the political subdi,~sion and who is aggrieved by a final decision is entided to trial de novo under this chapter. (b) A suit to contest an impact fee must be filed within 90 days after the date of adoption of the ordinance, order, or resolution establishing the impact fee. (c) Except for roadway facilities, a person who has paid an impact fee or an owner of property on which an impact fee has been paid is entided to specific performance of the services by the political subdi,~sion for which the fee was paid. (d) This section does not requirc construction of a spccific facility to provide the services. (e) Any suit must be filed in the county in which the major part of the land area of the political subdivision is located. A successful litigant shall be entided to recover reasonable attorney's fees and court costs. Added by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Sec. 395.078. Substantial Compliance With Notice Requirements. . An impact fee may not be held invalid because the public notice requirements were not complied with if compliance was substantial and in good faith. Addcd by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. DENTON. TEXAS\2003~2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFT, Page 46 . . . Sec. 395.079. Impact Fcc for Storm Water, Drainage, and Flood Control in Populous County. (a) Any county that has a population of 2.2 million or more or that borders a county with a population of 2.2 million or more, and any district or authority created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution within any such county that is authorized to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control facilities, is authorized to impose impact fees to provide storm water, drainage, and flood control improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (b) The imposition of impact fees authorized by Subsection (a) is exempt from the requirements of Sections 395.025, 395.052-395.057, and 395.074 unless the political subdivision proposes to increase the impact fee. (c) Any political subdivision described by Subsection (a) is authorized to pledge or otherwise contractually obligate all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued or incurred by or on behalf of the political subdivision and to the payment of any other contractual obligations. (d) An impact fee adopted by a political subdi\~sion under Subsection (a) may not be reduced if: (1) the political subdi\~sion has pledged or otherwise contractually obligated all or part of the impact fees to the payment of principal and interest on bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by or on behalf of the political subdivision; and (2) the political subdivision agrees in the pledge or contract not to reduce the impact fees during the term of the bonds, notes, or other contractual obligations. Added by Acts 1989, 71stLeg., ch. 1, Sec. 82(a), cff. Aug. 28,1989. Sec. 395.080. Chapter Not Applicable to Certain Water-Related Special Districts. (a) This chapter does not apply to impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions: (1) paid by or charged to a district created under Article XVI, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution to another district created under that constitutional provision if both districts are required by law to obtain approval of their bonds by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; or (2) charged by an entity if the impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions are approved by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (b) Any district created under Article XVI, Section 59, or Article III, Section 52, of the Texas Constitution may petition the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission for approval of any proposed impact fees, charges, fees, assessments, or contributions. The commission shall adopt rules for reviewing the petition and may charge the petitioner fees adequate to cover the cost of processing and considering the petition. The rules shall require notice substantially the same as that required by this chapter for the adoption of impact fees and shall afford opportunity for all affected parties to participate. Added by DENTON. TE)(AS\2003~2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17,2003 DRAFT, Page 47 . . . Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1, See. 82(a), eff. Aug. 28, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, Sec. 11.257, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Sec. 395.082. Certification of Compliance Required. W A political subdivision that imposes an impact fee shall submit a written certification verifvinQ: compliance with this chaPter to the attornev g-eneral each vear not later than the last dav of the political subdivision's fiscal year. ill The certification must be signed by the presiding- officer of the governing body of a political subdivision and include a statement that reads substantiallv similar to the followinii: "This sratement certifies compliance with Chapter 395. Local Government Code." ill A political subdivision that fails to submit a certification as required bv this section is liable to the state for a civil penaltv in an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount of the imoact fees erroneously charged. The attorney !,:eneral shall collect the civil penalty and deposit the amount collected to the credit of the housing trust fund. DENTON. TEXAS\2003-2013 Capital Improvements Plan February 17, 2003 DRAFf, Page 48