The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 4, 2005 Agenda AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL January 4, 2005 After determining that a quorum is presem, the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding an application for street right-of-way abandonment for a section of First Street, submitted by Abraham and Tori Nayfa, adjacem property owners. The City Council reserves the right to convene into a closed executive session under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 to seek the advice of its attorney about contemplated litigation and on matters in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the Open Meetings Act. Receive a report and hold a discussion on residemial solid waste garbage and yard waste bags. o Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning the establishmem of speed limits on Texas Department of Transportation roadways. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning tax exempt properties within the City of Denton, including but not limited to legislative issues for the 79th Texas Legislature. o Requests for clarification of consent agenda items listed on the consent agenda for today's City Council regular meeting of January 4, 2005. Following the completion of the Work Session, the City Council will convene in a Closed Meeting to consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the agenda, the City Council will not conduct a Closed Meeting and will convene at the time listed below for its regular or special called meeting. The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended, as set forth below. 1. Closed Meeting: mo Consultation with Attorney -- Under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071. Discuss and consider legal issues concerning the cable franchise agreement with the University of North Texas to construct, reconstruct, operate and maimain a Cable Television System in the City of DeNon, where to discuss these legal issues concerning the above stated matters with the attorneys in public would conflict with the duty of the City's attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas and would jeopardize the City's position in administrative proceedings or in potential litigation. City of DeNon City Council Agenda January 4, 2005 Page 2 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 DeNon City Council on Tuesday, January 4, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE mo U.S. Flag Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - i pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." 2. PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS mo Proclamations/Awards Recognition of staff accomplishments 3. 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-H). This listing is provided on the Consem Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consem Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items A-H below will be approved with one motion. If items are pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the first items following approval of the Consent Agenda. mo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of aquatic chemicals for the City of Denton Parks Departmem; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3265 - Annual Contract for Aquatic Chemicals awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item in the estimated amoum of $70,000). City of DeNon City Council Agenda January 4, 2005 Page 3 Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the Tarrant County and awarding a contract for the purchase of emergency vehicle lighting equipmem; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3284 - Imerlocal Agreement for Emergency Vehicle Light Bars with Tarrant County, contract awarded to Emergency Vehicle Equipmem Co. in the amoum of $29,483.16). Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works comract for the plugging and abandoning of water wells for the City of DeNon; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3222 - Plugging and Abandoning of Water Wells #2, 7, 11 and 12 awarded to L.H. Environmemal Consulting in the amount of $92,000). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for purchase of furniture for the Civic Center and Emily Fowler Library Renovation Project; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 3223 - Civic Cemer and Emily Fowler Library Furniture awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each section by manufacturer in the amoum of $226,205.90). Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an Imerlocal Ambulance Agreemem between the City of DeNon and the City of Ponder for ambulance service; and declaring an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Fire Protection Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for fire protection services; and declaring an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an Interlocal Ambulance Agreement between the City of DeNon and DeNon County for ambulance services; and declaring an effective date. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon abandoning and vacating a 0.322 acre street right-of-way easement tract and a 0.126 acre utility easement tract, both dedicated to the City of Denton, Texas by the Dreamland Addition plat, recorded in Volume 6, Page 12 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; and providing an effective date. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance concerning the Alternative Development Plan for approximately 0.506 acres of land located in a Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district. The proposed site is generally located on the east side of Woodrow Lane, approximately 700 feet south of McKinney Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0). (,4DP04-0005, Office Building for l/Filliam Mitchell) City of DeNon City Council Agenda January 4, 2005 Page 4 Bo Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance regarding the rezoning of approximately 35 acres from a Planned Developmem 120 (PD-120) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The property is generally located on the south side of Loop 288, on the east side of Nicosia Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5- 0). (Z04-0026, Northpointe Addition) Co Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance concerning the rezoning of approximately 14.60 acres of land from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The property is generally located on the northwest corner of Windsor and Westgate. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0). (Z04-0044, Westglen Phase 1 and 2) Do Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance graining approval of a sub-surface use of a portion of the Pebble Brook Open Space Park for the purpose of a public utility easemem in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for a public utility easemem; and providing an effective date. The Parks Board recommends approval. mo Cominue a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, denying in part CoServ Gas, Ltd.'s request to change rates in Denton, Texas, establishing maximum permitted rates and charges that CoServ Gas, Ltd. may assess residemial, commercial and industrial customers in the City of Denton; requiring the filing of revised tariffs; adopting declarations and findings related to rates and charges assessed to residemial, commercial and industrial customers in the City of Denton; providing for prompt recovery of rate case expenses incurred by the City; finding that the meeting at which this Ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law; providing for notice of this Ordinance to CoServ Gas, Ltd; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. 5. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION mo Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of DeNon, Texas, on second reading, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a one-year extension to the Interim Grant of Authority with Grande Communications, formerly Denton Telecom Partners I, L.P. d/b/a Advantex Communications; and providing an effective date. Bo Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Carrollton and awarding a contract for the purchase of police motorcycles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3277 - Imerlocal Agreemem for Police Motorcycles with the City of Carrollton, contract awarded to Renegade Harley Davidson in the amoum of $35,190). City of DeNon City Council Agenda January 4, 2005 Page 5 Consider adoption of an ordinance awarding a comract under the Texas Multiple Award Schedule (TXMAS) program for the purchase of a Mobile Tactical Command Center as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procurement Commission (Comract TXMAS-4-23V020); providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3280 - Mobile Tactical Command Cemer awarded to Martin Apparatus in the amoum of $155,224). Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of DeNon an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation relating to certain improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport; authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to expend funds as provided for in said agreement and to execute documents on behalf of the City of Denton in order to implemem the project; and providing an effective date. The Airport Advisory Board recommends approval (7-0). Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas, amending Ordinance No. 2004-001 prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Police Officer; prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Fire Fighter; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause; and declaring an effective date. F. Consider nominations/appoimments to the City's Boards and Commissions. Citizen Reports 1. Review of procedures for addressing the City Council. 2. Receive citizen reports from the following: A. Derv Hudgens regarding inability to get a building permit in the city of DeNon. B. Dessie Goodson regarding responsibility. 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. City of Denton City Council Agenda January 4, 2005 Page 6 CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2004 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800- RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding an application for street right-of- way abandonmem for a section of First Street, submitted by Abraham and Tori Nayfa, adjacem property owners. The City Council reserves the right to convene imo a closed executive session under TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE Section 551.071 to seek the advice of its attorney about contemplated litigation and on matters in which the duty of the attorney to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the Open Meetings Act. BACKGROUND The City Council has requested a review of the right-of-way abandonmem application submitted by Abraham and Tori Nayfa concerning a portion of the First Street right-of-way. In October 2003, the Nayfas purchased land located at 933 North Locust Street. The details of their land purchase and subsequem boundary survey issues have been relayed to the City Council via communication from the City Attorney's Office dated December 3, 2004. The issue is that the Nayfas believed they purchased 18.48 additional feet of width than they actually had purchased. The 18.48 feet has been City of DeNon street right-of-way since 1893. The Nayfas have now requested the City abandon a 10.48 feet of right-of-way strip along First Street. The Nayfas are resolved to construct the original building design they contemplated when they thought they had purchased a Locust Street lot with 82' of frontage, rather than the 63.52 feet found by re-survey. Their request to purchase a right-of- way strip from the City is an effort for them to be "made whole" by the City in lieu of the seller on their October 2003 real estate transaction. City staff met several times with various agents for the Nayfa's over the last year discussing a wide range of legal issues and development issues. The purpose of these meetings was to attempt to resolve applicant's lot size issue which applicant attributed to the existence of city owned right-of-way. The applicam filed a request to vacate right-of-way to solve his perceived lot size issue. The following questions are considered when staff receives request for right-of-way abandonmem: · Is the property tract requested for abandonmem considered "excess right-of-way"? · Does the property tract requested for abandonmem have a cominued public use? · Is it in the best interest of the general public to abandon the government's rights in the subject abandonment tract? · Would the granting of this request establish a precedent for right-of-way abandonment for future requests? Staff findings on this analysis are as follows: 1. The right-of-way requested is not excess right-of-way. Excess right-of-way is defined as: Property acquired or used by the City for right-of-way and subsequemly declared excess (not needed for the Project, road or streetscape). The city standard for a local street such as First Street is as follows: a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet, 25 foot offset from the centerline of the street. Presently, the right-of-way measures 22.5 feet from street centerline to the Nayfa's north property line. 2. The right-of-way requested for abandonmem has a cominued public use as street right-of-way. A public sidewalk exists in the area requested for abandonmem, as does DeNon Municipal Electric facilities. To date there have been no specific determinations made, but typically franchise utilities such as gas, cable, and telephone are also located in the parkway area of a given street section. The applicant has requested abandonment of the street right-of-way up to the back of the existing concrete curb. The Street Department requires at least 2 feet from the back of curb line to perform a complete street rebuild/restabilization of the pavement cross- section. 3. Abandonmem is not in the public imerest because the area for subject abandonmem has a current public use and there in no compelling argument that and abandonment/sale of the property would have an over-arching, discernable, public benefit. There has been no evidence presemed that the applicam's property is physically incapable of being developed in the presem size and shape of the lot. 4. This abandonment would set a precedent because the above three standards are not met. The applicant desires that his lot have a larger footprint. Staff's opinion is that there are no unique and peculiar circumstances to his development scenario that are not applicable to any developmem scenario throughout the City. On December 14, 2004, another meeting was held with the Nayfas in which the applicams shared their proposed site plan, dated February 11, 2004, with the City. The Nayfas have not provided any submittals to the Planning Department for formal development review comments concerning their building plans. On December 28, the Nayfas informed staff that upon further review, their building foot print will work within their existing property boundary and that they are withdrawing their request to the City for ROW abandonmem. OPTIONS 1. Accept the abandonment application and direct staff to move forward in processing the item for future City Council consideration. 2. Reject the application. 3. Accept applicants' withdrawal of request for abandonment 4. Table for future consideration. RECOMMENDATION Staff does not support the application as proposed. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE To be determined by applicam PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW City Attorney's Office - Memorandum dated 12-03-2004. FISCAL INFORMATION Initial application fee of $150.00 ATTACHMENTS Location map Site map Abandonment Application Prepared by: Paul Williamson Real Estate & Capital Support Manager Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, Director Planning Department °~ I $/"/E SITY '"~ '~ "~ ~ ~ SUNSET CHAPEL__ rWAY I~ ~ERY iORDEL iSCEN- TWU -EXAS WITHERS i < POOL 1~2ALH OOIN .IIICHEM~BE¢ F~- }1 ,'/,// SENIOR '"lUklX~l!JIX'l h g-.iI,~------~ J' ...."---'~ La CITY .,"',, i u') ~ ~ .~o HALL tECCll:~ Jl ,,, III/ ~'11 '©FE-efEIF - ~ ~- i z -> ~ E: z J CAMPUS J J GROVE J O ~ OAK © POLICE LOCATION MAP - FIRST STREET ABANDONMENT APPLICATION ~I.B.~, FIRST STREET 24.' Asphalt t LEOEND BL ~ BU~I.~NO ~ ~~T ~ ~ p~ T~ ~T~ ~ ~ WAY ~ NO~: i~uitdTn9 S 89'53'59"W 15g.70' Lot 1 Fe.~us~on Acl~tion Volume 64, Page 27¢, P.R./D.C.T. Benolken Everett, P.C. 100 North LaCust Street, Suite 2 Denton, Texas 76201-4163 Telephone: (940) 483-9400 Facsimile: (940) 566-6t 17 Metro: (940) 243-2266 October 14, 2004 City of Denton Engineering Department 601 E. Hickory St., Suite B Demon, TX 76205 Dear Sir/Madam: Enclosed please find a Request For Abandonment Of Public Easement Or Rights-Of- Way, together with the required attachments thereto and a check in the amount orS 150.00, that we are submitting on behalf of our clients, Abraham and Tod Nayfa. Please advise us at your earliest opportunity when you anticipate that this matter will be presented to the City Council. The Nayfas are eager to have this matter resolved as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, cc: Abraham and Tori Nayfa City of Denton Engineering Department Real Estate & Capital Support Division REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS OR RIGHTS-OF-WAY Name: Abraham and Tod Nayfa Address: 3824 Montecito Dr. Denton, TX 76205 Telephone:(940'} 565-0 ! 00, (940'} 367-8142 Signature: Submission Date: General Location or Description of Prbp~rty to be abandoned: A 10.48' X 16 l'strip immediately south of the curb on the south side of First Street where First intersects with Locust The following information must accompany the application: (**** Please note that all items may not apply to each situation. If you have questions, please call 940-349-8910 and ask for someone in the Real Estate & Capital Support Division. ** * *) __ 1.) Copies of recorded deeds showing current ownership of subject property and all property contiguous to the area proposed to be abandoned. See Note 1 attached. 2.) Written concurrence of all persons who own property contiguous to the area proposed to be abandoned. See Note 1 attached. 3.) Legal description of property to be abandoned prepared, signed & sealed by a Registered Professional Land Surveyor. (8 ½" x 11") 4.) Illustration plat prepared, signed & sealed by a Registered Professional Land Surveyor showing the property lines and shading the area to be abandoned. (8 'A"x 11") ~_____5.) Application fee of One Hundred Fifty Dollars and No Cents. ($150.°°) *Non-refundables (deposit acct. ~ 1000.5904) If application is returned by mail return to: City of Denton Engineering Department. 601 E. Hickory St., Ste. B Denton, TX 76205 Note 1. It appears from Applicant's surveys that there is no property immediately contiguous to the Nayfa's lot and the strip proposed to be abandoned. There is an alley separating the Nayfa's lot and a lot owned by Slater Development, Inc. (known as 115 First Street). The surveys do not show that the Nayfa and Slater Development tracts share a common boundary line, and, thus are not contiguous. WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR'S LIEN Tile STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § Ttmt Kenneth S. Brown, orr the State ol~Texas, Grrmtor, for and in eonslderation of the sum oftEN AND Nell O0 (SI 0.00) DOLLARS and other,.,atuable consideration to the undersigned in hand paid by Abraham F. Nay~'a and wife. Tori G. Nayra, the Grantees herein named, the receipt which i.q hereby acknowledged, and the further consideration o£the execulion and delivery by the Grantees herein of one certain promisso~' Note of e~'en date herewith in tile original pfinuipal sum of $80,000.00 {"Note"); bearing interest from date as provided for therein, both principal and interest payable to the order of'NORTHSTAR BANK OF TEXAS tm provided for in the Note; said Note represents that amount this day advanced and paid by NORTHSTAR BANK OF TEXAS for the purchase price of said Property at the special instance and request of He Gmnlees and for theidhislhcrfits use and befiefit; the vendor's lien herein retained is hereby given and granted to NORTHSTAR BANg- OF TEXAS, the payee ofsaid Nolo, and such payee or other holder thereof is subrogated to all the rights, titles and remedies which the Grantor would have if said Note were payable directly to him, and said Note is additionally secured by a deed of trust of even date herewith. *to TONY R. CLARK, Trustee, has GR./iN*ED, SOLD, AND CONVEYED, and by these presents does GRANT, SELL AND CONVEY unto Abraham F. Nayfa and wife, Tod G. Nay,a, of Denton County, State of Texas, Onmtee$, who~e mailing ~ddress is 2140 Woodbmok, Denton, Texas 76205, all of the following described real properS' in Denton County, Tex0~ to-wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto a~d incorporated herein for ali purposes. Resem*ations from and exceptions to conveyance and warrant)': T'n,i~ dccd is executed and delivered subject Io all c~cmc~t~, ~c~c~vatlo~, conditions, covenants and rcstricfix'e covenants as the same appear ~frecord in the office oF th,' County Clerk of the county aforesaid and all municipal and governmental zoning taws. It is also subject to any outstanding oil, gas and other mineral interest owned by others of record in the Offi ce ortho Count)' Clerk of the county aforesaid. TO HAVE AND TO ItOLD thc above described premises, together with all and singtflar rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto the said Grantees, their heir~, administrators, cxecmors, successors and assigns; and ! do hereby hind myself, my heirs, executors. 'tX'ARRt~\q'¥ DEED. t".~l;g i administrators,, successor~ and assigns to WARRANT AND FOREVE P. DEFEND all and singular the said premises unto the said Grantees, their heirs, executors, ndnfinistralers, successors and assigns against eve~' person wl~oms~et~r lawEutly claiming °r to claim the s~e or any pa~ But i~ is expre~ly agreed ~ ihe VENDOR'S LIEN, ns w~lt ~ ~he SuperKor Tire the above described premises, is retained againsl the above described Property, pgmis~ ~d impmvemen~ ~t[I the above described Note ~d fl l interest thereon are fu[ty paid according to face, tenor, effecl ~d rearing thereo~, when lhis Deed shall b~ome absolute. EXEC~D this ..~3 day of Oetober, 2003. SELLER: Kennelh S. Bro~ THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § / This instrument v.~ aelmowledged before me on the ~t4~ day of October, 2003, by Kenneth S. Brown. NOTARY PUBLIC ~ STATE OFTEXAS~ Nolary Public, S~te of Texas EXI l IB1T All that certain l[act or parcel of land situaled irt B.B.B. & C.R.R. Compaay Survey, Abstract Number 1~15, City or Denton, Denton Count:,', Texas, and being a retraccmcnt ot'o Iract ot' land described in a deed from C.C.L Investments Ltd. to Scott K. Brown as recorded in Volume 4322, Page 269, Real Property Rcco[ds of Denton Courtly, Texa.q, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINqqlNG at a I~" iron md found at the Soutl~e~t comer of the said Brown tract and at the Northeast comer of Lolt of Fergusion Addition, a sut~division in the City of Denton. Denton County, Texas, and also in lhe West fight-of-way line of Locus! Street; THENCE South 89 Degrees 53 Minutes 59 Seconds West wi~h the South line of s~'~id Brown tract and with the North line of sold Lot 1, a distance of 159.70 feet to a If2" capped iron rod set for the Southwest comer of said Brown tract and at the Northwest comer of said Lot 1; THENCE North with the West line of said Brown tract, a distance of 82.00 feet to a pk nail set for the Northwest comer of said Brown tmet and in First Street; THENCENorth 89 Degrees 53 Minutes 59 Seconds ~t with the Noah line or'said Broxva tract and wDh the mid First Street, a dislance, of I59.70 feet to a pk nail set for the Northeast comer of said Brown tract and in the .said -East right-of-way line of Locust Street; THENCE South with the 'Fast line ofsaid Brown tract and wilh the mid Weal fight..of-way line, a distance or82.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNINO and eonlaining 0.30 acre orland. AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO; Abraham F. lqay£a and wife, Tori 13. Nayfa 2140 Woodbrook Denton, Texas 76205 ?.8.9 1 . ~ENTD~ CQL~T¥, TX ~ece~p~ ~: G5~7~ DOu/~§~t ~ 11.~0 Doc/Ham ; aO~3-Rei77388 Doc/Type : U~ Deputy -3anm 33946 09/22/04 EXHIBIT 'A' PAGE 1 OF 2 ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN THE BBB & CRR CO.SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 185, BEING PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FIRST STREET WEST OF LOCUST STREET IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND ~ INCH IRON PIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CALLED 0.235 ACRE TRACT DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO KENNETH S. BROWN RECORDED IN VOLUME 4995, PAGE 2119 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1 FERGUSON ADDITION AS SHOWN BY THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 64, PAGE 274 OF THE DEED RECORDS, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, SAID PIN BEING ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LOCUST STREET; THENCE NORTH WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID 0.235 ACRE TRACT AND THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LOCUST STREET A DISTANCE OF 63.52 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 0.235 ACRE TRACT; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 39 SECONDS WEST WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF FIRST STREET A DISTANCE OF 161.00 FEET TO A FOUND PK NAIL ON THE SOUTH RtGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF FIRST STREET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 10.48 FEET TO A SET PK NAIL; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 161.00 FEET TO A SET % INCH IRON PIN; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 10.48 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0+039 OF AN ACRE OF LAND. S _ i FIRST_. STREET ,. SET ASPHALT FOL ND.I~] PK ~,IL ABSTRACT EXHIBIT 'A' PAGE 2 OF 2 O.039 ACRES ABANDONMENT OF - R.I G HT:S:O:F-WAYcE.TE~ ~. ' "-- ' -- :S-TE 1/2" J""'"-"50' IRON PIN 'do ,. .,,,~T' FDICND 't/2 I'~/) ~ L1 ~//l~dN ~N ' '... ~' CALLED 0.235 ACRE T~CT SCO~ BROWN ,o ~o,,~/~l ~l~..~1-. BROWN VOLUME 4995, PAGE 2119 RPR 2001 (~3.58'x~1.2~') .. z. · RVEY ~ ' ' CO. sd NO 1 ~uso..~,~,o~ ,~o~ ~.~ POINT OF COMMENCING LINE TABLE L1 N89'49'39"W 161.00' L2 NORTH 10.48' L3 S89"49'39"E 161.00' L4 SOUTH 10.48' Metr.oplex Surveying, inc. 940-387-0506 223 W, HICKORY, DENTON, TEXAS 76201 info@metroplexsurveying,com )w,,~. jRH ,[CK:D. BGS Isc~'LE 1"=30' I~,.~~' 09/2.,2/04 IJ,,°s NO'33,946 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET January 4, 2005 Solid Waste Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232 SUBJECT Receive a report and hold a discussion on residential solid waste garbage and yard waste bags. BACKGROUND The Solid Waste Department staff recommended providing different bags for garbage and yard waste. Garbage and yard waste bag bids were received during July 2004, and were awarded by the City Council at their August 3, 2004 meeting. To achieve the best prices on the two different bags, the bid was split between two companies as listed below. Interboro Packaging Corporation Montgomery, New York Colored Garbage Bag bid at $3.84 per roll Resourceful Bag & Tag, Inc. Palos Heights, Illinois Clear Yard Waste Bag bid at $3.18 per roll The 2005 fiscal year budget includes $96,750 for the purchase of garbage and yard waste bags. The University of North Texas Survey Research Center is conducting a bag preference survey and the results of the survey will be presented to the PUB and City Council. OPTIONS The City Council may recommend the city continue using the current garbage bag and yard waste bag specifications, or modify the specifications. RECOMMENDATION The city staff recommends reviewing the University of North Texas Survey Research Center survey results to determine Denton's manual service customers bag preferences. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) Garbage bags and yard waste bags were approved by the Public Utilities Board and City Council for inclusion in the 2005 fiscal year budget. FISCAL INFORMATION The 2005 fiscal year budget includes $96,750 for the purchase of garbage and yard waste bags. EXHIBITS 1. Plastic Bag Review and Selection Process Prepared by A. Scott Lebsack Asst. Director, Solid Waste Services Respectfully submitted, A. Vance Kemler Director, Solid Waste Services Plastic Bag Review and Selection Process Background: The City used to collect garbage from 30 gallon metal garbage cans set at the curb by residents on collection day. Using metal garbage cans had their own set of advantages and disadvantages - durability, heavy weight, rotten bottoms, cans left at the curb, etc. The collection service was converted to plastic bag collection and the customers were provided two rolls of plastic bags per year. The Solid Waste Department provided a large black bag, outdoor bag style bag that could be used for both garbage or yard waste. These bags were available to new customers when they initially subscribed to our service and were available for general distribution to residential customers twice a year at the Civic Center. The location of the bag distribution site was changed to provide two new locations that would reduce the average driving distance for customers. The site operating hours were shifted later into the day to better accommodate customers work schedules. The department supports efforts to conserve natural resources, promote recycling, and divert waste from landfill disposal. Diverting yard waste from the landfill to be used in producing compost offered an economical recycling solution for a material that had been handled as a waste, but had the potential of providing a beneficial use in the form of compost. A large amount of the bagged yard waste collected for composting was contaminated, leading to a compost product that was unacceptable for retail sale. In order to reduce the amount of rejected compost we needed to increase the quality of the yard waste. The department realized that a clear bag was needed for yard waste so contamination could be detected by the collection crews. The opaque bag for yard waste needed to be replaced with a clear bag. The large bag was not an optimal size for household garbage because its large size afforded the opportunity for overloading. The Solid Waste Code establishes a 50-pound limit for bagged waste. This weight limit was established to reduce lifting injuries and strains. The opaque bag also allowed concealment of prohibited waste. The department reviewed its options for changing the bag to solve the large black bag's shortcomings. Factors Considered in Bag Review Process: Individual customers solid waste management and recycling practices vary widely. The potential amount of garbage and yard waste generated by a household will vary widely from customer to customer. Should the city continue to provide bags to residential customers? The Solid Waste Department provides two rolls of bags at no additional charge to the manual service customers, and a roll of yard waste bags to the cart customers. Should the city increase or decrease the amount of bags provided? The customer is responsible for bagging their garbage, but is not required to use the City provided bag. Not all customers avail themselves of the City provided bags. Yard waste such as leaves or grass need to be containerized for collection. The customer does not have to use the city provided bag for yard waste. We encourage customers to use up their black bags before using the clear yard waste bags. If we continue to offer bags to residential customers, additional consideration should be given in selecting a bag that will serve as adequate containment for household garbage and a bag that will serve as adequate containment for yard waste. Consideration should be given to the following factors, as a minimum: 1. Collection employee safety - Workers compensation claim history 2. Bag designed to meet the specific use 3. Provide easy identification for different types of waste 4. Meet code or regulatory requirements Problems with Multi-purpose bags: Opaque - cannot determine contents without opening the bag. Disposal violations. Not kitchen size. Will not fit in a household kitchen container. Summary_ of the Review and Selection Process: We surveyed cities in Texas to find those that provided bags to their customers at no additional cost. We found only two cities: Pasadena and Clebume. We surveyed cities that had a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) refuse service providing bagged collection service. Cities in Texas using the PAYT program use carts not bags. Other cities out of the state using PAYT bag programs were contacted were asked what size bags they used. The existing black bag did not efficiently serve the functions of both a garbage bag and a yard waste bag. We listed the desirable features and functions expected for each of the two bag types. Garbage Bags for Household use: Bag to be kitchen container bag size. Bag to be strong enough to hold the contents placed within the bag. Consider closure alternatives that would be easier to use. (Draw-string) Yard Waste Bags (Outdoor): Bags for grass, leaves and other small light weight yard waste materials routinely placed in a plastic bag for curbside collection: Yard waste bags are not used by all residents. Some residents do not produce yard waste. Bag vendors were surveyed for input on bag sizes and specifications. Cities that provided bags (PAYT communities) were also surveyed for bag sizes and specifications. Retail market review for common sizes and specs: Kitchen garbage bags: 10 - 24 gallon EXHIBIT 1 Yard waste bags: 20 - 42 gallon Considered value of various closure methods to secure bags: None Twist ties Dog ears Draw-string Usable Capacity: Vendors and manufactures recognize that the customer cannot fill their plastic bags to 100% of the designed theoretical capacity. Vendors have established generally accepted usable capacity ratings for their various sizes of bags based on the type of closure and bottom sealing method. The usable capacity of a given size bag varies substantially depending on the type of closures used to secure and seal the bag. Yellow Garbage Bag Table: (Interboro Packaging Corp.) Bag Width: 24 inches Bag Length: 33 inches Volume: 20.3 gallons Capacity Item Closure Seal (Gallons) Ratio Dimensions (cubic ft.) 2 Twist Tie Flat 15.4 76% 2.06 3 Twist Tie Side Gusset 13.5 66% 1.80 4 Twist Tie Star Gusset 12.5 61% 1.67 Clear Yard Waste Bag Table: (Resourceful Bag and Tag, Inc.) Bag Width: 30" Bag Length: 36 inches Volume: 24.9 gallons Capacity Item Closure Seal (Gallons) Ratio Dimensions (cubic ft.) 1 Drawstring Flat 31.5 100% 4.21 ~[st Ti Fiat 2 32 3 Twist Tie Side Gusset 22.5 72% 3.01 4 Twist Tie Star Gusset 19.8 63% 2.64 Black Multi-purpose Bag Table: Bag Width: 15" x 15" (Side Gusset) Bag Length: 37 inches Volume: 23.5 gallons Capacity Item Closure Seal (Gallons) Ratio Dimensions (cubic ft.) 1 Drawstring Flat 33.1 100% 4.43 2 Twist Tie Flat 26.1 79% 3.49 4 Twist Tie Star Gusset 20.8 63% 2.78 Size Criteria: Provide a kitchen bag size (10 - 24 gallons). Provide an outdoor yard waste bag size (20 - 30 gallons), equal in volume to the multi- purpose bag. Weight/Load capacity: Contain a maximum weight of 50 pounds in any bag (per ordinance). Opacity: Eliminate the black color. Provide a semi-transparent refuse bag, to make the contents of the garbage bag semi-visible from close range, yet still conceal the contents of the bag when on the curb (esthetics). Provide a clear yard waste bag to ensure non-contamination of yard waste materials. Color: Utilize a light color for the garbage bag. Exclude green and blue, because they are more universally associated with yard waste and recycling. Use a clear bag for yard waste. Clear resins produce the strongest bags. Dyes weaken the resins and cause easier bag stretch and tears. To have a stronger bag, utilize clear resins free of all other chemicals and dyes. Bottom Seal - Flat, Gusset, and Star: Flat bottom bags provide the strongest seal (Clear). The bottom will blow out easier on a gusseted bag (Multi-purpose) than on a flat bottom bag (Clear). Star bottom seals are the weakest. Resins & Recyclable Content: Yellow garbage bags - 100% virgin resins Clear yard waste bags - 90% virgin resins, 10% reused resins There is almost a non-measurable difference between 90% and 100% virgin resin bags. Higher virgin resins increase the strength of the bag. The clear bag will begin to stretch when containing weights of over 50 pounds. The yellow garbage bag will begin to stretch when containing weights of over 40 pounds. DeMon's garbage bag is produced from Octame resin, which is considered the highest quality, strongest, and most expensive virgin resin for bags. Ninety percem of the garbage bags produced are inferior to Octame, the material Denton uses for its bag. The most common standard bag resin is a resin called Buteme, and Octame is a much superior product. The yellow garbage bags should comain any household trash placed in them without tearing. Bag Thickness: The refuse bag manufacturer (Imerboro) states that DeNon has an excessively thick garbage bag, and has suggested that DeNon consider decreasing their mil thickness (cost savings) to within a range of .40 to .60 mils, down from the currem 1.0 mils. Approximately 95 to 98% of the manufacturers bag customers utilize a mil thickness less than Denton's garbage bag. Pricing: Bag manufacturers have received five resin increases since August 2004, and one more is expected on January 1, 2005. Bag prices will increase a minimum of $1.00 per roll, and probably more, on all future bid proposals. AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET January 4, 2005 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistam City Manager SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning the establishmem of speed limits on Texas Department of Transportation roadways. BACKGROUND The Texas Departmem of Transportation (TxDOT) periodically performs speed limit studies on all of its highways, including those in the City of DeNon. Because it has been several years since the last speed survey within the City, in the mid 1990's TxDOT resurveyed all of the TxDOT roadways in the City and provided City staff with updated speed zone recommendations for consideration and approval. There were a number of disagreemems between City staff and TxDOT staff about the proposed speed limits on various portions of these roadways. In 2001, because of the prolonged negotiations with city staff without resolution, TxDOT was considering passing a minute order by the Texas Transportation Commission as a means to establish the speed limits without City involvement. Because of the possibility of a Minute Order being passed by the Texas Transportation Commission and approving what City staff felt were unacceptable speed limits, there was a renewed effort by the City to reestablish a relationship with TxDOT. In addition some TxDOT staff changes occurred about the same time. Over the last three years TxDOT, at the request of City staff, resurveyed a number of locations that resulted in TxDOT recommending a lower speed than what was originally considered for various portions of differem highways. As TXDOT and City came to agreemem on differem roads, these speed limits were provided for consideration to the Traffic Safety Commission for their advisory recommendations to Council. The proposed ordinance will adopt speed limits on the state highways in the City of DeNon. The State's Transportation Commission can establish a minute order (a state law) that would invalidate any City ordinance of a speed limit posting that is contrary to those proposed by TxDOT. The State can remove the City's posting and install signs reflecting the minute order. Speed zones are typically established by an engineering investigation. The primary criterion used in establishing a speed limit is the eighty-fifth percemile (85%) speed. This is established by performing a speed study and calculating the speed at which 85% of the vehicles are traveling. The 85% speed has been determined as being the speed at which a prudent driver, given the type of street, will drive that roadway under normal driving conditions. The courts have determined that the 85% is the primary criteria by which a reasonable speed limit should be established. The speed limit is usually rounded to the 5MPH increment that is just higher or lower than the 85% (unless the 85% calculated is at a 5MPH increment). Other factors that can be considered in lowering a speed limit less than the 5MPH increment are: 1. Roadway pavemem width of 20ft or less, 2. Horizontal and vertical curves, 3. Hidden driveways and other roadside developmems, 4. High driveway density, Page 1 5. A high crash history, 6. Substantial pedestrian activity, 7. Rural residential or development area and 8. Lack of striped, improved shoulders. The State of Texas considers the above list of factors as the means of establishing a speed limit up to 10MPH (12MPH for locations with a crash rate higher than the statewide average) lower than the 85 %. Also, speed limit studies are typically done when there are moderate volumes that are under generally free-flow conditions. As such, speed limit studies typically do not include industrial plant let-out times, school hour drop-off/pick-up times or other such short-term, potentially congested times. This is because speeds are generally lower during and because of the congestion and therefore do not reflect the less restricted conditions the driver is under during most of the day. Specific details for each roadway are provided in the attachments. Pending City Council direction, staff is prepared to have the attached ordinance on a future City Council agenda for approval. Recognizing that these changes impact a large number of Denton streets implementation can occur over a period of time. However, staff recommends that at least the following be considered immediately: i. Loop 288, there is no current ordinance for the section north of University Drive/US380 and the reduced speed limit near the Spencer Road/Brinker Road area will help with the substantial new commercial activity. (See attachment A:XII) (Page 16) ii. FM1173, there is no current ordinance for any portion of this portion of FM1173. (See attachment A:III) (Page 10) iii. FM2181/Teasley Lane, the reduced speed limit in front of Sam Houston Elementary School will allow the current school zone speed limit to be maintained and the reduced speed limit for the southerly portion will help reduce potential driveway safety access problems for the new high school. (See attachment A:VII) (Page 14) iv. Sherman Drive/FM428, the reduced speed will help the Natatorium and DISD traffic using Long Road. (See attachment A:II) (Page 9) The following summary with associated attachments provides the details regarding the proposed speed limit changes. T. FM 426/McKinney Avenue (ATTACHMENT A. T.) (Page 8) A. 30 mph From Locust Street/US 77 to Mack Drive. B. 45 mph From Mack Drive to Glengary Drive. C. 55 mph From Glengary Drive to the south/easterly city limits. TT. FM 428/Sherman Drive (ATTACHMENT A. TT.) (Page 9) A. 35 mph From Elm Street/uS 77 to Monterrey Drive. B. 45 mph From Monterrey Drive to Long Road. C. 55 mph From Long Road to the north/easterly city limits. Page 2 iii. A. IV. A. B. V. A. B. VI. A. B. VII. A. B. C. D. VIII. A. B. IX. A. B. X. A. FM 1173 (ATTACHMENT A. iii.) (Page 10) 60 mph From the IH-35 southbound frontage road to the westerly city limits. FM 1515/Airport Road (ATTACHMENT A. IV.) (Page 11) 45 mph From IH-35E northbound frontage road to Corbin Road 55 mph From Corbin Road to Masch Branch Road. FM 1830/Country Club Road (ATTACHMENT A. V.) (Page 12) 45 mph From Ft. Worth Drive/US 377 to the Burlington/Santa Fe railroad tracks. 55 mph From the Burlington/Santa Fe railroad tracks to the southerly city limits. FM 2164/N. Locust (ATTACHMENT A. VI.) (Page 13) 45 mph From N. Locust Street/uS 77 to Loop 288. 60 mph From Loop 288 to the northerly city limits. FM 2181/Teasley Lane (ATTACHMENT A. VII.) (Page 14) 35 mph From Dallas Drive/uS 77 to Savannah Trail. 45 mph From Savannah Trail to 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Drive. 40 mph From 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Drive to Lillian Miller Parkway. 50 mph From Wind River Lane to the south/easterly city limits. iH-35E Frontage Road Northbound (ATTACHMENT A. VIII, IX, X & Xi.) (Page 15) 50 mph From the southerly city limits to Loop 288. 45 mph From Loop 288 to Oak Street. iH-35E Frontage Road Southbound (ATTACHMENT A. VIII, IX, X & Xi.) (Page 15) 45 mph From Oak Street to Lillian Miller Parkway. 50 mph From Lillian Miller Parkway to the southerly city limits. iH-35 Frontage Road Northbound (ATTACHMENT A. VIII, IX, X & Xi.) (Page 15) 50 mph From Oak Street to Elm Street/uS77. Page 3 Bo XI. A. B. XII. A. B. C. XIII. A. Bo C. XIV. A. XV. A. B. C. D. XVI. A. B. 55 mph From Elm Street/US77 to the northerly city limits. IH-35E Frontage Road Southbound (ATTACHMENT A. VIII, IX, X & XI.) (Page 15) 55 mph From the northerly City limits to Elm Street/US77. 50 mph From Elm Street/US77 to Oak Street. Loop 288 (ATTACHMENT A. XII.) (Page 16) 35 mph From IH-35E southbound main lanes to Morse Street. 50 mph From Morse Street to University Drive/US 380. 60 mph From University Drive/US 380 to IH-35. US 77/Dallas Drive (ATTACHMENT A. XIII, XIV, XV & XVI.) (Page 17) 45 mph 2181. 35 mph From Teasley Lane/FM 2181 to Smith Street. 30 mph From Smith Street to Eagle Drive/uS 77/Bell Avenue. US 77/Eagle Drive (ATTACHMENT A. XIII, XIV, XV & XVI.) (Page 17) 30 mph From Dallas Drive/uS 77/Bell Avenue to Elm Street/uS 77. US 77/Elm Street (ATTACHMENT A. XIII, XIV, XV & XVI.) (Page 17) 55 mph From the IH-35N southbound frontage road to Donna Road. 45 mph From Donna Road to FM 2164. 35 mph From FM 2164 to Sherman Drive/FM 428. 30 mph From Sherman Drive/FM 428 to Eagle Drive/US 77. US 77/Locust Street (ATTACHMENT A. XIII, XIV, XV & XVI.) (Page 17) 30 mph From Eagle Drive/uS 77 to Sherman Drive/FM 428. 35 mph From Sherman Drive/FM 428 to Elm Street. From IH-35E southbound main-lanes entrance ramp to Teasley Lane/FM XVII. US 377/Ft. Worth Drive (ATTACHMENT A. XVII.) (Page 18) A. 35 mph From Eagle Drive/uS77 to Lindsey Street. Page 4 B. 45 mph From Lindsey Street to 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass. C. 50 mph From 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass to Country Club Drive/FM 1830. D. 60 mph From Country Club Drive/FM 1830 to the south/westerly city limits. XVlII. US 380/University Drive (ATTACHMENT A. XVlII.) (Page 19) A. 60 mph B. 55 mph tracks. C. 45 mph D. 35 mph E. 45 mph F. 55 mph G. 60 mph From the westerly city limits to 900 feet west of Cindy Lane. From 900 feet west of Cindy Lane to the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad From the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad tracks to Bonnie Brae. From Bonnie Brae to 550 feet east of Shawnee Street. From 550 feet east of Shawnee Street to Mayhill Road. From Mayhill Road to Riverside Drive. From Riverside Drive to the easterly city limits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Traffic Safety Commission has been in a two year review process considering the speed limit changes. following B:I. B: B: B: B: B: II. B: B: B: B: III. B: B: IV. B: B: V. B: The Traffic Safety Commission recommended the speed limits to be established, on the roadways. Votes were unanimous except for B: VI.a.i. (Dallas Drive). September 9, 2002: I.a. IH-35 Frontage Roads I.b. FM1173 I.c. FM1830/Country Club Road I.d. FM2164/N. Locust Street March 3, 2003: II.a. FM1515/Airport Road ll.b. Loop288 II.c. FM426/McKinney Street April 7, 2003: III.a. FM2181/Teasley Lane July 7, 2003: IV.a. FM428/Sherman Drive August 4, 2003: V.a. US380/University Drive Page 5 B: VI. January 5, 2004: B: VI.a. US77: B.VI.a.i. Dallas Drive, from IH35E to Eagle Dive/Bell Avenue (6-2, for the portion from IH35E to Teasley Ln and unanimous for all other portions) B.VI.a.ii. Eagle Drive, from Dallas Drive/Bell Avenue to Elm Street) B.VI.a.iii. Elm Street, from IH35N to Eagle Drive B.VI.a.iv. Locust Street, from Eagle Drive to Elm Street B: VII. May 3, 2004: B: VII.a. US377/Ft Worth Drive FISCAL INFORMATION TxDOT will install or replace the necessary signing and posts at its expense. ATTACHMENTS A. Maps of current and proposed speed limit conditions for: A: I. FM426/McKinney Avenue from Locust Street/US77 to the southeasterly City limits A: II. FM428/Sherman Drive from Elm Street/US77 to the northeasterly City limits A: III. FM1173 from IH35 to the easterly City limits A: IV. FM1515/Airport Road from IH35E to Masch Branch Road A: V. FM1830/Country Club Road from Ft Worth Drive/US377 to the southerly City limits A: VI. FM2164/N Locust Street from US77/Locust Street to the northerly City limits A: VII. FM2181/Teasley Lane, from Dallas Drive/US77 to the southerly City limits A: VIII. IH35E northbound frontage roads, from the southerly City limits to Oak Street A: IX. IH35E southbound frontage roads, from the southerly City limits to Oak Street A: X. IH35 northbound frontage roads, from Oak Street to the northerly City limits A: XI. IH35 southbound frontage roads, from Oak Street to the northerly City limits A: XII. Loop 288 from IH35E to IH35 A: XIII. US77 Dallas Drive, from IH35E to Eagle Dive/Bell Avenue: A: XIV. US77 Eagle Drive, from Dallas Drive/Bell Avenue to Elm Street: A: XV. US77 Elm Street, from IH35N to Eagle Drive: A: XVI. US77 Locust Street, from Eagle Drive to Elm Street: A: XVII. US377/Ft Worth Drive from Eagle Drive/US77 to the southwesterly City limits A: XVIII. US380/University Drive from the westerly City limits to the easterly City limits B. Traffic Safety Commission minutes for: B:I. B: B: B: B: B: II. B: B: B: B: III. B: B: IV. B: September 9, 2002: I.a. IH-35 Frontage Roads. I.b. FM1173. I.c. FM1830/Country Club Road. I.d. FM2164/N. Locust Street. March 3, 2003: II.a. FM1515/Airport Road. ll.b. Loop288. II.c. FM426/McKinney Street. April 7, 2003: III.a. FM2181/Teasley Lane July 7, 2003: IV.a. FM428/Sherman Drive Page 6 Co B: V. August 4, 2003: B: V.a. US380/University Drive/. B: VI. January 5, 2004: B: VI.a. US77 B.VI.a.i. Dallas Drive, from IH35E to Eagle Dive/Bell Avenue: B.VI.a.ii. Eagle Drive, from Dallas Drive/Bell Avenue to Elm Street: B.VI.a.iii. Elm Street, from IH35N to Eagle Drive: B.VI.a.iv. Locust Street, from Eagle Drive to Elm Street: May 3, 2004: US377/Ft Worth Drive B: VII. B: VII.a. Ordinance Prepared By: David Salmon, Assistant Director Engineering Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, AICP Director Planning and Development Services Page 7 AIRPORT ROAD/FM1515ATTACHMENT A: IV. CURRENT ~Rd Page 11 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD/FM1830 ATTACHMENT A:V. CURRENT Page 12 North Locust FM 2164 ATTACHMENT A:VI. CURRENT Page 13 0 Z &11121~1 s;' ,/ir JOl,I M. p&IM E Loop 288 ATTACHMENT A: XII. Note: although posted as 55MPH there is no known ordinance establishing this or any other speed CURRENT Page 16 ATTACHMENT A: XIII, XIV, XV & XVI. DALLAS DRIVE/ EAGLE/ LOCUST/ELM/ US77 l'-' CURRENT CURRENT LOCUST Page 17 n ' I ._..-j ATTACHMENT B: I.a., b., c. & d. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission September 9, 2002 PRESENT: Connie Baker, Silvia Lesko, Harry Phillips, Geof Bissell, Lelia Howell, Murray Ricks, and Chairman Barry Walters STAFF: David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Pat Killebrew, Secretary ITEM #5: Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT TO CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT FOR THE IH-35 SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD FROM US77/N.ELM STREET TO SCHUYLER STREET FROM 45 MPH TO 55 MPH. Vokoun said the current speeds on the frontage roads; both north and south in this area are the same as the recommended speeds. In one small area on the southbound side, the current speed is 45 mph and the speed limit survey by the state is recommending 55 mph as a reasonable speed limit. This section of roadway is essentially rural in nature. There is very little development in this area and most people are driving 55 mph. Vokoun said he has researched the ordinance files for that area and cannot find an ordinance. It is apparently very old and there is not an existing ordinance for this area. Stqff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation to Ci_tv Council that for IH-35 southbound Frontage Roads, a 55 mph speed limit be established from US 77/N. Elm Street to Schuyler Street. Walters said this area is from Highway 77 at the truck stop going to the hospital. Vokoun said yes. Walters said there are two major entrances, FM 1173 at Krum and the Loop 288 turn around that feeds into the frontage road. Walters asked if a traffic survey for this area had been done. The cars approaching from FM 1173 are going about 70 mph and it is difficult to get onto Loop 288. Vokoun said during a speed survey a lot of data is collected. It determines what a "normal" person would drive in that area. "Normal" is the 85% percentile. The State's position is that if Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 2 of 8 there are items that need to be brought to the attention of the driver, they should be signed accordingly. For example, if there are intersections to the right or left, an advance-warning sign is put up advising speeds, but the speed limit itself is not controlled. Vokoun said the speed limit could be changed in the future as the area develops, if different speeds are felt to be needed, staff can request TxDOT to do another speed survey. The information is also based on current accident reports in the area. Staff feels this is a reasonable speed for what is in the area today. Howell asked why on the northbound frontage road, from Oak Street to Highway 77, the recommended speed is 50 mph and on the southbound frontage road in the same area, the recommended speed is 55 mph. Vokoun said the interstate is not connected like a normal highway; it has the through lanes in between, and the frontage roads are considered as two separate roadways. Developments, driveway spacing and intersections can influence what the speed should be. The westerly side is considerably less developed than the easterly side, and therefore the recommendation. Howell said she would disagree, because from Oak Street going north on the frontage road, there really is no development. There is only the bus station, Highway 380 and the outlet mall, but on the other side there is the truck stop, Highway 380, and several business places; so the south side is more developed. Vokoun said there was considerable development in the area of the mall and the restaurant and several truck stops. On the westerly side, there is not much development until the hospital, and that is south of Schuyler Street. Walters said he was told when Loop 288 was built, that the City had no control over the speed limit on the frontage roads. It is based on the Federal and State standards that the speed drops 20 mph from the posted speed. Is that correct? Vokoun said the City has the ability to work with the State to look at the limits. The final decision is by the State. If the City does not agree with the State, and the City imposes something other than what the State recommends, the State can produce a minute order, which circumvents the City's ordinance. The State can remove any and all signs imposed by the City and enforce the State requirement. Ricks said he could see the speed limit being 55 mph heading south past Loop 288, but heading north from Loop 288 to Highway 77, there is a truck stop, convenience store, western wear store, and several intersections and entrances. He is concerned that someone turning left under the underpass and going 55 mph might cause some problems. Vokoun said the intersection is controlled by a multiple stop at the service road. There was much discussion concerning the various businesses along the frontage roads. Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 3 of 8 Salmon said currently, the speed limit on the southbound service road goes from 55 mph to 45 mph at Highway 77 and from there to the hospital it stays 45 mph and then it goes back up to 50 mph. The State has told staff, based on their studies people are driving at the 85~h percentile, north of the hospital, 55 mph or faster. That's why the State wants to make the speed limit 55 mph, rather than 45 mph. There was more discussion concerning the entrances. Walters asked if the State did the study during the rush hour. Vokoun said he couldn't say which hour the study was done. Salmon said the State would not change their recommendation unless the City can provide them with technical data that shows there is a safety problem, such as accidents or a documented sight distance issue. The City could also ask the State to break the speed zone into smaller pieces and have them study the sections individually. Sometimes the State takes a long section of road and studies it as one piece, when the road actually has several segments that are different from each other in characteristics. One example of this is on Elm Street and Locust Street. The State looked at them as one section from Eagle Drive to University Drive. Driving these streets on the Square is much different than at either end of these sections. Staff asked the State to divide Elm Street and Locust Street into about three sections. Walters asked if the State was going to change the speed limit anyway regardless of the Commission's vote. Salmon said the only option the City has is to ask the State to break the speed zone into pieces and restudy the areas causing concern. Staff doesn't know if the State checked the speeds in one of the developed areas or in the undeveloped areas. Walters said he would feel better, from a safety issue, if they checked the sections separately. Salmon said he wanted the Commission to understand that their recommendations would need to be forwarded to the City Council, and if the City Council voted to keep the speed limit as it is, the State can override the Council. Howell said even if the Commission decides that it doesn't agree with the State and the State overrides the Commission, she would like the State to realize that the Commission doesn't agree with them. Vokoun asked the Commission which section specifically they want the State to reconsider. Is the area in question the area that goes from Highway 77 to Loop 288? Several members said yes. Howell made a motion to ask the State to break the speed zone into pieces and restudy the section from Highway 77 to Loop 28& Phillips seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM #6: REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR FMl173 FROM THE IH-35 Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 4 of 8 SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE WESTERLY CITY LIMITS TO BE ESTABLISHED AT 60 MPH. Vokoun said the State has reviewed the posted speed limit of 60 mph on FM1173 from IH-35 to the City limits. People are driving 60 mph, but we cannot find an ordinance on file that shows the posted speed limit. The Commission's recommendation to the City Council would allow an ordinance to be established for the speed limit. Stqf~f recommends the Commission_forward a recommendation to Ci_tv Council that for FM 1173, a 60 mph speed limit be established from the IH-35 southbound Frontage Road to the westerly Ci_tv limits. Bissell asked if the posted speed limit was 60 mph. Vokoun said yes. Walters asked what kind of road is FM1173. Vokoun said 2-lane, rural road with no shoulders. Walters asked what was the common speed for a rural road with no shoulders? Vokoun said the 85th percentile determines the speed. There is no set speed. Ricks said if the speed was already posted at 60, what does the Commission have to consider? Vokoun said there is no ordinance showing the speed on the road. The Commission needs to establish one. Ricks asked if there had been any problems with running stop signs on the road. Vokoun said there are no signs along the road, only at the Frontage Road and then in town. Walters said the railroad track slows down traffic. It is difficult to cross at 60 mph. Ricks asked if there had been any trouble with deceleration at the Frontage Road. Vokoun said staff was not aware of any trouble. Vokoun said staff could request advance-warning signs of the railroad and of stopping at the Frontage Road. Walters asked if staff knew the number of accidents on FM 1173 between Krum City Limits and IH-35 Frontage Road. Vokoun said no. Bissell said the Commission was only considering the section of FM 1173 between our City limits and the IH-35. Vokoun said correct; there is a long section ofFM1173 that is under the County's control and the City has no control over that section. Ricks asked if TxDOT maintains the signage. Vokoun said yes. Ricks made a motion to recommend an ordinance be forwarded to City Council recommending the speed limit of 60 mph for the section of FMl173 from the Denton City limits to the IH-35 Frontage Road. Lesko seconded the motion. Howell said since the speed limit is 60 mph coming up to a stop sign at the Frontage Road, was the State willing to put some speed breaks in that area. Vokoun said no they are not. Staff asked the State about putting speed humps on the exit ramp from IH-35 to Dallas Drive and they were Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 5 of 8 opposed to any type of traffic control device that would potentially elevate a vehicle. Walters said they would put up a warning sign showing the stop sign was ahead. Baker, Lesko, Phillips, Ricks, and Waiters voted to approve the motion. Bissell and Howell voted against the motion. The motion passed. ITEM #7: REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR FM 1830/COUNTRY CLUB ROAD Vokoun said the State has performed speed surveys in this area. The posted speed limit is 40 mph from US377/Ft Worth Drive to 0.4 miles south of US377/Ft Worth Drive where the speed goes up to 60 mph. TxDOT is proposing the speed limit be changed to 45 mph from US377/Ft Worth Drive to Wintercreek Drive, and 55 mph from Wintercreek Drive to the south City limits. Stqf~f recommends the Commission_forward a recommendation to Ci_tv Council that for FM 1830/Country Club Road, a 45 mph speed limit is established_from US 377/Ft Worth Drive to Wintercreek Drive, and a 55 mph speed limit be established_from Wintercreek Drive to the southerly Ci_tv limits. Walters said the posted speed limit is 60 mph and the State wants to change it to 55 mph. Vokoun said correct. Bissell asked why the State wanted to raise the speed limit in front of a residential area. Walters said people generally would decelerate coming into town and accelerate going out of town. Salmon said TxDOT has gone to this area and measured the speed people are actually driving. Bissell said the speed is not a safe speed especially at night. Salmon said except for the very north end of the road, the State is proposing to lower the speed limit, not raise it. Salmon said he wanted to remind the Commission that unless staff can show a certain number of accidents occurred at a particular area, TxDOT won't address the issue. Walters said when staff presents this to the Commission, why is the data not presented with the report. Salmon said staff is still working with TxDOT on the areas where they want to raise the speed limits and staff has data showing accidents occurred in these areas. Staff is trying to get the State to re-evaluate those areas. The items presented tonight are areas that do not have any data to support asking the State to keep the speed limits lowered. There have not been enough accidents in these areas for the State to consider keeping the lower speed limit versus their speed survey showing the 85~h percentile speed being driven during the survey. Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 6 of 8 Walters said it seems like the State is using a double standard. Using IH- 35 from Denton to Lewisville as an example, if the 85~h percentile were used, the speed limit would be set at 85 mph. The State can't set the speed limit that high because the Federal government would take away their funds. When a road is considered that the Federal government doesn't have any control over, it's like the State uses a different standard. Salmon said TxDOT uses the 85th percentile consistently, but on Federal highways, there is a limit of 70 mph in rural areas, and 65 mph in urban areas. Probably about 90 percent of the TxDOT's decisions are based on the 85th percentile, but if staff can show sufficient data of accidents or another factor the State didn't consider, they will reduce the speed limit below the 85th percentile. These are segments of roads brought to the Commission tonight that staff has not been able to prove to TxDOT differently than what they are proposing. Staff did not always agree with the speed limits, but did not have enough data to get the State to change the proposed limits. Walters asked where staff gets the data. Vokoun said from police accident reports. Staff tells the police which area they are looking at, and the police provide the accident data from each area. Phillips asked if staff has the capacity to check the speeds. Vokoun said the City could perform speed studies. Phillips said maybe that's what the City needs to do. Vokoun said staff does not feel the City's figures would vary that much from the State's figures. Howell asked if the State takes into consideration of the number of cars on the road, because traffic has increased in this area over the past year. Vokoun said the State looks at the 85th percentile, which by standards and by the courts have been accepted as being a reasonable and normal driving speed by a driver. The 85~h percentile is looked as a normal person. A speed survey is done of 125 vehicles, on an average day, typically Tuesday through Thursday, during a non-peak, because of cuing problems. The study is done during off-peak periods. The data is then assimilated and the 85th percentile is calculated, based on that data. Bissell asked if the 85~h percentile is above 65 mph, then what happens. Vokoun said this is for non-interstate roadways, such as farm roads, frontage roads, and farm-to-market roads. Bissell said if the 85th percentile tums out to be 65, 70, 75 mph on a farm road, is this acceptable, is there no upper limit? Vokoun said given the geometry and surrounding factors of the road, a reasonable driver will drive the road at the speed they feel comfortable. One person's definition of safety is different from another's. A "norm" has been established at the 85th percentile. Salmon said because Denton is in an area called the "non-attainment area", due to the pollution, Denton County cannot have a speed limit above 65 mph. Lesko said she feels the State's report is fairly trustworthy even in terms of safety, because they have reduced the speed limits in residential areas. She feels there has been a gain in safety more than anything else for that Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 7 of 8 section of road. Since the speed limit has been lowered sometimes from 60 mph, she feels safety has been very much considered in these reports. Vokoun said another factor to be brought up is that the courts consider the 85th percentile to be the norm when writing tickets. The courts will consider an area a speed trap if someone can show the posted speed is different than the 85th percentile by a reasonable speed that is taken into consideration given the situation, which is why the State typically rounds down from the 85th percentile and then looks at 5 miles less than that. For example, the 85th percentile may be 67 mph and the State would round that down to 65 mph and then look at the area to see if it would be reasonable to round it down further to 60 mph. The State couldn't go much lower than 7 miles because it would fall into the speed trap definition. The courts would then throw out any speeding tickets because there is an official speed limit study available. The norm not only considers what is reasonable for the driver, but also what the courts consider reasonable. Ricks said if the Commission were to vote to reject the State's proposal, would they go ahead with it anyway? Vokoun said yes, TxDOT would take down any City signs, and put theirs up. Phillips made a motion to accept TxDOT's request to establish a 45 mph speed limit from US3 77/Ft Worth Drive to Wintercreek Drive and a 55 mph speed limit from Wintercreek Drive to the City limits. Lesko seconded the motion. Baker, Lesko, Phillips, Bissell, Howell, and Waiters voted to approve the motion. Ricks voted against the motion. The motion passed. Howell made a motion to ask TxDOT to review this area again in six months. Ricks seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM #8: REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT TO CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT FOR FM2164/N. LOCUST STREET FROM FM 2164 TO COBBLESTONE ROAD FROM 35 MPH TO 45 MPH AND FM 2164/N. LOCUST STREET FROM COBBLESTONE ROAD TO HERCULES LANE FROM 40 MPH TO 45 MPH. Vokoun said in this section FM 2164 is a two-lane roadway with gently rolling vertical curves and almost no horizontal curves. A small section is currently under construction to be widened. There is some development in the section between FM 2164 and Loop 288 consisting of residential, a church and a City park. Traffic Safety Commission - September 9, 2002 Page 8 of 8 Stqff recommends the Trqffic Sqfe_tv Commission_forward a recommendation to Ci_tv Council_for FM 2164/N. Locust Street, a 45 mph speed limit be established_from FM2164 to Hercules Lane. Howell said she had driven this area and did not see a problem here. Lesko made a motion to recommend to the City Council to establish a 45 mph speed limit on FM 2164from FM 2164 to Hercules Lane. Howell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:42 PM. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission March 3, 2003 ATTACHMENT B: II.a., b. & c. PRESENT: Harry Phillips, Connie Baker, Silvia Lesko, Lelia Howell, Georgianne Burlage, Geof Bissell, and Chairman Barry Walters STAFF: David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Ed Snyder, Deputy City Attorney Pat Killebrew, Secretary ITEM #3: Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TxDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR FM 1515/AIRPORT ROAD Vokoun said the item is a speed limit study for Airport Road/FM 1515. This is one of the studies taken back to TxDOT and asked them to re-study it. The original study had proposed a 55 mph speed limit for the entire length of Airport Road. The current speed limit is 45 mph from Bonnie Brae Street to just west of Corbin Road, and 55 mph from there to the end of Airport Road. The new recommendation is 45 mph from Bonnie Brae Street to Corbin Road, and 55 mph from there to the end. This is presented to the TSC for consideration and recommendation to City Council. Staff recommends the TSC forward a recommendation to City Council that for FM1515/4 irport Road: a) ,4 45 mph speed limit be established from IH35E northbound frontage road to Corbin Road and, b) ,4 55 mph speed limit be established from Corbin Road to its end at the airport's entrance (also the intersection with Masch Branch Road. Walters asked if a traffic study had been done for the area in from of Peterbilt. Vokoun said not for that specific area and there were no comments from Peterbilt that he was aware of. Walters asked if Bissell was aware of any problems since he is out there every day. Bissell asked if the only area being considered to change the speed was .05 miles by Corbin Road. Vokoun said yes. It makes it easier to write the speed limit ordinance if it is at a road and not some point in the middle of the road. If the TSC agrees with this, it would go to City Council to make it official. Bissell asked if there were any other industries on the other side Traffic Safety Commission - March 3, 2003 Page 2 of 3 of Tetra Pak. Vokoun said no. Howell said there is just one building before the airport, but it is vacant now. Walters asked if there was anyone speaking for or against the proposal. There was none and the session was closed to the public. Howell made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for FM 1515/Airport Road. Burlage seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM #4: REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TxDOT FOR THE POSED SPEED LIMIT FOR LOOP 288. Vokoun said the map is a little inaccurate. He showed the TSC the corrections. Vokoun said after considerable conversations with TxDOT, they agreed to reduce the speed limits as shown on the map. The area on the north side of Loop 288 will be increased to 60 mph, since it is a large, open area. Burlage asked where the 35 mph area started. Vokoun said at the IH35 southbound frontage road, and it will stop at Morse Street. Walters said that would help with the increased traffic from the Denton Crossing area. Sta#'recommends that the TSC forward a recommendation to Ci_tv Council that ~for Loop 288: a) A 35 mph speed limit be established from IH35E to Morse Street, b) A 50 mph speed limit be established_from Morse Street to the centerline qf US380/Universitv Drive, and c) A 60 mph speed limit be established_from the centerline qfUS380/Universi(v Drive to its terminus at IH35. Lesko made a motion to accept the TxDOT recommendation as staff proposed. Baker seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ITEM #5: REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TxDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR McKINNEY STREET/FM 426. Vokoun made a correction to the memo for this item changing the third bullet from Southfork Street to Glengary Street. Southfork Street is a private street and Glengary Street is a public street. McKinney Street/FM 426 is another area that staff was able to get TxDOT to reconsider their original recommendations and to lower the speed limits, especially in town and in front of the high school. Traffic Safety Commission - March 3, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Staff recommends that the TSC forward a recommendation to City Council that for McKinney Street/FM 426: A 30 mph speed limit be established from Locust Street~US77 to Mack Street, A 45 mph speed limit be established from Mack Street to Glengary Street, and A 55 mph speed limit be established from Glengary Street to the south/ Easterly City limits. Howell made a motion to accept the TxDOT recommendation as staff proposed. Burlage seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:23 p.m. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission April 7, 2003 ATTACHMENT B: III.a. PRESENT: Pat Cheek, Murray Ricks, Connie Baker, Lelia Howell, Harry Phillips, and Co- Chairman Silvia Lesko NOTE: Chairman Barry Walters was present but had to leave before the meeting started due to a family emergency. STAFF: David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Pat Killebrew, Secretary ITEM #2: Co-Chairman Lesko called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR TEASLEY LANE/FM2181. Vokoun stated the current speed limits and reported the limits proposed by TxDOT. Staff requested a re-review of the proposed limits and TxDOT revised their recommendations. Stqff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that for Teasley Lane/FM2181: a) 35 MPH, _from Dallas Drive~US77 to Savannah Trail, b) 45 MPH from Savannah Trail to Lillian Miller Parkway, and c) 50 MPH from Wind River Lane to the south/easter& Ci(v limits. Howell asked if the speed limit to the City limits was 50 or 60 MPH. Vokoun said 50 MPH. Howell asked if there are any plans to put a traffic signal at Hobson Lane and Teasley Lane. Vokoun said the underground lines for the signal are being installed now, and the signal should be installed within the next four to six weeks. Cheek made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for Teasley Lane/FM2181. Ricks seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission July 7, 2003 ATTACHMENT B: IV.a. PRESENT: Pat Cheek, Murray Ricks, Silvia Lesko, Connie Baker, Harry Phillips, Geof Bissell, Lelia Howell, and Chairman Barry Walters STAFF: ITEM #2: David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Pat Killebrew, Secretary Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:27 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR SHERMAN DRIVE/FM 428. Vokoun stated the current speed limits and reported the limits proposed by TxDOT for Sherman Drive/FM 428. Vokoun pointed out the current residential sections and also the few commercial sections on Sherman Drive, along with a few commercial sections planned for the future. Vokoun said Sherman Drive has been resurfaced from Locust Drive and the average speed driven on this road is 35 mph+. Stqff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that for Sherman Drive/FM 428: a) 35 MPH from Locust Street/US 377 to Monterrev Drive, b) 45 MPH from Monterrev Drive to Lone Road, and c) 55 MPH from Long Road to the northeaster& Ci_tv limits. Walters said the area around the new Natatorium and Water Works on Loop 288 at Sherman Drive causes a problem getting into the parking lot. If the area could be slowed down for about a block it would be better. The area coming over the hill is a blind spot. Vokoun said it is possible to work with TxDOT for short distances. Staff will ask them to extend the 45 mph to the north for a longer distance. Cheek made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for Sherman Drive/FM 42& Howell seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:44 p.m. PRESENT: STAFF: ITEM #3: ATTACHMENT B: V.a. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission August 4, 2003 Harry Phillips, Pat Cheek, Silvia Lesko, Connie Baker, GeofBissell, and Chairman Barry Walters David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Charles Wiley, Chief of Police Brian Blalock, Sergeant, Traffic Enforcement Pat Killebrew, Secretary Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR UNIVERSITY DRIVE/US 380. Vokoun said he'd like to add to Sergeant Blalock's comments about the school crossings being changed. The Police did not find out about them until July 15; Engineering didn't find out until last week. A lot of the intersections, while they may be multiple stopped and/or signaled; they did not have crosswalks painted or pedestrian push buttons installed. The Traffic Department is working very hard to get them ready for the beginning of school. Vokoun said at the intersection of University Drive and Nottingham Drive, there is utility work being done along University Drive and the contractor cut the loops at that intersection and a few more. Rather than spend the money to repair the loops at present, it was decided to add timing to the signals since the area is going to be under construction shortly. Staff has spent a lot of time with TxDOT reviewing the speed limits on University Drive. Staff feels the limits requested are reasonable. At present, some of the areas do not have an ordinance in effect to cover the limits posted. Some of the limits proposed were higher than presently posted and staff was successful in getting TxDOT to reduce the limits in areas where commercial development is already in progress. Vokoun pointed out the various speed limits in each section of University Drive. Cheek said she travels University Drive often. She said no one goes the speed limit. Also when the limit changes often, people don't always notice the change. She feels the limit should not be changed to 30 mph, but should leave it at 35 mph. It would cause less confusion. Vokoun said staff's concern was the close proximity of the driveways in that area. There is a lot of commercial activity in that area. Traffic Safety Commission - August 4, 2003 Page 2 of 2 Walters asked when TxDOT is estimating the completion of construction of University Drive from Loop 288 to 1-35. Vokoun said the currem construction is from Loop 288 to Locust Street. It was supposed to start last March, and has just started. It is a two year project, and the bridge will be constructed first. Salmon said on the section between Locust Street and 1-35, staff anticipated it beginning next year, but TxDOT may have put that off a year or two. Once it's started, it will probably be another two year time frame. Vokoun said construction on Loop 288 from 1-35 to University Drive should begin in January 2004. Walters asked when the detour around the bridge on Loop 288 at Target would begin. Vokoun said it is almost ready now and then the bridge would be tom out. Walters said it will be a big headache when Demon Crossing opens. Vokoun said Spencer Lane is closed right now for utility work at Demon Crossing, but the City will keep it closed and begin work widening Spencer Lane in a couple of weeks. It will be closed about a year. Vokoun asked if there were any other questions about the speed limits on University Drive. Bissell said he agrees that the limits should be 35 mph and not 30 mph. Phillips said he agrees also. Vokoun said based on the Commission's recommendation, the 35 mph would be put imo the ordinance for City Council to review. Stqff recommends that the Trqffic Sqfe~ Commission forward a recommendation to the CiG Council that for University Drive/US 380: a) 60 MPH from the westerly Ci_ty limits to 400 feet west of Cindy Lane b) 55 MPH from 400feet west of Cindy Lane to the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad tracks c) 45 MPH from the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad tracks to Bonnie Brae Street d) 35 MPH from Bonnie Brae Street to Shawnee Street e) 45 MPH from Shawnee Street to Mavhill Road J) 55 MPH from Mavhill Road to Riverside Drive, and g) 60 MPH from Riverside Drive to the easterly Ci_ty limits Cheek made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for University Drive/US 380, changing the 30 MPH to 35 MPH. Lesko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Vokoun told the Commission he had received a new street study from TxDOT to address the speed limits - 1-35. Vokoun hopes to have it ready for our next meeting. He also has to write up the US 77 speed study. That one will be a large write up due to the many streets involved. The speed studies should be finished by the end of the year. The meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m. PRESENT: STAFF: ITEM #2: ATTACHMENT B: VI.a.i., ii,. iii. & iv. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission January 5, 2004 Lelia Howell, Pat Cheek, Connie Baker, Linda Brown, Murray Ricks, Geof Bissell, Harry Phillips, and Co-Chairperson Silvia Lesko. David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Pat Killebrew, Secretary Co-Chairperson Lesko called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR: DALLAS DRIVE & EAGLE DRIVE (FROM BELL AVENUE/DALLAS DRIVE) TO ELM STREET & LOCUST STREET (FROM EAGLE DRIVE TO FM 2164) & ELM STREET (FROM IH35N TO EAGLE DRIVE), ALL BEING US77. Vokoun said this should be the last speed study presented to the TSC for TxDOT streets. This one is also the most complicated. Vokoun said staff wanted to get the Commissioners' input before going back to TxDOT staff. Staff would ask TxDOT to re-review this roadway and two others, the southbound frontage road between Highway 77 and Loop 288, reducing the speed by about five miles per hour, and University Drive in the core area increasing the speed limit from 30 MPH to 35 MPH. Vokoun said the staff report shows that City staff and TxDOT staff have been through several iterations on this speed study. Staff is not in agreement with TxDOT on their recommendations. Vokoun pointed out the original recommendations of TxDOT on the map provided in the back- up packet. Staff is concerned about the area around the Square and feels 35 MPH is too high due to angled parking and lots of pedestrians. The second area of concern is around the Eagle Drive/Bell Avenue area. There is a sharp drop going northbound on Dallas Drive, going under the railroad bridge, taking a hard right turn and the intersection is right before you. Staff feels 35 MPH is a bit high for this area and 30 MPH is the speed limit now and in the future it should remain 30 MPH. Traffic Safety Commission - January 5, 2004 Page 2 of 5 After visiting with TxDOT on this issue several times, they finally made a recommendation to change the area around the Square to 30 MPH and the area around Eagle Drive/Bell Avenue to 30 MPH. Staff is still concerned about the Dallas Drive area coming off IH35. The current speed limit is 45 MPH and the Police give many tickets to drivers that haven't slowed down enough coming off the interstate. If that area were changed to 35 MPH, everyone would be getting tickets. Staff would like to see the speed limit 45 MPH from IH35 to Teasley Lane and then drop to 35 MPH to about the crest of the hill where it would drop to 30 MPH. Staff would like to see the section in the southern part of Locust Street increased to 35 MPH. The roadway was resurfaced two years ago and is very smooth and drives well. After construction is finished on University Drive, this area would be changed to one-way from University Drive to Orr Street, northbound on Locust Street and southbound on Elm Street. There is no heavy commercial action in this area. Stqf~f recommends that the Trqffic Sqfe_tv Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that_for: · Dallas Drive & · Eagle Drive ([)'om Bell Avenue/Dallas Drive) to Elm Street & · Locust Street ([)'om Eagle Drive to FM2164) & · Elm Street ([)'om IH35N to Eagle Drive), · All being US77: a) Dallas Drive, 45 MPH_from IH35E to Teasley Lane. b) Dallas Drive, 35 MPH_from Teasley Lane to Smith Street. c) Dallas Drive, 30 MPH_from Smith Street to Eagle Drive~Bell Avenue. d) Eagle Drive, 30 MPH_from Dallas Drive~Bell Avenue to Elm Street. e) Locust Street, 35 MPH_from Eagle Drive to Sycamore Street. J) Locust Street, 30 MPH_from Sycamore Street to Hann Street. g) Locust Street, 35 MPH_from Hann Street to FM2164. h) Elm Street 55 MPH from IH35N to Donna Road. i) Elm Street, 45 MPH_from Donna Road to FM2164. j) Elm Street, 35 MPH_from FM2164 to Harm Street. k) Elm Street, 30 MPH_from Hann Street to Sycamore Street. l) Elm Street, 35 MPH_from Sycamore Street to Eagle Drive. Vokoun asked the Commissioners for their input. Cheek said she agrees with staff on the Square area, but she hates to see the speed limit changed so much. She feels like it should be 30 MPH through town. Locust Street and Elm Street has businesses everywhere and strange parking. If the speed limit changes every few blocks, people will be very confused. Brown said it could cause a place for speed traps. Traffic Safety Commission - January 5, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Howell said she agrees with Cheek from Eagle Drive to Sherman Drive should be 30 MPH and then after Sherman Drive the speed limit could open up. There are not many businesses after that and it will be one-way and traffic is not as congested. Lesko said she agrees with the 30 MPH through town. There are areas that 35 MPH is very comfortable, but then you come to a congested area and the only safe speed is 30 MPH or less. Howell said she agrees with keeping the 45 MPH coming from IH35 on Dallas Drive to Teasley Lane, and then dropping to 35 MPH until the crest of the hill by Auto Zone, and then dropping to 30 MPH for the sharp curve. Phillips asked how much coordination with the Police Department does staff have when making these recommendations. Vokoun said staff has met with the Police several times and they are in agreement with the recommendations for the most part. There are some areas where they may want a 5 MPH difference (either increase or decrease) than what was recommended, but usually 5 MPH doesn't make too much difference. Staff would be concerned if it were 10 MPH or more. Phillips said he feels we have lost the handle on traffic in this City. If more apartments keep being built before the traffic problem is resolved, we are going to have a much worse problem in the near future. Phillips feels the City Council needs to know this. Howell asked if the speed limit on Locust Street from Eagle Drive to Sherman Drive were set to 30 MPH, would the same speed limit be on Elm Street. Vokoun said yes. Ricks said his only concern with keeping the speed limit on Dallas Drive from IH35 to Teasley Lane at 45 MPH was the area around Callaway's Garden Center. That is a real problem area. Drivers are trying to get across Dallas Drive to the Interstate and with traffic coming from the Interstate at 45 MPH it's hard to get across. There have been some really bad accidents there. Ricks said most exits coming off the Interstate are 35 MPH. It would give the people trying to get across more time. It might be better to go with 35 MPH. Phillips said he agreed. Vokoun said it would be brought to a vote, and staff would recommend the majority of the vote. Cheek asked if the entrance/exit at Callaway's Garden Center was written in stone. It is a crazy layout. Bissell agreed; saying he didn't think the speed was so much a problem as the intersection itself. Vokoun said there is a discontinuous frontage road in that area. Ricks said a traffic signal couldn't be installed there because it would back up traffic coming off the Interstate. Cheek said she was thinking of closing the driveway. Ricks said then no one could get in or out of Callaway's Garden Center. Cheek said drivers could go down to Mervin's and go through the area around the Traffic Safety Commission - January 5, 2004 Page 4 of 5 parking lot. Ricks said given what is there, the best thing would be to slow down the traffic coming off the Interstate. The drivers waiting to cross Dallas Drive to the Interstate don't anticipate the speed of the traffic coming off the Interstate. There was some discussion concerning the speed when exiting the Interstate. Ricks said usually there is an exit ramp to allow the drivers to slow down before entering the regular traffic. Phillips asked if there was a sign stating Dangerous Intersection. Vokoun said there is a liability problem with posting such a sign. There was much discussion about this particular intersection. Vokoun said Staff does recognize the problems with this intersection. Staff is working with TxDOT in the ramp reversal program to find a solution, but it will not be a near-term solution. Phillips asked if the speed limit could remain at 35 MPH. Vokoun said that is what TxDOT has recommended, but staff feels the Police Department would have a concern if it were to be 35 MPH. Lesko said she used to drive the ramp every day and she found it very difficult to slow down since the ramp is a straight shot to Dallas Drive. There is more of a hazard to slow down because of the cars coming behind you. She said she would slow down to 55 MPH when the speed limit changed, but to slow down immediately to 35 MPH on the ramp would be more dangerous than leaving it at 45 MPH. There was more discussion about the speed limit at this intersection. Phillips asked staff what was the accident count for this intersection. Staff did not have the accident count figures available at this meeting. Vokoun said this area of the speed study seems to be the area causing the most concern. He asked for permission to start at the north end of the speed study obtaining the TSC's opinion on the proposed speed limits and working toward the south end and this intersection. Vokoun reiterated the proposed speed limits starting at FM 2164 and working south to Teasley Lane. Ricks asked if the TSC's recommendations would make a difference to TxDOT. Would TxDOT make the speed limits whatever they wanted? Vokoun said TxDOT does consider the TSC's opinions and they re-review areas of concern. Howell said even if TxDOT makes the speed limits different from the TSC's recommendation, it is good to let them hear the TSC's opinion and input. Lesko asked if there was a motion for the following recommendations: Locust Street, 30 MPH from Eagle Drive to Sherman Drive/FM42& Locust Street, 35 MPH from Sherman Drive/FM 428 to FM 2164. Eagle Drive, 30 MPH from Elm Street to Dallas Drive~Bell Avenue. Dallas Drive, 30 MPH from Eagle Drive/Bell Avenue to Smith Street. Traffic Safety Commission - January 5, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Dallas Drive, 35 MPH from Smith Street to Teasley Lane. Elm Street 55 MPH from IH3$N to Donna Road. Elm Street, 45 MPH from Donna Road to FM 2164. Elm Street, 35 MPH from FM 2164 to Sherman Drive/FM428. Elm Street, 30 MPH from Sherman Drive/FM428 to Eagle Drive. Howell made the motion and Cheek seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Cheek made a motion for the speed limit to be 45 MPH from Teasley Lane to IH35. Bissell seconded the motion. Baker asked if the staff recommendation was for 45 MPH from Teasley Lane to IH35. Vokoun said yes. Baker said again that the intersection is dangerous when trying to cross from the frontage road. Vokoun said the Commission could address the intersection at a later meeting. The TSC could ask staff to redesign the intersection, and the designs could be discussed at another meeting. Salmon said staff is currently working with TxDOT on the design of IH35 through town. There have been four or five meetings on this intersection. TxDOT is resigned to take away the exit in the ultimate design of IH35. The funding may come sooner rather than later. Apparently some of the money that was to be used for Highway 121 is no longer going to be used on that project and some of the money may be shifted to the IH35 project. This would speed up the IH35 project, but it will still be several years before it is acted upon. Lesko asked for a vote on the motion to be 45 MPH from Teasley Lane to IH35. Howell, Brown, Cheek, Baker, Bissell, and Lesko voted yes on the motion. Ricks and Phillips voted no. The motion was passed. Vokoun verified the speed limits again to be sure all understood and was in agreement. Howell requested Staff to bring some ideas to the Commission for the intersection at Callaway's, crossing Dallas Drive to IH35. Vokoun said staff would be happy to bring some designs to the Commission. The meeting was adjourned at 6:23. Minutes Traffic Safety Commission May 3, 2004 ATTACHMENT B: VII.a. PRESENT: STAFF: ITEM #2: Connie Baker, Silvia Lesko, GeofBissell, Harry Phillips, and Chairman Barry Walters. David Salmon, Staff Liaison Bernard Vokoun, Traffic Engineer Pat Killebrew, Secretary Chairman Walters called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER A REQUEST FROM TXDOT FOR THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT FOR FORT WORTH DRIVE/US 377. Vokoun said he met with the TxDOT representative to go over all the previous speed studies and realized he had not presented Fort Worth Drive/US 377 to the TSC. Vokoun said the City's ordinances are so old that the city limits have expanded a lot since these were written. Vokoun explained the following present speed limits and the TxDOT recommendations: (Currently 30 MPH from Eagle Drive/uS 77 to Carroll Boulevard and currently 35 MPH from Carroll Boulevard to Lindsey Street) BE ESTABLISHED AS 35 MPH FROM EAGLE DRIVE/US 77 TO LINDSEY STREET. (Currently 35 MPH from Lindsey Street to Acme Street and 40 MPH from Acme Street to 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass) BE ESTABLISHED AS 45 mph FROM LINDSEY STREET TO 200 FEET SOUTH OF THE T&P RAILROAD OVERPASS. (Currently 45 MPH from 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass to 300 feet south of James Street) BE ESTABLISHED AS 50 MPH FROM 200 FEET SOUTH OF THE T&P RAILROAD OVERPASS TO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE/FM 1830. (Currently 50 MPH from 300 feet south of James Street to 1200 feet north of the S&F Railroad overpass and 55 MPH from 1200 feet north of the S&F Railroad overpass to 300 feet south of the S&F Railroad overpass and currently posted as 65 MPH [no current City ordinance] from 300 feet south of the S&F Railroad overpass to the southwesterly Traffic Safety Commission - May 3, 2004 Page 2 of 3 City limits) BE ESTABLISHED AS 60 mph FROM COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE/FM 1830 TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CITY LIMITS. Vokoun said he was driving this area while checking a complaint close to Fort Worth Drive/US 377, and the speed limits should not be a problem. At night there is not a lot of traffic and during the day there is much traffic and the speed limits cannot be obtained due to this traffic. Vokoun said he would answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Walters asked if there was anyone speaking for or against the proposal. There was no one and the discussion was closed to the public. Phillips said it seems to him that for any two-lane highway in Denton County, 60 MPH seems too fast. Vokoun said signals have been installed at Daniel Street and also at Country Club Road/FM 1830. This helps with traffic considerably. Phillips said the traffic is terrible in this area. Everyone agreed. Vokoun said that was why he was driving the area, to be sure the signal was working properly and the traffic flow was efficient. Stqf~f recommends that the Trqffic Sqfe~ Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council that_for Fort Worth Drive/US 377: a) 35 MPH, _from Eagle Drive/US 77 to Lindse_y Street, b) 45 MPH, _from Lindsev Street to 200 Feet south o~f the T&P Railroad overpass, c) 50 MPH, _from 200fleet south o~fithe T&P Railroad overpass to Country Club Drive/FM 1830, and d) 60 MPH, _from Country Club Drive/FM1830 to the southwester& Ci_ty limits. Lesko made a motion to recommend to City Council the above changes as recommended by TxDOT and staff. Bissell seconded the motion. Walters asked if there was any discussion. Phillips said he still feels 60 MPH is too fast. Walters said we are in the same situation as before. TxDOT makes the final decision on the speed limits for state-controlled roadways. Vokoun said the developments in this area are growing quickly and more speed studies will be recommended to TxDOT as the area continues to grow in the next couple of years. Vokoun recommended the Commissioners keep these areas in their minds and as the need arises to recommend to staffthat a new speed study be performed; not only in this area but all areas around Denton as they are developed. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 5:54 p.m. S:\Our Documents\Ordina~ces\04\speed zonesAll2004.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY ADDING SECTION 18-73; ALTERING THE PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ESTABLISHED FOR VEHICLES UNDER THE PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION CODE, SECTION 545.356 UPON THE FOLLOWING ROADWAYS OR PARTS THEREOF, WITHIN THE INCORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $200.00 UNLESS THE VIOLATION OCCURS IN A WORK ZONE AND THEN THE PENALTY SHALL NOT EXCEED $400.00; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 545.356 of the Texas Transportation Code provides that whenever the governing body of the City shall determine upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation that any prima facie speed therein set forth is greater or less than is reasonable or safe under the conditions found to exist at any intersection or other place or upon any part of a street or highway within the City, taking into consideration the width and condition of the pavement and other circumstances on such portion of said street or highway, as well as the usual traffic thereon, said governing body may determine and declare a reasonable and safe prima facie speed limit thereat or thereon by the passage of an ordinance, which shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected at such intersection or other place or part of the street or highway; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 18 "Motor Vehicles and Traffic" of the Code of Ordinances of Denton, Texas is hereby amended by adding Section 18-73 regulating speed of vehicles on Teasley Lane. Section 18-73 shall read as follows: Sec. 18-73. Speed limits on certain roads and highways. Upon the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation heretofore made as authorized by the provisions of Transportation Code, Section 545.356, the following prima facie speed limits hereafter indicated for vehicles are hereby determined and declared to be reasonable and safe; and such speed limits are hereby fixed at the rate of speed indicated for vehicles traveling upon the named streets and highways, or parts thereof, described as follows: I. FM 426/McKinney Avenue A. 30 mph From Locust Street/US 77 to Mack Drive. B. 45 mph From Mack Drive to Glengary Drive. C. 55 mph From Glengary Drive to the south/easterly city limits. S:\Our Documents\Ordina~ces\04\speed zonesAll2004.doc II. FM 428/Sherman Drive A. 35 mph B. 45 mph C. 55 mph IlL FM 1173 A. 60 mph From the limits. IV. FM 1515/Airport Road A. 45 mph B. 55 mph V. FM 1830/Country Club Road VI. VII. VIII. From Elm Street/US 77 to Monterrey Drive. From Monterrey Drive to Long Road. From Long Road to the north/easterly city limits. IH-35 southbound frontage road to the westerly city From IH-35E northbound frontage road to Corbin Road. From Corbin Road to Masch Branch Road. A. 45 mph From Ft. Worth Drive/US 377 to the Burlington/Santa Fe railroad tracks. B. 55 mph From the Burlington/Santa Fe railroad tracks to the southerly city limits. FM 2164/N. Locust A. 45 mph From N. Locust Street/uS 77 to Loop 288. B. 60 mph From Loop 288 to the northerly city limits. FM 2181/Teasley Lane A. 35 mph From Dallas Drive/uS 77 to Savannah Trail. B. 45 mph From Savannah Trail to 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Drive. C. 40 mph From 500 feet west of Pennsylvania Drive to Lillian Miller Parkway. D. 50 mph From Wind River Lane to the south/easterly city limits. IH-35E Frontage Road Northbound A. 50 mph From the southerly city limits to Loop 288. Page 2 of 5 S:\Our Documents\Ordina~ces\04\speed zonesAll2004.doc B. 45 mph From Loop 288 to Oak Street. IX. IIt-35E Frontage Road Southbound From Oak Street to Lillian Miller Parkway. From Lillian Miller Parkway to the southerly city limits. X. Frontage Road Northbound From Oak Street to Elm Street/US 77. From Elm Street/US 77 to the northerly city limits. XI. Frontage Road Southbound From the northerly city limits to Elm Street/US 77. From Elm Street/US 77 to Oak Street. XIIL A. 45 mph B. 50 mph Iit-35 A. 50 mph B. 55 mph Iit-35 A. 55 mph B. 50 mph Loop 288 A. 35 mph B. 50 mph C. 60 mph XVe From IH-35E southbound main lanes to Morse Street. From Morse Street to University Drive/US 380. From University Drive/US 380 to IH-35. [IS 77/Dallas Drive A. 45 mph From IH-35E southbound main-lanes entrance ramp to Teasley Lane/FM 2181. B. 35 mph From Teasley Lane/FM 2181 to Smith Street. C. 30 mph From Smith Street to Eagle Drive/US 77/Bell Avenue. [IS 77/Eagle Drive A. 30 mph From Dallas Drive/US 77/Bell Avenue to Elm Street/US 77. [IS 77/Elm Street A. 55 mph From the IH-35N southbound frontage road to Donna Road. B. 45 mph From Donna Road to FM 2164. Page 3 of 5 S:\Our Documents\Ordina~ces\04\speed zonesAll2004.doc C. 35 mph From FM 2164 to Sherman Drive/FM 428. D. 30 mph From Sherman Drive/FM 428 to Eagle Drive/US 77. [IS 77/Locust Street A. 30 mph From Eagle Drive/US 77 to Sherman Drive/FM 428. B. 35 mph From Sherman Drive/FM 428 to Elm Street. XVII. [IS 377/Ft. Worth Drive A. 35 mph B. 45 mph C. 50 mph XVIII. D. 60 mph From Eagle Drive/uS77 to Lindsey Street. From Lindsey Street to 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass. From 200 feet south of the T&P Railroad overpass to Country Club Drive/FM 1830. From Country Club Drive/FM 1830 to the south/westerly city limits. US 380/University Drive A. 60 mph B. 55 mph C. 45 mph D. 35 mph E. 45 mph F. 55 mph G. 60 mph SECTION 2. From the westerly city limits to 900 feet west of Cindy Lane. From 900 feet west of Cindy Lane to the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad tracks. From the Burlington/Santa Fe Railroad tracks to Bonnie Brae. From Bonnie Brae to 550 feet east of Shawnee Street. From 550 feet east of Shawnee Street to Mayhill Road. From Mayhill Road to Riverside Drive. From Riverside Drive to the easterly city limits. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00), unless the violation occurs in a work zone and then the penalty shall not exceed Four Hundred Dollars ($400.00). Page 4 of 5 S:\Our Documents\Ordinmaces\04\speed zonesAll2004.doc SECTION 3. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word in this ordinance, or application thereof 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, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares that they would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION 4. That all provisions of the ordinances of the City of Denton in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed, and all other provisions of the ordinances of the City of Denton, not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of _, 2004. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 5 of 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 General Government Michael A. Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT: Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning tax-exempt~properties within the City of Denton, including but not limited to legislative issues for the 79 Texas Legislature. BACKGROUND: The City of Denton has many tax-exempt properties within its approximately 69.54 sq. miles. Some tax-exempt properties such as public school and religious institutions are common to many cities. However, because Denton is the county seat, several state and federal facilities are located within the city limits. DeNon is also the only city in Texas the comains two major pubic universities, one of the few cities in Texas that is home to a State School for the mentally impaired, and the only city in Texas that is home to a regional Departmem of Homeland Security (formerly Federal Emergency Managemem Administration) facility. In order to prepare the City Council for future visits with state and federal legislators, staff researched the number and types of tax-exempt properties in the City of DeNon. The information regarding the tax-exempt properties was researched at the individual parcel level, and the data was gathered from the City of Denton's GIS Department, the Denton Central Appraisal District, the Denton Housing Authority, and the Denton County LandMark GIS map. Denton's total acreage is 44,507.046 acres, and the total tax-exempt acreage within the city is 5391.557 acres, or 12.11% of the total city acreage (See Table 1). However, as of November 2004, the Planning Department has calculated that only 22,945.74 acres, or 51.56% of the total city acreage has been developed. Thus, approximately 23.50% of all developed land is tax- exempt. Looking at the percentage of tax-exempt property for the total city acreage, the biggest percemage (5.89%) is owned by the City, but a big part of this is due to the airport, landfill, and three large parks. The second largest tax-exempt property is UNT (1.51%), followed by DISD (1.49%). One interesting category to note is the "Other" category that includes several tax- exempt owners such as: Habitat for Humanity, DeNon Housing Authority, DeNon Affordable Housing, and Goodwill Industries. ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) January 4, 2005 Tax-Exempt Properties in Denton Page 2 of 5 The following information gives more information on the types of tax-exempt properties lumped into the "Other" category. Habitat for Humanity (Habitat)- receives its exemption under Sec. 11.181 (Charitable Organizations improving Property for Low-income Housing) of the Tax Code. Habitat files an application with the Demon Cemral Appraisal District (DCAD) to obtain tax- exempt status. This exemption is removed when the house is sold to the owner, however, the appraised value for the home is frozen for ten years due to a deed restriction that does not allow the owner to sell the home, except back to Habitat, within the first ten years. Demon Housing Authority (DHA)- receives its exemption under Sec. 11.181 (Charitable Organizations improving Property for Low-income Housing) of the Tax Code, and Sec. 392 of the Local Government Code. DHA files an application with the DCAD to obtain tax-exempt status. Demon Affordable Housing (DAH)- receives its exemption under Sec. 11.182 (Community Housing Developmem Organizations (CHDO) improving Property for Low- income and Moderate-income Housing) of the Tax Code. CHDO's are required to qualify as a 501 (c) organization and engage exclusively in the not-for-profit remal or sale of units to low-income and moderate-income residems, in 2001 a bill amended Sec. 11.182 of the CHDO statute requiring owners to reinvest 40 percent of their tax savings imo community services or rem reduction. The bill also required independem appraisals of CHDO's in some cases. Opposition to CHDO's led to a significant restructuring of the exemption during the 2003 legislative session. H.B. 3546 was a purported effort to tighten the CHDO exemption. The bill sets new criteria for organizations seeking the exemption and reduces the amount of the city exemption from an automatic 100 percent to 50 percem (except in Harris County, where a city can set a differem amoum). A City is not required to approve the exemption if the city cannot afford the loss of ad valorem tax revenue and additional housing for individuals meeting this exemption is available. The Texas Departmem of Housing and Community Affairs is charged with monitoring this legislation and a property may not be exempted for the tax year unless an independent auditor covering the past fiscal year prepares an audit. The audit must be delivered to the local appraisal district to continue to receive the exemption. TML has this issue in their legislative program to monitor. Senator Nelson has filed SB 58 to respond to a concern among taxpayers in Denton County. It excludes tax-exempt status for developmems with less than half of their units designated for low income and limits the exemption based on the number of low-income families served. Other CHDO's- There are two other CHDO's in Demon: Sedera del Sol (1030 Dallas Dr.) and The Arbors of Demon (1103 Bernard Street). They qualify for an exemption because they are organized as a CHDO, and they own the property for the purpose of building housing to rent without profit to low-income or moderate-income individuals or families. A multi-family remal property consisting of 36 or more dwelling units owned by the organization may not be exempted in a subsequent tax year unless in the preceding tax year the organization spent an amount equal to at least 40% of the total amount of taxes that would have been imposed on the property without the exemption in that year ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) January 4, 2005 Tax-Exempt Properties in Denton Page 3 of 5 on rent reduction or other qualified expenses. These organizations must also have an annual audit prepared by an independem CPA, and a copy must be delivered to the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and to the DCAD. Total exemptions are no longer possible for properties acquired by CHDO's after 1/1/2004 because of ll.B. 3546 as discussed above. H.B. 3546 allows a 50% exemption, and is also more restrictive in that the CHDO's are required to set aside a higher percentage of the property for low to moderate income families. We are monitoring further lobbying efforts to get the law changed yet again during the 2005 legislative session, since even a 50% exemption can impact a tax roll. Higher Education Authorities- Chapter 53 of the Texas Education Code permits a city to create a Higher Education Authority or a nonprofit corporation to exercise powers similar to a Higher Education Authority. The nonprofit organization can issue tax-exempt bonds to buy educational facilities or dormitories within or outside a city that created the corporation. There are two of these entities in the City. University Courtyards- The City Council approved the issuance of the tax- exempt bonds for the University Courtyards project. This project is financed by the Keller Higher Education Facilities Corporation, a nonprofit corporation established by the Town of Keller under Chapter 53, along with Denton Educational Housing Corporation, a nonprofit corporation. University Courtyards emered imo an agreemem with the City not to claim the ad valorem tax exemption. The City was able to negotiate and emer imo this agreemem because the University Courtyards was selling private activity bonds that require the city's approval. Jefferson Commons- This apartment complex was purchased by the Student Housing Corporation--Denton Project, a Texas nonprofit corporation established by the Town of Westlake under Chapter 53 of the Texas Education Code ("Chapter 53"). The apartments are exempt from the payment of ad valorem taxes. Jefferson Commons did not need the city's approval because they sold "governmem bonds" as opposed to "private activity bonds". In the 2003 Legislative session, the City successfully lobbied with DISD and several other cities impacted by this legislation, to require a city's consem before locating these types of facilities within a city. Arts Organizations- such as the Greater Denton Arts Council receive their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.18 (Charitable Organizations) of the Tax Code. Day Cares- such as DeNon City County Day Nursery and Fred Moore Day Nursery are 501 (c) organizations and therefore receive their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.18 (Charitable Organizations) of the Tax Code. Community Service Clubs- such as the Optimist Club or Boy Scout Association receive their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.23 (Miscellaneous Exemptions) of the Tax Code. County Fairs Organizations- such as the North Texas Fair Grounds receive their tax- exempt status under Sec. 11.23 (Miscellaneous Exemptions) of the Tax Code. ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) January 4, 2005 Tax-Exempt Properties in Denton Page 4 of 5 Nursing Homes- such as Fair Haven and EV Lutheran Good Samaritan receive their exemptions under Sec. 11.18 (Charitable Organizations) of the Tax Code. They must file an application with the DCAD to obtain tax-exempt status. Private Schools- such as The Selwyn School or Liberty Christian School receive their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.18 (Charitable Organizations) or Sec. 11.21 (Educational Functions) of the Tax Code. Veteran's Organizations- such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars receive their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.23 (Miscellaneous Exemptions) of the Tax Code. While religious organizations are not classified under the "Other" category, they do represent 0.75% of tax-exempt property for the total city acreage. This is more that the percentage (0.69%) of tax-exempt property for TWU. Religious institutions get their tax-exempt status under Sec. 11.20 of the Tax Code. In order to be able to obtain this tax-exempt status, the religious institution must own the property and hold religious services. Also, any other activities such as the operation of a day care do not affect the religious exemption. Texas courts have consistently ruled that other uses or leases for any other purpose are always incidental to the religious use and therefore do not affect the tax-exempt status. Religious organizations must file a tax-exempt application with the DCAD. This is a one-time application and they do not have to re-file unless the DCAD requests a new application. RECOMMENDATION Continue to work with Denton Central Appraisal District to monitor Community Housing Development Organizations located in Denton. And, continue to monitor federal and state bills filed that propose the expansion of the type or amount of tax-exempt status. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission): None FISCAL INFORMATION: None at this time. Respectfully submitted: Betty Williams Director of Management and Public Information Prepared by: John Cabrales Jr. Public Information Officer Attachments Table 1 ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) January 4, 2005 Tax-Exempt Properties in Denton Page 5 of 5 TABLE1 City of Denton 2619.550 48.59% 5.89% Corp of Engineers 197.345 3.66% 0.44% County 89.143 1.65% 0.20% Other 312.241 5.79% 0.70% Religion 334.059 6.20% 0.75% School (DISD and private) 664.689 12.33% 1.49% State 195.844 3.63% 0.44% TWU 308.026 5.71% 0.69% UNT 670.660 12.44% 1.51% Total Tax Exempt Acreage 5391.557 100.00% 12.11% ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET January 4, 2005 Materials Management Kathy DuBose ~ Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Janet Simpson 349-8274 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual comract for the purchase of aquatic chemicals for the City of DeNon Parks Departmem; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3265-Annual Comract for Aquatic Chemicals awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item in the estimated amoum of $70,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the purchase of chemicals to be used by the City of DeNon Parks Departmem for treatment of the water at the Natatorium, Water Works Park, and Civic Center Pool. The quantities shown on the bid tabulation are estimates and may vary according to the needs of the City. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item as listed in Exhibit A for an estimated award amoum of $25,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Aqua-Req. Inc. DCC, Inc. Harcross Chemical Leslie Pool Supply Azle, TX Desoto, TX Dallas, TX Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is an annual comract, which will begin upon approval and run through January 4, 2006 with the option to renew for an additional year, contingent upon pricing remaining the same. FISCAL INFORMATION The items in this bid will be funded out of accoums 411160.6334, 207001.6334, and 207002.6334. Materials will be ordered as needed. Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 3265 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AQUATIC CHEMICALS FOR THE CITY OF DENTON PARKS DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BiD 3265-ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR AQUATIC CHEMICALS AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR EACH ITEM IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $70,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 3265 1,5,13,15 DCC, Inc. Exhibit A 3265 2,3,7,10,11,12,14 Leslie's Pool Supply Exhibit A 3265 6,8,9 Harcross Chemical Exhibit A 3265 4 Aqua-Req Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract and to extend the contract as determined to be advantageous to the City of Denton which shall be on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted 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 ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~'-~:~:::': : " 3-ORD-BID 3265 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: January 4, 2005 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Wiley 349-7925 ACM: Kathy DuBose ~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids by way of an Interlocal Agreement with Tarrant County and awarding a contract for the purchase of emergency vehicle lighting equipment; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3284-Interlocal Agreement for Emergency Vehicle Light Bars with Tarrant County, contract awarded to Emergency Vehicle Equipment Co. in the amount of $29,483.16). INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT INFORMATION The City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement for cooperative purchasing with Tarrant County on June 16, 1998, allowing the City of Denton to participate in Tarrant County contracts for the supply of goods and services. We are recommending that we utilize this method to acquire fourteen sets of items required to properly outfit fourteen new squad cars approved in the budget. Items included are lightbars, control heads, siren amps, speakers, and headlight flashers. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISIONS) The City Council approved an Interlocal Agreement with Tarrant County on June 16, 1998 (98-175). Tarrant County Commissioners Court approved the above referenced bids and awarded a contract to Emergency Vehicle Equipment Co. on March 26, 2002 (Bid No. 2002- 063). Tarrant County Commissioners Court renewed the contract March 9, 2004. Therefore, the prices remain firm through March 26, 2005. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award be approved to Emergency Vehicle Equipment Co. in the amount of $29,483.16. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Emergency Vehicle Equipment Co. Arlington, TX Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The estimated delivery of the vehicles is approximately sixty days or the second week of March 2005. FISCAL INFORMATION This acquisition will be funded from Motor Pool account (810001.8535). Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Price Sheet From Emergency Vehicle Equipment for Selected Options 1-AIS-File3284 Attachment 1 Authorized Distributor Engineering Co., I~, Emergency Vehicle Equipment Company 6ti Magic Mile Dr, Bldg. #201 Aflington~ Texas 76011 $$8~267-22T7 or 8t;7-461-1220 Fax: 800.461.43665 or 817.461-2945 Fax From= MIKE HEWITT CC: [] lUlflplrrt ~ Fer Revlea [] Please ¢ommeet C) Please Reply I~ Please MIKE HEWITT / lease quote prices on the attached. nclude'shipping costs and an stimated delivery A.R.O. Please sturn via fax to my ~tt~ntion. Thank You, ,Tody Hoys Buyer City of benton, TX Ph: 940.349,7100 Fox: 940.349.7307_ ~ Ug~bar, I.S21~,[]~o 14 ~A /~7.~I 3%/ar__./¥ 14 ER .~ABKTI7 14 EA O-F~CO~IP 14 EA ETHIFPO /b.o'l ~o . ,,I ~ 0 .o° ,Tq. qt~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE TARRANT COUNTY AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE LIGHTING EQUIPMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 3284-INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLE LIGHT BARS WITH TARRANT COUNTY, CONTRACT AWARDED TO EMERGENCY VEHICLE EQUIPMENT CO. IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,483.16). WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 95-175, Tarrant County, Texas has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipmem, supplies or services in accordance with the procedure of state law on behalf of the City of DeNon; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described materials, equipmem, supplies or services can be purchased by the City through the Tarrant County Cooperative Purchasing programs at less cost than the City would expend if bidding these items individually; 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, equipmem, 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 purchase order for materials, equipmem, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Number" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agem are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 3284 Emergency Vehicle Equipmem $29,483.16 Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids by way of an Imerlocal Agreement with Tarrant County and awarding a contract for the purchase of emergency vehicle equipmem; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3284-Imerlocal Agreemem for Emergency Vehicle Light Bars with Tarrant County, contract awarded to Emergency Vehicle Equipment Co. in the amount of $29,483.16). SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the listed file number, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to Tarrant County 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 Tarrant County (Bid 2002-063), and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the listed file number wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the Tarrant County, 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 Tarrant County, quantities and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the listed file number, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approval purchase orders 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 ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ':':' "' 3-ORD- FILE 3284 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: January 4, 2005 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Jim Coulter 349-7194 ACM: Kathy DuBose ~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works coNract for the plugging and abandoning of water wells for the City of DeNon; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Bid 3222-Plugging and Abandoning of Water Wells #2, 7, 11 and 12 awarded to L.H. EnvironmeNal Consulting, Inc. in the amouN of $92,000). (The Public Utility Board approved this item by a vote of 6-0). BID INFORMATION The Water Production Division has routinely plugged and abandoned the City's water wells as their practical lives end. Three wells were plugged in 1994 and four wells were plugged in 1996. Water Wells No. 2, 7 and 12 have been in an active emergency use only status since the daily capacity of the water plan on Spencer Road was increased from 16 million gallons per day (MGD) to 24 MGD in 1972. Well number 11 has been in an inactive status, "capped" no pump or motor, since 1992. Three of the water wells were drilled in the early 1950s and one was drilled in 1944. See Attachment 2 for site map. The three active wells have operated for a combined six days since 2000, due to mechanical failures at the Lake Lewisville Raw Water Pump Station in 2000 and 2001. The wells were last used for two days in 2001 at a total production flow of less than 2 MGD. In 2002 the Texas Commission on EnvironmeNal Quality (TCEQ), the regulatory body that oversees drinking water wells, performed their annual inspection. Their report required the City to obtain sanitary control easements for each of the four wells. Staff was unable to obtain the sanitary control easements from the adjacent landowners with homes within 150 feet from three of the four wells because they would not sign the easement or a letter stating that they decline the easement. The TCEQ did grant a temporary exception to this regulation until January 2005. This exception allowed the City to use the wells uNil January 2004 and have the wells plugged and abandoned by January 2005. Agenda Information sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 BID INFORMATION (CONTINUED) The Water Production Division is planning to plug and abandon the wells for the reasons mentioned above and to reduce our security liabilities for these sites. The sites will be disposed of in keeping with City policy. Well Site No. 2 will be given to the Fire Department, which has Station No. 4 adjacent to this property. Well Site No. 12 will be given to the Denton Municipal Electric Department to become a part of the adjacent North Locust Substation. Well Sites 7 and 11 share the same facility and will be offered to any City department that might have a need for the site. If no City department has a use for the property, it will be offered for sale to the public through a bidding process coordinated through the Purchasing Department consistent with City policy and past practice. The City received a total of five bids ranging from $92,000 to $153,000 to plug and abandon the remaining wells. The bid proposal included a base bid and bid alternatives that included demolition of the storage tanks and pump stations at each site. Evaluation of the bids was based upon the base bid amount. Staff is recommending award of the base bid amount only to the low bidder, L. H. Environmental Consulting, Inc. The prices received were consistent with prices paid for plugging wells in the past and budgetary funding. Staff has elected to manage the well site demolition work using internal City resources. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utility Board unanimously approved this item by a vote of 6-0 at its December 13, 2004 meeting. The draft minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment 3. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of this item to L.H. Environmental Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $92,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS L.H. Environmental Consulting, Inc. Carrollton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Contractor agrees to substantially complete all work covered by the contract documents within 21 calendar days established for the start of work, as set forth by the execution of the contract agreement. Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 3 FISCAL INFORMATION This project will be funded from account 630119517.1360.40100. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet Attachment 2: Site Map Attachment 3: Draft December 13, 2004 PUB Minutes 1-AlS-Bid 3222 ~ 0 o ~ o E mo>--, ~ o o '~ o E mo>--, ~ 0 o ~ o E mo>--, Attachment 2 LON~. CNIS. HOLM 'E:X:HIB:IT' I' Attachment 3 CITY OF DENTON PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES December 13, 2004 DRAFT 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, December 13, 2004, at 9:04 a.m. in the Service CeNer Training Room, City of DeNon Service CeNer, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Bob Bland, Bill Cheek, Dick Smith, Phil Gallivan, George Hopkins, Charldean Newell EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Michael Conduff, City Manager Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities EXCUSED: John Baines The Public Utilities Board convened its Open Session at 9:04 a.m. The Chair, Charldean Newell, stated to the Board that there was one Closed Meeting agenda item set forth in the Closed Meeting agenda and requested a motion to consider the agenda item under §551.086 § 551.071 of the Texas GovernmeN Code - Deliberations Regarding Certain Public Power Utilities Competitive Matters and §551.071 of the Texas Government Code - Consultation With Attorney. A motion was then made and seconded respecting the consideration of the item by the Board. The Board then voted 6-0 to move into Closed Session to consider the item, and thereafter convened its Closed Session at 9:04 a.m. The Public Utilities Board reconvened in an Open Session at 9:09 a.m. The meeting was called to order to consider the following business: 2) ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: Consider approval of Bid No. 3222 for the plugging and abandonmeN of Water Wells No. 2, 7, 11 and 12 to L.H. Environmental Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $92,000. Tim Fisher, AssistaN Director or Water Utilities, presented this item. Water Wells No. 2, 7 and 12 have been in an active emergency use only status since the daily capacity of the water plan on Spencer Road was increased from 16 million gallons per day to 24 million gallons per day in 1972. Well number 11 has been in an inactive status, "capped" no pump or motor, since 1992. The three active wells have operated for a combined 6 days since 2000, due to mechanical failures at the Lake Lewisville Raw Water Pump Station in 2000 and 2001. The wells were last used for 2 days in 2001 at a total production flow of less than 2million gallons per day. In 2002, the Texas Commission on EnvironmeNal Quality (TCEQ) performed their annual inspection and required the City to obtain sanitary control easements for each of the four wells. Staff was unable to obtain the sanitary control easements from the adjacent landowners with homes within 150 feet from three of the four wells because they would not sign the easement or a letter stating that they decline the easement. The TCEQ granted a temporary exception to the regulation until January 2005. The exception allowed the City to use the wells until January 2004 and have the wells plugged and abandoned by January 2005. Board Member George Hopkins moved to approve awarding the contract to L.H. Environmental Consulting, with a second from Board Member Bob Bland. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE PLUGGING AND ABANDONING OF WATER WELLS FOR THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 3222-PLUGGING AND ABANDONING OF WATER WELLS #2, 7, 11 AND 12 AWARDED TO L.H. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $92,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 3222 L.H. Environmental Consulting $92,000 SECTION 2. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 3-ORD-Bid 3222 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: January 4, 2005 Materials Management Kathy DuBose ~ Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Bruce Henington 349-8134 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for purchase of furniture for the Civic Center and Emily Fowler Library Renovation Project; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date (Bid 3223- Civic Center and Emily Fowler Library Furniture awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each section by manufacturer in the amount of $226,205.90). BID INFORMATION This acquisition is for the furniture and fixture portion of the Emily Fowler Library and Civic Center renovations. The interior design architect, Booziotis and Company, determined the quantities, brands, styles, colors, and patterns to meet interior aesthetics and to match existing furniture at the North Branch Library. Bids were solicited and recommendation for award is to the lowest responsible bidders by manufacturer group. RECOMMENDATION Award of this item to the lowest responsible bidder by manufacturer group as listed below for a total award amount of $226,205.90. Section A- Denton Civic Center Vendor Item # Manufacturer Amount Royer & Schutts 1-12 Tusa Office Solutions 13 a, 14,15 McKinney Office Supply 16 Bretford Inc. $29,429.90 Knoll $20,755.60 Steelcase, Inc. $ 6,295.20 Subtotal $56,480.70 Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION (CONTINUED) Section B- Emily Fowler Library Vendor Item# Manufacturer Amount Brauhaus Interiors Group McKinney Office Supply Facility Interiors 17,18,96,97 19-21,22-27, 106 28,29,46-54, 91-95,102,107 Brandrud, Mayline Brayton International, Bretford Inc. Vecta Dakota Jackson, Fixtures Furn. Kron,Peter Pepper,Virco $ 2,646.23 $12,200.46 $71,011.84 Vendor Item# Manufacturer Amount Intelligent Interiors Tusa Office Solutions Royer & Schutts Demco The Spencer Company 30-32,74-83 99,100,101 41-44,55-73 4O 98,103-105 Contracta 33-39 Wilson Office Interiors 45 Danko/Persing, Herman Miller $17,221.53 Nevins $ 7,972.42 Doodle Works, Haworth $44,750.64 Demco $ 1,942.50 Metro Commercial Products, $ 4,953.51 Russ Bassett Dauphin $ 5,415.09 Duke Manufacturing $ 1,610.98 Subtotal $169,725.20 Iteml 3, the non-upholstered hardback chair is not being awarded at this time. We recommend no award of the Emily Fowler Knoll Items 84-90 at this time, pending further definition of specifications and needs of the City. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Bauhaus Interiors Group Contracta Demco Dallas, TX Dallas, TX Madison, WI Facility Interiors Addison, TX Intelligent Interiors Addison, TX Royer & Schutts Fort Worth, TX The Spencer Co. Tusa Office Solutions Dallas, TX Carrollton, TX Wilson Office Interiors, Inc. Carrollton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The estimated furniture installation date for both projects is April 15, 2005. Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 3 FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for the furniture will be paid for from Emily Fowler Library project 100080445.1365.40100 and Civic Center project account 100087445.1365.40100. account Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Tabulation Sheet 1-AlS-Bid 3223 Z Z Z Z ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z o o o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Z Z ' ~ ~ ~ ~ m m ~ .... Z 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ S ~ ~ '~ '~ '~~ < ~ o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z - ~ ~ - - ............ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · ~~ ~~ ~ ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o z z z z z z z ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z z z z z z ...... ~ -~ ~ - - ~~ ..... ~ .......................... iiiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii z z z z z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z iiiiiiiiiiiiii~iiiiiii~iiiiiiiiii~iiiiiiiiiiii o o o o o o~ o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o z z z z z z ~ z z z z z z z z z z ~ z z z z z z z z z z z z z -~~ ~ zzzzzzzzzz ~ zzzzzzz z o o ~ = = ~ .~ .~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E J Z Z Z Z Z Z o ~ ~ z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0 0 · ' ZZ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ ~ Z Z Z Z Z Z ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z ~ ~ Z Z Z >~ w _ 5~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~-o ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF FURNITURE FOR THE CIVIC CENTER AND EMILY FOWLER LIBRARY RENOVATION PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 3223-CiViC CENTER AND EMILY FOWLER LIBRARY FURNITURE AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR EACH SECTION BY MANUFACTURER iN THE AMOUNT OF $226,205.90). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 3223 1-12,41-44,55-73 3223 13A, 14,15,99,100,101 3223 16,19-21,22-27,106 3223 17,18,96,97 3223 28, 29,46-54,91-95,102 107 3223 30-32,74-83 3223 40 3223 98, 103-105 3223 33-39 3223 45 Royer & Schutts Tusa Office Solutions McKinney Office Supply Bauhaus Interiors Group Facility interiors Intelligent Interiors Demco The Spencer Company Contracta Wilson Office interiors Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A Exhibit A SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted 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 ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: EXHIBIT A Section A- Denton Civic Center Vendor Item # Royer & Schutts 1-12 Tusa Office Solutions 13 a, 14,15 McKinney Office Supply 16 Section B- Emily Fowler Vendor Bauhaus Interiors Group McKinney Office Supply Facility Interiors Intelligent Interiors Tusa Office Solutions Royer & Schutts Demco The Spencer Company Contracta Wilson Office Interiors Library Item# 17,18,96,97 19-21,22-27, 106 28,29,46-54, 91-95,102,107 30-32, 74-83 99,100,101 41-44, 55-73 40 98,103-105 33-39 45 Manufacturer Bretford Inc. Knoll Steelcase, Inc. Subtotal Manufacturer Brandrud, Mayline Brayton International, Vecta, Bretford, Inc. Dakota Jackson, Fixtures Furn. Kron,Peter Pepper,Virco Danko/Persing, Herman Miller Nevins Doodle Works, Haworth Demco Metro Commercial Products, Russ Basset Dauphin Duke Manufacturing Subtotal Amount $29,429.90 $20,755.60 $ 6,295.20 $56,480.70 Amount $ 2,646.23 $12,200.46 $71,011.84 $17,221.53 $ 7,972.42 $44,750.64 $ 1,942.50 $ 4,953.51 $ 5,415.09 $ 1,610.98 $169,725.20 Grand Total $226,205.90 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Fire Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an Imerlocal Ambulance Agreemem between the City of DeNon and the City of Ponder for ambulance service; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND The Imerlocal Agreemem for Ambulance Service between the City of DeNon and the City of Ponder began in 1980 and provides for the continuation of emergency medical services to the small cities within our service area. The revenue generated from ambulance transport fees only recovers a portion of our actual costs to provide service to the small cities. Since 1998, the City has incrememally increased the charge to small cities to help recover the actual cost of providing the service. In addition to the increasing cost of providing ambulance service, the number of ambulance runs being made to small cities has cominued to slightly increase. The proposed per capita charge of $18.00 combined with the ambulance transport fees still recovers only a portion of the City's costs to provide that service. In 2004, the City of Denton responded into the Ponder area 116 times. We anticipate a slight increase of emergency responses to Ponder in 2005 and estimate 130 calls. This ongoing imerlocal agreemem is often delayed by the City of Ponder's legal approval process as well as approval by their City Council. We submit the agreemem to the City of Ponder as part of the City of Denton's budget process; however, it often takes several months to receive it back. Even though the contract is approved after its starting date, the agreement still remains effective from October 1, 2004 with no reductions in revenues. OPTIONS Approve ordinance amendmem or deny ordinance amendmem. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions) Council approved this agreement last year and in all years since 1980. changed from $17.00 per capita in FY03-04 to $18.00 in FY04-05. derived from the Ponder City Secretary has remained at 522. The contract amount has The population total as FISCAL INFORMATION Cost recovery from this agreement will total $9,396.00 for FY04-05. Respectfully submitted: Ross Chadwick Fire Chief ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF PONDER FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of DeNon hereby approves an Imerlocal Agreemem for Ambulance Service between the City of DeNon and the City of Ponder, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and the Mayor, or in her absence the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute said Agreemem on behalf of the City. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: S:\Our Documcms\Ordinanccs\04\ambulancc service-ponder.doc INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR AMBULANCE SERVICE BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF PONDER The City of Denton currently provides emergency medical services to the citizens of Denton. The City of Ponder would like to contract with the City of Denton to receive emergency medical services for its citizens. Pursuant to Chapter 774 of the Tex. Health and Safety Code (Vernon 1992) and the tnterlocal Cooperation Act, Tex. Gov't Code Ann, §791.001, et seq., (Vernon 1994), a city may contract to provide emergency medical services to the county or another city. WHEREAS, both the City of Denton and the City of Ponder have the authority to perform the services set forth in this Agreement individually and in accordance with Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §791.011(c)(2); and WHEREAS, the City of Ponder will make all payments for services out of available current revenues and the City of Denton agrees that the payments made by the City of Ponder hereunder will fairly compensate it for the services performed; NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH This Agreement is made on the ~ day of ,2004, between the City of Denton, Texas ("Denton"), and the City of Ponder ("Ponder"). The parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Eme~ency Medical Service.q or ~ means personnel and ground transportation vehicles used to respond to an individual's perceived need for immediate medical care and to prevent death or aggravation of physiological or psychological illness or injury. 2. Denton to Provide EMS to Ponder. Denton shall provide emergency medical services to Ponder in response to requests for emergency medical services in accordance with this Agreement. All requests for emergency medical services for persons residing in the corporate limits of Ponder shall be communicated to Denton in the manner specified by Denton. 3, Discretion in Providing E.M.S. Ponder understands that Denton must also respond to requests for emergency medical services for persons in Denton and that Denton has other contracts to provide emergency medical services to other entities. Denton shall have the sole right and discretion, without being in breach of this Agreement and without liability to Ponder, to determine: C tIX)CLrME~ IktlshovaxkLOCALS~ P, Temphrabulance contract-ponder.dm (a) Whether or not to respond to a request for medical emergency service; (b) Whether and when personnel or equipment are available to respond to a request for emergency medical service; (c) The order is which to respond to a request for emergency medical service; and (d) The time in which to respond to a request for emergency medical service. 4. Service Fee. In consideration for providing emergency medical services to Ponder, Ponder agrees to pay to Denton the sum of $9,396.00 for fiscal year 2004-2005 based on a population of 522 multiplied by $18.00. The population figure used is based on the most recent figure available from the Ponder City Secretary's office. The annual payment shall be paid to Denton in equal quarterly payments on or before October 1, January I, April 1, and July 1, of each annual term. Denton may, after giving prior notice, suspend service to Ponder during any period of time Ponder is delinquent in the payment of any undisputed service fee. 5. Patient Charges. In addition to the service fee paid by Ponder, Denton may charge and collect from persons provided emergency medical services, the patient fees established by ordinance of Denton. 6, Governmental Immunity Not Waived. Neither Denton nor Ponder waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims made or arising from any act or omission resulting from this Agreement. 7. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be in one-year increments, beginning on October 1, 2004 and continuing to September 30 of the following year and thereafter from year to year until terminated in accordance with this Agreement. 8, Termination; Default. Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause by giving 90 days advance notice in writing to the other, specifying the date of term/nation. If either party breaches a provision of this Agreement, the other party shall give the defaulting party written notice of the default. Should the defaulting party fail to correct the default within thirty days of the date notice of default is sent, the other party may declare the Agreement terminated. Ponder shall be liable to Denton pro rata for the payment of emergency medical services provided up to the date of termination. 9. Notices. All notices sent under this Agreement shall be mailed, postage prepaid, to the respective addresses, as follows: To Denton: City Manager City of Denton 215 E. McKinney To Ponder: Mayor City of Ponder P.O. Box 297 Page 2 of 4 Denton, Texas 76201 Ponder, Texas 76259 10. Agreement Not for Benefit of Third Parties. This Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to be for the benefit of any individual or create any duty on Denton to any third party, 11. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement except upon the prior written consent of the other. 12. Venue. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. EXECUTED on the day of ................... 2004. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: EULINBROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 3 of 4 CITY OF PONDER ATTEST: SECRETARY MAYOR Page 4 of 4 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Fire Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal fire protection agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for fire protection services; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND The interlocal agreement for fire service between the City of Denton and Denton County provides fire protection services by the Denton Fire Department to the County areas previously served by the Mayhill-Cooper Creek Volunteer Fire Department and a small portion of the Lake Cities Fire District now adjacem to the newly annexed City property in the southwest portion of Teasely (FM 2181) as shown on the attached map. In 2003, Denton County requested that the City of Denton provide fire protection to the designated area due to Mayhill-Cooper Creek's cominuing lack of sufficiem resources to provide a proper response to fire calls. The County also requested in 2004 that the City respond to a small area next to the new DISD high school on FM 2181 and Old Alton Road since the City of Denton's response time to the area is much quicker than Lake Cities Fire Department. This comract will be for a period of one year. This ongoing imerlocal agreemem is often delayed in the County's legal approval process, which also includes review by the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association as well as approval by the Commissioners Court as part of their budget process. Even though the contract is approved after its starting date, the agreement still remains effective from October 1, 2004 with no reductions in revenues. OPTIONS: Approve ordinance amendmem or deny ordinance amendmem. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions): The Council approved the 2003-2004 contract. FISCAL INFORMATION: DeNon County will pay the City $10,000 upon execution of the proposed agreemem and reimburse the City for each fire call at the rate of $368.10 per fire call. The annual estimate for the comract is $30,184.20. EXHIBITS: Ordinance Agreement District Map Respectfully submitted: Ross Chadwick Fire Chief S:\Our Documcms\Ordinancos\04\firo protoction agroomcm county.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL FIRE PROTECTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Demon hereby approves an Agreemem between the City of Denton and Denton County for fire protection services, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The Mayor, or in her absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute this Agreemem on behalf of the City. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and emered imo this day of, ,2005, by and between Denton County, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of DeNon, a municipal corporation, located in DeNon County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY". WHEREAS, COUNTY is a duly organized political subdivision of the State of Texas engaged in the administration of county government and related services for the benefit of the citizens of DeNon County; and WHEREAS, AGENCY is a municipal corporation, duly organized and operating under the laws of the State of Texas and is engaged in the provision of fire protection service and related services for the benefit of the citizens of the district; and WHEREAS, this Contract involves governmental functions that each party individually can perform; and WHEREAS, the amount paid by County for this service is to be made from current revenues available to it and that amount fairly compensates Agency for the services and functions performed by it; and WHEREAS, AGENCY is the owner and operator of certain fire protection vehicles and other equipmem designed for the extinguishing of fire and prevemion of damage to property and injury to persons from fire and has in its employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such vehicles and equipmem; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and AGENCY mutually desire to be subject to and contract pursuant to the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and Sections 352.001 and 352.004, Local Govemmem Code, NOW, THEREFORE, COUNTY and AGENCY, for the mutual promises, covenants, agreements and consideration stated herein, agree as follows: I. TERM The term of this agreement shall be for the period of October 1, 2004 to and through September 30, 2005. FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 ~1 II. SERVICES The services to be rendered in accordance with this Agreement by AGENCY are the fire protection services normally rendered by AGENCY to citizens of the district but which services will now be extended to all citizens of COUNTY residing in the unincorporated areas of COUNTY within the operating territory or jurisdiction of AGENCY as agreed to by AGENCY and COUNTY in this Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit A. These services are rendered in consideration of the basic funding and the separate per call fee set forth in this Agreement; for the common good and benefit; and to serve the public convenience and necessity of the citizens of COUNTY who are not otherwise protected with respect to fire prevention, extinguishment, safety, and rescue services. The services to be rendered are as follows: A. AGENCY shall make available and provide emergency fire prevention, extinguishment, safety and rescue services within the agreed or specified territory or jurisdiction of the AGENCY; B. AGENCY shall respond to requests for fire protection services made within COUNTY as set out in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto and incorporated by reference. C. COUNTY agrees that, in the event a fire in the AGENCY's unincorporated designated area which AGENCY considers to be of incendiary nature and upon request by AGENCY, the County Fire Marshal will dispatch investigation personnel to the fire scene within a response time sufficient to legally maintain and protect all evidence of said fire and will conduct all appropriate investigation and assist in the prosecution of any case of arson. AGENCY shall not be responsible for investigations of suspected incendiary fires in the unincorporated areas, but shall cooperate with the County Fire Marshal in immediately relating all pertinent information possible to the investigator(s). D. COUNTY agrees that the County Fire Marshal may assist in the conduct of appropriate investigations of a fire which AGENCY considers to be of incendiary nature in the AGENCY's incorporated designated area upon request by AGENCY. E. AGENCY shall submit monthly statements on the Texas Fire Incident Reporting System's standardized forms to the Denton County Fire Marshal, 110 West Hickory, Denton, Texas 76201. This form will serve as the billing statement to COUNTY for reimbursement of FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 2 calls made in the unincorporated designated area. The DeNon County Fire Marshal shall provide the forms upon request from AGENCY. F. AGENCY, in the performance of its duties and responsibilities under this Agreement, shall have the responsibility, within the sole discretion of the officers and employees of AGENCY except as otherwise determined by the Denton County Fire Marshal, to determine priorities in the dispatching and use of AGENCY equipmem and personnel, and the judgmem of any such officer or employee as to any such matter shall be the final determination. iii. LiASON OFFICER COUNTY shall designate the County Judge to act on behalf of COUNTY and to serve as "Liaison Officer" between COUNTY and AGENCY. The County Judge or her designated substitute shall devote sufficient time and attention to this Agreement to insure the performance of all duties and obligations of COUNTY and provide supervision of COUNTY's employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers engaged in the performance of this Agreement for the mutual benefit of COUNTY and AGENCY. IV. PERFORMANCE OF SERVICE AGENCY shall devote sufficient time and attention to insure the performance of all duties and obligations of AGENCY under this Agreemem and shall provide immediate and direct supervision of the AGENCY employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers engaged in the performance of this Agreemem for the mutual benefit of AGENCY and COUNTY. V. COMPENSATION COUNTY agrees to pay to AGENCY for the full performance of services as provided in this Agreemem the sum of TEN THOUSAND AND NO/100THS DOLLARS ($10,000.00), payable upon execution of this agreement, and the further sum of THREE HUNDRED SIXTY- EIGHT AND 10/100TH DOLLARS ($368.10) per fire call in the designated unincorporated areas of COUNTY from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005. The total of all payments by COUNTY to AGENCY pursuant to this Agreement is estimated to be $30,184.20. COUNTY will make no paymem to AGENCY for service provided outside the agreed service district FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 3 whether by mutual aid agreement or otherwise. AGENCY understands and agrees that payment by the COUNTY to AGENCY shall be made in accordance with the normal and customary processes and business procedures of COUNTY and in conformance with applicable state law. VI. RADIOS As additional compensation to AGENCY, COUNTY has transferred ownership of a STX 800 Mhz radio to AGENCY in carrying out the terms of this contract. No agreement has been made for any additional radios now or in the future, which has been previously provided in earlier contracts for use by AGENCY. VII FINANCIAL RECORDS AGENCY agrees to make available its financial records, relevant to this contract, for audit and/or review as may requested or required by COUNTY. Viii RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNTY COUNTY shall be responsible for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all officers, employees, and agents of COUNTY while engaged in the performance of this Agreement.. IX. RESPONSIBILITY OF AGENCY AGENCY shall be responsible for the acts, negligence, and/or omissions of all officers, employees, and agents of AGENCY while engaging in the performance of this Agreement. X. APPLICABLE LAW COUNTY and AGENCY understand and agree that liability under this contract is governed by V.T.C.A. Government Code Chapter 791 and V.T.C.A. Local Government Code Section 352.001 and 352.004. This agreement is made in contemplation of the applicability of these laws to the agreement. Insofar as legally possible COUNTY and AGENCY agree to be bound by the above mentioned statutes as they exist as of the date of this agreement. FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 4 XI. DEFAULT In the event of any default in any of the covenants herein contained, this agreement may be forfeited and terminated at either party's discretion if such default continues for a period often (10) days after notice to the other party in writing of such default and intention to declare this agreement terminated. Unless the default is cured as aforesaid, this agreement shall terminate as if that were the day originally fixed herein for the expiration of the agreement. XII TERMINATION This agreement may be terminated any time, by either party giving sixty (60) days advance written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination by either party, AGENCY shall be compensated pro rata for all services performed to termination date, together with reimbursable expenses then due and as authorized by this agreement. In the event of such termination, should AGENCY be overcompensated on a pro rata basis for all services performed to termination date, and/or be overcompensated reimbursable expenses as authorized by this Agreement, COUNTY shall be reimbursed pro rata for all such overcompensation. Acceptance of such reimbursement shall not constitute a waiver of any claim that may otherwise arise out of this agreement. XIII. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY The fact that COUNTY and AGENCY accept certain responsibilities relating to the rendition of fire protection services under this agreement as a part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health makes it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental function and that the doctrine of governmental immunity shall be and it is hereby invoked to the extent possible under the law. Neither AGENCY nor COUNTY waives nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising from the exercise of government powers and functions. FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 5 XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between AGENCY and COUNTY and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and/or agreements, either written or oral. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both AGENCY and COUNTY. XV. LAW OF CONTRACT This agreement and any of its terms and provision, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. XVI. SEVERABILITY In the event that any portion of this agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. XVII. AUTHORITY The undersigned officer and/or agents of the parties hereto are the property authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this agreement on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereby certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. By the signature of its duly authorized official hereto, the COUNTY assures the AGENCY that the County Auditor has certified that sufficient funds are available within the current County budget to make all payments and meet all the financial obligations of this Contract and these funds are available to pay the obligation when due in accordance with Section 111.093(c) of the Local Government Code V.T.C.A. XVIII. SERVICE AREA Acceptance of this contract constitutes approval of the service area set out in attached Exhibit "A". FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 6 EXECUTED in duplicate originals, this the __ day of 2005. COUNTY Demon County, Texas 110 West Hickory Demon, Texas 76201 AGENCY City of Demon 215 E. McKinney Demon, Texas 76201 By Mary Horn Demon County Judge By Euline Brock Mayor Acting on behalf of and by the authority of Demon County Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas. ATTEST: BY: Demon County Clerk Cymhia Mitchell APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistam District Attorney Acting on behalf of and by the authority of the City of Demon ATTEST: BY: Jennifer Walters City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: BY: ~_~}~'~ ~ ~-'~ Herbert L. Prouty ~"/- City Attorney APPROVED ASTO CONTENT: Demon County Fire Marshal FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 7 AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that funds are available in the amount of $ accomplish and pay the obligation of Denton County under this contract. to Date: James Wells, Denton County Auditor FIRE CONTRACT 2003-04 8 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Fire Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon, Texas approving and authorizing the Mayor to execute an interlocal ambulance agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for ambulance services; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND: The interlocal agreement for ambulance service between the City of Denton and Denton County began in 1980 and provides for emergency medical service to DeNon County within the designated area (see map). Each year a new agreemem and ordinance is presemed to the DeNon City Council for the next fiscal year approving the fee the County will pay to the City of DeNon for service using a County-wide funding formula based on population served, number of ambulance calls in the County area and the rural square miles in the County. The population and mileage figures used are based on numbers obtained from the North Cemral Texas Council of Governments. The total estimated fee of $188,055.00 is based on the funding formula rations as follows: 1. A fixed readiness sum for population based on .484751233 per capita for an estimated maximum amoum of $52,778.79. 2. A sum of $399.5615764 per ambulance run for an estimated maximum amoum of $41,554.40. This sum is based upon the number of runs made in the County areas for fiscal year 2004. 3. A fixed sum based on 211.83 rural square miles in the agreed operating territory for an estimated maximum amoum of $93,584.18. This ongoing imerlocal agreemem is often delayed in the County's legal approval process, which also includes review by the Denton County Fire Chiefs Association as well as approval by the Commissioners Court as part of their budget process. Even though the contract is approved after its starting date, the agreement still remains effective from October 1, 2004 with no reductions in revenues. OPTIONS: Approve ordinance amendmem or deny ordinance amendmem. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the proposed amendment to the ordinance. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions): The Council approved the 2003-2004 contract. FISCAL INFORMATION: The estimated ambulance fee for the County is $188,055.00, which is less than the last contract amount of $249,671.01 due to the reduction in the covered area and the loss of square miles in the county formula and a reduced number of calls to the area. EXHIBITS: Ordinance Agreement District Map Respectfully submitted: Ross Chadwick Fire Chief S:\Our Documcnts\Ordinancos\04~ambulanco agreement coun/y.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND DENTON COUNTY FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Demon hereby approves an Agreemem between the City of Demon and Demon County for ambulance services, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The Mayor, or in her absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, is hereby authorized to execute this Agreemem on behalf of the City. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT AMBULANCE SERVICE THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __ day of ., 2005, by and between Denton County, a political subdivision of the State of Texas, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the City of Demon, a municipality, located in Demon County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY". WHEREAS, COUNTY is a duly organized political subdivision of the State of Texas engaged in the administration of county government and related services for the benefit of the citizens of Demon County; and WHEREAS, AGENCY is a municipality, duly organized and operating under the laws of the State of Texas and engaged in the provision of ambulance service and related services for the benefit of the citizens of the district; and WHEREAS, this Contract involves governmental functions that each party individually can perform; and WHEREAS, the amount paid by County for this service is to be made from current revenues available to it and that amount fairly compensates Agency for the services and functions performed by it; and WHEREAS, AGENCY is an owner and operator of certain ambulance vehicles and other equipmem designed for the transportation of persons who are sick, infirmed, or injured and has in its employ trained personnel whose duties are related to the use of such vehicles and equipment; and WHEREAS, COUNTY desires to obtain emergency ambulance and related services for the benefit of residems of COUNTY living in unincorporated areas of COUNTY which AGENCY is capable of providing; and INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES WHEREAS, the provision of emergency ambulance and related services is a governmental function that serves the public health and welfare and is of mutual concern to both COUNTY and AGENCY; and WHEREAS, COUNTY and AGENCY mutually desire to be subject to and contract pursuant to the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, and Section 774.003, Health and Safety Code, NOW THEREFORE, COUNTY and AGENCY, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and agreements stated herein, agree as follows: I. TERM The term of this agreement shall be for the period of October 1, 2004 to and through September 30, 2005. II. DEFINITIONS As used herein, the words and phrases hereinafter set forth shall have the meanings as follows: A. "Emergency" shall mean any circumstance that calls for immediate action and in which the element of time in transporting the sick, wounded or injured for medical treatment is essential to the health or life of a person or persons. Whether an emergency, in fact, exists is solely up to the discretion of the AGENCY. For dispatch purposes only, "emergency" shall include, but not be limited to: 1. The representation by the individual requesting ambulance service that an immediate need exists for the transportation of a person from any location within the agreed operating area of AGENCY to a place where emergency medical treatment may be obtained; or 2. The representation by the individual requesting ambulance service that an immediate need exists for the transportation of a person from any location within the agreed operating area of AGENCY to the closest medical facility; INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES B. "Rural area" means any area within the boundaries of COUNTY but outside the corporate limits of all incorporated cities, towns and villages within COUNTY. C. "Urban area" means any area within the corporate limits of an incorporated municipality, town or village within COUNTY. D. "Emergency ambulance call" means a response to a request for ambulance service by the personnel of AGENCY in a situation involving an emergency, as defined above, by an ambulance vehicle. A single response to a call may involve the transportation of more than one person at a time but shall be considered as only one call. iii. SERVICES The services to be rendered under this Agreement are the ambulance services normally rendered by AGENCY to citizens of the district in circumstances of emergency but which services will now be extended to all citizens of COUNTY residing in the unincorporated areas of COUNTY within the operating territory or jurisdiction of AGENCY as agreed to by AGENCY and COUNTY in this Agreement and as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference. It is recognized that the officers and employees of AGENCY have the duty and responsibility of rendering ambulance services to citizens of AGENCY and COUNTY. in the performance of these duties and responsibilities, it shall be within the sole responsibility and discretion of the officers and employees of AGENCY to determine priorities in the dispatching and use of such equipment and personnel and the judgment of the officer or employee shall be final. IV. PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AGENCY shall devote sufficient time and attention to insure the performance of all duties and obligations of AGENCY under this Agreement and shall provide immediate and INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT 3 A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES direct supervision of the AGENCY employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers engaged in the performance of this Agreement for the mutual benefit of AGENCY and COUNTY. LIAISON OFFICER COUNTY shall designate the County Judge to act on behalf of COUNTY and to serve as "Liaison Officer" between COUNTY and AGENCY. The County Judge or her designated substitute shall devote sufficient time and attention to insure the performance of all duties and obligations of COUNTY under this Agreement and shall provide for the immediate and direct supervision of employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors and/or laborers of COUNTY engaged in the performance of this Agreement. COMPENSATION COUNTY agrees to pay to AGENCY an estimated fee of $188,055.00 based on a funding formula as follows: 1. A fixed readiness sum based on population based on .484751233 per capita of $52,916.41. 2. The sum of $399.5615764 per ambulance run for an estimated maximum amount of $41,554.40. This sum is based upon the number of runs made by AGENCY in fiscal year 2004. 3. A fixed sum based on 211.83 rural miles in the agreed operating territory of $93,584.18. The first and third sums are based upon population and mileage figures obtained from the North Central Texas Council of Governments. The second sum is based upon the definition of an ambulance call for purposes of this Agreement. Payment shall not be allowed for any instance in which a patient is not transported. Consistent with the reporting procedures described below, INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT 4 A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES AGENCY shall receive payment for transporting the patient regardless of the service delivery area in which the call originated. Requests for payment shall be submitted on the standardized ambulance transportation reporting form approved and provided by COUNTY. It shall be the responsibility of AGENCY to fully complete the forms and to provide complete and accurate patient information. Requests for payment shall be submitted within five (5) days of the performance of service by AGENCY. Requests not timely submitted shall not be considered for payment. Requests for payment may be submitted by personal delivery, U.S. mail, facsimile, or computer telephone link to the office of the Denton County Fire Marshal. The date of submission shall be the date the fully documented request is received in said office. VII. TERMINATION This Agreement may be terminated at any time by either AGENCY or COUNTY giving sixty (60) days advance notice in writing to the other party. In the event of termination by either party, AGENCY shall be compensated pro rata for all services performed to termination date, together with reimbursable expenses authorized by this Agreement then due and owed. Should AGENCY be overcompensated on a pro rata basis for all services performed to the termination date and/or be overcompensated for reimbursable expenses, COUNTY shall be reimbursed pro rata for all such overcompensation. Acceptance of such reimbursement shall not constitute a waiver of any claim that may otherwise arise out of this Agreement. VIII. FINANCIAL RECORDS AGENCY agrees to make its financial records, relevant to this contract~ available for audit and/or review by COUNTY upon request by COUNTY. INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES IX. RESPONSIBILITY OF COUNTY COUNTY shall be responsible for the acts and negligence of all officers, employees and agents of COUNTY engaged in the performance of this Agreement. X. RESPONSIBILITY OF AGENCY AGENCY shall be responsible for the acts and negligence of all officers, employees and agents of AGENCY engaged in the performance of this Agreement. XI. DEFAULT In the event of any default in any of the covenants herein contained, this Agreement may be terminated at the discretion of the non-defaulting party if such default continues for a period often (10) days after notice in writing to the defaulting party of such default and the intention to declare this Agreement terminated. Unless the default is cured, this Agreement shall terminate. XII. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY The fact that COUNTY and AGENCY accept certain responsibilities relating to the rendering of ambulance services under this Agreement as a part of their responsibility for providing protection for the public health makes it imperative that the performance of these vital services be recognized as a governmental function and that the doctrine of governmental immunity shall be, and is hereby, invoked to the extent possible under the law. Neither AGENCY nor COUNTY waives nor shall be deemed hereby to waive any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims arising from the exercise of governmental powers and functions. XIV. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between AGENCY and COUNTY and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations and/or agreements, either INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT 6 A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES written or oral. parties. This agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both XV. LAW OF CONTRACT This Agreement and any of its terms or provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. XVI. SEVERABILITY In the event that any portion of this Agreement shall be found to be contrary to law, it is the intent AGENCY and COUNTY that the remaining portions shall remain valid and in full force and effect to the extent possible. XVII. AUTHORITY The undersigned officer and/or agems of are the properly authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of AGENCY and COUNTY. EXECUTED in duplicate originals, this the __ day of 2005. COUNTY: AGENCY: Denton County, Texas 110 West Hickory Demon, Texas 76201 By: Mary Horn Denton County Judge City of Demon 215 E. McKinney Demon, Texas 76201 By:. Euline Brock Mayor Acting on behalf of and by the authority of Demon County Commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas. Acting on behalf of and by the authority of the City of Demon INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES ATTEST: BY: Denton County Clerk Cynthia Mitchell ATTEST: BY: Jennifer Walters City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant District Attorney BY: Herbert L. Prouty City Attorney APPROVED ASTO CONTENT: Denton County Fire Marshal INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that funds are available in the amount of $. accomplish and pay the obligation of Denton County under this contract. to Date: James Wells, Denton County Auditor INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT A~B ULAiqCE SERVICES AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Engineering Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of DeNon abandoning and vacating a 0.322 acre street right-of-way easement tract and a 0.126 acre utility easement tract, both dedicated to the City of Denton, Texas by the Dreamland Addition plat, recorded in Volume 6, Page 12 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City of DeNon Housing Corporation requested that the City of DeNon abandon its utility easement interests and street right-of-way interests in order to improve the pending redevelopment project, Renaissance Court. Staff'research indicates the following: · No public facilities such as paving or utilities were installed in the subject tracts as part of the original apartment complex development of 1970. · There is no evidence that there have been any east/west public facility installations in either of the two subject abandonment tracts since the inception of the original apartment complex in 1970. · The street right-of-way was included as part of the original plat dedication for potential future street development that did not materialize. · The east/west 0.126 acre utility easemem was formally dedicated by the 1970 Dreamland Addition Plat and an existing 15-inch sanitary sewer line occupied that location, however, the sewer flows were subsequently diverted to a new sanitary sewer interceptor system in the late 1980's, located further to the south. The existing sewer line was abandoned at that time. · The street right-of-way tract dedicated by the plat in 1970 is unlikely to be part of any future city street project, given its proximity to the improved Pecan Creek drainage channel. Also, that area has not been identified as a connectivity component on the Street Mobility Plan. The City of Denton Parks Department has requested a 12' wide trail easement along the northern top bank of the Pecan Creek drainage channel, to provide a public linkage from Ruddell Street, traversing the Renaissance Court development, to City of Denton park property located to the west of the proposed redevelopment tract. Staff'performs an analysis on requests for right-of-way and easemem abandonmem as follows: · Is the property tract requested for abandonmem considered "excess right-of-way"? · Does the property tract requested for abandonmem have a cominued public use? · Is it in the best interest of the general public to abandon the government's rights in the subject abandonment tract? · Would the granting of this request establish a precedent for right-of-way abandonment for future requests? Staff findings on this analysis are as follows: 1. The right-of-way tracts requested fit the criteria of excess right-of-way. Excess right-of-way is defined as: Property acquired or used by the City for right-of-way and subsequently declared excess (not needed for the Project, road or streetscape). 2. There are no existing public facilities in either of the proposed abandonment tracts; therefore there is no continued public use. 3. Abandonment is in the public interest because the areas for subject abandonment no longer have a compelling future public use. The sewer line that once occupied the proposed public utility easement abandonment tract was taken out of service 15 years ago, and there are no plans to reconstruct sewer or any other public facilities at that location. There is not a City street project or developer requirement that would necessitate keeping the proposed street right- of-way in place. The east/west public access easement requested by the Parks Department is located a bit south of the proposed street right-of-way abandonment tract and serves the desire to provide public access to the park property from Ruddell Street. 4. This abandonment would not set a precedent because the above three standards have been met. Further, the abandonment of the subject tracts should be conditioned on the grant of the park access easement. There is no anticipated future need for the subject east/west utility easement tract. OPTIONS 1. Approve the ordinance, or 2. Denial, or 3. Table for future consideration RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Spring 2005 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Development Review Staff FISCAL INFORMATION Initial application fee of $150.00 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site map 2. Request letter from applicant 3. Draft ordinance Prepared by: Paul Williamson Real Estate & Capital Support Manager Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, Director Planning Department I~CKINNEY : OAK HICKORY 0 0 MULBERRY SYCAMORE PUE Tract ht-Of-Way Tract PRAIRIE WILSON O3 "r' m ,-< MORSE Renaissance Court (DHA) Abandonment SITE MAP ' ll%/D~/2~]D4 0~: 47 ~4~4587417 IS~EL-L ENGINEERING PAGE 02 ISBELL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. STRUCTURAL - CIVIL - GEO TECHAIICAL · CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. SURVEY lit November 3, 2004 Mr. Paul Witliamson City of Denton 610 E. Hickory~ Suite Denton, TX 76205 Easement and Right-of-Way Abandonment Ruddell Tract Dreamland Addition Plat Dear Mr. Williamson: As discussed in our meeting yesterday, I am requesting the abandonment of the 50-foot right-of- way and the east to west 20-foot utility easement depicted on the Dreamland Addition plat. I request that the City of Dento.n abandon its interest in these dedications since there is no apparent in£rastmcture in either dedication. The Housing Authority plans to demolish the existing vacant public housing units and build 150 new units. The dedications hinder our ability to place tl~e buildings on the site and meet ali site design requirements. Since the project is for the public interest and will greatly improve the character of the neighborhood, I reque~ th~ the City release the easements gratis. Please contact me if you have my questions. Thank you, Hor~ Office: 1405 W, Chapman #200 ganger, Te:~as 762~6 Phone: 940-458-7503 Fax: 9~-~5~7417 e-maih igt>ell ~isbellengineefing.co m I of 2 Branch Office: 400 $. Armsllong Denl,oa, Texas 75020 Phone: Fox: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON ABANDONING AND VACATING A 0.322 ACRE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT TRACT AND A 0.126 ACRE UTILITY EASEMENT TRACT, BOTH DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY THE DREAMLAND ADDITION PLAT, RECORDED IN VOLUME 6, PAGE 12 OF THE PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton has received a request fi:om the underlying fee simple owner, The City Of Denton Housing Corporation, for the abandonment of 0.322 acre street right-of-way tract and for the abandonment of a 0.126 acre utility easement tract, both being particularly described and depicted in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Abandonment Area"); and, WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the requested abandonment of the Abandoned Area and has recommended approval subject to the granting to the City of an access easement to a City park as provided for herein; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has determined, subject to the requirements contained herein, that it is in the public interest to abandon the Abandonment Area and the City's interest therein to the underlying fee owner, The City Of Denton Housing Corporation ("Owner"); and, WHEREAS, notwithstanding any of the above, the City of Denton hereby retains all easement and street right-of-way rights in all other easements and street rights-of-way tracts, whether conveyed by other instruments or by plat, in which the easement tracts described for abandonment herein cross and or overlap; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. The recitations and findings contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Subject to the requirements for an access easement as provided herein, the Abandonment Area in hereby permanently abandoned with all of the City's right, title and interests being quit claimed to the Owner. Prior to the abandonment and quitclaim taking affect, the Owner shall grant to the City a 12 foot wide bikeway/walkway public access easement across Owner's property between Ruddell Street and Phoenix Park at a location mutually agreed to by the City and the Owner. Upon the granting of the access easement to the City the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute and deliver to the Owner a quitclaim deed in recordable form evidencing the abandonment and quitclaim. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PAS SED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBE~~TORNEY BY: ~ r-~<-2~7[ Page 2 DEl'PI'ON [-IOUS!NG CORP. 11-304)4 AMW H][gLD NOT~$ EXHIBIT A 20' UTILITY EASEMENT ABANDONMENT Being a 0. t26 ~cre tract of land out ofthe Hiram $isco 320 acre Survey, Abstract No. 1 I84, D~aton County, Texas, and being part of that certain 12.5795 acre tract of land described in a deed to The City of Denton Homing Corporation ns recorded in Volume 971, Page 141, of the Deed Kecgrds, De~ton County, Texas, and par~ of the same being known as Dreamland Addition, an addition to th~ City of Denton, ~ County, Texas, according to tho plat recorded in Volume 6, Page I2, of the Plat Recor& of Denton County, Texas, said 0.126 acre uact being more pam'cularly described by metes and bounds as follows; co--ClOG at a 3/8-inch iron rod fouad for the northwest corner of said 12.5795 acre tract, lying in thg north right of way line of Hickory Street (a variable width R.O.W.), also being the Southw~ comer of Lot 5, Block C, ofthe Fourth Replat of the R.A. Kirk~ieck Addition, an addition to tlw City of Denton according the Final Plat r~orded itt Volume 5, Page 52, of the Pl~t Records of Denton County. Texas; TI~ENCE South 01 degrees 03 minutes 52 seconds East, along the west line of said 12.5795 acre tract, also along the ea~ line of Solomon Hill Addition an addition to the city of Denton, a distance of' 510.00 feet, to a point for comer, said point being the Northwest comer hereof and the POINT OF BgGINNING oftl~ herein described 0.126 acre tr'd~; T~Hg, NCE North 89 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds East, over nd across said 12.5795 acre tract, a distance of 274.44 feet, to a point for the northeast corner hereof.lying in the east line of said 12.5795 acre tract; THENCE S 01° 03' 07" E, along the east line of said 12.5795 acre tract, 25.00 feet parallel and east cfa 25.00 foot wide right of way dedication as shown on the Final Plat of said Dreamland Addition for a distance of 20.00 feet, to a point for the southeast comer hereof; THENCE South 89 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds West, over and across said Dreamlnnd Addition, a distance of 274.43 feet, to a point for the southwest corner hereof; Tmv, NCE North 01° 03' 52" West, along the west line of said 12.5795 acre tract, also along the east line of'said Solomon Hill Addition, a distance of 20.00 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 0.126 (5,487 Sq Ft) gross acres of land, more or less. Texas Registered Professional laud Surveyor Registration No. 5786 Date: December 02, 2004 SHEET 1 of 2 POINT OF COMM]~CINO IJ)T 16 LOT LOT t8 I.DT! LOT 3 LOT4 EXI-HBIT A ABANDONMENT FOURTH REPLAT of LOT 4, R.A. K~RKS[ICK VOl.. 5, PG. 52 ~o~ · o.~.~.c~. ~ ~ B~KO ~F' [OASIS 0F ~ 274.~ ~ ~K~Y ~ I Z VOL. 6PG. 12 it= 'rile CITY OF DENTOI~ HOUSING CORPORATION VOl_ 971, PG. 141 t-.. ! I I ! I D.R.D.C.T. [12.5'/95 AC.] il LEGEND DENTON COONTY CRIMInAl. JUSllCE~ LOT 1, 9LOC~ A PJ~D.C.T. 0 50 100 200 Project: 1EG04358 Drawn by: PJK Checked by: AIdW Scale: 1" = 100' ...~gg'r 2 oF 2 ( IN FEEl' ) 1 inch = 1001t. GRAPHIC SCALE DENTON HOUSING CORP, IEG04358 11-3o-o4 AMW FIF~LD NOTES EXHIBIT B 50' STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT ABANDONMENT Being a 0.322 acre tract of land out ofthe fftram Sisco 320 acre Survey, Abslxa~ No. 1184, Denton County, Texas, and being part of that certain 12.5795 acre tract of land described in a deed to The City of Denton Housing Corporation as recorded in Volume 971, Page 14 I, of the Deed Records, Denton County, Texas, and part of the same being known as Dreamland Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according to the Final Plat recorded in Volume 6, Page 12, of the Plat Records of Denton Cotmty, Temas, said 0.322 acre tract being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows; COMMENCING at a 3/8-inch iron rod found for the southwest comer of said 12.5795 acre tract, also bring the Northwest comer of Lot I, Block A, of the Final Plat of Denton Housing Authority recorded in Cabinet T, Page 77 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas; TltlgNClg North 0i° 03' 52" West, along the west line of said 12.5795 ao~ tract, th~ east llne of tlu~t certain tract ofland described in a deed to the City of Denton as recorded in Volume 933, Page 705 and Page 715 ofthe Deed Records of Denton County Texas, a distance of 676.22 feet, to the POINT OF BEGINNIblG of the herein described 0.322 acre tract; THENCE North 01° 03' 52" West, along the west line of said I2.5795 a~re tract, the east line of said City of Denton a distance of 52.39 f¢~t, to a goint for the northwest comer hereof; TltENC~ South 73 degrees 41 minut~ 05 seconds East, over and across said I2.5795 acre tract, a distan~ of 118.58 feet, to a point for comer, for the beginning of a curve to tho left, having a radius of 175.00 feet, a chord which bears South 82 degrees 22 mlnut~ 06 seconds East and a chord distance of 52.84 f, ect; Ti~ENCE along said curve to tho left aa arc length of 53.04 feet, to a point for comer; TltENCE North 88 degrees 56 minutes 53 seconds East, over and across said 12.5795 a~ro tract, a distanc~ of 108.85 feet, to a point for the noaheast corner hereof~ lying in the east line of said 12.5795 acre tract; TII]ENCE S 01° 03' 07~ E, along the east line of said 12.5795 acre tract, 25.00 feet parallel and east ora 25.00 foot wide right of'way dedication as shown on said Dreamland Addition a distance of 50.00 feet, to a point for the southeast comer hereof; TaENC~ South 88 degrees 56 minutes 53 seconds West, over and across said Dreamland Addition and said 12.5795 acre tract, a distance of 108.85 feet to a point for comer, also being the beginning of a curve to the fight, having a radius of 225.00 feet, a chord which bears North 82 degrees 22 minutes 06 seconds West and a chord distance of 67.94 feet; SHEET t OF 3 DENTON HOUSING CORP. 11-30-04 IEG0435g AMW TI~NCE along said curvo to the right an arc longth of 68.20 fe~t, to a point for comer, TI~N~ North 73 dcgrc~ 4I minutes 0~ s~onds West, over and across said 12.$795 traot, a distanco of 102.93 reef, to the POINT O1~ BEGINNING and containing 0.~22 ($,4~7 Sq FO a~rcs of land, mom or Tex~tered Professional l'i-nd Date: December 02, 2004 SHla~T 2 OF 3 20' U.F. ~.~,~.~ .~. o.~- --.. ~x..&. PG. 12 D.R. EXGT~ ' ' "'" · VOL. 9t7, PG, 79'1- ""-. - ..,.,.. PJLD. CT. : ~ [12.5795 AC] I THEOTY OF OENTON ~ HOI~SI~ CORPORAlION ~'. , VOL971, PG. 141 D.iLD.CT. HIRAM S15C0 SURVY ABSTRACT NO. 1184- APPROXIMATE LOCA'I']ON OF SURVEY UNE su,VE¥ RNM. P,.AT OF P.R.D. CT. 1 NOTE: THE LOCATION OF 'THIS RIGHT OF WAY, HAD TO BE SC.AtFn OFF OF 'tHE DREAMLAND ADDITION PLAT FOR AN APPROXIMATE LOCAll,0N. I (~TY C~: DE~'i'ON EASl~MI~IT [V(].. 506, P~. 10~ ~ VOL 995, P(;. 6'ig i aLEXAla~RI~IiON 'lOL 16,1~6 (INFEET) 1 inch = IOOR. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Planning and Development Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT - ADP04-0005 (Office Building for William Mitchell) Hold a public hearing and consider the Alternative Developmem Plan for approximately 0.506 acres located in the Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district. The proposed site is generally located east of Woodrow Lane and approximately 700 feet south of McKinney Street. An office building is proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. BACKGROUND Applicant: Bates Architects, Inc. Denton, TX The applicant requests the Alternative Development Plan to allow for parking to be located between the building and Woodrow Lane. The Denton Development Code does not allow parking between the building and the street. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The approval of a variance on the minimum right-of-way requiremem. The application for such variance shall be submitted at the same time as the Preliminary Plat application. 2. The abandonmem of right-of-way between the 40-feet right-of-way line and the property line prior to Final Plat approval. Section 35.13.13.4(A) 8 of the Demon Developmem Code states: "Parking areas shall be located behind buildings or on one or both sides, except along the imerstate where a minimum fifteen foot (15') additional landscape area will be required along parking areas in from of a building." The intent of the code is to create a streetscape by locating the building along the street and locating parking to the side and the rear of the building. The applicam is proposing additional landscaping and decorative walls along Woodrow Lane to mitigate the visual impact of parking between the building and the street. A similar request, ADP03-0008, Buchanan Addition, was approved on the adjacem property to the north on January 20, 2004. Staff held a pre-design meeting with the applicant on October 11th, 2004. Staff and the applicant reached the conclusion that an Alternative Developmem Plan (ADP) would be required in order to develop the site with parking located between the building and the street. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0, Holt and Noble absem). OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. RECOMMENDATION See Staff Analysis (Attachment 1). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. Preliminary and final plats are required prior to issuance of building permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff'Analysis 2. Maps 3. Aerial Photo 4. Applicant's Response to Criteria for Approval 5. Site Plan 6. Elevation 7. December 1 st P&Z Meeting Minutes 8. Ordinance Prepared by: Chingyun (Kay) Liang Planner I Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Request The applicam is proposing a professional office building on this 0.506-acre site. The site is located within the Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district. The imem of this Alternative Development Plan is to address the issue of parking between the office building and Woodrow Lane. To mitigate the visual impacts of parking along Woodrow Lane, the applicant is providing landscaping and tree canopy exceeding the requirements of Denton Development Code. In addition, a screening wall is proposed along Woodrow Lane. Existing Condition of Property The proposed site is curremly vacam. Adjacem Zoning North: Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) - Professional Office South: Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) - Pawnshop East: Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) - Multi-Family West: Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) - DeNon County Facilities Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located within the "Community Mixed-Use Activities Centers" future land use area. The focus area of a community activity cemer comains the shopping, services, recreation, employment, and institutional facilities that are required and supported by the surrounding community. Thus, a community activity cemer could comain a supermarket, drug store, specialty shops, service stations, one or more large places of worship, a community park, midsize offices, and employers, high to moderate density housing, and perhaps an elememary or middle school. It includes vertically imegrated uses where differem uses may occur on each floor of the building. The proposed law office will provide support to the existing institutional facilities in the vicinity. The proposed site plan will be compatible with the surrounding developmem. Development Review Analysis Currem Community Mixed Use General zoning district allows the developmem of the proposed office building. The design standards do not allow parking between the building and the street. According to Section 13.13.4 of the Denton Development Code, parking areas shall be located behind the buildings or on one or both sides. Based on the right-of-way dedication requirements in the Denton Development Code, the parking stalls along Woodrow Lane are within the required 55 feet right-of-way. The applicam will need to seek approval of a variance, during time of platting, in order to reduce the right-of- way requirement from 55 feet to 40 feet. Staff will recommend approval of the variance as the road is curremly built to its maximum width and adjacem parcels have received similar variances. If the variance is approved, the applicant will also need to proceed with right-of-way abandonment for the portion between the 40-feet right-of-way line and the property line. Alternative Development Plan Criteria Section 35.13.5 states that an applicant may propose an Alternative Development Plan, which meets or exceeds the design objectives of this Subchapter but does not meet the standards of this Subchapter. It further identifies the following Criteria for Approval of an ADP. The goals and objectives which must be met, and by which the proposal will be judged are: 1. Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The proposed development and structure poses no negative impacts and would preserve the existing neighborhood. 2. Assure quality development that fits with the character of Denton. The proposed development will meet the criteria of the Denton Development Code, ensuring the construction and the site design to be compatible with the character of Denton and the specific area. 3. Focus on new development to activity center to curb strip development and urban sprawl. The strip development and the urban sprawl requirement do not apply. 4. Ensure that infrastructure is capable of accommodating development prior to the development occurring. Adequate infrastructure exists to serve the proposed development. Staff Findings The proposed Alternative Development Plan is generally in compliance with the intent of the Denton Development Code. The applicant will need a variance to allow parking along the proposed right-of-way, and an abandonment of right-of-way. Staff Recommendation Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the requested Alternative Development Plan with conditions. 1. The approval of a variance on the minimum right-of-way requirement. The application for such variance shall be submitted at the same time as the Preliminary Plat application. 2. The abandonment of right-of-way between the 40-feet right-of-way line and the property line prior to Final Plat approval. ATTACHMENT 2 Location Map NORTH Zoning Map ATTACHMENT 3 Aerial Photo NORTH ATTACHMENT 4 Applicant's Response to Criteria for Approval Preserve Existing Neighborhoods. The existing neighborhood consists of a series of pawn shops, auto repair shops, bail bondsman, etc. on the east side of Woodrow Lane (many of which are metal building) and the County Jail facility along the western side of Woodrow Lane. This design for a stately brick and stone structure with ample landscaping and masonry and iron demising wall will house a group of attorneys in private practice. This readily fits in with the most recent developments along Woodrow which are infill developments upgrading the existing neighborhood. Assure quality development that fits with the character of Denton. The design and use of this building furthers the desired development of the character of Denton as expressed in the Development Code. It works toward improving the City's appearance, protects the property against blight and depreciation and encourages an appropriate use of this property as well as those around it. Focus on new development to activity center to curb strip development and urban sprawl. The projects curbs urban sprawl by developing an existing empty lot in an otherwise commercial area. The proposed of attorney's offices work with the surrounding area and helps minimize congestion to the City's streets because of the proximity of the courthouse and the county jail. Ensure that infrastructure is capable of accommodating development prior to the development occurring. The existing infrastructure should pose no impediment to this development. The proposed use for lawyers should not affect the traffic count or trips generated. Woodrow Lane is an existing 4 lane primary arterial street capable of handling the minimal daily traffic the proposed use would produce. Adequate water, waste and electrical service exist and no detrimental effect will be noticeable from this infill development. U~ld 9 ZNalAIHOVZZV uo!le^el:~ 9 ZNalAIHOVZZV O[ CondcnscItTM 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 i0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 Page 33 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Item SA, hold a public hearing and consider malting a recommendation to City Council on the following items, 5A is alternative development plan for approximately 0.506 acres of land located in conmmnity mixed use general zoning district. The proposed site is generally located east of Woodrow Lane, approximately 700 feet south of McKinney Street. Yes, ma'am. MS. BA2rEMAN: Good evening, Mr. Chair, men~bers of the Colmnission, As you stated this request is for an alternative development plan on approximately a half an acre. The purpose of the request is to allow for parking between the building and the street. Staff met with the applicant on October the 1 lth to discuss the proposal. At that time it was suggested by staff that the building be turned sideways and parking be placed on the side of the building so that the alternative development plan would not be necessary. That a~mpt was made and due to easement and right-of-way constraints, the applicant was unable to leave it turned sideways without reducing the size of the building, The proposal is considered in-fill and as designed is consistent with tile neighboring offices that are adjacent to it. As you can sec the proposal, they are -- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 35 and the year. Their building was smaller though. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any Other questions of staff? I know I had one, and it slipped my mind. I'll think of it later. MS. BATEMAN: okay. COMMISSIONER POWELL: ~'11 open the public hearing and ask the applicant if they'd like to come forward and give us your name and adch,ess, sir. M~. 8AXeS: certainly. Mr. Chairman, members of tile Board, my name is Russell Bates, architect, 1300 North Locust, Denton, Texas. I would like -- I've got a larger plan which y'all may bc able to sec a little better than what their smaller plan was. We do ask -- am I at the right place? There we go. If you would pan over to the right a little bit. We don't need all of this extraneous stuff. Let me pull it back down here. Is that better? I would like to point out, we have a shared access with this piece of property flint Mr. Roy spoke of before. So we have some confines that nonnalIy wouldn't present us in most cases as -- this is a parking lot on the adjacent property. So we were pretty well dictated where our approach was going to be because it is on their site. This allows us to have our garbage pickup, trash Page 34 they am going to incet -- are proposing to meet the t~l. uimneuts of the Development Code including a wall and landscaping along the street. Staff does reconunend approval of the alternative development plan with two conditions. One condition being that the applicant apply for and receive approval of a variance to allow for a minimmn right-of-way reduction from 55 feet to 40 feet, which is consistent again, with the neighboring properties, and fl~at is smnething that staff is prepared to rcco~mncnd approval of. Also, the applicant pursue and receive abandonment of property that is currently -- cm'rently lies between the right-of-way line and the property line. And, typically, the right-of-way line is the property line, and so we want thean to pursue abandonment or request file City to abandon that portion of property for a cleanup. Staff does reco~mnend approval with those two conditions. I'll be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Questions? Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Didn't we allow this same setup in another office building just a few hundred feet to the north in recent months? MS. BATEMAN: Yes, w0 did. On the adjacent property to tile north, they have parking both in the front 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 i24 25 Page 36 pickup, back in this ama here. We have worked with staff as far as narrowing -- pardon me, widening the opening so that the garbage truck can go in here and have access to it. We worked with staff as far as the utility easmnent. There is -- righl now presently them is no electrical easement on the property. It's on the north of us and on the south of us~ We, of course, will have a 15 foot right-o~'-way we'll be glad to give~ We've also worked with staff and we're dedicating an additional right-of-way because our transformer will be located in this position here. We've extended that utility easeanent over to the adjacent property. So at anytime this lot to the south of us is developed, the transformer will serve both our property and our neighbors property. We have an easement that we're going to give, a cross easement, which will have interconnectivity between the -- basically, a pawn shop, our office building and the one that you%e previously approved. So that meets the desires of tbe Denton Development Plan as far as any connectivity or parking. Wc think we've m~t most of the requirements~ We do have a restriction in the back. We do have apartments in the back. This is residential, so we're required to have 20 feet from our back property line to the back of our building, we've met that PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 33 - Page 36 CondenseItTM 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 $ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 Page 37 requirement. We will have a two-story structure and I do have elevations if you'd like to see them. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I think we have them tn the backup. MR. BATES: Okay. A little larger. We'll be the only two-story building on this side of the street. We are set back a little bit. We do have two-story apartments in the back, so I think we'll blend in. But I think in the Denton Development Code, one of the things we're looking for is variances as far as all of the buildings being up and on one line. This wilt allow us to have our building back. It will be a bigger structure. And the one-story structure tn the front of us would give us a pleasant view. We're going to have a fence in front and that's one reason we asked for the variance from the right-of-way. Presently, this is two lots and when these lots were constructed previously, there was a bow in the center portion of it. We're asking that this be straightened out because this is our 40-foot right-of-way up to this point. This will allow us to put our three-foot tall fence which will be our screening fence, in front of our parking lot. And not run into, like, the building next to us. Page 38 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 39 COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll ask staff if they'll answer me and tell me is that going to happen in the future? Is that a decision we. have to make later or is that part of this decision? There's two things that you mentioned. MS. BATEMAN: Right. We're requesting that your vote tonight include fllose two conditions, the one prior to or in conjunction with the preliminary plat. And the second, the right-of-way abandonment to be completed prior to filing of the final plat. COMMISSIONnR eownt~L: okay. Thank you. Then I'1I ask legal if we have to word a motion in any specific way here. I don't want us to get -- you carl think about that a minute or two. MR. SNYDER: NO~ all you have to do is say the motion in conformity with the staff rcconunendation -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR. SNYDER: -- because the staff reconm~endafion is the two conditions. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much. That solves my problem. Any further questions of the applicant? Thank you, sir. MR. BATES: Thank you. If I could editorialize on one thing is I worked on the Denton Devdopment Code with tile Chamber of Colmnerco, and one of Page 40 I don't know whether y'all have seen that next door, but we're not going to build ours on top of our curb to be knocked over. Fit be glad to answer any other questions. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Ally questions of the applicant? The question I had of staff, I believe you could answer better maybe than staff could. Staff came up with two things you had to do beyond the ^~e, which it was two -- two additional requirmnents. And I'm just making sure that you were on board with those and that those will be met and I'm asking, I guess, you and staff, is that something we do at a different thne, or is that part of this motion? M~. ~TES: The staff will probably have to answer that. Basically, we're going to ask for tile variance. One of the variances we're asking for, of course, is the ability to park in front. As a primary variance we're here for the ^D?. ^nd when we plat we'll be asking for, I gueas, abandonment of right-of-way which is this slim sliver in here, in other words, we'll straighten out the present right-of-way requirement. I've met with Paul Williamson. Paul does not have a problem with that, understanding that, of course, we'll have to pay market value for that piece of property. 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 the things we were hoping for was that it would be simple and where everybody when they come to Denton would know exactly what we have to do to get a building built. We have to give staff file tools on in-filling to take care of these requirements. Right now we're having to ask for a variance for 15 fcct of right-of-way because the new Developmental Code requires a 55-foot right-of-way. So you take 15 foot right-of-way off my property. You take a 15-foot electrical easement off my property, I've lost 30 feet. You know, y'all need to help us, get council after it and give us some in-filling so we can develop on our Iots in town because we're spreading our utilities out. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR, BATES: I appreciate y'all. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you for the editorial, also. MR. BATES: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'll ask if anyone is here to speak on this issue, for or against or on? I don't have any cards. I'll ask again, does anybody here want to speak on Item SA? Seeing none, I'll close tile public hearing. No need for a rebuttal. ]?11 ask if anybody has any motion ready or discussion or both? Excuse me. Mr. Strange. PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 37 - Page 40 CondenseItTM 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 41 COMMISSIONER STRANGE: I would move approva! of ADP 04-005 with the two reconunendations by staff to be included as a part -- part of the motion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a motion by Mr. Strange. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second by Mr. Watkins. Any discuss[on? Seeing or hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Motion passes 5-0 of those present. Page 42 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 43 Page 44 ,LANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 41 - Page 44 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.506 ACRE OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WOODROW LANE, APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET SOUTH OF MCKiNNEY STREET IN THE J. BROCK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 55 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (ADPO4-OOOS) WHEREAS, Bates Architects has applied for an alternative development plan for approximately .506 acre of land in the City of Denton, Texas located in a Commtmity Mixed Use (CM-G) zoning district, as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference (the "Property") which altemative development plan is on file in the City's Planning Department, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B" (the Alternative Development Plan); and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a Alternative Development Plan for allowing parking between the building and Woodrow Lane. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Alternative Development Plan is consistent with the Denton Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein. SECTION 2. The Alternative Development Plan is hereby approved for the Property to allow parking between the building and Woodrow Lane, subject to the following conditions: a. The approval of a variance on the minimum right-of-way requirement. The application for such variance shall be submitted at the same time as the preliminary plat application. b. The abandonment of right-of-way between the 40-feet right-of-way tine and the property line prior to final plat approval. SECTION 3. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. SECTION 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the 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 __dayof _,2004. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~ PAGE 2 Exhibit A FIELD NOTES 0.506 ACRE BEING all that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the J. Brock Survey Abstract Number 55 in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being all that certain tract of lend conveyed by deed to William L. Mitchell, II and David J. Moraine recorded under Document Number 2004-1871, Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron rod found for corner in the east line of Woodrow lane, a public roadway having a right-of-way of 80.0 feet, said point being the northwest corner of Shyster Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet Q, Page 242, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 01 ° 27' 03" E, 74.62 feet with said east line of said Woodrow lane to an iron rod found for corner; THENCE N 01° 07' 42" W, 80.31 feet with said east line of said Woodrow Lane to an iron rod found for corner, said point being the southwest corner of Buchanan Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet S, Page 145, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE S 89° 38' 15" E, 142.68 feet with the south line of said Buchanan Addition to an iron md found for comer in the west line of Country Park Addition, an addition to the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet L, Page 320, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE S O0° 30' 40" E, 154.44 feet with said west line of said Country Park Addition to an iron md found for corner, said point being the northeast corner of said Shyster Addition; THENCE N 89° 49' 25" W, 144.36 feet with said north line of said Shyster Addition to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 0.506 acre of land. Exhibit B AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Planning and Development Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT - Z04-0026 (North Pointe Addition) Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance regarding the rezoning of approximately 35 acres from a Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The property is generally located on the south side of Loop 288, on the east side of Nicosia Street. The property is generally located on the south side of Loop 288, on the east side of Nicosia Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0). BACKGROUND Applicant: Mitchell Planning Group, L.L.C. Fort Worth, TX The applicant is requesting to rezone two tracts of land, totaling approximately 35 acres, located within the Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning designation. The applicant is requesting the zoning change to NR-4 in order to develop the property for single-family uses. The original application included an additional 10.1 acres (Tract 3), however that tract has been removed from the application and is not under consideration at this time. The applicant is proposing to rezone approximately 7.8 acres (Tract 1) from PD-120, designated as General Retail to a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district and approximately 26.9 acres (Tract 2), designated as Office to an NR-4 designation. The land use designation for both properties is Neighborhood Centers. The following chart & map summarize the rezoning request: PROPOSED CURRENT DETAIL PLAN PROPOSED PROPOSED ACREAGE TRACTS ZONING DESIGNATION ZONING USE Tract 1 PD- 120 General Retail 7.8 NR-4 Single- Family Tract 2 PD- 120 Office 26.9 NR-4 Single- Family TOTAL 35 Acres A neighborhood meeting was held on November 2, 2004, at the North Branch Library. The neighboring residents and property owners expressed concerns regarding potential increased traffic, platting issues, potential development design, and preservation of existing open space. The majority of these concerns were in regard to Tract 3, which has been removed from this request. A summary of the issues discussed during the meeting is provided in Attachment 5. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachment 3. As of this writing, staff has received no written responses to the amended request. Staff has received seven written responses in opposition to the request from property owners within 200 feet of Tract 3, which has now been removed from the request. OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Deny. 3. Postpone consideration. 4. Table item. RECOMMENDATION The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property has been conveyance platted. Preliminary and final plats are required prior to the issuance of any building permits. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW December 1, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval to rezone approximately 35 acres from a Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district to a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. November 10, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until December 1, 2004. October 13, 2004, the Planning & Zoning Commission continued the public hearing until November 10, 2004. August 5, 1986, City Council approved the creation of Planned Development 120 (PD-120) and approved the concept plan for the planned development zoning district. April 4, 2004, City Council approved an amended Detailed Plan for Planned Development 120 (PD-120). Prior to the adoption of the Development Code (Ordinance 2002-040), the property was zoned Planned Development 120 (PD-120). ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map) 4. Site Photo 5. Neighborhood Meeting Summary 6. Written Responses from Property Owners within 200 Feet of Tract 3 7. Letter from the Applicant Amending Rezoning Request 8. Minutes from the June 23, 2004, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 9. Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Chris Fuller Planner I Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, AICP Director of Planning and Development 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary of Zoning Request The applicant is requesting to rezone two tracts of land, totaling approximately 35 acres, located within the Planned Developmem 120 (PD-120) zoning designation. The applicam is proposing to rezone approximately 7.8 acres, designated as General Retail, to NR-4 and approximately 26.9 acres, designated as Office, to NR-4. The applicant has removed the request to rezone approximately 10.1 acres (Tract 3) designated as a City of DeNon Regional Detemion Pond to Neighborhood Residemial 3 (NR-3). Existing Condition of Property The subject properties are vacam and are not in a flood plain. Adiacent Zonin~ and Land Uses North: Planned Developmem 120 (PD-120) zoning district South: Neighborhood Residemial Mixed Use 12 (NRMU-12) zoning district East: Neighborhood Residemial 6 (NR-6) and Planned Developmem 120 (PD-120) zoning districts West: Regional Cemer Commercial Dowmown (RCC-D) and Planned Developmem 120 (PD- 120) zoning districts Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject sites are 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 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 cemer might comain a convenience store, small restaurant, personal service shops, church or synagogue, daycare, individual office space, a small park and perhaps an elememary school The request to rezone the subject properties is compatible with the Future Land Use Plan (Neighborhood Cemers) and with the surrounding zoning designations. The proposed zoning change is in compliance with the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Transportation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will be required if the proposed use generates more than 1,000 trips per day or more than 100 trips per hour, prior to final platting of any portion of this property. Utilities The preliminary plat submittal will address how the site will be provided with water and sewer service Development Review PD-120 designated Tract 1 for general retail uses and Tract 2 for office uses. The applicant is requesting to rezone Tract 1 and Tract 2 to the NR-4 zoning designation for single-family uses. The applicant asserts that Tracts 1 & 2 are no longer viable as retail and office uses given that no frontage road exists along Loop 288. The applicant is requesting to rezone the properties to single-family residemial at a density compatible to the existing subdivision. Development within the NR-4 zoning designation will be required to be in compliance with the zoning district and subdivision standards stated within the Development Code. The following table summarizes the permitted uses within the NR-3 and NR-4 zoning districts: Single Family Dwellings P P SUP SUP Accessory Dwelling Units L(1) L(1) Attached Single Family Dwellings SUP SUP Duplexes N L(3) Community Homes For the Disabled P P Multi-Family Dwellings N N Home Occupation P P Outdoor Recreation P P SUP SUP Gas Wells L(27) L(27) Parks and Open Space P P Churches P P Semi-public, Halls, Clubs, and Lodges SUP SUP Adult or Child Day Care SUP SUP Kindergarten, Elementary School SUP SUP Limitations: L (1): Accessory dwelling units are permitted, subject to the following additional criteria: 1. The proposal must conform with the overall maximum lot coverage and setback requirements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 1 per lot. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA unless the lot meets the requirements of L(1).5. 4. One additional parking space shall be provided that conforms to the off-street parking provisions of this Chapter. 5. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, where the lot size is equal to or greater than ten acres in size. An SUP is not required for such an accessory residential structure where the lot size is equal to or greater than ten acres. L (7): Limited to two (2) animals on parcels one (1) to three (3) acres in size. Additional animals may be added at a rate of one per each acre over three. L (27): Must comply with the provisions of Subchapter 89, Gas Well Drilling and Production. General regulations of the Residential Neighborhood land use zoning districts: Maximum density, dwelling 3.5 4 units per acre Minimum side yard for non- 6 feet 5 feet attached buildings 15feet 20 feet Minimum front yard setback L(2) L(2) Minimum side yard 6 feet 6 feet Minimum side yard adjacent to a 10feet 10feet street Minimum rear yard 10 feet 10 feet Maximum lot coverage 50% 60% Minimum landscaped area 55% 40% Maximum building height 40 feet 40 feet 10feet 10feet plus 1 plus 1 foot foot for for each each Minimum yard when abutting a foot of foot of single-family use or district buildin buildin g g height height above above 20 feet 20 feet NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS At the neighborhood meeting, the neighboring residents and property owners expressed concern regarding potential adverse platting issues, including increased drainage and traffic. The applicant explained that new development must adhere to City of Denton development standards, which will address such issues. The neighboring residents and property owners also expressed concern regarding the preservation of existing open space. The applicant indicated that the neighborhood concerns would be forwarded to the property owner so that site design concerns may be addressed. These concerns were primarily in regard to Tract 3, which is no longer being considered for rezoning. STAFF FINDINGS Staff recommends approval of Z04-0026 based on the following findings: 1. The proposed zoning change is in compliance with the intent of the Denton Plan; 2. The proposed residential density is compatible with the existing single-family subdivisions; 3. Proposed development on this site is required to be in compliance with the site design standards of the Development Code; 4. Proposed development on this site is required to be in compliance with the zoning district standards stated within the Development Code. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request to rezone the property to a NR-4 zoning designation. ATTACHMENT 2 Location/Zoning Map NORTH Land Use Map ATTACHMENT 3 Notification Map NORTH Limits of 200' Notification Community SITE Limits of 500' Notification Scale: None Public Notification Date: September 29, 2004 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 29 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice: · In Opposition: 0 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 *A copy of the notification list can be picked up at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Site Photo ATTACHMENT 5 North Pointe Rezone Neighborhood Meeting November 2, 2004 Z04-0026 North Poime Addition The Planning Department encourages applicants who are pursuing a rezoning request to convene a neighborhood meeting to further dialogue among the applicam and neighboring residems and landowners. Staff opened the meeting by providing a brief summary of the case and imroduced Ottis Lee, as the representative on behalf of the property owner. Mr. Lee, along with Wes Morrison, presented their proposal to rezone the property. The meeting concluded with a question and answer period from the audience. In Attendance: · Planning Staff: Chris Fuller · Property Owner Representatives: Ottis Lee; Wes Morrison · Approximately 40 City of DeNon Citizens The following issues were discussed during the meeting: 1. Platting issues (sewerage, drainage) 2. Increased traffic in area 3. Home size, lot layouts, platting issues/land use concerns 4. Preservation of existing open space 5. Rezoning public hearing process 6. Ownership of properties ATTACHMENT 6 Written Responses from Property Owners within 200 Feet of Tract 3 (Now Removed) Name & Address Position Remarks Anna Tolson Opposed When purchasing property was informed area to 1400 Eufemia Drive the east side of Beatriz after row of homes was designated a greenbelt due to drainage - how can that be changed who would knowing want (sic) to build or buy a home with the threat of flooding possibilitis (sic) heavy rains already make things unpleasant. Seth Arnold Opposed Our family chose to invest in this home because 3416 Beatriz Drive we were told that Area B was part of a flood plane, zoned for non-use that may eventually be turned into a city park. This was the only reason we chose to build a new home in Denton, at this location. We were willing to endure inconvenience of further development and the risk of poor resale until all phases are complete, only because of the above promise. Amy Powell Opposed When I purchased my home in December of 3432 Beatriz Drive 2002, I was told that nothing would be built behind my house. I chose my lot because of that reason. I enjoy the view of the trees every morning and evening. Having homes built behind our neighborhood will make our neighborhood less attractive. I was told that the property behind my house would always be greenbelt. Chris Mays Opposed My wife and I purchased our home at 3404 3404 Beatriz Drive specifically because we were assured that the property behind our home was a drainage area and would never be developed. We feel that we have been deceived and request that the zoning change be denied by the Council. Bill Stephens Opposed I am opposed to the southern portion being 3408 Beatriz Drive rezoned. When I purchased my property I was told by the developer that the area behind my property would not be developed. William Drybread Opposed My wife, two daughters, my son and I moved 3424 Beatriz Drive into this home specifically because we were promised by the builders representative that the land immediately behind us would never be built on. We chose to stay and reside in Denton and invest specifically because of this lot location and adjacent clear space. Darlene Kent Opposed I am writing to express our strong opposition to 3436 Beatriz Drive the rezoning in the University Park/Northpointe subdivision. I live within 200 feet of one of the proposed sites. When we looked at buying our property in September of 2003 the point that sold us on that particular lot was the fact that we were told the land behind us would always be a greenbelt area. Had it not been for that fact, we would have gone elsewhere to build. We love the fact that we can sit at our kitchen table in the morning and watch the sunrise through the trees behind us. If the land is rezoned, I could wake up and look back and see a roof. Therefore, we oppose the rezoning of our subdivision. 11/15/2084 09:36 8172381444 HITCHELL PLAh~'IING GR PAGE 82 Mitchell Planning Group, L.L.C. ?623 Nine Mile Bridge'Road Fort Wortft, Texas 76135 (817) 237.4467~ce (817) 238-1444- Fax m,' ,Rch~llpla~ni.~aol.com, November 15, 2004 Mr. Chds Fuller, Planner II City of Denton 221 Elm Street ~enton, Texas 76201 RE: Request to Amend Zoning Application Dear Mr_ Fuller;. Due to issues recently discovered for our zoning application of Z04-0026, we hereby mqu~t to amend our app~icaUon by withdrawing the NR-3 request on 10.19 acres of land. We would like to move fon~ard with our application of the NR-4 on U',,e northern tracts of land and be placed on the December 1, 2004 agenda for the Planning end Zoning Commission meeting. Thank you for all of your assistance. If you should here e.-.y question=, please do not hesitate in Calling me. With warm regards, . ~., r~,o,'rJson, rlanner Cc~ Nicosia 77 LP CondcnsgltTM 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 22 23 24 Page 5 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Item 4A, continued public hearings. The rezoning of approxilnatoly 35 acres from Planned Development 120 formerly known as zoning district to neighborhood residential NR-4. The property is generally located the south side of Loop 288 on the east side of Nacosia Street. Mr. Reichhart, apparently you're on board. MR. REICI~IltART: Yes, sir. Thank you. On the overhead is the propm'ty that we're considering tonight. You see the two red portions and then there is a bluer portion down in this area. It was tract 1, 2 and 3 that we continued from the -- our Noveanber 10th meeting. The property is currently located in vD 12o, that's Planned Development 120. Tract 1 is going from general retail within that Planned Development to NR -- excuse me, NR-4. And then Tract 2 is 26.9 acres that was cmxently identified as office in the eD. And that is going to ~R-4, also. And as you -- as I mentioned before, Tract 3 at the bottom has been rmnoved from the application. So we're just looking at Tract t and 2 tonight. Neighborhood meeting was held on November 2nd. The concerns included traffic, pIatting issues, specifically drainage and preservation of the existing open space, which is Tract 3. There were 29 notices mailed out to Page 6 property owners within 200 feet. We have received seven responses. Ail seven were related to Tract 3. So now that Tract 3 is out of the equation, there are no opposition to this proposal. Staff is reconu~ending approval of the proposed zoning. And we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a question. Does anybody else have any here? I don't see anything on the board. COMMISSIONER ROY: JllSt one thing. By getting out of the PD and going to NR-4, the homes that are being built in this area, that would be built would be under the -- they're all the requirements of the new Development Code? MR. REICItHART: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ROY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'd like you to show again, sir, and I know you've done it, I think, twice, but I want to be sure the audience knows for sure, both the T.V. audience and the audience in the house that we're only talking tonight about tl~e north two tracts, the ones that are on the Loop. We're not at all involved with anything else tonight; is that correct, sir? MR. REICHHART: That is correct. And the ordinance that will go forward to City Council has the 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER Page 7 metes and bounds descriptions. And it is just for Tract I and Tract 2. COMMISSIONER POWELL: And they're the two northern tracts7 MR. REICHHART: The two northern tracts that I'm pointing to now that are adjacent to Loop 288. COMMISSIONER POWELL: xhank you. I just wanted to clear that up in case fl~ere is a problem out there. MR. REICHHART: NO. I know thc~i~ is some concern. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions of staff? I'll open the -- excuse me. I won't open -- yes, I will opca~ the public hearing and I'll ask -- MR. REICHHART: I do know the applicant is COMMISSIONER POWELL: I WaS going to ask the applicant to come forward. MR. MORRISON: xhank you. Good evening. My name is Wes Morrison with Mitchell Planning Group, 7823 Nine Mile Bridge Road, Fort Worth. As already stated here, we am coming in -- just to give you a little bit of history regarding this request, we started this request as coming in to amend the PD 120 in these three areas in the beginning. Page 8 I Since that thne we -- or before thc October 2 1 lth, first meeting scheduled for this, we met with stuff, 3 and staff suggested that we remove these tlu'ee tracts out 4 of the vu and go to a conventional zoning district. 5 We filled that request and that was the 6 request that you received on October the 1 lth. Prior to 7 October the 11 th, we learned of a neighborhood concern 8 that -- regarding the Tract 3. And after, you know, 9 looking at -- or listening to the neighbors, we thought it I0 would be best to sit down with the neighbors, have a 11 neighborhood meeting, therefore, we came to you and asked 12 that we continue to allow for a neighborhood meeting. You 13 allowed us to do that and we tMnk you for that. We 14 listened to the neighborhoods on -- neighborhood on 15 November 2nd and we took their concerns along with on 16 November 13th -- Novmuber 13th, yes, the concerns of -- 17 staff brought us regarding new information on Tract 3, the 18 detention pond. 19 Bringing all of that to our client, our 20 client suggested that we just rmnove the N~-~ portion, the 21 Tract 3 portion from our application and go tbrward with 22 Tracts I and 2, and that's -- to give you a little bit of 23 history, that's where we're at tonight. 24 Let me kind of show you -- I wonder if I can get a cmnera here to zoom in. The portion that we're 1, 2004 Page 5 - Page 8 CondcnscltTM 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 9 ~0 21 22 23 24 25 Page 9 talking about tonight, Tracts 1 and 2, is genera! retail in this square right hem and then this oddly shaped piece of property right here would be the office. When this PD was originally approved back in 1986, the VD showed that Page 11 Now, that may be something that will be taken care of by the Planning Board. In fact, that's what I'm asking that they do is be very careful about how the traffic goes in and out of that. That's probably what you this square here, to still be general retail, this oddly shaped piece of property to be townhomes. In 1998 the -- this plan was amended to show general retail again, but also to remove those town homes and show office. We're now coming before you tonight to ask that this be taken out of tile Po and be rezoned to NR~4. We're requesting NR-4 because the NR-4 bulk regulations are compatible to what's already existing. Compatible to what was required in the NR-4 -- or I'm sorry, in the PD 120. Our request is compatible with the neighborhood centers future land use area, and it is in compliance with the Denton Plan. Although we're requesting flint these two tracts be removed from the eD, nothing else is changing. Open space for the overatl PD remains the same. Everything else, all of the PD requirmnents are still fully met. We're just taking these two portions out. With that said, we request that you approve 8 9 10 11 ~12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 do, but that's my concern. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, sir. Is Mr. Ooez here, Alan Gocz -- I think it's pronounced Goez, G-o-e-z. Okay. Milch Smith followed by Zachary Tuder. Is Mr. Smith hem. Is Zachary Tudor here? And we'll get back to Mr. Smith. I have another name here -- last name is Marquez. Come right forward here and then we'll get to this person. If you've got kids out there we'll let you go first, sir. Come right up and give us your name and address. MR. SMITH: My name is Mitch Smith, 1424 Santos. And the only concern -- I'm obviously concerned about traffic and tile only real objection I have is on tile portion that has been removed from the Agenda this time. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. MR. SMITH: Thank you very much for my opportunity. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. And if -- or reco~mnend approval of our request. I can answer any questions that you ~night have at this point. Page 10 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Anyone have questions of the applicant at this time? None. MR. MORR[SON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have quite a few people that would like to speak on this issue tonight. And I'll call thmn each by name and ask you to come forward. I'll call a second name and ask you to come forward to the on-deck chair, so we can speeA up tile process that way. Mr. Kcvin McCormack. Is Mr. McCormack 24 25 you would give us your name and address and I kaow I probably messed that uame up. Page 12 MS. MARQUF. Z: YOU Were close. Caressa Marqnez. And I live at 1605 Santos. We are also worried about tile traffic as well and where file sign was located was right across from the model homes. Was that tract tile third part that riley were talking about that they removed? And I had some concerns about whether or not they were going to build duplexes across from there. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I would have to ask staff to answer that. I'm not familiar enough to -- here? All right. Duane Kraeger followed by Alan Goez. Mr. Kraeger, if you'd give us your name and address, please. MR. KRAEGER: I bog your pardon. COMMISSIONER POWELL: If you'd give us your name and address, please. MR. ~EOER: My name is Duane Kraoger. I live at 3420 Beatriz. My particular concern was mainly to do with Tract 3~ but I am concerned about the traffic pattern for this development. Since we can't get out to 288, all of the construction traffic and all of the people that live there are going to have to go down Nicosia until oth~r arrangements are made. And this is tile only time I can either acc~at or oppose your proposal, so I'm going to oppose it, since I just dou't know how they're going to do that. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MARQUEZ: It'S on Santos? Docs anybody know? COMMISSIONER POWELL'. Lar'o', Call yOU help us out hem? MR. REICHHART' In the NR-4 zoning district, them is a limitation, I think, it's L-3 that identifies that you can have duplexes, but they cannot be on the parameter of your subdivision. So across the street, it would be all single family. If they were to do any duplexes~ it would be intcrnat to their subdivision. MS, MARQUEZ: Internal, so that means right across the street or -- MR. REICIntART: NO, behind those houses. So it wouldn't be anywhere on the parameter of file subdivision that you would sec duplexes. It would be thc next street in into the subdivision. So if there are any PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 9 - Page 12 CondenseltTM 1 5 6 7 8 9 lO !1 12 13 14 15 t6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 lO ii 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 13 duplexes, you wouldu't see them if you weren't right next to fl~em. COMMISSIONER lOWELL: qrhank you. MR. REICHHART: And the other condition on that is they have to look like single family. And staff was discussing that today. Any single family house that I've ever seen doesn't have two driveways and two garages, so chances are it would be rear entry. And the chances of doing that are -- maybe a corner lot or something. But you know, maybe tile applicant can speak on their intent to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Page 15 be there, maybe a little bit closer to where we're located. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: If you'd give us your nmne and address, sir. MR. BRYCE: It's Don Bryce, B-r-y-c-e. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm sorry, sir. MR. BRYCE: That's all right. I live at 1409 Constantina. I just want to basically voice my build duplexes, but it would have to look like single family. And it would have to be inside their subdivision, not on tile parameter. MS. MARQUE,Z: okay. And on -- what is that Tract I and 2, what's that say -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: Up at tile top, yes. MS. MARQUEZ: would that take away from the plans to have a greenbelt through there or a park area through there because there was some questions about that as well? COMMISSIONER POWELL: I'm going to let the applicant talk about that laM', I think. We'll get him back up. MS. MARQUEZ: Because I would oppose that as well if that's what that was intended to do is to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 opinion that I do oppose both -- I did oppose Tract 3 and Tract 2 and that's all I want to say. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR, BRYCE: Thank you. COMMISS~O~qER ~'OWe[L: IS there anyone else who hasn't turned in a card that would like to speak on this issue? If you'd come forward and give us your nmne and address, sir. MR. JAPHET: Thank you, Captain. My nm~e is Dan Japhet, J-a-p-h-e-t. I live at 1528 Santos. And two things I want to show you. First -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: Dan, you're going to have to show us over here because you don't have a mike over there. MR. JAPHET: Thank you very much. Captain, Page 14 reduce that. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MS. MARQUEZ: okay, Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have additional cards wishing to speak from Mr. Chris Williams followed by Mr. Donald Byar. I hope I've got Mr. Byar's name correct. Page 16 you know what I do for a living. I'm an attorney for Denton County. And my question, first of all, is on Tract 2, they give notice to people within 200 feet. I run out there all of the time. It's dirt lots. Nobody lives out there. How can you give notice to somebody that doesn't live out them? If Mr. Byar would come down on the on-deck chair here. Mr. Williams, give us your name and address, please. Ma. WILLt^MS: elL'is Williams, 1405 Constantina. Basically, I just wanted to voice my opposition also to y'all. COMMISSIONER POWELL.. speak into that mike. It's been turned away from you there, sir. MR. WILLIAMS: I jUSt wanted to speak ia opposition to the rczoning request, also. I would like to eventually -- I know that tile third tract has been removed from thc request. But I would like to see the remaining two U'acts possibly left open, simply because of the fact that, you know, possibly sometime in tile future, maybe the state would see that we needed to go ahead. I mean, Denton is growing especially the north side. And possibly they would reconsider putting along an access road on 288. And maybe, you know, conthming to keep that as a cmmnercial property area, so that way maybe some stores and, you know, shopping would 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOU give notice to the property owner, sir. MR+ JAPHET: correct, but it's all dirt lots. COMMISSIONER POWELL: somebody owns them. MR. JAPHET: Yeah. But we wouldn't have known. Unless you ran out them, nobody would have known. And as a matter of fact, only three people I knew knew about it. Matter of fact, a lot of people in here didn't even know anything was going on until they s~arted putting up signs saying come down here. Let's talk about it. What's going on? That's my first question. Nmnber 2, if you'll notice, we were the first house actually to live -- to move in there. We live 1528 is right about there. Nicosia runs right there. And we're right next to it. Captain, nobody has talked to us about this at all. We don't even know who the developer is~ If I had a problem with it because we were promised things beforehand, I'd love to know who I could PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 13 - Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 9 10 tl 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 12 13 14 15 f6 ~I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CondenseltTM Page 17 talk to. Woodhaven came in. Pioneer came in. Lenier's come in. Who do we sue? Who do we talk to? Woodhaven is about to leave. They've got their model home up for sale. They're going. Who do we talk to now? Now, t know the zoning issue is -- that's -- I understand that. I'm not mad at him. But what I want to know is who do we talk to? We were promised a greenbelt ama. We were promised a pool. We were promised a great, huge entrance on 77. May I have -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOll~ve got another minute, sir. MR. JAPHET: ^nether minute? Another few laore minutes -- I mean, another -- a huge, huge front entrance. We got none of that. We were told that the front entrance there where the water tower is you can't see it. It's that little box there at tile bottom. That was suppose to be a park. We have to mow it ourselves. There's a guy in here~ where is he at? He mows it. All I ask is give us notice, tell us who. We'll fight about it later. But we need to know who the parties are. I beg you. Let us know in writing. Send everyone who lives out there a written notice, who we're dealing with and we'll handle it from them on out. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: well, the applicant Page 18 is here and I'1t make sure the applicant reaches you. I can get you two together. MR. JAPHET: xhank you, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: SLlr~, I have a lot o[ cards from people who did not wish to speak but who are in opposition and I'll read the names and I wit1 tad to get them correct, but I don't guarantee it. Nonna -- or Nommn Richardson. David Liles. Duane Kraeger. ]Debbie Affeld. Darlene Kent. Meghan Davis. Jane Hunter. Dana and Chris Cascio. David Widmcr. Christopher Marclnko. Bonnie Byrmn or Bynum. Earle Oallagher. Susie Autry. Amy ?owcll, I got that one right. Robet'~ and SusanLee Ton'ey. Randale -- it looks like Lanto. Tract Laxton. I'll ask one more time if anybody else would like to speak on fl~is issue. Come forward, sir, quickly, and give us yom' name and address. MR. MARCINKO: Hi. My name is Christopher Marcinkco. I live at 1601 Santos. I'm file other guy that mows the field owned by the City. My primary concern is that with these two additions[ lots or tracts and tile additional tracts from the other development just east, it provides only three entrances for 600 houses. In the morning, I live just off of Santos, down here by the water tower wheat everybody exits in the morning. It's already somewhat dangerous to g~t out and about in the morning, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2t 22 23 24 25 Page t9 especially in the evening when people are coming home. And then ironically sometime around 2:00 after the bars close, it's just not a safe place to already drive. And there's only about 150 people on the development at the moment. What we're talking about here is adding another 450 houses in the development, gran~d adding two more entrances, but way off in the distance where Nicosia is still the primary entrance l'or the development, Being on the corner r/ght there and having no other access to either 288 or through any other part of Denton, unless you cut across the tr~r campus when you're drunk, there's really no other way to get in. And that's really my concern now that they've removed Tract 3, COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you very much, sir. MR, MARCINKO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I will ask the applicant to come forward and I'm -- would the applicant come forward? We have a different version et' the applicant. If you'd give us your name and address, sir. MR. LEE: Thank you, Colmnission members, My name is Odis Lee, with Civil Works Engineering, 1192 Bolling Ranch Road, Azle, Texas. We are tile civil engineers for the present developer on this property. Page 20 We'd lJ. ke to try to answer as many of the concerns as possible. First off, I want to start when we did have our meeting with the neighborhood area, actually there were more notices that went out previously due to the Tract 3 addition. So your map that show the 200 foot for Tracts 1 and 2 actually was quite a bit larger in the original submittal and there were quite a few more people there at the time in that area, so there were notices that were sent out for that as well as for a neighborhood meeting. And we were contacted by the developer to let people know. During that meeting there were several items expressed. His concerns basically as far as topics, the same items are being expressed tonight, traffic, greenbelt and those areas. But all basically indicated that their real concern was Tract 3 and as Mr. Morrison indicated beforehand, in response to that, the developer did take Tract 3 out of the request for the rezoning leaving us the northern tracts, which were -- we were told by several people that if that was the only thing being requested, that they would have no problem with supporting. I think one of the reasons for the support was mentioned is in the original I'D as modified -- if we PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 17 - Page 20 CondcnscltTM 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 2t 22 23 24 25 Page 21 can get that camera back up, the areas that we were requesting -- that we were requesting to change was the area noted as Ga and the area noted as O, office and general retail. We ran a -- as part of our submittal to -- on this a traffic count, traffic generation for that, this is Tract 4A, Office and GR based on the Standard Institute of Traffic Requirements. We'd be looking at 11,000 trips a day generated by that 35 acres if it was developed out as office and general retail with the change to the single family, we would be looking at about 1,300, so about 10 percent or 15 percent of the trip generations. In addition to that, that docs have a -- also has a positive affect on the runoff residential generating less runoff of storm drainage then, office and general retail with a lot of concrete and rooftops from that standpoint. So we feel like that this would have a positive affect on the traffic standpoint as well as the drainage portion there. In addition, there is a question regarding duplexes. The developer of the phase -- the phases that have been built recently, a future phase four which is going on east of the present phases. And what's being requested tonight has no intent of building any duplexes anywhere within the existing phases or the future phases. As a matter of fact, phases 1, 2, 3, and 4 fall Page 22 under the old requimuents and are not under the new zoning regulations and, therefore, I don't believe duplex would even be allowed in Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4 on this one. The greenbelt park areas, we originally had a -- in the original Pt), ~ ~ acres of greenbelt space. This zoning request along with what we've done in Phases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 And I just want to make sure that we all understand, there was kind of a comment regarding to the additional lots being added in this zoning case, and this 35 acres with the additiona[ green space in some of the low areas, this additional 35 acres, they add only about 100 lots to what is already platted in phases 1, 2, and 3 -- 3 and 4, so it would be an increase, obviously, but not -- it would not be doubling the number of lots, it will be an additional about 20 to 25 percent lots being developed in this future phase if the zoning is granted. I hope we've been abIe to explain and answer some of tile questions and if there is any other specific questions, we're, obviously, available here to hopefully answer those. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Okay. I -- Virgil. COMMISSIONER STRANGE: Yeah. Do you have any plans to -- I didn't know what they would be, but I was just curious, what do have to answer these people about tile traffic, the fact that there is a bottleneck coming out of there? Is that something you have addressed or looked at or are you counting on that in your lower densities? MR. LEE: well, one of the things -- that's one of tile things -- if, based on a full development of Page 24 the tracts as zoned today prior to this request, we'd be looking at about -- at reducing the total traffic generations on a daily basis by about 9,000 vehicle trips per day, if both options, tile existing office was developed versus the proposed residential. Now, tile future residential also does add 1, 2, 3 and 4 would generate a total of 20 acres of greenbelt space that is outside of tho detention pond site. So if you include that, we're looking at a total of 40 acres of greenbelt space, or green space, the original po having 20 acres in there as a co~m~iuneut by the developers. There was some comments regarding promises made to people who purchased in the earlier phases. I do want to make sure that it is clear to the Commission members as well as the audience, that the developer and owner of this property that's being requested to be rezoned is different than the original developer of Phase 1. I can't speak for what may have been promised by the developer to anyone or the home builders, but I can speak for the developer that we are working for now. And there has been no promises regarding that. And I believe that if thea,e were those would be -- we would be taken care of. But I can't really vouch for what was promised or not to someone who purchased originally. 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 another connection back to the east. Obviously, at this time, we're not building it. We don't own the property to the east of us to Locust. But we would be providing an avenue for that to eventually tie into the future as well. COMMISSIONER STRANGE: YOU're planning something for some relief down file road? MR, LEE: Right. Based on future development tying to this property, correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Auy Other -- Dr. Thibodeaux. COMMISSIONER THIBODEALJX: I'm interested in your green space~ Could you tell me where that ga'een space is located? MR. LEE: YeS, ma'am. This is a conceptual plan that shows the available public green spaces, both misting and proposed. This is Hercules. That goes east, west, Phases 1, Phases 2 -- Phase 3, that was just constructed. With the platting -- this is Phase 4, we have included as part of that plat and it's on the PI_~ANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 2I - Page 24 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 I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 t9 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 25 preliminary plat as well and the final plat that we're getting ready to submit, there is I 1 acres of public green space soufl~ of Hercules and immediately north of Hercules. And those are the areas that are -- that have been approved as part of the preliminary plat, and will be included in the final platting in coming in. Our plan in the future if this zoning case goes through is to utilize another two or three acres outside of the electrical easements that are out flleae and there's about an acre and a half, or an acre between the two electrical easements, and then you can incorporate the electrical easemeut portion there as a linear park area. Right now we're talking with the Parks Department. I can't give you a conunitment whether they'll be public or private space -- do we have a co~mnitment yet from Parks? MS. MITCHELL: We haven't met with them yet, but we want to try to work a public/private relationship. MR. LEE: SO We would then have a small public park connected with linear park to the main park that's ah'eady been agreed to be accepted by file City Parks Deparunent. So that would give us a total of approximately 20 acres of undeveloped green space, whether it's public or private, is not yet determined, at least 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 27 Page 26 half of that being public. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions of the applicant? i have one that I can think of quickly. Up in the upper left-hand comer is showing it to be park, but I thought I remembered it was going to be retail. Am I talking the same area here -- MR, LEE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: -- Or mn I confLlsed? MR. LEE: Yes, sir. In the PD that was approved -- we can overlap these two. That area corresponds to about one-third of that area shown as GR. COMMISSIONER POWELL: well, okay, I understand that, but what you told us earlier -- what we were told earlier this evening is that that is Section No, 1, I'll call it. MR. LEE: Yes, sir, true. Part of that is Tract 1, correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. And it was going to be retail. Now, how can you get a park in the middle of retail? I'm confused here. MR. LEE: Okay. I'm sorry. The existing zoning is retail. We're requesting that Tract 1, which is retail and Tract 2, which is office, both be rezoned straight zoning to NH-4. COMMISSIONER POWELL: NOW, I'm with you. I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So only part of Tract I will be developed into NH-4 if this goes through. The balance of it will be the park that you're showing? MR. ~: open space, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Open space. I won't call it a park, open space. MR. LEE: okay. Yes, sir, that's correct. COMMISSIONER POWELL: okay. Now, I'm a little less confused. MR~ SNYDER: Can I ask a question? COMMISSIONER POW~L[: Absolutely. Legal has a question here. MR. SNYDER: SO the green space that you're showing on that drawing up in the top left-hand corner, was that ~- under the PD 120. was that required to be green space? MR. ~E: NO, sir. The only required green space -- MR. SNYDFmR.: okay. You're fine. You've answered my question. So what - in this zoning case this is just something you're pronfising to do; this is not a restriction? MR. LEE: well, this is our concept plan that we have for this if the zoning is -- it does pass. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any other questions? Page 28 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and thank you very much, sir. And I will -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: can I say something? COMMISSIONER POWELL: [ asked about tire tirn. es if somebody wanted to say something? LINIDENT[FIED SPEAKER: I didn't know what he was going to say. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I understand that. I understand. We always give the applicant a chance to answer the questions. Is there any discussion here, motion? MR. JAPHET: Mr. Chaim~an, 60 seconds, I promise. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Sorry, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We don't get tO address the applicant now that -- COMMISSIONER POWELL: YOU can address the applicant outside. And I'm sure they won't disappear on you. Ma. SNYDER: can I explain? COMMISSIONER POWELL: ^bsolutely. Tile lawyer wants to make an explanation and I'm for it. MR. SNYDER: mst for fl~e audience, I just want to explain to you that the rules of procedm'e for the Planning and Zoning Commission is allow all of the people PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 25 - Page 28 CondcnscltTM 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 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 29 that want to speak, speak, and then the applicant gets the final word in rebuttal. That's their rules of procedure. So if you wanted an opportunity to speak, you should have spoke before he spoke. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I don't see a motion forthcoming here. Mr. Roy. COMMISSIONER ROY: Every time that I see an opportunity for one of these 1980 Vintage eD's to be changed so that the new residential standards meet tile latest Code, is -- most of the time that's an attractive situation and I believe it is in this case as well. I think that the applicant has been responsive to the majority of the citizens' concerns by removing Tract 3. And I believe that we will have a better, nicer, subdivision under our new Codes than would have been done under the i'D, certainly, it will be as a nfinimmn, it will be consistent with what's there now, I think. I understand the traffic issues and I don't think that it's going to behoove us to assmne TXOOT is going to put in a service road on Loop 288. I think they've made it clear that there are no plans for that. And our own staff has confinncd that expectation on other zoning cases that we've had. I think the traffic from tile NR-4 is going to be much less based on the consultants or the Page 30 applicant's data. It makes sense that it would be so throne's a net impact of changing to this to NR-4 would be less than letting it be developed along the current zoning standards. So I'm leaning toward moving forward with this. rll make a motion unless there's other discussion. COMMISSIONER POWELL: We have a motion to approve, is that it? COMMISSIONER ROY: [ will make a motion to approve this, yes. COMMISSIONER POWELL: we have a motion to approve from Mr. Roy. Is there a second on the floor? George, you look like you're about to do something? Am I 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 Page 31 Ntt-4 neighborhood, and so I think that would be much better tlmn retail. I can see where you wouldn't put retail way back up in file corner where you couldn't get to it. These folks are certainly upset, and I can understand that, but the people that upset them don't seem to be the people that are developing this. It's a hard one and I certainly sympathize with thru-n, but they're not going to build highrises or multi-family, and so for that reason I will second the motion and vote for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing no discussion, I'm obligated by Roberts Rules of Orders and others to call for a vote. Motion passes 5-0 of those present. I will make a personal request of Ms. Mitchell, that she talk to the gentleman in the blue shirt one row back. wrong? COMMISSIONER WATKINS: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: A second front [Vh'. Watkins. And you would like to speak, also, and I think yom' mike was off. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairnmn. It appears that Txr~ox fixed us up and I expect the person or developer that owned Tract i and 2 am quite surprised to find that you just can't put a driveway anywhere, and I doubt that they relent on that. The newest regulations I saw were even mote stringent. And so time goes along and regulations become more and more. What is presently there and I live in an 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '25 Page 32 PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 29 - Page 32 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE OF APPROXIMATELY 35 ACRES FROM A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 120 (PD- i20) ZONING DISTRICT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 CNR-4) ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOOP 288 AND THE EAST SIDE OF NICOSIA STREET IN THE T. TOBY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1288, IN CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAX]}/KJM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTWE DATE. (Z04-0026) WHEREAS, Mitchell Planning Group, L.L.C., has applied for a change in zoning for for two parcels of land containing approximately 35 acres as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" (the "Property") from Planned Development 120 (PD-120).zoning district classification to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Propertyis hereby changed from a Planned Development 120 (PD-120) zoning district classification to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use. SECTION 3. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district claSsification. 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. Any person violating any provision oftkis ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ., 2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PAGE 2 Exhibit A ALL T~T CERTAIN TRACT OR PARC~ OF LAND LYING AND BEING SrTUATED ~;N TH1E T. TOBY ~;URVEY, A~ NUMBER t288, DENTON COUNTY, TEX~3 AND BEING A PART OFA TRACT D~BED iN ADEED TO K~RC ;! tJMITED PARTNEP~H~P RECORDED 1N COUNTY CLERK~ NUMBER ~02 REAL PROPERTY RECORDS, DI~NT'O~ P..,OUNT~, TEXA~, AND BEING MORE PART~24JLARkY DESORfBED AH FOI.L~ BEGt~ AT THE NORTHV~BT CORNER OF SND KDRC II TRACT. N~D THE NORTHEAST COR~ER OF LOT t, BLOCK ~, TEXAS iNs'r'RUMEN~ ADD~ON ACCORD;NG TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN CABINET G, PAGE 45 PL~T RECORDS DENTON COUNTY. TEXAS. AT A R~I~-OF WAY MONUMENT FQR GORNER ON THE iNTERSECTiON OFTHE ,~¢J'I'H RI~HT. OF WAY UNE C~' HIC~WAY LOOP 288 AND THE F..A~¥r RIGId-OF WAY UNE OF TEflUN(;UA ~ THEN~ 8OUTH 87 DEGREES 04 MINIJr~ 56 SECON~ EAST WITH THE NORTH UNE OF SAiD KDRC II TRAGT AND THE SOUTH RJGHT~I~F WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY LOOP 2i~ A DI..~TANCE OF ~5,69 FEET TO A RIGHT-OF WAY MONUMENT FOR CORNER; THENCE NORTH 82 DEGRE~i 12 MINUTE~ 11 8ECOND~ EAST WiTH THE NORTH LINE OF SAtD KDRC 1! TRACT AND TNB ~)UTH RIGHT4:)F WAY.UNE OF HIGHWAY LOOP 288 A DISTANCE OF 5~3.0f FEET TO A RIGHT43F WAY MOI~MENT FOR CORNER: THENCE ~)UTH 07 DE~RElf~ 3a UiNt,~E$. 35 ~ECONDS EASTA DISTANCE OF' 40g.09 'FEET TO A FOUND IRON PiN; THENCE :I~IOUTF107 DEGREES 59"MtN~ 'IT SECOND~ WE~r A DI..RTANCE OF 22B.6'1 ~:EET To A FOUND IRON PIN; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREFJB 64 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEET A DISTANCE OF 575.10 FEET TO A FOUND IRON PiN ONTHE WE~T LINE OF SAID KDRC il TRA, G~ AND THE ~ LINE OF SAID TERiNGUA STREET; THENCE NORTH OO DEGREES 54 Mii, aJTES 41 GE~ EAo~ WiTH THE WE~tt'I.~E OF 8AID K,,CIR~ II TRAOT AND THE ~ UNE OF :SAID TE]:UNGUA,~ A DISTANCE OF ~-~4.95 FEET TO THE II~QI~-OF..I~NG, AND CONTAINING rfl ALL 7.67~ A~RE~ OF PI~LD NOTES to all that certain tract Of land in ~he T. Toby Survey, Abstract l~umber 1288 and bein~ part. of the called 1~i. 1301 ac~e Tra~ 1 ~s s~Je~t tract bain9 ~re pa~i~.larly descried ~ ~ta~ and Bs~d~ as ~ollo~; Beginnim9 at the ~orthwest ccrmer of the tract being d.e~cribed her~in at an aluminum right-of~waymonument found on the So~th right-of-way of Loop ~88 a~ monu~ented a= the Northwest cor~r of the said acre tract; THE~C~ North ?7 Degrees 00 Minutes 58 Seconds East with the Sou~h right of way of Loop 288 and a North lin~ of th~ I41.1~01 acre trac~ a distance of 306.27 feet to an aluminum, right-of-way ~on~ment; THENCE North 75 De, tees 21 Minutes 26 Seconds East continuing ~ith the South right-of-way of Loop 28~ a~d a North line of Dh~ 1~1.1~01 acre tract a dlstan¢~ of 582.28 feet to ~ ~ inch fr~n rod found at the ~ortheast corner of ~he ~ra¢= being described herein and th~ Northeast T~ENCE S~ath 14 D~rees 38 ~inutes ~0 Seconds East with an East line the 141.1301 ac~e tract a distance of 453.3~ feet to a ~ inch iron rod TKENC~ Sc~th 89 Degrees 02 ~inutes 24 se=onds ~ast wi~h a North line. of t~ 1~1.1~0~ ac~e ~ract a distance of 388.4~ feet to a ~ iru~h iron found a~ ~he Easterly ~orthea~t corner thereof at reentrant corner the called 200.00 acre tract damcribed in the de~ ~ro~ 2~0 J.V. to KDRC ~! r~cor~sd, under Clerk's File l~ur~ber 94-R006~002 of Zhe Real P~ope~ty Records of Denton County, TM~NC~ South 01 Degrees 52 ~inutes 28 Seconds W~st with ~he ~ast lin~ of the 161.13~i acre t~aot and the said 200.00 acre tract a distance of 921.11 feet tO a 5/8 inch iron rod found with a ye!~w =~p ~=am~Ded described in the dead fz~m Locust/:8~ ~artners, Ltd. to Nicosia & 77, h.P, recorded in Volume 5144, Page 10~2 of ~aid Deed Records; THENCE acromm =he ~%1.1301 acre tract with the North line of the 102.900 acre t~a~t the ~ollowing North 89 De~rees 11 Minut~ 34 Seconds feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod found with North 6~ De, tees ~1 Minutes 1! Seconds feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod foun~ w~h West a distan=e of 160.~ a yellow oep'stamped west a distance of 10~4.89 a yellow cm~ stamped fe~t to a 5/8 inch iron rod found with a yelio~ cap stamped "B~B" in a Wa~'terly CUrVe =~ ~h~ rich= havin~ a radius cf 4B0.16 fee~f A1om~ said curve arc distance Of 5D.8~ feet (chord hmari~g of S~u~h ~7 D~3ree~ 43 Minutes. 17 Seconds. West and a chord distaTace of 50.B1 feet) to a ~ inch iron ro~ seu with a ye!lowplasti¢ cap stamped "COLE~/~ RPLS 4001" at th~ end of ~he c~e; feet to & $/9 inch iro~ rod f~and with a yellow cap ~e Wes~ li~ of ~h¢ 141,1301 acre T~CE North ~8 Degrees 14 Minutes 44 Seconds ~ast with the We~t li~e Of the 141.1~01 ~=re tract a distance~ of 144.9~ fe~t ~o a ~ i~ch t~on rod found at an ~ngle p0~nt thereim$ THENCE ~or~h 07 Degrees 23 ~in~tes 25 Seconds West with the we~t line the 141.1301 a~re trac~ a dis~nce of 409.02 feet to the PLACE OF BEGIN~IN~and enclosing ~6.954 acres o~ land. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Planning and Development Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT - Z04-0044 (Westglen Phase 1 and 2) Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning of approximately 14.60 acres of land from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The property is generally located on the northwest comer of Windsor Street and Westgate Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. BACKGROUND Applicam: Allison Engineering DeNon, TX The applicam requests to rezone the subject property from Neighborhood Residemial 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood Residemial 4 (NR-4). As noted in the applicam's letter (Attachmem 6), the surrounding zoning includes NR-2, NRMU, NRMU-12, NR-6, NR-3 and NR-4. Rezoning of the subject property would allow for a smoother transition from the mixed use zoning (abutting 1-35) to the NR-2 zoning on Windsor at Westgate. Public notification and property owner responses are provided in Attachmem 3. As of this writing, staff received one written response in opposition from a property owner within 200 feet of the subject site. The opposition is currently at 0.96%. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0, Holt and Noble absem). OPTIONS 1. Approve as submitted. 2. Approve with conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. 5. Table item. RECOMMENDATION See Staff Analysis (Attachmem 1). ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE The subject property is not platted. Preliminary and Final Plats will be required prior to the issuance of the building permit. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Maps 3. Public Notification (Property Owner Notification Map) 4. Site Photo 5. Aerial Photo 6. Letter of Intent 7. Letter of Opposition 8. December 1 st P&Z Meeting Minutes 9. Ordinance Prepared by: Chingyun (Kay) Liang Planner I Respectfully submitted: Kelly Carpenter, AICP Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 Staff Analysis Summary_ of Zoning Request The applicant requests to rezone approximately 14.60 acres of land from the Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning districts. Existing Condition of Property The subject property is currently vacant. Prior to the 2002 zoning update, the property was zoned Agriculture. Adiacent Zoning North: South: East: West: Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2), Vacant Neighborhood Residential 3 and Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-3 and NR-6), Single- Family Neighborhood Residential 3 and Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-3 and NR-4), Single- Family Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU), Vacant Comprehensive Plan Analysis The subject site is located in the "Existing Neighborhood/Infill Compatibility" and "Neighborhood Center" future land use areas. The Denton Plan states, "Within established residential areas, new development should respond to existing development with compatible uses, patterns and design standards. The plan recommends that existing neighborhoods within the city be vigorously protected and preserved. Housing that is compatible with the existing density, neighborhood service, and commercial land uses is allowed." In addition, "Within the undeveloped urban and urbanizing areas of the city, new neighborhoods may develop in traditional patterns. Mixed-use and mixed housing types will be allowed to develop in a pattern of 'neighborhood centers'. Residential uses may occur at higher density..." Existing residential developments in the vicinity of the subject property are of mixed densities, ranging from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) to Neighborhood Residential 6 (NR-6). As the applicant indicated in the letter of intent (Attachment 6), the average density of existing residential subdivisions to the east and south is 4.12 units per acre. The Westgate Park Addition, which is further north along Westgate Drive and zoned NR-2, consists of lots averaging 32,000 square feet. The remaining tract between the subject site and the Westgate Park Addition will serve as a buffer, and future development will serve as a transition between the two densities. The proposed zoning request is compatible with the existing neighborhoods. The discussions on land use compatibility shall include potential developments on currently vacant properties within the vicinity, specifically, the properties to the west, which is within Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use (NRMU) zoning district, to the northeast, which is within Planned Development 115 (PD-115), and further to the northwest, which is within Planned Development 142, (PD-142). These locations are illustrated in the Zoning Map (Attachment 2). Within NRMU zoning district, detached single-family dwelling is not a permitted use. High- density residential and commercial developments are likely to be proposed. Land use designations within PD-115 include park/school, commercial/office, multi-family, and single- family developments ranging from 7,000 to 16,000 square-foot lots, with an average density of 3.8 units per acre. PD-142 covers 245.78 acres of land designated for business center and office use. Development trends in this area will likely be mixed-use and mixed-density. The zoning change from NR-2 to NR-4 will serve as a transition to future developments to the north and west. The proposed zoning change is in compliance with the Denton Plan. Development Review Analysis Access Access to the subject site is from Windsor and Westgate Drive. Windsor Street is classified as a secondary arterial, and Westgate Drive is a local street. Public Infrastructure Public utilities are in place to serve the site. Development Code / Zoning Analysis The comparison between uses permitted in NR-2 and NR-4 zoning districts is provided in the following chart. Attached single-family dwelling unit is allowed in NR-4 with the approval of a Specific Use Permit. This is not an allowed use in NR-2. While manufactured housing is allowed in NR-2 with the approval of a Specific Use Permit, it is not allowed in NR-4. In industrial and commercial land use categories, NR-4 presents more restriction in uses permitted. The existing NR-2 zoning permits the development of 29 units. The proposed rezoning to NR-4 would allow 58 units. Attached Single Family Dwellings N SUP Duplexes N L(3) Manufactured Housing Developments SUP N Equestrian Facilities SUP N Kennels L(37) N Veterinary Clinics L(14) N SUP Gas Wells L(27) L(27) General regulations of the Residential Neighborhood land use zone are contained in the table below: The following limits apply to subdivision of 2 acres or less: Minimum lot area (square feet) 16,000 7,000 Minimum lot width 80 feet 50 feet Minimum lot depth 100 feet 80 feet 20 feet Minimum front yard setback 20 feet L(2) Minimum side yard 6 feet 6 feet Minimum side yard adjacent to a street 10 feet 10 feet Minimum rear yard 10 feet 10 feet The following limits apply to subdivision of more than 2 acres in lieu of minimum lot size and dimension requirements: The following limits Maximum density, dwelling units per acre 2 4 Minimum side yard for non-attached 10 feet 5 feet buildings Maximum lot coverage 30% 60% Minimum landscaped area 70% 40% Maximum building height 40 feet 40 feet 10 feet 10 feet plus 1 plus 1 foot for foot for each each Minimum yard when abutting a single- foot of foot of family use or district building building height height above above 20 feet 20 feet L(1) - Accessory dwelling units are permitted, subject to the following additional criteria: i. The proposal must conform ~vith the over,il n~axin~um lot coverage and setback reqLdrements of the underlying zone. 2. The maximum number of accessory dxvelling un/ts shall not exceed 1 per lot. 3. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure sh~Jl not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, and shall not exceed 1000 sq. ft. GHFA unless the lot meets the requirements of L(1).5. 4. ()ne addition~J parking space shall be provided that conforms to the off-street parking provisions of this Chapter. 5. The maximum gross habitable floor area (GHFA) of the accessory residential structure shall not exceed 50% of the GHFA of the primary residence on the lot, ~vhere the lot size is equal to or g~eater than ten acres in size. An SUP is not reqLdred for such an accessory residential structure ~vhere the lot size is equal to or greater than ten acres. L(2) - For infill lots, the front setback shall be an average of the adjacent lots. L(3) - In part of a subdivision of 2 acres or more, up to 2 units may be attached by a common wall if the lots which contain the attached structures do not abut the perimeter lot lines of a subdivision, the individual common wall units are on separate lots designed to be sold individually, and they comply with the Subchapter 13. Additionally, units must have the appearance ora single family residence from the street. L(14) - Uses are limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. L(27) - Must comply with the provisions of Subchapter 22, Gas Well Drilling and Production. L (37) - 5-acre minimum land area required and no more than 25 kennels per acre allowed, including indoor and outdoor runs. A natural buffer strip is required adjacent to any residential use. Staff Findings The proposed zoning change is compatible with the Existing Neighborhood and Neighborhood Center future land use designations, and is in compliance with the intent of the Denton Plan. Staff Recommendation Based on the above findings, staff recommends approval of the requested zoning change. ATTACHMENT 2 Location/Zoning Map NORTH Land Use Map ATTACHMENT 3 Notification Map NORTH Limits of 200' Notification Limits of 500' Notification SITE Opposition Scale: None Public Notification Date: November 16, 2004 200' Legal Notices* sent via Certified Mail: 16 Number of responses to 200' Legal Notice: 1 · In Opposition: 1 · In Favor: 0 · Neutral: 0 Opposition: 0.96% *A copy of the notification list can be obtained at City Hall West, 221 N. Elm Denton TX 76201 ATTACHMENT 4 Site Photo Photo 1: View of subject property from Westgate Drive. ATTACHMENT 5 Aerial Photo ]0 ATTACHMENT 6 Allison Engineering, LLC 611 Pecan Creek R~ Baton, Tex~ 76207 (M0) 380.~53 O~Home (940) 380-9431 F~ October 27, 20~ Kelly Ca~nter, AICP, ~rector PtanvJng & Dovelo~ent Servic~ City Of Demon City ~11 West 22 t N, Elm D~ton, Texas 76201 Re: R~uest for Zo~ng Cb~ge Kent Key VCestglen D~r Ms. C~nter ~ Be~lf of Key Custom Homes, we respectfully seek the rezoni~ of the i4.598 acre tract of land as in,cared on the ~c.~ent~ We ~re reqtmsfing that the property re~ned from i~ e~sdng zomng of ~.-2 The lract is generally located at t~ northwest comer of Wir~osr Drive ~d Wcstg~e ~ve. It is ~ L shaped fig~are ~ the in,de of' the L located m ~e comer. ~e s~ou~ing zoning varies. It includes NR-2, Ni~,dIJ, ~LL12, NR~6. NR~3 a~ NR4~ ~e cun~nt use of ~e land is vacant. Most of the land to the north and west is va~m, residential ds exist to ~e east and south~ Rezoning t~ site m ~4 proMdes a io~cal trait/on from the Mgher density developmems on the south and west ~ tl~ lower densiW developments to ti're mst. This ~so provide for a reasonable development of the site for single fa~ly ~mes. DENS'Y: Zoned ~4 and conta~g 14.598 acres ~sults in a maximin of 58 lots on ~ site~ Given the simple terrain it is ex,ted that 58 lots will be developed o~e ~e zoning is approve& The average lot s[~ wo~d be bet¥~n 8,250 and 8,750 ~uare feet. ~e a~al de~i~ the following 11 Item No. A. B. D. H. TOTAL Subdi~slon ~ Hi~ N Westg~te H~ N, P H- C HiM N Wiadsor Far~ P I Current Zonin NR-3 NR4 NR-3 NR-3 Acr~ ] Actual Density 10~9i 3,11 931 4.41, 9,438 3,81 23,3~ 14.427 ~16 10.718 3,17 9.2~ 4.67 3.89 4.12 ~ zo~ng of hhe tr~ as ~ would be compatible ~xdth ~he ~ng of the su~oundmg nei~borh~ mhd would ~ow ~ ~ns~t~on m io~r dermises m ~e nor~ as ~t v~ant 1~ ~veiops ~d is re,ne& TR~&NSPORTATION: On the so~h perimeter, Windsor is cla~ffi~ ~ a S~n~ A~edai~ on ~e ~t side West~te ~ve is not c!~sifi~. It is exi~ct~d ~ be a resid~fiaJ coli~or, ~ anfici~ ~ily tr~c volame is: 58 UniU X 9.57 tri~ ~r lot = 555 tr[~ p~ WATER: The waler ~ds m: Avera~ Day: 58 Unim X 3,2 Pe~om ~ Unit X i 80 g~d = 33.408 Ma~,c Day: 33,408 gpd X 2.2 = 73¢,98 ~. Pink Ho~: 73,498 ~ X 1 7 = 124.947 grd Fire Fiow: 51 gpm (73,498 ~d)+ 1,~0 gpm = 105t ~m An 8~inch water main ~averms the middle of the site and t~ ~utheastem ~rder. Ano~er 8-inch mair~ is ad}aceat to ~e far e~m border ~d a 6-inch main is a~acent to ~ muthem most bord~ The elevated sm~e rank at Loop 288 and 1H~35 pro¥i~ ~e pressure main~n~. W~TEW ATER. The wa~nemler dem~n~ Ave~e Day: 58 Units X 3~2 Pensons t~r U~t X 1~ ~d = 18,560 Peak 2 Hour: t8,560 ~ X 5 = 92,800 g~. A 10*~ch main ~averses the mille of tM site and ~ sou~eas~ ~rdg. 3m 8*inch main e~ends to the site on ~ff~ S~e~. 'his line may not ~ accessible to th/s DR~rqAGE. The M~ &-~ains to t~ nort~heast A fl~dpiain roches the si~ on the ~ortheast miner. De~ntion is not ~eipat~. It ~ anti¢i~ that the si~ will ~ served by a storm sew~ system disc~ing d~tly into an existing fl~dplain. At a density of 58 lob and 3~2 ~mon ~r lot, ~is resui~ in an e~dmated a.cldifion to h~ ~hool ~i.on of 70 students. This sho~d ~ will with~ hSe p~nning ~etem es~blished by the DISD Allison Engineering hopes ~at you will a~ee xC.t~ ~e ~nir~g for ~e rcquest~ ¢~e and that the O~· will approve the r~uest v,4th dae Res~tf~ly Submitted, Ait~on E~itteering, LLC ~e K, All~n, P,E., FNSPE 13 NOT]:¢E OF PUBL]:¢ FIEAR]:N6 Z04-0044 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a pubiic hearing on Wednesday, December 1, 2004, to consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning of approximately 14.60 acres from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district. The public hearing will start at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feel about this request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, in order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the. public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom or mail it to the address below or drop it off in-person: Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Chingyun (Kay) Liang, Project Managers These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowners that support and oppose the request. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Please circle one: In favor of request Neutral to request Rea.~..ons for Oppo,sition; ,'L Opposed to'~ Pdnted Name: ~ / '~.°.v'~xl~ <:' ~P!A~ Mailing Address: _~ -~ ~ dF (~¢, ¢- r City, State Zip: ~~ / Telephone Number: ~ ~- ~?~ Physical Address of Prope~ within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940.349.8350 · (F) 940.349.7707 Condens¢ItTM i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 · Page 45 COMMISSIONER POWELL: Iteill Number 5B, rezoning of approximately 14.6 acres from Neighborhood Residential, t,m-2 zoning District to Neighborhood Residential NR-4. The property is generally located on the northwest corner of Windsor and Westgate. Yes, ma'am. MS. BATEMAN: Good evening, Chairman, members of the Conunission, this request before you is for i4 -- approxilnately 14 and a half acres to go from NR-2 to Page 47 forth, this goes around it? MS. BATEMAN: Right. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any Off,er questions of staff? Seeing none, I thank you. And I'll ask for tile applicant and I'll open file public hearing. MR. ALLISON: Good evening. I'm Lee Allison with Allison Engineering. Kent Key of Key Custom tile NR-4. under the NR-2 zoning district currently they can devdop 29 single family lots. If rezoned to file NR-4, they would be able to develop 58 single family lots, which is what they ale proposing. With the NRMU zoning to the west, which is abutting 1-35, the proposal will act as a buffer to adjacent NR-3 and NR-2 zoning districts that are to the north, to the south, as well as to the east. And if you'll notice that in tiffs area, there's also the NR~CC-I2 and tile NR~6. It's kind of a mixture of diffe*el~t zoning districts. Staff mailed notices to property owners 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Homes is the applicant. He's out of town and could not be here this evening and apologizes for flint. I believe tile staff has very well presented the case. It's a pretty simple zoning request, nothing elaborate. We do understand that cvcn though no formal opposition has been submitted in writing, there's been some questions or concerns regarding duplexes, apartments, or townhomcs. Mr. Key's intent is solely for single family homes. And if some kind of a mechanism is needed such as an overlay district to help calm any of those kind of fears, we're certainly interested in listening to such a proposal and giving it full consideration. I hope that in within 200 feet. We mailed 16 notices. We have received no replies in favor or in opposition of tile request. As Mr. Reichhal~ stated earlier on the first zoning ease, this request for the NR-4 if duplex is proposed, this would be something that would be pernfitted in the interior Page 46 21 22 23 24 25 your packet was a copy of file concept plan we had for tile basic layout of the subdivision~ and maybe a copy of our application, which had a letter describing what we were trying to accomplish. With that, it's pretty straight forward, I'll be glad to -- well, I guess, answer Page 48 of the property only. All exterior development would have to be single family as well as any duplex development that would occur interior would have to look like single family including the one drive or accessing from the alley. With that said, staff rcconunends approval of the rezoning and I'1t be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER POWELL: DOeS tile Coamnission have any questions of staff?. Mr. Welkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: YeS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed a pretty good fron~ge on Windsor. MS. BATEMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Tbis going through -- Windsor is very narrow there now and it will widen that out, I assmne, from its present two lane? MS. BATEMAN: The -- are you asking me? COMMISSIONER WATKINS: YeS. MS, BATEMAN: okay. The exact improvements to the infi'astructure or roads would be determined at the time of platting. I would assume based on 58 single family lots, there's going to be several public improvements that would be required. COMMISSIONER WATICINS: okay. And this site, I assmn¢, circles Payne Farm -- MS. BATEMAN: YeS. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: -- the barn and SO 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 questions later. COMMISSIONER POWELL: well, we can ask them now if anybody has any. MR. ALLISON: okay. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I think when you stood up and gave us your name, you did not give an address. I could be wrong. MR. ALLISON: Actually, I don't know it. We just moved into new offices this weekend and it's over in tile Victoria Village down from where tile homestead used to be 105B. That much I know. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Thank you. MR. ALLISON: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER POWELL: That's okay. Thank you much. MR. ALL[SON: Sure. COMMISSIONER POWELL: Any questions of file applicant at this time? None at this time, sir. MR~ ALLISON: All rigbt. Thank you. COMMBSIONER eOWELL: would anybody like to speak on this issue? I don't have any cards. This is Item 5B, it's a rezoning. Anybody want to speak for il, against it, or on it? I'll ask one more time. Are there any speakers on this issue? Not seeing any requests to speak and no cards up here, I'll close the public PLANNING AND ZONING M1NUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 45 - Page 48 CondenscltTM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 49 hearing. There's no nc:ed for a rebuttal. I will ask for discussion and/or a motion from the Commission. Mr. Watkins. COMMISSIONER WATKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would move approval of Z-04-0044. COMMISSIONER POWELL: I have a motion from Mr. Watkins~ Is thexe a second? COMMISSIONER ROY: second. COMMISSIONER POWELL: second from Mr. Roy. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing or hearing none, I'll call for a vote. Motion passes 5-0 of those present. Thc only other imq~ is future agenda items. Anybody have anything on that? None. We are adjourned at 7:29, Mr. Watkins. We didn't make your 7:i4. (End of proceedings.) PLANNING AlqD ZOIqlNG MINUTES DECEMBER 1, 2004 Page 49 - Page 49 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 2 (NR-2) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 14.60 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY WRAPPING AROUND THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WINDSOR STREET AND WESTGATE DRIVE IN THE F. BATSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 43 IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMI3M AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Z04-0044) WHEREAS, Allison Engineering has applied for a change in zoning for two tracts of land containing approximately 14.60 acres of land particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" (the "Property") from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zorfing district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on December 1, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The zoning district classification and use designation of the Property is hereby changed from Neighborhood Residential 2 (NR-2) zoning district classification and use designation to Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning disthct classification and use. SECTION 3. The City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. 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 4. Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a stun not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION 6. 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 ,2004. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENN~ER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~ PAGE 2 Denton. ~.9986 ~re tr~cr rD the .northeast. corner D~ton Go~ ty, ~arlno F~IIy Trust tract lo ~ ;~n rod set for c~er: ~E~E N 02' 32' 06' ~ Y8~,50 leaf ~o on .lr~ ro~ ~et r~ S ~7' J4' Jg' E, ~,20~f~t ~o an ~on re~ ~at ~orner ~ o~d~ We~tgete. D~lve; ~HE~ S~01 56' I0' .27~,00 fe~t ?~h. ~o~ ~t~ote ~F"~' lo the PLACE ~ ~~ ~g e~ta~ f3,0g~ acr~ or m~ . Ab~tre~ Number 43 in the Ci~ thai CO.In tra~ Of lend ~flvayed by da~ ~ Arable C, P~ ~l Jean ~ayne Oaede Ind ~o~a~ E~ P~fle ~~.ln Votu~ ~. r~g~ 217, ~escribod a~ fo~: OOMMENOINO et en iron rod found earner for oom~ L. tlm norlh line.of Payne Drive, e l)ubh roadway and In the fl~ !~ of ~t ~dmin ~ orl~ Vofu~ 31 O, Page ~8, ~al Pro~e~ R~ffl ~n ~0~, T~, Silo from Amble O, Poyne ~ ~fo~ Jean Plyne Om~o ~d R~ ~ Payne Text; THENCE N 87' S7' 54~ W, S~0.0O fll[~th said n~ l~ne of said Farina t~ to .~ ~n ~ f~ ~f P~OO OF B~iNN~O: THEHOE N 87' 2~ 6~ W, aE.OO fe~ ~lh elm ~ ~ ~u~ FaUna trl~ to TH~OE N ~* ~* ~'m E, ~2,40 feet, lO ~ Iron ~ set tm ~men THI~NoB 6 eT* ~I' aS' E, 1114.00 feet Jo an !ran fad met for ~mer In W~ate THENCB a 01* ~ 10' W, 20.00 feet ~ ~fd Wes~.~ D~ to an for ~m~: THENoE N 8~ ~' ~' W, 105~,20 r~ lo an Iron ~ met THENOE S 02* ~* ~ W, 782.~ ~1 lO ~e P~CE OF BE~INNINO ~nd ~nmlM~ 1.4~ a~l 0; lend, Exhibit A AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: January 4, 2005 Parks and Recreation Department Howard Martin ~ SUBJECT Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance graining approval of a sub- surface use of a portion of the Pebble Brook Open Space Park for the purpose of a public utility easemem in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for a public utility easemem; and providing an effective date. (The Parks Board recommends approval.) BACKGROUND The City of DeNon Municipal Utilities has requested the use of parkland for the purpose stated, in order to relocate utilities for the reconstruction of Loop 288. State law as defined in Chapter 26, Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Lands, of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code requires that: (a) a municipality of this state may not approve any program or project that requires the use or taking of any public land designated and used prior to the arrangement of the program or project as a park unless the municipality, acting through its duly authorized governing body or officer, determines that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such lan& and (2) the program or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, as a park, resulting from the use or taking. (b) A finding may be made only after notice and a hearing as required by this chapter." If the proposed public utility easemem is allowed, a value must be placed on the 274.82 linear foot, 0.126-acre section and charged to the City of DeNon municipal utilities. In addition, land disturbed in the park will be returned to its original condition. Parks and Recreation Departmem and the City of Demon Engineering staff have reviewed all other possible alternatives. These alternatives included: · Select another route through the city that would by-pass the park area. A routing study was conducted. A normal gravity flow line curremly exists across the park area. There may not be another gravity flow route. · Permit the proposed routing of the sewer easemem across the park area for the reconstruction of Loop 288 to connect with an existing easemem passing through the open space area. After review of options, it appears this is the most prudem and cost effective way to provide a major gravity sewer line to this part of the city. OPTIONS City Council may approve or deny the recommendation to a allow a public utility easement across Pebble Brook Park, select the other option outlined above, or request staff to submit an alternative not listed. RECOMMENDATION After reviewing all alternatives, staff recommends approval of the use of the Pebble Brook Open Space Park for the public utility easement along Loop 288. There will be no major impact on current park operations or programs. The Parks and Recreation Department confirms that the City of Denton has investigated all other alternatives and has used reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Construction is projected to begin in fall 2005. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board recommended approval of this public utility easement at a meeting on December 6, 2004. FISCAL INFORMATION Compensation related to this use is still under discussion with Denton Municipal Utilities. It is reasonable to expect that improvements directly related to programs and/or facilities in the Pebble Brook Park will be provided. BID INFORMATION Not applicable EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2. Area Map 3. Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board Minutes Respectfully Submitted: Prepared by: Bob Tickner, Superintendent Parks and Recreation Department Janet Simpson, Director Parks and Recreation Department H:\Railtrail crossings and Chapter 26 reviews\City Council Pebble Creek Sewer line Easement 5-27-03.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING APPROVAL OF A SUB-SURFACE USE OF A PORTION OF PEBBLE BROOK OPEN SPACE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 26 OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE CODE; PROVIDING FOR A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Section 26.001 of the Texas Parks of Wildlife Code provides that public land designated and used as a park may be used for a non-park purpose if the City Council finds after notice and hearing that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land for the proposed project and the proposed project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park resulting from such use; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to improve public utility service to the .City of Denton by improving Loop 288 and relocating utilities onto a 274.82 linear foot section through the park; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to provide the public utility easement since alternative options would not be feasible and prudent; and WHEREAS, the City provided notice in the Denton Record Chronicle on December 14, 21, and 28, 2004 of a Public Hearing to be held on January 4, 2005 in the Council Chambers to consider the alternatives to the use of City Park for the public utilities relocation project; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 4, 2005 received testimony at a public hearing on the issues of no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the property for the proposed project and that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the Pebble Brook Open Space Park resulting from the public utility easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project does not fall within the purview of Section 253.001 of the Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the park land and that the subject utilities relocation project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park as a result of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The public utility easement proposed by the City of Denton Municipal Utilities (the "Project") shall be constructed and maintained below the surface of the park property (except for minor above ground appurtenances necessary to the subsurface utility lines) EXHIBIT 1 described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof for alt purposes, and that the surface of the park after installation of the utility lines be constructed in a manner so that the park land may still be used by its patrons 'after completion of the Project in the same manner it was used prior to the Project. The City Council hereby approves the Project, subject to the requirements of this ordinance. SECTION 2. A public utility easement shall be signed by the City Manager or his designee and approved by the City Attorney allowing the use of the park property for the Project as referenced above with appropriate provision to insure the improvements are constructed in accordance with City Subdivision Rules and Regulations; protects the patrons using the park fi.om injury and damage both during and after construction of the Project; compensates for the reasonable market value of the use herein granted and generally protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City. SECTION 3. During construction of the Project, temporary use of such additional park land necessary to stage the construction of the improvements is allowed within the area described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference or in such other area that is approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation Department. However, at the completion of the construction activities for the Project such additional park land shall be restored to the condition to which it existed prior to the beginning of such construction activities. SECTION 4. The rights and benefits set forth in this ordinance may not be assigned without the express written consent of the City. SECTION 5. The findings contained in the preamble of this ordinance are incorporated into the body of this ordinance. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __day of ,2005. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: By: "~ -~ EULINE BROCK, MAYOR Page 2 of 2 II;:':"'" ';.".".:.: ';'.': ':': .'"(' "..-'i ' ~0 CONSTRUCTION EA$EMENT · . , - . CITY OF DENTON . - . "' ' .... ' -... .' .... ' ' .'.'..'" "; '.. '..,--...i' '. ':..'..DEI~TON COUNTY, ~', (.'....' .' .... ".~;i:" ':'?":':'" '. . .,: ";::.'.' ';;., ':.. ':: '; ,:. :...';-:'[ ."'.:. .... ' .' . . . '. . . . .' . , . .-.-:'-.. .........- , '" :"" }BEING p~rt of Lot 2;iBlock.'X-0tPebble Bm0k.Aa4klon, an 'additiOn to ti~Cityofi:'i.i! .;..;:..':'. ;. :[;,: ,.... !.,. {.:-.'-, :~.',.. .. :,:'.. '.-L, Deninn'asrecordedinCabinetO;:Pn~e264eftheplatRix:ordsofDentOaCOUn~;'.TeX~- : .:. ;,..,':.'. .. :..:. L.... '. ' anti being m°mpi~rfia~tdy described'as.fOllows:. '." · .... ' ' ';' '"...'..". ' :' "-....'- ' ...... 1'='...:: -'" "! ... ". :.:.'":"..:.'"" '.-' .-' :'('.'.~ .-~BF-~O at.~' 1/2 inch.imnmd s~t with" ~ello~ cap ~',.?~ $~g '..:...::: ...': ,...':. '.:. :'. ,'.':v ,' "'...', .:. ,. ".' :.. Company"'in the'north line of Said Lot 2,.the.south line o£a tract of.land deScribed.bY'; -. '."...'.'.. """' ' · .".. '.:..':':. ';., ::.-i -: ,:..i .' deed to Va~a ~r: tseaver~ a~ recorded m VolUme 3~, p~se. ooio ofthe..?,j~ !~i~ :-' ,":.':":-:.. "'.. ".'/. "..';-." . ~:' .. :' .,..." .: ...::::-.. '. "~o~t, otn~ton ~;. ~a~ ',.,a ~s 2o ~.~ascr!~ .a~ a :rish~"a~e-~m.~"~ ,. :,'-'. ,'..-,:, ...:.'..' .' '. '.;';.',.:..:..: ,:.....-. east .line of State ~aY Loop 2SS, san~bein~ at the beCnnh/s o£an~~.~,-...'/~:.,':..'..,' · .,'...?..':. ..... '..:"." .... ~o'fliele/thavi~arad~,of4$o.00fi~; ..... ' . :'.'...'i' .' ".' .... '!"...'. ' .-:-...,....: .-h., . :." f.".':"' i::: ":'. [:.'"'.'.. ":":.. 'TI-H~ with the south'line of said'Beavers tract, th¢.north.li~e ~f Said"L~ ~i a~d al~..;~.: '.'[' ;[" ? i ..'",':'.';-":" '.-. ,::' 'i;':"..:' ": :" said °Ur~tothe ieff havin~ adelta angIe of 03 degrecs 49 minutes'43. ~Ond~ a. Clm~,.,.' .'.:: '-'.'[.:......:.;[', , ' .."...:..::-"' '..'.:' · ' ,.' besting of North .$7 degrees 07 miim~'41. Seconds. EaSt, a.~otdlen~l~.of30,06 'fimt,nnd.?.:'.' ....{-' .' '.-:['-.'..' ,'. ...:..i'_... [..',...,....-.....:. · an at~ lenffr, h O~ 30.07 t~ lo a POint for com.~, .:': '..:' - ...: "-..-........:.:: .' -.:... :~ '-......._ '".'i' "..,"' ':' i:.. :..'"..-.' ." ...,:-.. !:.: :::. :".'~ '..:. '!. ~c~ ~ ~d .a~o~.~ ~ ?. ~.so'~ ,~dy ~.~¢~' ~,¢~ ~ ~,. ~: ~.~-..:'...,':',. :...;.,: .',.".: ..'..: .' .. ::-.'.":. :.' . :'.:.....:. 'ofsaid"State I--li._Shw~Y Loop.285 the'~l!owi.ng c0ti~,~"nnd distances:.....";.: :.. :' .". :: v ':.':,.'::" L' '.'"' :' '::". · '" ': -:..''" :': !.......}:" '"" ';" :'~out~ 00 ~ 53 mi~S.07's~c°nd.s'W¢Bi,'.a' di6tance °f~60;jT.fe~t.to ~,.~:for.. :.,..': ..%:- '..:-': i:. ":' ."--'"'"s°~, o] ~ ~s ~ ~s ,~o,,~, ~ ~ ~ ~0o'.~s r~':~0:~.P°i~ f~':':::. '.'...:.:.: .. :...'..'.".:'..' ![.;' :":;.'~,:'! .: .,'...c~rner:.'.......... . · ,.... ...' .. .... · . .- . .'.. ... ....'...'....-': --,....,.,-...:.... '..:...'...:'.... :.:.-..: ...:., :",~'-..-'i": ' 'S0u~" 00 de~s 53 'mifiules 07 'se~ds West' adistan~eof33.!l:fe~'inanorth'lineo~'a .-. . '.V~Ie.Width Und~ Publi~ Utility Easement"~S rec0hied in. Instnim~t N0:.)"..'..'.'..! ::.. :', .; ;.' :... i-,-:' .,... ,'-i-".'.i -,... 200442~'8s of the ~ Pr0p~ay RecOrds of Denton COunty; Texas;...,' ,.......:.., :."-....--.' ',.' - ..' .'... ..-..'-', ' · .j . _:.,:../.- .}'.-! :' .. ,.. - . . -.'..-:. · . . .- - . -.. ~- -.:-..,:: [ ..,~'":."" .,..,:.; .-.'.::.":. :::: .: ::".:: .... ' ' .- :THENCESouih"87 de~rees 16 mim~'S4 '~West~ with"the:~torth !ine o~d:! :{--:..'i '!'".'.;': ./:.":.:" ' }'"}':":!-: .~PublicUfitiWF,~seme~t, a distance of23.30 feet to a POint for.corner; ., ,........ :...,: ", ...:..:....:.... .... ,;... . :." THI~ICE..North O1 degrees. 33 minutes 14 seConds'West.'.witli an.'~ ii~e 6f'~lidPublic'.:('." '='",.:'i'.' :' :.': ":i' ..:.., UtiliV/:Easement, adistanCeO£19.30fect, toapoiritfor.~:Onter,...-; ....... :' :.'.:' '.. ".:. .., ...:, i..-....~:. :.'._ -. . . .... -...... .... ~....' ..;...'.-... ....' ....~.:.:-.- .: .... -..'.., .:,.'::..:. ;',..... - .:-.' ', [':" :'. ..... -'Ti-iBNC~ ~ 88 degrees 2~ minutes' 36 secOnds West,'.wit~' ~-~ith. line of'saidPubti~': '! ::...': }":. ')i..."}: :,' :"":'.:. . ....:. ':..... '. -'..-...:. Utility ~E~,,',~ it distains' 0f5.93 t~ f~.a !/2 inch iron rod set 'with a..ye!iow'cai~ '"? ~.' '"..' "'..:. ?..,:'-".: '"...'.'.. :....:...::.......::....!:....: ........~p.,d....~.Su~g C,,~,n, to, ~; .: i" .' '.: ."".: :".'::" '" :.".'"' ~:'.':'.".:':':;::. ':'::.:.:';.'~: i:,::' ..'.;:..: ' ."'' :.'...' '"'- . TH]E~CE ContinUing 'over and across said Lot 2'and 20' feet. ~asterly' at r~ angles from......' .'. ".'"_' "'" ':.':.. !.... :.... :.., .:...-.. ~ -~ ,~, **~. s~ ~,~ ~op ~$.' ~".'o"~ .~., ,,~ ,~,,. :/::...-.-.. :.,...:.:....... :...:.._ .. '" ... ':' ..'. ': .:.-.:... :-..._'~ 0o ~',,.-,'.~ 0~ ~, ~,.,,, ~,,~ o~. ,4.''° ¢' ~o., ,~. ~ ~o,:. :-.::. ::'-:.: '-'., :.. 'i:. ':. :..;'.'m ; :: :.~:::.:: ..;.:......_ :.......~.~., ~.,.~?,o~ .~.~m~ "**h~.,~'.~o~,," ~o,. ~,....'.:.-.: .'.'-'.' .!:'....:... :'/... :'":.'.:'L:'"' :.:' ";'1 ... :. ':..}."..: .: .../" : NOrth '0i ~ 5S minut~ 3S seCOnds West, a.dlstance of 200,25 f'eet't~ a'i./2'ini:h.~i'..,, i.-'-:: .. :...-:. :....' :'..I :.:'.:: '.:..;:......:,~. '. rod setwithaye!low'cap, stamp~ "Arthur surveyin$'Company~.fol: c°me.r~ ...'.: '...", .'. '.' ':-..._:' .:..}.' ...,., :~:' .', ." ..: ': ..North 00 de~ 53.minUtes 07 Seconds East, a distance ofsg:Is, feet"to'the POI~.~/ ':..:.. [". '. '.' }. ' .'" . BEGINNINO and co~r~i,i,is O. ] 99 of au aore of land more or les,J..-.' .. ':'. ,.i"' .. '-": :? '"' ~: L=14.821: CB-~N89'59 09 E 'CO E t&30.07 .... I .. P~e- ~ A~-'..' '. ...... I · ~b' '~ Pg' '~ -:" '-~"'" .~~~ ~ ~...~.:. -;- ' ~~t~-~ .... .,...'~ .., '.~~~'..,'- ,: ...:.'~ ...:~....-~.. "....~...... ~ '_ '1.~ .... :. -' " ~ - . · ~o '. I~ '"': ~"~"'~'~'~"~"~'~'~' ' '! ' - ~.~_r~..~c.~ .' . . ..'~ ~." ' .~ -. I ' · ~.'~ '~. .'~' ~ ' f ~'*~'~'' .'" '.':." ':'.'.":": '.~:'. ' '~ '"' '" '~- 'd ' I ." · ""-" " "" "'"' · .. ".: '"r,,' .,' ~' I~' I .....'.-. .... .'-...:.~ .... .. :"..'.. :.-...:. · ...:-': "."-~.........'.. ~ I.t".'''' "'I.'.'.' .. ..':' .-.~' :' ~'o',~',~': .'...:.'?....'.~',-' .'.. -. ~..:.' ~:":',':'~,: '"'.." '"/ I ~ ". '~cONSTR'UCT ON'.':EASEMENT"-.:-")~.".~.~:': .:'~. ;.:'..:.. ':.:..: ~':..'~-: .... ~ ':.: .....-.,,...... '.'..--..o.~.~.:.: ~c,~ ..'..'~.-:'~-.:.?.'.:.:'....:'.'-"..::~:~...~. '.: ~.:.:. :.........._..~,...... :...... ~/A I..... :... ~ ...--._.....~._...: .:- ~.. ::...:.; ...... :. . ::..'.':: ....--. ~ ......-: ":.' :.NOo~,OT, E: -.~:'..'.. - . ..':.. '.'.:' .' ".soo s3 ~ ' . ': ."'. ~:......- - ..i ':: . - .- ~ ' . ~.~'.~....~_ '..':.i5A5' .', ' . .1~:.' ..... ' '. 14:80 ..... '- :.. "'/. ~.'; ../;' ,' ~" '-' i~- . · .... ~ .... .... .....i:..:..............:.~.. ~ . ~ '~.,-. . .... .....:.:..:..........::~- :.. . .. ~: '.~..'.....:..saa~,3~,w~ :'~A '~ ._~C ~2:~'",'..'.~:~.~ ~:.4~'~.~--:. ~' I'~'~ .' ' '~* ~ ~ ~ , .' · : " '.':'~ '.~./."....~' ~"."~o.'0~':'. ~ /~ '~'~':"'""' '""'"' .... "? ':''''''''' ~'~;~'~'u'~i t~'..' · .":{' ::'": / . '1 . '.. · ' .'..' '"~*~' ~*,.~Z- .{.'.'.:'.i':'"~"2, . ...'.;-.....-~- .. ... .~3~.~. . ~o~-~.,~. "i - '"~ ~' Pebble Brook Park Proposed Loop 288 Utility Easement Exhibit 1 Sewer line $1 B Proposed Utility Easement · 0 can Creek [Existing Sewer line !,! N ! EXHIBIT 2 DRAFT Exhibit 2 Parks, Recreation and Beautification Board Minutes December 6, 2004 Members present: Teresa Andress, Ross Richardson, Geri Aschenbrenner, Chuck Smith and Patrice Lyke. Members absent: Jo Kuhn and Reggie Heard. Staff present: Janet Simpson, Emerson Vorel, Bob Tickner, John Whitmore, Janie McLeod, Lancine Bentley, and Lorraine McGregor. Others present: Jay Epp. Chairman Teresa Andress called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Awards and Recognition - Janet announced that Texas Recreation and Parks Society (TRAPS) had awarded Denia Recreation Center the Lone Star Programming - Certificate of Merit Award for their Black Light Basketball program. Approval of Minutes - The minutes was approved as distributed. ACTION ITEMS Consider an amendment to the Golf Driving Range Lease to allow for a Batting Range. Janet reviewed the discussion from the last meeting regarding Goin' Yard Batting Range. She said the range is owned by Jay Epp, and had proposed to operate on a sub lease from ONCourse USA, owned by Randy Brittain, to provide batting range services in North Lakes Park. The proposed batting range would be located immediately to the west of the current golf driving range. Goin' Yard assumes the full cost of the construction and operation of the facility. Ross asked if the batting range would interfere with the golf driving range. Janet explained that the batters are in cages and could not be hit by stray golf balls and that the range would not be in the way of the golf driving range. She added that a neighborhood meeting was held in July. Neighborhood comments included the desire for the design of the facility to tie-in with other park improvements, to maintain the view of the trees and lake as much as possible, provide landscaping and maintain the facility at an appropriate level, and to honor the intent of the North Lakes Master Plan. Action: Ross made a motion to approve the request to amend the Golf Driving Range Lease to allow for the construction and operation of a Batting Range. Patrice second the motion and it was passed unanimously. Consider a request for a Public Sewer Line Easement at Pebble Brook Open Space Park on Loop 288. Bob discussed the proposed routing of the sewer easement across the park area for the reconstruction of Loop 288 to connect with an existing easement passing through the open space area. Bob added that after reviewing the options, this is the most prudent and cost effective way to provide a major gravity sewer line to this part of the city. The sub-surface line will not interfere with future park development at this site. Action: Ross made a motion to approve the request of a sub-surface use of a portion of the Pebble Brook Open Space Park for the purpose of a utility easement in accordance with Chapter 26 of EXHIBIT 3 DRAFT the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code; providing for a utility easement. Geri seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Bob said the item would be presented to the City Council at the January 4th meeting. DISCUSSION ITEMS Discuss Proposed Changes in Fees for the Civic Center. Janet said the Civic Center has been under renovation and will be completed April 2005. She said there would be additional meeting rooms, improvements to the interior design, and the kitchen will be enlarged to accommodate catering. Janet introduced Lorraine McGregor, Program Area Manager, who discussed the proposed fee increases for rentals for the Civic Center. Lorraine added that the there will be an Open House for the public and a Chamber of Commerce mixer there in April. This item will be presented to the Board as an Action Item at the January meeting. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Project Status Report - Janet said that the Lake Forest Park cost estimates came in higher than budgeted and that staff is working on ways to get the facility built. The park is a few months behind schedule. Keep Denton Beautiful - Janet said that Lancine was able to get a grant from the Green Ribbon that will cover most of the costs for the design and landscape development of the medians on Highway 77. Any expenses that the grant doesn't cover will be funded from the Governors Achievement Award that KDB won in 2003. Items for Next Meeting - Proposed Changes in Fees for the Civic Center. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2005 DEPARTMENT: Legal CM/DCM/ACM: Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Continue a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, denying in part CoServ Gas, Ltd.'s request to change rates in Denton, Texas, establishing maximum permitted rates and charges that CoServ Gas, Ltd. may assess residential, commercial and industrial customers in the City of Denton; requiring the filing of revised tariffs; adopting declarations and findings related to rates and charges assessed to residential, commercial and industrial customers in the City of Denton; providing for prompt recovery of rate case expenses incurred by the City; finding that the meeting at which this Ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law; providing for notice of this Ordinance to CoServ Gas, Ltd; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: At your December 7, 2004 Council meeting, the public hearing was opened but continued to the Council meeting of January 4, 2004 to allow for a requested 30-day extension. On August 25 of this year, CoServ Gas, Ltd. (CoServ) filed a system wide request for a gas rate increase requesting $1,165,525 in additional annual revenue. The increase was filed in twenty-five cities in CoServ's current distribution system including the City of Denton. The gas rate request constituted an overall 19.4 percent increase in total revenues, (excluding gas costs) for CoServ. CoServ's request also included a number of other increases including a surcharge on customer bills to recover pipeline safety fees assessed by the Railroad Commission, a rate case expense surcharge to cover reasonable expenses relating to the filing of CoServ's Statement of Intent to Increase Rates, an increase in its monthly customer charge, and a request for a declining block rate design which would provide lower proportional rates for high usage, especially during the winter months. CoServ indicated that for Denton customers residential rates would increase 20.06 percent, commercial rates would increase 25.98 percent and industrial rates would increase 20.21 percent. The impact of the rate increase was reflected by the notice CoServ published in the newspaper as required by Ordinance No. 2002-073. According to that notice, published in the September 6, 2004 issue of the Denton Record- Chronicle, aggregate revenues in Denton would increase by $152,144, a 74.09 percent increase in revenues, exclusive of the gas commodity costs. Base rate revenues would increase by 72.96 percent for residential customers and by 143.96 percent for commercial customers. A residential customer using 6 Mcf would see a base rate increase of $10.18 per month while a commercial customer using 30 Mcf would see a base rate increase of $66.26 per month. The total impact of the rate increase on Denton customers could be more when the surcharges and additional monthly customer charges are included. S:Our Documelts FORMS AlS CoSew Gas Rate Request 010405 doc Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2004 Page 2 CoServ also had requested an 8.68 percent rate of return on its $24,372,960 rate base. The rate of return was not based on CoServ's capital structure as of March 31, 2004, but it was based on a capital structure utilizing local distribution companies (LDC) industry norms. On September 21, 2004 you passed a Resolution suspending the scheduled effective date of CoServ's rate increase - October 1, 2004 - for 90 days and for such additional time that the parties may agree upon. You also authorized the City to join a coalition of cities within CoServ's distribution system and to authorize a steering committee of those cities to hire the law firm of Lloyd Gosselink Blevins Rochelle & Townsend, P.C. and rate consultants that the coalition steering committee decided to employ. Additionally, you authorized the employment of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. (DUCI) to represent the City in investigating this rate increase request. Both the consultants hired by the coalition of cities - C2 Consulting Services, Inc. and Denton's consultant, DUCI - investigated and made their reports to the City indicating that the entire amount of CoServ's rate request should be reduced and instead recommending amounts less than one-quarter of the system wide rate increase which was requested. Based upon the information reviewed by legal counsel and the consultant, CoServ has failed to meet its burden justifying its request for a rate increase. Specifically, the investigation determined that (a) CoServ's requested return on equity is excessive; (b) CoServ's restatement of the gross distribution plant accounts as "Plant in Service" or "Plant Held for Future Use" should be adjusted to more closely track the actual use of the system; (c) CoServ did not submit a valid lead lag study to justify its request for Cash Working Capital; (d) CoServ failed to adequately support its requested increase in Affiliate Costs; and (e) CoServ failed to meet its burden to support recurring regulatory expenses, depreciation expense, and other expenses. The legal counsel and consultant further found that he Company has justified an increase in base rate revenues of only $250,000. The total impact of the rate increase including CoServ's rate case expense surcharges, and the increase in monthly customer charges and other rate increases are more fully covered in the Legal Department's status report of December 3, 2004. Attached is an Ordinance that will accomplish the following objectives: Deny CoServ's request in part, and authorize an increase in base rate revenues equal to $250,000. Direct CoServ to file tariffs with the City for approval consistent with a system-wide increase of $250,000 in total annual base rate revenues. Deny CoServ's request for declining block rates and a surcharge to recover pipeline safety fees. Sets a deadline of twenty (20) days from the effective date of the Ordinance for the filing of the revised tariffs. Approval or rejection of the revised tariffs will be taken at the first City Council meeting that is at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the revised tariffs with the City. Authorizes intervention in any appeal filed by CoServ with the Railroad Commission regarding the denial of its rate request. S:Our Docunlmlts FORMS AlS CoSew Gas Rate Request 010405 doc Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2004 Page 3 o Requires reimbursement of reasonable rate case expenses incurred on behalf of the City to investigate CoServ's request and prosecute the appeal, if any, of the City's Ordinance. OPTIONS: The City Council can approve the Ordinance authorizing the partial increase in rates for CoServ Gas, Ltd., which is supported by the coalition of cities. The City Council can pass the Ordinance either allowing a greater or lesser amount or denying the rate increase request entirely. The City Council can choose not to enact the Ordinance and CoServ's gas rate increase that would automatically go into effect on or after December 28, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends that the City Council choose Option 1 and pass the Ordinance denying CoServ's rate request and authorizing the much smaller increase in rates recommended by the Consultants and authorizing intervention at the Railroad Commission in any appeal initiated by CoServ regarding this Ordinance and requiring reimbursement of the City's reasonable rate case expenses. This rate increase would be over 75 percent less than the rate increase requested by CoServ. If the City chooses not to agree to any rate increase and to deny the rate increase, CoServ would most likely appeal this to the Railroad Commission, which would mean additional time and consultant expense in prosecuting this matter before the Commission. The cost of litigating this matter before the Railroad Commission could result in substantial rate case expenses, which can be passed on to Denton customers. Staff feels by authorizing the rate increase recommended by the Consultants there is a smaller chance of an appeal to the Railroad Commission by CoServ. FISCAL IMPACT: Gas customers utilizing CoServ will see an increase in their gas bills after the first of the year. However, the increase will be much less than requested by CoServ. Under Section 103.022 of the Gas Utility Regulatory Act, all reasonable costs of the rate case consultants are reimbursable to the City by CoServ and under the Ordinance, CoServ is required to pay the rate case expenses. CoServ has the right to pass rate case expenses on to customers in the form of a surcharge, but these expenses are a small fraction of the decrease in the rates requested achieved by utilizing the consultants. The impact on the gas customers will be lessened due to the fact that the Ordinance requires CoServ to spread the surcharge on the rate case expenses over a six-month period. Respectfully submitted: Herbert L. Prouty City Attorney S:Our Docunlmlts FORMS AlS CoSew Gas Rate Request 010405 doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, DENYING IN PART COSERV GAS, LTD.'S REQUEST TO CHANGE RATES IN DENTON, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES AND CHARGES THAT COSERV GAS, LTD. MAY ASSESS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON; REQUIRING THE FILING OF REVISED TARIFFS; ADOPTING DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS RELATED TO RATES AND CHARGES ASSESSED TO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON; PROVIDING FOR PROMPT RECOVERY OF RATE CASE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE CITY; FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF THIS ORDINANCE TO COSERV GAS, LTD; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on or about August 25, 2004, CoServ Gas, Ltd. ("CoServ" or "Company") filed with the City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas ("City") a "Statement of Intent to Increase Gas Rates in all municipalities within the CoServ Distribution System" under which higher rates charged by CoServ would go into effect in the City on October 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, the City has exclusive original jurisdiction to evaluate the Company's Statement of Intent as it pertains to the distribution facilities located within the City, pursuant to Texas Utilities Code § § 102.001(b) and 103.001; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 104.107 of the Texas Utilities Code, on September 21, 2004, the City Council passed Resolution No. 2004-050 suspending implementation of CoServ's proposed rate schedule for ninety days from the originally scheduled effective date of October 1, 2004 or until December 28, 2004; and WHEREAS, failure to take action regarding CoServ's rate request by December 28, 2004, will cause CoServ's request to become effective for all CoServ customers within the municipal limits; and WHEREAS, the City Council authorized Denton to cooperate with a coalition of cities within the CoServ Distribution System (Cities) and authorized the hiring of rate consultants and an attorney and further authorized the retention of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. to assist Denton in its review of CoServ's proposed rate application; and WHEREAS, the consultants hired by the Cities and Demon have studied CoServ's rate request and made their recommendations and counsel for the Cities, upon review of the Company's filing and upon consultation with various consultants, recommends findings that the Company's proposal is unjustified and unreasonable and that a more modest rate increase should be authorized; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 103 and 104 of the Texas Utilities Code, the Cities and Denton are required to (i) analyze CoServ's Rate Filing, as updated; (ii) conduct a public hearing in order to determine the propriety of the proposed rate increase (the "Public Hearing"); and (iii) make a reasonable determination of CoServ's rate base, expenses, investment and rate of return in Denton; and WHEREAS, the Public Hearing was conducted on December 7, 2004 before the enactment of this Ordinance at which all interested parties were given a full opportunity to comment on the Rate Filing; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council, pursuant to its exclusive original jurisdictional authority over the rates, operations and service of CoServ within Denton and in the exercise of its sound legislative discretion, after reasonable notice and hearing, makes the following findings of fact: 1.1. CoServ filed with Denton's City Council a Statement of Intent to Increase Residential, Commercial and Industrial Gas Rates charged to consumers within Denton. 1.2 That CoServ's Statement of Intent to change gas rates within the City is found to be unreasonable because: (a) CoServ's requested return on equity is excessive; (b) CoServ's restatement of the gross distribution plant accounts as "Plant in Service" or "Plant Held for Future Use" should be adjusted to more closely track the actual use of the system; (c) CoServ did not submit a valid lead lag study to justify its request for Cash Working Capital; (d) CoServ failed to adequately support its requested increase in Affiliate Costs; and (e) CoServ failed to meet its burden to support recurring regulatory expenses, depreciation expense, and other expenses. 1.3 That upon review of CoServ's Statement of Intent to change gas rates and the information provided by the Company it is clear that CoServ can only justify an overall increase in total revenues equal to $250,000. SECTION 2. That CoServ is directed to file tariffs with the City for approval consistent with a system-wide increase of $250,000 in total annual revenues. The tariffs should be filed within twenty (20) days of the effective date of this Ordinance. Approval or rejection of the revised tariffs will be taken at the first City Council meeting that is at least fourteen (14) days after the filing of the revised tariffs with the City. That CoServ's request for declining block rates and its request for a surcharge to recover pipeline safety fees assessed by the Raikoad Commission are hereby denied. That CoServ shall set its monthly customer change at no more than that allowed TXU Gas (Atmos Energy) at the recent Railroad Commission Proceeding, GUD Docket No. 9400. All other rate relief requested by the Company is hereby denied. SECTION 3. That the City is authorized to intervene in any appeal filed with the Railroad Commission by CoServ regarding this Ordinance. SECTION 4. That all costs incurred by the City in reviewing the Company's application and prosecuting any appeal, including without limitation the costs incurred in hiring Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc. (DUCI) to investigate the Company's rate request, be promptly reimbursed by the Company. Page 2 of 4 SECTION 5. If CoServ elects to recover, in whole or in part, the costs of this rate proceeding through a surcharge to its customers in Denton, it shall do so through a surcharge designed for a six (6) month nominal recovery period. The surcharge per Mcf shall be calculated by dividing the Rate Case Expenses to be recovered by one-half of the adjusted annual sales volume to residential and commercial customers. When a surcharge is applicable, monthly status reports will be provided to Denton to account for the collections. CoServ shall refund to its customers any over collection of rate case expenses that may occur. SECTION 6. In order to ensure that rates and charges assessed by CoServ in Denton are just and reasonable to both CoServ and its customers, Denton reserves the right and privilege at any time to increase, decrease, alter change or amend this Ordinance or the rates established herein or to enact any ordinance or adopt any rates and charges which would effectuate that purpose. In this connection, Denton further reserves the right and privilege to exercise any authority and power granted to it under any applicable law, ordinance or administrative rule or regulation. SECTION 7. If CoServ disputes all or any portion of this Ordinance, prior to filing an appeal with the Railroad Commission of Texas, CoServ shall file with the City Secretary a request for rehearing on the merits by the City Council and shall comply with the procedures established for such a rehearing as set forth in this Section 7. Upon receipt of a request for rehearing, the City Council will promptly provide a forum during a public hearing on an open meeting in order for CoServ to set forth the aspects of this Ordinance which CoServ disputes. The City Council shall have sixty (60) calendar days following the date of such rehearing to render a final decision. Action of the City Council shall not be considered final for purposes of appeal to the Railroad Commission of Texas until a final decision on any motion for rehearing has been rendered. The provisions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect from and after its adoption unless modified by a subsequent ordinance adopted by the City Council as a result of a final decision following a rehearing. SECTION 8. If any portion, section or part of a section of this Ordinance is subsequently declared invalid, inoperative or void for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions, sections or parts of sections of this Ordinance shall be and remain in full force and effect and shall not in any way be impaired or affected by such decision, opinion or judgment. SECTION 9. Unless otherwise noted herein, other than CoServ (a named party), no person or entity has been admitted as a party to this rate proceeding. SECTION 10. It is hereby found and determined that the meeting at which this Ordinance was passed was open to the public, as required by Texas law, and that advance public notice of the time, place and purpose of the meeting was given. SECTION 11. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect from and after the date of its adoption. Page 3 of 4 SECTION 12. The City Secretary is hereby directed to deliver a certified copy of this Ordinance, constituting final action on the CoServ application, to CoServ by sending the Ordinance by U.S. Mail to the Company's designated representative, Charles D. Harrell, Chief Financial Officer, CoServ Gas, Ltd., 7701 South Stemmons, Corinth, Texas 76210-1842 within ten days of the date of passage of this Ordinance. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 4 of 4 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 General Government Betty Williams, Director of Managemem & Public Information Michael A. Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Demon, Texas, on second reading, authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a one-year extension to the Interim Grant of Authority with Grande Communications Networks, Inc., formerly Denton Telecom Partners I, L.P. d/b/a Advantex Communications; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND: In December 2001, the City learned that CoServ Communications L.L.C., d/b/a CoServ Communications (CoServ) was providing cable television to the Robson Ranch Developmem. Research revealed that CoServ was using public easements within the Denton city limits to provide cable television service, without a cable television franchise with the City. This was a violation of Ordinance 99-121, Sections 8-164 through 8-167. In January 2002, CoServ was comacted by the City and requested that CoServ apply for a cable television franchise. CoServ met with the City and revealed that they had filed for bankruptcy in November 2001. CoServ did file an application for a cable television franchise on March 4, 2002. In July 2002, the City was notified that CoServ was in the process of coming out of bankruptcy and the assets (system) were to be sold or transferred to the creditor bank. In December 2002, the City received notice that CoServ cable television operations had been assigned by the bankruptcy court to Denton Telecom Partners I, LP d/b/a Advantex Communications (Advamex). In January 2003, the City sero Advamex a proposed Imerim Gram of Authority and a cable television franchise application. The City requested that Advantex begin negotiations on the Imerim Gram of Authority agreemem for the cable service being provided to the Robson Ranch development. The Interim Grant of Authority that was submitted to Advantex contained similar but not identical language that is found in the current cable franchise agreement with Charter Communications. In March 2003, the City did receive a partial cable television franchise application. In April 2003, Advamex rejected the City's proposed Imerim Gram of Authority and instead submitted their own proposal. The City reviewed Advamex's proposal and rejected it because it failed to meet several cable community needs. ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) 12/1/04 Cable Franchise Extension Page 2 of 3 In April 2003, Advamex comacted the city and questioned whether the Imerim Gram of Authority adhered to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and portions of the 1984 and 1992 federal acts.. The City researched these issues and found that the Imerim Gram of Authority was in compliance with the federal Communications Act of 1984, as amended 1992 and 1996, and Chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Demon, Texas. In June, The City notified Advantex of our findings and again requested a meeting with them within 30 days to begin the negotiation process. On August 7, 2003, Advantex met with the City and began the negotiation process on the Interim Gram of Authority. Advamex also submitted a paymem for franchise fees and a completed cable television franchise application. On August 19, 2003, the Demon City Council held a public hearing on the application filed by Advantex for a cable television franchise. Robson Ranch development was contacted about the hearing and they put out an information letting residents know of the hearing. Council did not receive any comments by the public at the hearing. On October 7, 2003, the City Council approve an ordinance graining an Imerim Gram of Authority to Denton Telecom Partners I, LP d/b/a Advantex Communications to construct, reconstruct, operate and maintain a cable television system in the Robson Ranch development, to October 29, 2004, or the date upon which the City grams or denies a cable franchise renewal to Advantex, whichever occurs first. On November 24, 2003, the City received notice that Advamex Communications had been purchased by Grande Communications. Grande Communications agreed to assume all rights, authority and obligations under the Imerim Gram of Authority. An extension of the Interim Grant of Authority will allow staff time to visit with Robson Ranch residems to determine if any cable issues need to be addressed with Grande Communications during renewal negotiations. Grande Communications is agreeable to the extension of the terms of the Interim Grant of Authority. OPTIONS: 1) Approve the ordinance graining the extension or the Imerim Gram of Authority agreemem between Grande Communications and the City to October 29, 2005, or a date upon which the City grams or denies a cable franchise renewal, whichever occurs first. 2) Deny the ordinance and direct staff to continue working on renewal negotiations with Grande Communications. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends option # 1 ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) 12/1/04 Cable Franchise Extension Page 3 of 3 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commission): 1. Legal Status Report on May 2, 2003. 2. Public Hearing at Council Regular Session, August 19, 2003 3. First Reading of IGA at Council Regular Session, September 16, 2003 4. Second Reading oflGA at Council Regular Session, October 7, 2003 5. Legal Status Report on December 3, 2004 6. First Reading oflGA Extension at Council Regular Session, December 7, 2004 FISCAL INFORMATION: City will continue to receive 5% of Grande Communications gross revenues as franchise fees. Respectfully submitted: Betty Williams Director of Management and Public Information Prepared by: John Cabrales Jr. Public Information Officer Attachments 1. Ordinance ADA/EOE/ADEA www.cityofdenton.com (TDD 800-735-2989) S:\Our Documents\Ordinanccs\04\Orande Ordinance ([GA Extension)GR rev clean. 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 INTERIM GRANT OF AUTHORITY OF GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, INC., FORMERLY DENTON TELECOM PARTNERS I, L.P. D/B/A ADVANTEX COMMUNICATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on October 7, 2003, the City of Denton and Denton Telecom Partners I, L.P. d/b/a Advantex Corporations entered into an Interim Grant of Authority for Advantex to continue to preserve the asset as ordered by the Bankruptcy Court and provide cable service to the Robson Ranch subdivision either until October 29, 2004 or until such t/me as the City shall formally grant or deny a cable franchise consistent with the provisions of the Cable Communications Pohcy Act of 1984, as amended, whichever occurs first; and WHEREAS, on November 24, 2003, the City of Denton received notice that Denton Telecom Partners I, L.P. d/b/a Advantex Corporations had been purchased by Grande Communications, and they agreed to assume all rights, authority and obligations under the Interim Grant of Authority; and WHEREAS, the City and Grande Communications Networks, Inc. desire to initiate a one-year extension to the Interim Grant of Authority between the City of Denton and Grande Communications, which will begin October 30, 2004 and ending October 29, 2005 or the date upon which the City grants or denies franchise renewal, consistent with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended [47 U.S.C. § 546], whichever occurs first; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Incorporation of Preamble. The above and foregoing preamble is incorporated into the body of this Ordinance as if copied herein in its entirety. SECTION 2. Accordingly, the City and Grande Communications Networks, Inc. agree to extend the terms of the Interim Grant of Authority between the City of Denton and Grande Communications Networks, Inc. to October 29, 2005 or the date upon which the City grants or denies fi:anchise renewal, consistent with the provisions of Section 626 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended [47 U.S.C. § 546], whichever occurs first. The extension of time, as agreed to by the parties, shall not operate to materially modify, revoke or terminate any rights previously granted in the original franchise contract. SECTION 3. By its signature below, Grande Communications Networks, Inc., the Grantee, hereby agrees that consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has been provided for by the changes made herein, and agrees to be bound by and comply with such changes. Grande Communications Networks, Inc. further represents and agrees that the person signing below on behalf of Grande Communications Networks, Inc. is the properly authorized official of that corporation and has the necessary authority to execute this S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\04\Grande Ordinance (IGA Extension)GR rev clean.DOC document and further certifies to the City that any necessary resolution or other act extending such authority has been duly passed and is now in full force and effect. SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be cumulative of all other Ordinances and shall not repeal any of the provisions of such Ordinances except for those instances where there are direct conflicts with the provisions of this Ordinance. Ordinances or parts thereof in force at the time this Ordinance shall take effect and that are inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent with this Ordinance. SECTION 5. All rights and remedies of the City of Denton, Texas, are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the provisions of any other Ordinance affecting cable fi:anchises which have secured at the time of the effective date of this Ordinance; and, as to such accrued violations and all pending litigation, both civil and criminal, whether pending in court or not, under such Ordinances same shall not be affected by this Ordinance but may be prosecuted until final disposition by the courts. SECTION 6. If any section, article, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this Ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a Court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, and the City Council hereby declares it would have passed such remaining portions of this Ordinance despite such invalidity, which remaining portions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 7. The City Secretary of the City of Denton is hereby directed to engross and enroll this Ordinance by copying the exact caption and effective date in the minutes of the City Council and by filing this Ordinance in the ordinance records of the City. SECTION 8. In accordance with Section 13.02 of the City Charter, this Ordinance shall become effective twenty-one days after final approval. The full text of this Ordinance shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the City, the entire expense of which shall be borne by Grande Communications. The City Secretary is hereby directed to publish the full text of this Ordinance in such official newspaper of the City once each week for two consecutive weeks immediately following the passage of this ordinance on second reading. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2004. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: Page 2 of 5 SSOur Documents\Ordinances\04\Grande Ordinance (IGA Extension)GR rev clean. DOC APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY The City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by its duly constituted authorities, hereby declares the foregoing Ordinance passed on first reading on the ~ day of , ; and passed on second reading on the __ day of , ; and being finally effective as of the __ day of /si /si Euline Brock, Mayor /s/ Perry McNeitl, Council Member /s/ Joe Mulroy, Council Member /s/ Jack Thomson, Council Member Pete Kamp, Council Member /s/ Bob Montgomery, Council Member /s/ Raymond Redmon, Council Member The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on first reading and passed to second reading by the following votes, this the __ day of , __, at a regular session of the City Council. Euline Brock, Mayor, voting Pete Kamp, Council Member, voting Perry McNeill, Council Member, voting Bob Montgomery, Council Member, voting Joe Mulroy, Council Member voting __ Raymond Redmon, Council Member, voting Jack Thomson, Council Member, voting Page 3 of 5 S:\Our DocumenB\Ordinances\04\Grande Ordinance (IGA Extension)GR rev clean. DOC The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on the second reading and passed by the following votes, this the __ day of _, ~, at a regular session of the City Council. Euline Brock, Mayor, voting __ Pete Kamp, Council Member, voting_ Perry McNeill, Council Member, voting __ Bob Montgomery, Council Member, voting ~ Joe Mulroy, Council Member voting __ Raymond Redmon, Council Member, voting __ Jack Thomson, Council Member, voting ~ Page 4 of 5 S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\04\Grande Ordinance (IGA Extension)GR rev clean.DOC ACCEPTANCE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, did on the ., __., enact an Ordinance entitled: day of 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 INTERIM GRANT OF AUTHORITY OF GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS, INC., FORMERLY DENTON TELECOM PARTNERS I, L.P. D/B/A ADVANTEX COMMUNICATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTWE DATE. WHEREAS, said Ordinance was on the ~ day of , __, duly approved and subscribed by the Mayor of said City, and the seal of said City was thereto affixed and attested to by the City Secretary; NOW, THEREFORE, Grande Communications Networks, Inc., hereby in all respects ACCEPTS, APPROVES AND AGREES TO said Ordinance, and the same shall constitute and be a binding contractual obligation of Advantex, and of the City, without waiver of any other remedy by Grande Communications Networks, Inc., does hereby file this, its written acceptance, with the City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas, in her office. DATED this the __ day of , ~ Grande Communications Networks, Inc. ATTEST: By: Page 5 of 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: ACM: January 4, 2005 Materials Management Kathy DuBose ~ Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Wiley 349-7925 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids by way of an Imerlocal Agreemem with the City of Carrollton and awarding a contract for the purchase of police motorcycles; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3277-Imerlocal Agreemem for Police Motorcycles with the City of Carrollton, comract awarded to Renegade Harley Davidson in the amoum of $35,190). FILE INFORMATION This ordinance is for the acquisition of two police motorcycles via Interlocal Agreement with the City of Carrollton. The City of Carrollton received competitive bids and awarded a comract to Renegade Harley Davidson for the purchase of police motorcycles on November 2, 2004. The two units for the City of DeNon are fleet additions approved during the 2004-05 budget process. PRIOR ACTION/VIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISIONS) An Imerlocal Agreemem for Cooperative Purchasing was approved on October 3, 2000 (Ord. 2000-366) with the City of Carrollton allowing the City of Denton to participate in the City of Carrollton contracts for the supply of goods and services. RECOMMENDATION We recommend the acquisition of these two Harley Davidson police motorcycles be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, Renegade Harley Davidson, in the amoum of $14,695 each, plus $2800 each for lights, siren, cooling fan, and miscellaneous equipmem specific to the City of DeNon requiremems, and a $100 delivery fee each, for a total award of $35,190. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Renegade Harley Davidson. Alexandria, LA Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery is quoted to be six weeks after receipt of an order or approximately the second week of March 2005. FISCAL INFORMATION These units will be funded from Certificate of Obligation funds intended for Motor Pool acquisitions account 810002706.1355.30100. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Council Agenda Memo City of Carrollton Attachment 2: Tabulation Sheet Attachment 3: Letter of Agreement from Renegade 1-AIS-File 3277 Attachment I C RRO ON CC MEETING: NOVEMBER 2, 2004 DATE: November 30, 2004 TO: Leonard Martin, City Manager FROM: Vince Priolo, Purchasing Manager SUBJ.: BID AWARD FOR FOUR (4) HARLEY DAVIDSON POLICE MOTORCYCLES BACKGROUND: The Harley Davidson motorcycles to be purchased from this bid award will provide the Police Department with equipment for a Traffic Enforcement Program. All four motorcycles are to replace units that being retired due to age. Kawasaki was the former city standard motorcycle, but they have ceased production while they re-tool their bikes. Harley Davidson is the only other manufacturer of Police motorcycles available. Two bikes were scheduled for replacement in January, 2004 and two are scheduled for replacement in January, 2005. Bids were advertised and received from two (2) vendors of which both were responsive. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The motorcycles on Bid # 05-001 were approved for purchase in the 2004-05 budget year for the cost center and amount as listed below: COST CENTER LINE ITEM BUDGET AMOUNT FLEET REPLACEMENT 4201 - EQUIPMENT 60,000.00 At the bid prices received, the using department will be able to purchase the necessary police motorcycles within the bid amount of $58,780.00. Renegade Harley Davidson $14,695.00 each American Eagle Harley Davidson $15,900.00 each RECOMMENDATION/ACTION DESIRED: Staff recommends that the low bid meeting all specifications be awarded to Renegade Harley Davidson for an amount not to exceed $ 58,780.00. ATTACHMENTS: None BID # 05-001 Attachment 2 Date: 10/22/2004 Purchase of Four Harley Davidson Police Motorcycles Renegade Harle~ American Eagle Harle~ 1 Motorcycle Base Price $14,695.00 $15,900.00 3 Delivery 6 weeks 6 weeks 5 7 9 ~tt~eh~e~t 3 2030 North Mall DHYe Alexandria, L~ 73301 Lt. Bums Denton Police Department Denton, Texas 940-349-7967 Fax 940-349-7966 14 Deeernber 2004 Gene Wood Renegade Harley Davidson Police Fleet SalesManager 318-448-I509 I apologize for accidentally deleting, the information on the cooling fan. *2005 FLHTPi Electra Glide, birch white with ABS. $14,695.00 per motorcycle * Equipment Package as you had requested. Complete Tour Pak (black) with LED's and Engine Guard LED's, siren and speaker assembly. Four Strobes and Power Supply. ( PAR 36 front and rear), Chrome Cooling Fan. $2,800.00 per motorcycle * Free Installation of Equipment * Delivery $I00 ea $ 200.00 ~ipol~ Fleet Sales Ma~dSgO¢ rn Tel. 318,448,'f509 / 1-866-266-$30{3, / Fax 3'~8.448.1597 www, reneg~d~hd.¢om - ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF CARROLLTON AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF POLICE MOTORCYCLES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 3277-INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR POLICE MOTORCYCLES WITH THE CITY OF CARROLLTON, CONTRACT AWARDED TO RENEGADE HARLEY DAVIDSON IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,190). WHEREAS, pursuam to Ordinance 2000-366, the City of Carrollton, Texas has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipmem, supplies or services in accordance with the procedure of state law on behalf of the City of DeNon; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described materials, equipmem, supplies or services can be purchased by the City through the City of Carrollton Cooperative Purchasing programs at less cost than the City would expend if bidding these items individually; 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, equipmem, 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 purchase order for materials, equipmem, supplies, or services, shown in the "File Numbers" listed hereon, and on file in the office of the Purchasing Agem are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: FILE NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 3277 Renegade Harley Davidson $35,190 SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in File 3277, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to the City of Carrollton for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipmem, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quamities and for the specified sums comained in the bid documems and related documems filed with City of Carrollton (Bid 05-001), and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the referenced file number wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the City's ratification of bids awarded by the City of Carrollton, 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 City of Carrollton, quantities and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the file numbers shown, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approval purchase orders 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 ,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY B Y: >~7./_~~ 3-ORD-FILE 3277 ~ C~/' ~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: January 4, 2005 Materials Management Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed to Charles Wiley 349-7925 ACM: Kathy DuBose ~ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance awarding a comract under the Texas Multiple Award Schedule (TXMAS) program for the purchase of a Mobile Tactical Command Cemer as awarded by the State of Texas Building and Procuremem Commission (Comract TXMAS-4-23V020); providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 3280- Mobile Tactical Command Cemer awarded to Martin Apparatus in the amoum of $155,224). FILE INFORMATION This equipmem will be funded emirely from the 2004 State Homeland Security Gram Program. This item is for the acquisition of a mobile tactical command center for the City of Denton Police Departmem. The unit consists primarily of a Tier II EPA and TCEQ compliam diesel powered 19,500 lb gross vehicle weight (GRW) truck cab chassis with an aluminum van body equipped with swing type doors, full insulation, select instrumentation and lighting, seating for 14 officers, HVAC system and a combination of a commercial 7.5 kw 120 volt generator and dual 12 volt DC electrical system. Additional equipmem includes audio/video equipmem, radio, telephone and computer networking, as well as a 13-foot acrylic awning. A complete list of specifications is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent. As a political subdivision of the State of Texas, the City of Demon is extended General Services Administration (GSA) Commission comract pricing through the TXMAS Cooperative Purchasing program. Acquisition utilizing the TXMAS program meets the competitive bidding requirements of the State of Texas. RECOMMENDATION We recommend award of this item to Martin Apparatus in the amoum of $155,224. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Martin Apparatus Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Delivery can be made 180-210 days after receipt of an order or the second week of July 2005. Agenda Information Sheet January 4, 2005 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION This equipmem will be funded emirely from the 2004 State Homeland Security Gram Program accoum 342004.8537. There will be no matching local funds. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachmem 1: GSA/TXMAS Quote from Martin Apparatus 1-AIS-File 3280 A~tachment I MARTIN APPARATUS, INC. 2003 ,GSA PRICING PAGE Denton Police Department November 30, 2004 Total commercial price as specified FOB continental U.S. TXMAS 1-unit price as specified (if applicable) TXMAS delivery terms are 180 days or tess, ARO TXMAS payment terms: 2% Net 10, 1.5% Net 15, Net 30 Quote is firm for 60 days from specification date, (November 30, 2004) $165,572.00 $155,224.00 1026A SHADY OAKS ° DENTON, TEXAS · 76201 PHONE: 940-382-9600 * FAX: 940-3/t2-9605 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT UNDER THE TEXAS MULTIPLE AWARD SCHEDULE (TXMAS) PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MOBILE TACTICAL COMMAND CENTER AS AWARDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BUILDING AND PROCUREMENT COMMiSSiON (CONTRACT TXMAS-4-23V020); PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 3280-MOBILE TACTICAL COMMAND CENTER AWARDED TO MARTIN APPARATUS IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,224). WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 92-019, the State Purchasing Building and Procurement Commission 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 on behalf of the City of DeNon; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described materials, equipment, supplies or services can be purchased by the City through the Building and Procuremem programs at less cost than the City would expend if bidding these items individually; 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 purchase order for materials, equipmem, 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 3280 Martin Apparatus $155,224 SECTION 2. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the above referenced file number, 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, quamities and for the specified sums comained in the bid documems and related documems filed with the Building and Procuremem Commission, and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the referenced file number 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 a 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. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the referenced file number, 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. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,2005. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ~:::':' : " ~.,, 'i 3-ORD-File 3280C~/ &/ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 4, 2005 DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: Airport and Transit Operations Jon Fortune, Assistam City Manager SUBJECT Consider an ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City of Denton an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation relating to certain improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport; authorizing and directing the City Manager or his designee to expend funds as provided for in said agreemem and to execute documems on behalf of the City of Demon in order to implemem the project; and providing an effective date. The Airport Advisory Board unanimously recommends approval of the proposed ordinance, 7-0. BACKGROUND On November 18, 2004, the Texas Transportation Commission approved Phase I for the land acquisition, design and environmental review of the Runway Extension Project for the Denton Municipal Airport. On October 5, 2004 the City of Demon approved ordinance 2004-309 which certified funding was in place for ten percem (10%) of the Runway Extension Project cost for Phase I. TxDOT has estimated the cost of Phase I at $965,000 with the City's ten percent share for Phase I is $96,500. Approval of the proposed ordinance will permit TxDOT and the City of Denton to enter into a formal Airport Project Participation Agreemem (APPA). TxDOT will serve as the City's agem providing oversight of engineering and design services. As the City's agem on this project, TxDOT will also assist in the preparation of contract documents and specifications, and will manage the bid process. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Airport Advisory Board unanimously recommends approval of the proposed ordinance, (7- 0). The City Attorney has reviewed the agreemem. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Upon approval of the APPA by TxDOT, airport staff will initiate a reimbursement request for 90% of funds spem to date on land acquisition. A nine (9) to twelve (12) momh environmemal analysis and engineering phase will also begin upon approval of the APPA by TxDOT and the City. Phase II will consist of a twelve (12) month construction phase and will require a second grant agreement upon completion of Phase I. FISCAL INFORMATION This is a 90:10 match grant project. TxDOT, Aviation Division estimates the total design, real estate and environmental fees for the runway extension project at $965,000. The City's ten (10) percent share of this cost is estimated at $96,500. The Airport currently has $478,000 available in CIP bond funds or services that can be considered as in kind contribution. Funding for construction in Phase II is not currently in place. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee identified this project as a critical need in the 2005 CIP bond package process. EXHIBITS Ordinance Airport Project Participation Agreement Respectfully submitted: Mark Nelson, Director Airport and Transit Operations S:\Our Documents\Ordinances\04~Airport-Grant-TxDot.doc oRDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON AN AIRPORT PROJECT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMEIqT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATING TO CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXPEND FUNDS AS PROVIDED FOR IN SAID AGREEMENT AND TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Manager of the City of Denton or his designee is hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City of Denton an Airport Project Participation Agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation relating to certain improvements at the Denton Municipal Airport, a copy of such contract being attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes and referenced as TXDOT Contract No. 5XXAV041 (the "Agreement") and to expend fimds as provided for in the Agreement.. SECTION 2. The City Manager Or his designee is the City's authorized representative who is directed to comply with any assurances, conditions, or agreements required to be executed to receive the funds provided under the Agreement SECTION3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of ,2004. ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY EULINE BROCK, MAYOR BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 2 TEXAS DEPARTMFJNT OF TRANSPORTATION AIRPORT PROJECT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (Federally Assisted Airport Development Grant) TxDOT CSJ No.:0518DNTON TxDOT Proj eot No.:AP DENTON7 TxDOT Contract No.: 5XXAV041 Part I- Identification of the Project TO: The City of Denton, Texas FROM: The State of Texas, acting flxrough the Texas Department of Transportation This Abn-eement is made and entered into by and between the Texas Department of Transportation, 0aereinafler referred to as the "State"), for and on behalf of the State of Texas, and the City of Denton, Texas, (hereinafter referred to as the "Sponsor"). The Sponsor desires to sponsor a project for the development of a public aviation facil/ty, know~ or to be designated as the Airport under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as repealed and recodified i.n Title 49 United States Code, Section 47101 et seq., (hereinaRcr referred to as "Title 49 U.S.C."), and Rules, Regulations and Procedures promulgated pursuant; and under V.T.C.A. Transportation Code, Title 3, Chapters 21-22, et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp). The proi oct is described as follows: reimbursement tbr approximately 32 acres for runway extension and nmway safety area; design services to extend Runway 17; extend parallel taxiway; extend medium intensity rtmway lights; construct holding pad at north hold line; displace threshold lights Runway 35; upgrade/relocate precision approach path indicator -4 Runway 17; upbn-ade/rclocate MLSR; relocate glide slope anle~ma; earthwork for north and south runway safety areas; close Tom Cole Road and Masch Branch Road; install declared distance signs, fencing, and seeding; m~d install erosion/sedimentation controls at the Denton Municipal Airport as approved by the Texas Transportation Commission on November 18, 2004. The Sponsor applies for federal non-primary entitlement financial assistance and desires the State to act as the Sponsor's agent in matters connected with the project described above. Thc each other, States. parties, by this Agj:eement, do fix their respective responsibilities, with reference to with rei~rence to the accomplishment of thc proj eot and with reference to the United Pursuant to and for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of Title 49 U.S.C., and in consideration of (a) the Sponsor's adoption and ratification of the representations and assurances contained in the Airport Project Participation Agreement and its acceptancc of this Offer as provided, and (b) the benefits to accruc to the United States and the public from the Page 1 of 27 accomplishment of the project and compliance with the assurances and conditions provided, TIlE TEXAS DEPARTMENT O¥ TRANSPORTATION, FOR AND ON BEItALF OF TIlE UNITED STALES, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TI-IE "FAA"), OFFERS AND AGREES to pay, as the United States share of the allowable costs incurred in accomplishing the project, ninety percentum of ali allowable project costs. This grant is made on and subject to the following terms and conditions: Part II - Offer of Financial Assistance The allowable costs of the project shall not include any casts determined by the State to be ineligible fbr consideration as to allowability under Title 49 U.S.C., the V.T.C.A. Transportation Code, Title 3, Chapters 21-22, et seq., (Vernon and Vernon Supp), and the Airport Zoning Act, Tex. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp). It is estimated that design/engineering project costs will be approximately $905,000 (Amount A). It is further estimated that approximately $905,000 (Amount B) of the project costs will be eligible for federal financial assistance, and that federal financial assistance will be for ninety percent (90°,4) of the eligible project costs. Final determination of federal eligibility of total project costs will be determined by the State in accordance with federal guidelines following completion of project. The estimated project cost for the construction phase of this project is $3,765,000 (Amount C). The construction phase w~ll be started upon completion of design, dependent upon availability of federal I'unds, and approval of the Texas Transportation Commigsion. A separate grant will be issued for the construction phase. In thc event that federal funds are unavailable, tlfis Agreement shall automatically be voided and become of no force and effect, except that unexpended or mn. encumbered moneys actually deposited by the Sponsor and held with the State for project purposes shalt be returned to the Sponsor. The maximum obligation of the United States payable under this offer shall be $814,500 (Amount D). This grant should not bc construed as block grant funds for fl~e Sponsor, but as a grant for funding of the scope items as listed on page one of this agrecmcnt. It is the intent of the State to provide funding to complete the approved work items of this grant and not to amend the scope of work to include items outside of the current determincd needs of this project. Scope of work may be amended as necessary to fulfill the unforeseen needs of this specific development project within the spirit of the approved scope, subject to the availability of state, federal, and/or local funds. It is estimated that the Sponsor's shaxe o£ the total project costs will be $90,500 (Amount E). The Sponsor specifically agrees that it shall pay any project costs, which exceed thc sum of thc £cderal share (Amount D). Page 2 of 27 d It is £urthcr agreed that the Spenser will reimburse lhe State for any payment or payments made by the State in behalf of the Sponsor which are in excess of the federal percentage of financial participation as stated in Paragraph II-2. The State shall refimd to thc Sponsor, at the financial closure of the project, any excess funds provided by the Sponsor. During design, it' the estimated eligible construction project costs exceed Amount C, above, the Sponsor may request the State to void this Agreement. The State shall agree to void this Agreement upon the satisfaction of the following conditions: the Sponsor's request to the State to void the Agreement shall be in writing and dated; and if required by thc State, file Sponsor shall reimburse thc State for funds expended on this project and Sponsor shall assume the responsibility for any future expenses tbr contracted services or materials related to the project for which a contract had been executed prior to thc Sponsor's request to void the Agreement. Sponsor funds held by the State may be retained until this requirement is satisfied; and £aiturc on the part of the Sponsor to comply with the conditions of this para~aph shall constitute a breach of this Agreemc.nt. Upon satisfaction of the conditions specified in Paragraph 11-5 above, the State shall declare this Abn-eement null mad void, and this Agreement shall have no force and effect, except that unexpended or unencumbered moneys actually deposited by the Sponsor and held with the State for project purposes shall be returned to the Sponsor within a reasonable timc. If there is an overrun in the eligible project costs, the State may increase the grant to cover the amount of overrun not to exceed the statutory twenty-five (25°/°) percent limitation, and will advise the Sponsor by amendment of the increase, Upon receipt of the aforementioned amendment, the maximum obligation of thc United States is adjusted to the amount specified and the Sponsor will remit their share of the increased grant amount. Participation in additional federally eligible costs may require approval by the Texas Transportation Commission. The State will not authorize expenditures in excess of lhe dollar amounts identified in this Agreement and any amendments, without the consent of the Sponsor. Payment of tlie United States share of the allowable project costs will be made in accordance with tile provisions of such regulations and procedures as the State and the FAA, shall prescribe. Final determination of the United Statcs share will be based upon the final audit of the total amount of allowable project costs and settlement will be made for any upward or downward adjustments to the Federal share of costs. Sponsor's share of project costs (Amount E) shall be p aid initially in cash when requested by the State. At project closeout, Sponsor wil~ be credited with both cash payments made Page 3 of 27 under this paragraph and the value of any approved in-kind contributions, and reimbursed ibr any credited amounts that exceed Sponsor's share. ~Following the execution of this Agreement, the Sponsor's shall submit the in-kind contribution documentation to the State. The value of all in-kind contributions made to fl~e project of engineering desibm, small miscellaneous costs and other expenses appr~ved by the State and claimed by thc Sponsor as project costs for the purposes of determining the Sponsor's share of total project costs (Amount E), shall be determined according to federal and state rules, regulations, orders, proced'urcs, advisory circulars or any other directives. Sponsor, by executing this Agreement certifies, and upon request, shall furnish proo[ to the State that it has sufficient funds to meet its share of the costs. The Sponsor gyants to the State and federal government the right, upon advance written request during reasonable and regular business hours, to audit any books m~d records of the Sponsor to verify said funds. In addition, fl~e Sponsor shall disclose thc source of all funds for the proj eot and its ability to finance and operate the project. Following the execution of this Agreement and upon writtcn demand by the State, the Sponsor's financial obligation (Amount E) shall be due and payable to the State. State may request the Sponsor's financial obligation ir~ partial payments. Should the Sponsor fail to pay fl~e obligation, either in whole or in part, within 30 days of written demand, the State may exercise its rights under Paragraph V-7. Likewise, should thc State be unwilling or unable to pay its obligation in a timely mmmer, the failure to pay shall be considered a breach and the Sponsor may exercise any rights and remedies it has at law or equity. Expenditm-cs for eli. gible project costs for the above project made by the State or thc Sponsor prior to tim awm-d of a federal grant for thc project, and prior to actual receipt of the authority to expend federal grant ~tmds, shall bc made from Sponsor funds. The State shall make all reasonable attempts to acquire federal funding for the completion and construction of this project within~ two years o1' completion of design services. The Sponsor agrees to cmnplete and construct this project withJn two years of completion of design services, subject to fl~e availability oX-federal funds. PART IIi - Sponsor Respoasibilities hq accepting the Agreement, the Sponsor guarantees that: a. it will comply with the Attachment A, Certification of Airport Fund, attached and made a part of this Agreement; and b. it will comply with the Attachment B, Airport Assurances (9/99)(State Modified 9/99)~ attached m~d made a part of this Abn-eement; and Page 4 of 27 it will, in the operation of the £acility, comply with all applicable state and federal laws, roles, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by the State of Texas or the FAA in connection with the federal grant; and the Ai~poll or navigational facility which is the subject of this Agreement shall be con/'rollcd tbr a period of at least 20 years, and improvements made or acquired under this project shall be operated, repaired and maintained in a safe and serviceable rammer for the useful life of said improvements, not to exceed 20 years; and consistent with sal~ety and security requirements, it shall make the airport or air navigational £acility available to all types, kinds and classes of aeronautical use without unjust discrimination between such types, kinds and classes and st~all provide adequalc public access during the term of tiffs Agreement; and it shall not grant or permit mxyone to exercise an exclusive right for the conduct of aeronautical activity on or about an airport landing area. Aeronautical activities include, but are not limited to scheduled airline flights, charter flights, flight instruction, aircraft sales, rental and repair, sale of aviation petroleum products m~d aerial applications. The ~anding area consists of runways or landing strips, laxiways, parking aprons, roads, airport lighting and rtavigationa~ aids; and it shall not permit non-aeronautical usc of' airport facilities, unless noted on an approved Airport Layout Plan, without prior approval of the State/FAA; and it shall not enter into any agreement nor permit any aircraft to gain direct ground access ~o the Sponsors airport from private property adjacent to or in the immediate area of the airport. Further, Sponsor shall not allow aircraft dircct ground access to private property. Sponsor shall be subject to this prohibkion, commonly ~mwn as a "through-the-fcnce operation," unless an exception is granted in writing by the State due to extreme circumstances; and it will acquire all property interests identified as needed for the purposes of this project and comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, procedures, covenants and assurances required by thc State of Texas or the FAA in co~mection with the fcderat ~ant in the acquisition of such property interests; and that airport property identified within the scope of tiffs project and Attorney's Certificate of Airport Property Interests shall be pledged to airport use and shall not be removed from such use without prior written approval et'the State; and the Spenser shall submit to lhe State mmual statements of airport revenues and expcnses as requested; and all fees collected for the use of an airpt~rt or navigational facility constructed with funds provided under the program shall be reasonable and nond/scriminatory. The proceeds of such fees shall be used solcly for the development, operation and maintenance o£ the Sponsor's system of airport(s) or navigational facility(~tes). Spenser shall not be required to pledge income received from the mineral estate to Page 5 of 27 airport use unless state and/or federal funds wcrc used to acquire fl~e mineral estate of airport lands or any interests; and an Airport Fund shall be established by resolution, order or ordinance in the treasury of the Sponsor, or evidence of the prior creation of an existing airport Fund or a properly executed copy of the resolution, order, or ordinance creating such a fund shall be submitted to the State. Such fund may bc an aceom~t within anofl~er fired, but must be accounted for in such a manner that all revm~ues, expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account are discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole, All Fees, charges, rents, and money fi-om any source derived from airport operations must be deposited in said Airport Fund and shall not be diverted to the general revcnue Fund or any other revenue fund of the Sponsor. All expenditures from the Airport Fund shall be solely for airport or airport system purposes. Sponsor shall be ineligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless, prior to such subsequent approval o£ a grant or loan, Sponsor has complied with the requirements of this subparagraph; and Bi. the Sponsor shall operate runway lighting at least at low intensity from sunset to sunrise; and insofar as it is reasonable and within its power, Sponsor shall adopt and enforce zoning regulations to restrict the height of structures and use of land adjacent to or m the immediate vicinity of the airport to heights and activities compatible with normal airport operations as provided in Tex. Ivac. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Sponsor shall alse acquire and retain aviation casements or other property interests in or rights to use of land or airspace, unless Sponsor can show that acquisition and retention of such. interests will be impractical or will result in undue hardship to Sponsor. Sponsor shall be it~eligible for a subsequent grant or loan by the State unless Sponsor has, prior to such subsequent approval of a grant or loan, adopted and passed an airport hazard zoning ordinance or order approved by the State; and it will provide upon request of the State, the engineering or plann~g consuttant, and the FAA copies of any maps, plans, or reports of the project site, applicable to or affecting tim abovc project; and after reasonable notice, it will permit the State, the FAA, and any consultants and contractors associated with this project, access to the project site, and will obtain permission for the State, the FAA, and consultants and contractors associated with this project, to enter private propcrty for purposes necessary to this project; and all development of an airport constn, cted with program fiands shall be consistent with the Airport Layou~ Plan approved by thc State and maintained by the Sponsor. A reproducible copy cf such plan, and all subsequent modifications, shall be filed with the State for approval; and it .shall take all steps, including litigation if necessary, to recover Funds spent Page 6 of 27 fraudulently, wastefully, or in violation of Federal antitrust statutes, or misused in any other manner in any pro.~ect upon which Federal and State funds have been expended. For the purposes of this grant agreement, the term "funds" means funds, however used or clisbarscd by the Sponsor or Agent that were originally paid pursuant to this or any other grant agreement. It shall obtain the approval of the State as to any determinalion of thc amount of such funds. It shall return the rccovered share, including funds recovered by settlement, order or judgment, to thc State. It shall furnish to the State, upon request, al1 documents and records pertaining to the determination of thc amount of the funds or to any settlement, litigation, negotiation, or other efforts taken to recover such ftmds. All settlements or other final positions of the Sponsor, in court or otherwise, involving Ire recovery of such funds shall be approved in advmhce by the State. The Sponsor certifies to the State that it will have acquired clear title in fee simple to all property upon wkich construction work is to be performed, or have acquired a leasehold on such property for a term of not less thm~ 20 years, prior to the advertisement for bids for such construction or procurement of facilities th, at are part of the above project, and within the time frame of the project, a sufficient interest (easement or otherwise) in any other property Maich may be affected by thc project. The Sponsor, to thc extent of its legal authority to do so, shall save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from all claims and liability due to activities of the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees performed under this agreement. The Sponsor, to the extent of its legal anthority to do so, shall also save harmless the State, the State's agents, employees or contractors from any and all expenses, including attorney fees which might be incurred by thc State in litigation or otherwise resisting the claim o~ liabilities wltich might be imposed on tt~e State as the result of such activities by the Sponsor, the Sponsor's agents or employees. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Offer and ratification and adoption of the Agreement incorporated shall be evidenced by execution of this instrument by the Sponsor, and the Agreement shall comprise a contract, constituting the obligations and rights of the State of Texas and the Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the project and the operation and m'idntenance of the airport. Such Agreement shall become effective upon execution of this instrument and shall remain in fidl force and effect for a period of at least 20 years. Sponsor agrees to provide a. suitable location for pre-bid and for pre-construction conferences, and for the submission and opening of construction bids. Thc Sponsor and not the State shall, for all purposes, be the "Sponsor" of the project identified above as defined in Title 49 US.C. Sponsor agrees to assume responsibility for operation of the facility in compliance with all applicable state and federal requirements includi~g any statutes, rules, regulations, assurances, procedures or any other directives before, during mhd after the completion of this project. The Sponsor shall havc on file with the State a current and approved Attorney's Certificate of Airport Property Interests mhd gxl~ibit A property map. Page 7 of 27 The Sponsor shall have on file with the State, Attaclmaent C, Certification Regarding Drag-Free Workplace Requirements, altached and made part of this agreement. Unless ofl~eIvgise approved by the State, the Sponsor will not acquire or permit any contractor or subcontractor to acquire any stcel or manufactured products produced outside the United States to be used for any project for airport development or noisc compatibility for which funds are provided under this grant. The sponsor wil! include in every contract a provision implementing this special condition. 10. Execpt for instrument landing systems acquired with AlP thnds and later donated to and accepted by the FAA, the Sponsor must provide for the continuous operation and maintenancc of any navigational aid funded under the AlP during the useful life of the equipment. Thc sponsor must check the facility, including instmment landing systems, prior to commissioning to ensure it meets the operational standards. The Sponsor must also remove, relocate, or lower each obstruction on the approach or provide for the adequate lighting or marking of the obstruction it' any aeronautical study conducted under F_AR Part 77 determines that to be acceptable; and mark and light the runway, as appropriate. The Federal Aviation Administration will not take over the ownership, operation, or maintenance o£ any sponsor-acquired equipment, except for instrument landing systems. 11. For a project to replace or reconstruct pavement at the airport, the Sponsor shall implcment, an effective airport pavement maintenance management program as is rcqu./red by Airport Sponsor Assurance Number 1 ~. The sponsor shall use such program for the useful life of any pavement constructed, reconstructed, or repaired with Federal financial assista~ce at the airport. As a minimum, the progran~ must conform to the provisions in Attachment D "Pavement Maintenance Management Program", attached and made part of this agreement. 12. The Sponsor may utilize paving specifications meeting State Highway criteria for runways at non-primary airports with lengths up to 5,000 t%et and serving aircraft not exceeding 60,000 pounds gross take-off weight. Thc sponsor agrees not to request additional AlP funds for reconstruction or rehabilitate of pavement construct utilizing State specification for 10 years fi'om pavement acceptance. Part IV- Nomination of the Agent The Sponsor designates thc State as the parry to apply for, receive and disburse all funds used, or to be used, in payment of the costs of the project, or in reimbursement to either of the parties for costs incurred. The State agrees to assume the responsibility to assure that all aspects of thc bn:ant are done in compliance with all applicabqe state and federal requirements including any statutes, rules, regulations, assurances, procedures or any other directives, except as otherwise specifically provided. Page 8 of 27 The State shall, for all purposes in connection with file project identified above, be the Agent of the Sponsor. The Sponsor grants thc State a power of attorney to act as its agent to perform the following services: Receiving Disbursing Agent: a. apply for, accept, receive, and deposit with the State Treasury any and all project funds grantcd, allowed, and paid or made available by the State and/or the United States under Title 49 U.S.C. and congressional appropriation; receive, review, approve and process Sponsor's reimbursement requests approved proj eot costs; and pay to the Sponsor, fi:om granted funds, the portion of any approved reasonable and eligible project costs incurred hy the Sponsor that are in excess of the Sponsor's share. Paying Agent: d.. receive, review, approve and pay invoices and paymeat requests for services and materials supplied in accordance with State executed contracts; when applicable; receive, review and approve reimbursement requests tbr reasonable and eligible property acquisition costs incurred by the Sponsor, provided the required documentation is supplied. Contracting Agent: e. adverse for professional engineering and/or planning services for, but not limited to, the preparation of planning stt~dies, plans and specifications for the above project and for the management o£ the construction of the above project; certify consultant selection procedures; provide notification of contract award for professional services; and negotiate professional services fees; and execute, on bctxalf of the Sponsor, a professional services agreement as related to this project; administer Disadvantage Business Enterprises (DBE) and/or Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Programs in accordance with federal and state regulations. Contract Management Agent: g. exercise such supervision and direction of the project work as the State reasonably finds appropriate. Where there is an irreconcilable conflict or di£ferencc of opinion, judgment, order or direction between the State and the Sponsor, any engineer, contractor, or materialman, the State shall issue a written order, which shall prevail and be controlling; h. coordinate and review project plans, specifications and construction; coordinate and conduct progress and final inspections. Page 9 of 27 Construction i, Phase: authorize the advertisement, receipt mhd opening of bids for construction of the above project; and award contracts for construction of thc above project and acquisition of materials related to it; mhd execute, on behall? of thc Sponsor, construction contracts as related to fl~is proj eot; participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences; and issue orders as it deems appropriate regarding construction progress, including but not limited to Notices to Proceec[, Step Work Orders, and Change Orders; review, approve and maintain record drawings. PART V - Recitals The State and the Sponsor shall obtain m~ audit as required by federal or state regulations. The Sponsor, and not the State, shall be the contractual party to all construction and professional service contracts entered into for the accomplishment of this project. The power of attorney, as granted by thc Sponsor to the State in Part IV - Nomination of Agent, is a limited power to perform acts in com~ection with airport improvements as specified in or necessitated by this Agreement. The Sponsor abn-ees to pursue and enforce contract items, wlfich are required by federal andJor state regulations, laws and orders to insure satisfactory performance of contract vendors. Such items include, but are not limited to, bid bonds, payment bonds, and performance bonds. Pursuit and enforcement of contract itcms may require litigation and other remedies of law. The 'United States and thc State of Texas shall not be responsible or liable for damage to property or injury to persons which may arise from, or be incidental to, cmnpliance with th is grant agreement. This Agreement is executed for the sclc benefit of the contracting parties and is not intended or executed for tlae direct or incidental benefit of any third pal-ry. Furthermore, the State shall not be a party to any other contract or commitment, which the Sponsor may enter into or assmne, or have entered into or have assumed, in regard to thc above projcct. If thc Sponsor fails to comply with the conditions el'the grant, the State may, by written notice to the Sponsor, suspend the grant in whole or in part. The notice cf suspension. shall contain the £ollowing: The reasons for the suspension and the corrective action necessary to lift the suspension; b. A date by which the corrective action must be taken; Page '10 of 27 10. ll. Notification that consideration will be given to terminating the grant after the corrective action date. In the case of suspcmsion or termination, the Sponsor may request thc State to rcconsider the suspension or termination. Such request for reconsideration shall be made within 45 days after receipt of the notice of suspension or termination. IhJs Agreement is subject to the applicable provisions of Title 49 U.S.C., the V.T.C.A. Transportation Code, Titlc 3, Chapters 21- 22, et seq., (Vernon and Vernon Supp.), and the Airport Zoning Act, Tcx. Loc. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 241.001 et seq. (Vernon and Vernon Supp.). Failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement or with the rules and statutes shall be considered a breach of this contract and will allow the State to pursue the remedies for breach as stated below. Of primary importance to the State is compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. If, however, after all ~easonable attempts to require compliance have failed, the State finds that Sponsor is unwilling and/or unable to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the State may pursue any of the following remedies: (1) require a refi.~nd of any money expended pursuant to the Agreement, (2) deny Sponsor's future requests for aid, (3) request the Attorney General to bring suit seeking reimbursement of any money expended on the project pursuant to the Agreement, provided however, these remedies shall not limit the State's authority to enforce its rules, regulations or ordcrs as otherwise provided by law, (4) declare this Agreement null and void, or (5) any other remedy available at law or in equity. Venue for resolution by a court of competent jurisdiction of any dispute arising under the terms of this Agreement, or for e~Ibrcement of any of the provisions of this Agreement, is specifically set by Agreement of the parties in Travis County, Texas. The State reserves the right to mnend or withdraw this Agreement at any time prior to acceptance by thc Sponsor. The acceptance period cannot bc greater than 30 days after issuance unless extended by the State, which extension shall ~ot be unreasonably be denied or delayed. This Agreement constitutes the full m~d total understanding of the parties concerning their fights and responsibilities in regard to this project and shall not be modified, amended, rescinded or revoked unless such modification, m~endment, rescission or revocation is agreed to by both parties in writing and executed by both parties. Alt commitments by the Sponsor and the State are subject to constitutional and statutory limitations and restrictions bin~ng upon the Sponsor and the State (including §§ 5 and 7 of Article 11 of the Texas Constitution, if applicable) and to the availability of funds which lawfully may be applied. The Sponsor's acceptance of this Agreement and ratification and adoption of the Airport Page 11 of 27 Proj oct Participation Agrccment shall be evidenced by execution of this instrument by fire Sponsor. This Offer and Acceptance shall comprise a Grant Agreement, as provided by the Title 49 U.S.C~, constituting the contractual obligations and rights of the Unitcd States, the State of Texas and thc Sponsor with respect to the accomplishment of the Project and compliance with the assuranccs and conditions as provided. 12L The state auditor may conduct an audit or investigation of any entity receiving funds from the state directly under the contract or indirectly through a subcontract under the contract. Acceptm~ce of funds directly under thc contract or indirectly tluough a subcontract under fl~is contract acts as acceptance of thc authority of the state auditor, under the dh'ecfion of the legislative audit committee, to conduct an audit or investigation in connection with thosc funds. Page 12 of 27 Part VI - Acceptance of the Sponsor The City of Denton, Texas, does ratify and adopt all statements, representations, warranties, covenants and agrccments constituting lhe dcscribed project and incorporated materials referred to in the Agreement, and does accept the Offer, and agrees to all of the terms and conditions of the Agreement. Execuw. d th_is day o£ ,201 The CiW of Denton, Texas Sponsor Witness Signature Sponsor Signature Witness Title Sponsor Title Certificate of Sponsor's Attorney I, ~ c__.~ e~,~ , acting as attorney for Ci ~ O~ Dem-~r'x , I · Text, do certify that 1 ~ave fully examined the Agreement and the proceedings taken by the Sponsor relating, and fi nd that the manner of acceptance and execution, of the Agreement by the Sponsor, is in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Dated at ., Texas, this ~ day of ,20 atnre Witness Si~ature Wime~s Title / Page 13 of 27 Part VII - Acceptance of the State Executed by and approved 7or the Texas Transportation Commission for the purpose and effeot of activating and/or carrying out the orders, established policies or work programs anti grants herctolbre approved mhd authorized by the Texas Transportation Commission. STATE OF TEXAS TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION By: Da~e: Page t4 of 27 ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATION OF AIRPORT FUND The Sponsor does certify that an Airport Fund has been established for the Sponsor, and that all fees, charges, rents, and money from any source derived from airport operations will be deposited for the benefit of the Airport Fund and will not bc diverted for other general revenue fund expenditures or any other special fund of the Sponsor and that all expenditures from the Fund will bc solely for airport purposes. Such fund may be an account as part of another fund, but must be aceounted for in such a rammer that all revenues, expenses, retained earnings, and balances in the account arc discernible from other types of moneys identified in the fund as a whole. The C~t¥ of Denton, Texas (Sponsor) Title: AssSstant City Mah~.ger Date: Page 15 c~f27 ATTACI-[MENT B PART ¥ ASSURANCES Airporl Sponsors ~en~ml, Tlnese a~urances shall be complied with in the pertbrraanee ur L'T:ln[ agreemeni~ for airport development, airport plmning, and noi,qe compatibility program grants for airport sponsors. These assurances are requh'ed to be submi~cd as part of the project Airport Proj'ee! Participation Agreement (hereinafter re£e]'red to as "APP^") By sponsors requesting funds undo: the provisions of Title 49, IJ.S.C., Sublitle VII, as amended. As ,sod herein, the term "public agency sponsor" means a public agency with co, lrot nfa public-use airport; thc toTm "private sponsor" means a p~ivatc owner of a public-usc ail'pOrn and the Leriu '15pOIISOI" includ~ bath public agency sponsors and pri~ate sponsors. l_lpLIn acceptance of the gn-auc offer by thc spollsot', these a.~suran~e~ are inoorpor~led in and bc~omc part of the grant H~T~ eTne[i t. B. Darntina nmi Al]ldirability. Airport d~elopment ar Noise Compatlbl]ity Program Proje~'.~ llngertalmn by a Public Agency Sponsor. ~e tern, conditions and ~sumnccs of the ~ant a~ccmcm ~hall ~emaia in full force and eff~t ~hmughout the useful life of the facilities d~etaped or equipment acqm, ed f~ an m~t develnpmmt or noise ¢ompa~biliW priam project, or throughout ~he useful l~fe of the pr~ecl ite~ installed within a facility uuder a ndso compafibil~W pm~m project, but in any e~nt n~ h~ ex,ed ~enW (20) ~ars from the date of aceeplance of a ffal~t offer of F*d~al funds f~ thc project. How~, thee shall he no limit oil ~c duration of the ~sumnecs re~trd{ng F. xdusivc Righ~ an~ Ai¢~ Revenue so long ~ ~e m¢~ is u~e~ as au ai~mrt. ~er¢ shall be no limit on thc durahm of the (m'uzs, con~ifi~s, and =suttees ~th ~spmt ~ real pretty m:quh'ed with fedaal funds. Funhc~orc, the duration ~.ff tim Civil Righ~ ~su~ce shall be specified in ~e msurancu~_ Airpod Development or Noise Compatibility'Projects [l:,de~a~n by a Pri~atc Sponsor. ~c preceding p~a~ap~ 1 also appliea m a private spmsor ~c~t that the useful life cf prQiect itcn~ installed ~th[n a facili~ ~ ~hc useful life of thc fuuililie~ developed ~ cqu~ment acquired und~ an airart davelopn~nt of noise compafibili~ pm~am project shall bc n~ leg~ th~ m (10) ~ara from the da~ 0f aecepUon~ of realm'at aid for theist. Airpa~ Planning Undema~n by a Sponsor. I Jo less ~a]m~isc specified in ~c ~ant a~cmt, only ~suran~s [, 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 18, 30, 22, 33, md 34 ~ s~ti~ C apply lo plannings proj~. ~c te~, c~difl~s, ~O insurances or Ihe ~ant a~mmt sh~l remain in full l~rce and ~fecl during fl)e life cf thepro~cct. C. Spousal. Certification. The sponsor hereby assures and certLD, es, with respect, tn thLs grant that: General Federal Requirements. I1 w~ll comply with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, policies, guideEnes= and requirements as they rela[e to the pmjeu[, aeceplanc~ a,~d uae of Federal f, mds for 'chis projee~ including hu[ not limited m thc following: Federal Legislation g. h. i. k. m. n. o. p. q. I'. S. t.. U. ¥. W. X. Title 49, U.S.C., subtitle VII~ ms tm,ended_ Daw[s-Bm:on Act - 40 U,S-C. 276(a), et seq.I Federal F~ir Labor Standard~ Act - 29 US.C. 201, et seq. Ila~ch Act - 5 U.S.C. 1501, et seq.2 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ot't 970 'title 42 U.S.C. 460 I, et ~q.' 2 National Historic Preuer,~ation Act of 19116 - Sect{on 1{)6- 16 U.S.C. 470(t)-] Archcologieal and Historic Presmwation Act of 1974 - 16 U.S.C. 469 through 469e. t Native Americans Onlve Repatriation Act - g5 U.S.C. Section 3001, et seq. Clean Air Act, P.L _0(I-148~ a.q amended.. Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 9~-205, as amended. ;Flood Disaster Protec6o, Act nf 1973 S~cl[oa 102(a) - 42 U.S.C. 4012a.~ Title 49 ,U_S_U._, Section 303, (fc~'rne,'ly known as Section 4(t)) RehabitRation Act of 1973 - 29 ILS.C. 794. Civil Rights Act of 1964 - ?ifle V1 - 42 II.S.C. 2000d brough fl4. Age Discrimination Act of 1975 - 42 II.S.C. 6101 ,ct sea. ^r~:rican Indian Rcligi[>u~ Freedom Act, P.L, 95-341, as amended. Architectural namers Act ,F I g6g 42 U.S.C. 415t, et ~eq.I Power plato and Induslr{al Fuel Use Act of 1978 - Sectk>n 403- 2 U.S C 8373 ] Co, met Work H.um al~d Safety Standards Act - 40 IJ S C 327.el se~[.~ Copeland An6kicl~haek Act - 18 U.S.C. 874.1 No,[lanai Envirom,ental ?nlicy Act of 1969 - 42 U.S.C- 4321, et seq.I Wild and See, it Rivers Act, ;P.L. 90-542. as amcnclc0_ Single Audil Actor 1984 - 31 U.S.C. 7501,et scq? Drug-iS'roe Workplace Act of t 9:88 - 41 U.S.C. 702 lhrnugh 706. l~zceutiv¢ I_}r d ers Executive Order ~ 1246- Equal Employment Oppommily ' Exeeot/ve Order 11990 -Protcction of Wetlands Exec, fi~e t3~der 11998 - Flood Plain Management F~xecutive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Pragmm.~. Executive Order 12699 - Seismic S~t~ty of Federal and Fed~ially ^ssistcd New Building Construction Executive Order t Z898 - En¥ironmental .lusuce Page 16 of 27 Fed,roi a. 14 CFR Part l ~] - Investigative and [~a~t'rxeemcnt Procedures. b. 14 CFR Part 16 - Rules of Practice For Federally Assisted Airp~l Enf[~rceme~t Pmc~[n~. c_ [~ CFR Part 150 - A[¢~ noise co~tiSiliu planning. d. 2g C'.¢R Parl I - Procedures for pmdctemin~tion or wage rams? e. 29 C~ Part 3 - Conffactors and submnmctom on public building or puhlic work finaoccd in whole or pan by I~ns nT ~anL~ from fl~e Un[ted S~tcs.~ f, 29 CFR Part 5 - ~hor s~ndards provisions applietbte to con,eels claver'inS f~eral]y ~o~med ~d cnns~uction (also labor s~nd~d8 pr~vi~ions opptmable lo noa-cunseuctlon mn~'ac~ subj~t to the C~act Work Hnum and Safe~ Smnd~d~ Ac0.~ g. 41 C~ Part 60 - Office o~ Federal Con,act Comphanee Pro,ams, Fqual Empl~nent Opp~ni~, Depammt of (Federal and federally a~sisted con~actingmqmmmmm).~ h_ 49 E[~ Peri I ~ - llniform administrative mqmm. menm far ~anls aah ooOlmmtive a~eemen~ to state and i. 49 C~ Part 20 - New rcs~ictions on 49 CFR Pa~ 21 - Nondiscrimination in l~d~ally-assisted program~ nf thc D~mcm of Transp~tion - effect~ation of Tide VI of the CMl R[gh~ Act el 1964_ k. 49 CFR Pan 23 - Participation by Disadvantage gusiu~s En~e~priae in Ai~ Conccssi~s. 49 C~ Fart 24 -Unifom relocation ~s[~nc~ U[Ld rml prope~ acqai~ifi~ f~ Fcd~al and federally ¢m~ams? ~ m. 49 C~ Fart 26 - Farticipation By Disadmn~qged Busme~ Ent~dscs in D~ar~t of Tmnsp~don Pro,ams. n. 49 C~ Pa~ 27 - Nondiscrimination on the basi, o~handicap in p~ams and ~iivities receiving or ben,trios from Federal financial 49 C~Part 29 - Govemmenl wiLle dd~armcnt and suspmaion (nm-pr~urmenO and ~vent~ut wide rcquimmen~ tbr drag-bee wurkplaue (~-an~). p. 49 C~ P~ 30 - Denial ofp~ah~ic wm'~ con,acts to su~liera of goods md s~ices of cotmkies that doozy pr~urem~t mar~t access m l.J_$. q. 49 C~ Part 41 - Seismic safety n~ Federal and f~ally ~iis;e6 or re~lated new buildiog consm~dion, t Office of l~lanagement and Budget Circulars a. A-87 - Cost Friueiples ApplicaMe to Grant~ and Ccotrac~ w/th Slate aud I_ucal Govemmenls. b. A-133 - Audits of St=des, Dral G~vemm~, and N~-Pmfit (1) ~mse laws d~ nnt apply to ai~ planning {2) These taws do not apply to private ~p~s~. (3) ~9 C~ P~ 18 ~d OMB C~ular A-87 contain reqmrement~ for 8~ and ~al Gov~m~ feces ring Federal ~sis~nce. ~y requ~cmmt lobed u~a S~ and ~al G~B by this regulation and drcu~ar ~hall also be applicable to pfivale sponst)rs receiving Fed~al ~sis~ncc und~ Title 49, lln[t~ S~s C~c. SpeeiSc ~sumnces required lo be hmlud~ in ~at a~cemm~ by any of the abuvu laws, m~lations ~ cimulars am inco~ora~d by re~reace in tl~e g~at Respoltslbility and Authority of the Sponsor, a. Public Agency Sponsor: It ha.q legal authority to apply ['or the grant, and t~ finmme and carry out the prop~ed project; that a resolution, mclinn or s~milar action has been 6u!.y ad, opted or passed as an official act of the applicant's guvem[ag body authcrriz~ng the filing of thc APPA, inclucling all under~[amling~ and assurance~ contained therein, and direct[nga~d authori~.[ng the person iclentifled as the official representative of the applicant to act in connection with tha APPA and m provide such addJ~.ional infermntion ~ may be required. b. Prlvate Slmnsor: It has legal aulhorily to apply for the grant and mtinance and ~urTy Out fl~e propt~ed project and corr~ply with all tartan, conditions, and ~ssuraneea of thi~ gr~nt agreemenl. It shall designate an official representative and shall in writing direct and authori2e ~hatperson t~ file this A?PA, including all understandings and assm'ances contained therein; to act in connection with thi~ APPA; and to provide ~quch additional infra'mati0n as may he ~'equ~red. Sponsor Fu nd. Ava ilo hiiity. ]t has sufficient funds available for that portion ~[ tkte prqiect costs which are not to be paid by thc Un,tool States. It as sufficient funds available to assure operation and m-intenance of items funded unde~ the gram agreement which it will [,wn or con,pl. Good Title. a_ ti. a public agency or the Federal govcmmcnt, holds g~-~d title, salisfactory ~o the gecretarg, to the landing ama of ~.he aii~mt't or site thereof, or will give assurance salishclt~-y h~ fl',e Secretary that good tide will be acquired. b. Fm ,raise compadbilily program projects to be CaTrietl nut on fl~e proper~ of d').¢ spoilsor, [t holds good dtlc ~atis['actul'y- to the Secretarg to thal portion of the pTnpm-ty upm~ which Federal funds will be expended or wiY $ivc assurance te the Secretary that good hlle wilt he obtained. Pr~erving Rights and Powers. a. it will not take or permit any action whlcl~ would operate to d, eprive it of any of thc righm and powers r, cce~ary to p~rfm'm any or all of the terms, condition,s, and .~ssumnces in the grant agreement without thc writtcn approval Page 17 pi' 27 11. 13. the Sec '~tary, and will act proml]tly to acquire, e×fingni~h ur modify' any oulSt,'~.nding rights OF ~laims of right oF Dlhel'g which would inl~fere wiflx such performance by the ~pmsor, ~is shall be dnne in a mann~ aeeep~bte Lo ~he Secretary. b. It will not sell, lease, eucmnher, or olherwJsc ~anurer m- disp~e of any prat of its tille nr other in.eats in lhe properW shown on ~hihil. A tn this APPA or, fur a nnise compatibiliW program project, that p~tion of the pr~e~ up~ which Federal funds h~e b~n expeud~, for the guratim al' the terns, conditions, and in 0~e ~nt a~eemeut without approval by the 8eer~a~. If thc ~ansf~ee is found by thc Secrem~ to be under ~itle 49, United S~tcs C~c, to ~umc the ebli~ions of the ~ant agreement and to have 0to power, authori~, aml financial resources le ca~ m~t all ~uch obliga~ons, the sponso~ shall in~e~ in the concoct or d~umcm ~ansFerrin.~ or disposiag of the sponsor's interest, and maku binding up~ thc ~ansf~e all of thc terms, ¢ondittons~ sod ~sumnces comainud in Otis ~nt a~eement, c, For all noise eompatibiliW pro.am prujm:ls wlfic~ are to be ca~ied out By another unit of t~td gnvemm~t or arc on pr~ o~ed by a unit of local govermnmt other than the spousm, it will cater ink an a~ement Mth that government. Except as otl~c~ise apeci fi~! l~y thc $ecrcmw, ~hat agt-~mcnt ~hall obligate that government lo the same te~, coaditims, and ~aurances Ihal would be a~licable l~ it iflt applied directly 1o the F~ for a ~ant to undulate the noise compatibility program project. That a~eement and chan~ th~t~ must bc sati~fact~ ~ the Secrelm'y. It will ~ke steps m enlbrce ~;s a~ccmcnt a~inst 1he l~al government iF there is substantial non- compliance with thc te~s of thc d_ For noose compatibi]i~ pr~m pTQects to be ¢a~icd out on privntelyo~ed pr~e~y, it will en~r into an a~eement with the o~er of that prope[~ which includ~ provisoes sp<ified by the Secmm~y. It will rake steps to entice this a~ement against the pr'n[~e~ omcr whenever there i~ aubs~ndal non.compliance with the of the a~eement. e. If thc spormam' is a ~va~c $p~sor, it will m~ st~S satishctom'y to the S<re~ b ensure that ~e a~ort ~11 continue to function ~ a public-use ai~ in aee~dmee ~lh fl~ese ~sur~ces for the durafi~ of these f, H- an un'angement is made fi}r management and ~eration of the ai~oR by any ~geaey or p~on other than the sp~sor or an ¢mplo~e of the spons~, the ~ons~ ~ill res~e sufficient fighls and auth~ to insure that the airport witl be operfl~d uml mainlined ~n accurdance 'l'i~le 49, United S~s C~'~e, the ~e~lafion~ and the terms~ conditinns and =aurmees in t~e ~ant a~ecmen~ sod shall in~ that such m'ran~m~t al~e requires therewith. Con~i~lency with Lo~l Plans. The pmjecI is <n~onably con~istent with plans (e~isfingal the time of submission d this ~PA) of public angeles that a~e auflmrized by thc S~te in watch lhe pro}eot ~s located ~ plan for thc dcvek~ment ofth~ ama su~nundiag the ai¢~. Consideration of ~o~t Inter~t. It has Wen thir c~sideration to thc intreat uf communities ~n ~ near where lhe croject m:~y be located. Consultation wit~ Users- h~ maMng a decision to undm~ke any ~i~ development ~ect und~ Title 49, United Smms C~e, it h~ undetakm ru~qonable ~sulmfions ~th affec~d p~es using lhe airport at which project, is PM~lie H~ngs. In projezLq involving thc locutiun of an a{~om, an ai~on runway, or a major runway ex~usion, it h~ afforded the opp~niW f*r public hearin~ Ibr Ihe pm-p~e of consMenng the econ~ic, s~ial, ~d en~mntuenml effecu of the ai~ ~ runway ]~ ou ~d i~ c~sistencv wilh g~a[s and objecfive~ of such p~n~g ~ h~ been can-lcd outby the mn~un{~ ~d it aha]i, wh~ mquesmd by the Setxe~t~, submil a e~y o1' Ihe ~an~cfipt of such hmfin~ to dm Secre~. Fu~, for such prujects, it h~q mim m~nagem~t board ei~ voting repr~enmfim ~ the mnmoilies wh~e thc pt'q[ect is Ioca<d or h~s advis~ ~c mmmanities that lhey ~avc the right to petition ~e Se~cm~ ~rning a W~scd proje~. Air an~ Water Ouali~ ~taada~ds. ~n ~mjects involving ai~on loeati~, a major run~y ex. asia, ~ r;m~y location k will p~i~ for the ~Dvemor of th~ s~te in which tim proj~t is l~a~d ~ cerli~ in ~6ng to the Secretary tkat fine will ~e ]~amd, deai~ed, cons~ted, and ~ended so ~ to eo~iy with applicable air and ~ter qnali~ s~dm'as, h ~y ~ wh~c such a~ndardg have n~t been approved an~ wh~ a~ltcaDle ak and ~r qual{~ s~ndm-ds haw b~n Dromul~d by ihe Adminiswamr of ~e 6nvimmaenml ProteCtion Ag~m:y, ;eaifi;ation shall b~ ~D~ined f~ Adming~tor. Notice of ~¢~fi~a6on o~ relk~sai ta ce~fy shall De proviOefl ~in s~x~ 8a~ afte~ tim p~'oj¢~t APPA h~ ~eive4 ~y the Secre~a~. P~v~ent Preventive Maintenance. Wilh r~pe~t to a project approved after Janu~ t, 19~5, f~ the i'~]a~t ~ ~cons~u~tion ot'pavement at the ai~o~, i~ assm'es or ~ifica that it has itnp~em~t~d an efi~etive n~ot~ pavem~t main~n~ce-management p~m and it assurer flxat it will use such program f~ the useful lilZ of any pa~em~t c~g~cmd, t~ons~ucted or ~imd ~th Federal finmcizl ~sis~nce at fl~e ai¢om It will pruvlde such r~o~ on pavemmt comtitlon and pavement management ~o~ms ~ the SecTe~rg de~ines may be useful Termtnal Development Prerequisltes. For projec~ which include termh~al development al u puhlic use ni~, as in Title 49, it h~, 0g the date of subtotal of the project ~am i'~ueql, all the safeW equ~mm~t r~ui~d for cmific~fi~ of such airart und~ section 44706 ~ Titte 49, UniIefi States C~e~ and all thc secuhW equipment required by role or regnlat{nn, and h~ provided fro' access to the p~senger enplaning and d~l~ing ama of such ai~ to p~aen~m enphning and d~iming from aircraft other than ~ir easier aircraft. Aeeountlng System, Audit, and Reeo~ Keeping R~uirem~nts. a, It shall keep all project accounm and records watch fully dfiselose fl~e amount an6 disposition by the recipient of thc pr~eeds of the ~nt, the tum~ cost of the project in corm<finn wish which thc ~ant is g~ven or used, and ammml m' natur~ ~f that p~tmn oF the cost of thc project supplied by other sources, and such off,er Page 18 of 27 14. 16. 17. 18. recc~ds pertinc~lt Io the project. Thc accuants and records ~ha~[ be k~l [n accordance with an accounting that will facilitate an effective andk in accordance with Ibc Sing[e Am[i~ Act af 1984. b. It shall make available to the 8eemlary and the Cad,oiler General of the Un~d S~s, or any of their dul7 authorized representatives, fm th~ purple of audit and cxaminaiinn, any b~, d~umeg~, pa~rs, and r~m'ds of the recipient that are p~inent te lhe gent. ~e Secreta~ may require ~hat ~ appr~datc audit be cunducl~ by a rccipienl, ltl m~y case ~n which an ind~endmt audit is mane of the a,counu of a sponsor re]a0ng to the disp~tion o1' the proceeds afa grout ~ relating [o the pruject in mnn~fi~ Mth which the ~t w~ g~ven or used, ~t shall hie a certified copy of such audit with th~ Cumlm'nller Gen~ of the Unked Smms not laler than six (6}monfl~5 lbllowing the close or,he fiscal year l~r which fl~e audit was made. Minimum Wage Rates. Il shall include, in all con~acB in excess or $2,~00 fff ~k m any pro)eom fimd~ trade' fl~e agreement which involve lubur~ p~ ovisions establishin g minimum ra~es {ff wages, to be predetc~ined by the S~re~ of I~bat, in accordance with fl~e Davis g~con Act, a~ amended (40 US C ~76m276~-5), which con~aeto~ shall pay to skilled and uns~lled labor, ~nd sud~ mloimum rates shall bo s~ted ~n the mv~taLian for Bids and shall bc iaelud~ in pmp~als er bids for the work. Veteran~ Preference. lI shall include i~ all cn~n'acm for work on any project fund~ and~ the ~ant a~eemenl involve labor, such pr~visions as are n~essaw te qnsure ~Bat. in the employment of labor (except in exeeuhve. admin~s~'ati~, and snp~viso~ posithms)~ prefemnm shall b~ ~ven lu Veteran~ of the Vi~mam era ~nd drab[ed vetemnn ~ defined in Seeti~ 47112 ~t' Title 49, 1 Jailed S~tes C~c. However, tfi~s pr~er~ shall apply only where the individuals are avuilahle and qu~ified to pcr~b~ IBc work to which thc mplo~em Conf~r,ni~ tO Plans and Sp~ificalimls. It will cx~u~c the P~ect s~ject tnplans, specifications, md appruved by the Secreta~. Such plans, sp~ificatmns, and sch~ulu~ shall be 5nhm~ed to lhe Se~e~ phor m emmen~ment of site p~aration, t~astru~ion~ ~ other p~o~aace on,er thi~ ~ant a~cmenL and. upm a~ppmval of the 8e;~mry, shall be inco~oratcd inl~ tl~is ~'ant a~eement. Any~ifieatian tn the approved phns, sp~ifica~uns, and schedules shall also be subject to uppr~al of the Secre~. and mcurporate~ into the ~ant a~e~mt_ Construction Inspection an~ Approval. It will provide and mainmio comp~nt techn[eal aup~ision at fl~e si~ thraug~out thc project to ~som flint fl~e work conf~s ~ th~ pla~s, sp~ifiaafi~a, and sehedu]eu approved by Se,re~w for ~e pmj~. It shall subj~t fl~e cons~uction work an ~uy p~'2ieat eon~i~ in m approved pmjee~ APPA ~ insp~an and approval by the Secretory and such work shall b~ in aeemdance ~th regalations md p~edures prescribed by the SeemS. Such regulations cng pr~edur~ shall mqu~re such cast and press ~p~ngby the sponsor or spons~5 af such project as thc Secretary shall d~o] necessary. Planning P~jects. In ea~ng out planning projecu: a_ R ~ll execute fine project in acc~dance w~th the ~ppmved Bm~am nmfivc contained in ~e pro, ecl AePA or with the modil}cntions a~milarly appraved. b. Ix will furnish fl~e S~rem~ Mth such p~odie r~orts ~ requked ¢~ining to the p~nning project and ~k aefivi It Mil i~clude in all published mattel p~p~e6 i~ cremation with the planning project a noSce ~at the was pr~med uud~ a ~ant provided by the United d. It will make such mat~iat available Ibr examination hy ~e public, and a~ee~ timt nn ma~dal prea~ with funds und~ this p~t shall bc subj~t to mp~g~t ia flxe Uni~d S~s or any u~h~ cnun~. e. It Mil ~ve the Sem~ ~nr~ieted authori~ t~, purplish, disclose, d~s~bu~, and ofl~erwise us~ any of the mmeria[ printed in ennn~t[on ~th this ~ant. f. It will ~anl the So,renU ~e dgh~ 1o disapprove the spons~'s ~p]o~t of specific cmlsu]mnB and s~beonWactors ta do all or ~y p~t of thi~ projuel as well &q ~g fi~t m disappr~e the pr~¢ns~ s~ ~d cosg of pmt~ssiunal services. g. It will ~ml tim Secre~w ~ke right to disapprove lhe u~e of the sponSOrS employees Io do all or any ~m of lbo project. it und~ulanfls and agees ttmt thc 8cc[em~'s appr~l of this project ~ant or the Secxe~ry'~ appr~al of planning material deve]~ed ~ pan of [hi~ ~aot d~ n~ eonsfitu~ or imply any a~su~n~ o~' em~mai~em on the part oF I he Secrzm~ W approve any pending or fuhire ~qumt for a Fed~al airart ~mt. 19. Operation and Maintenance. a. The airport and ail facilities which are neuesam3' tn serve the aeronautical usea's of the airport, other than £a¢ilitics owned or controlled by the United States, shall he operated at alt dines in a su[~ and serviceable ccmdition and i~ aeeordam:e with the minimum standards ~s may be required ~ prescribed by applicable Federal, state and local agencies for maintenance and operation. [I will ~mt cause ~ permit any activity et' action thereon which would interfere wilh its use for airport purpc~es. It v~ilt sultab~y ~erate and maintain 0~e airport and all facilities ~ercon or tormented therewith, w/th duc regard It~ climatic and flo~d crm6itions. Any proposal to tampoearil¥ close the ~tirpm't for non-aeronautical purlines mast first be approved by the Secret.cry. In furtherance of this assuranee~ the sponsor M~I have in effect arrangemenB for- (I) Operating [he airport's uennlautical facilities whenever requim~t; {2) Promptly marking and ligfiliog hazards resulting t'rom a~.~port cm~ditioas~ including ~mporary conditions; and {3) Promptly noti~4ngairmen t~rany condition aft'eating aemnaoliua] use afthe airport. Nmhing co,rained Berein shall he construed to require that the airpr~rt be operatod for aeronautical use cluring temporary periods when mow, flood or other climatic conditions interfere with such operation ~md maintenance. Further, nathillg herein shall be cnas~ed as requiring thc ma~nteoance, repair, restoratlc>n, or replacement al any Page 19 of 27 20. 21. 23. steuct~r~ or l~cility which is subsb_mti,~lly da~aa~ed or destroyed due to ~ oct nf Cic~ or other condJ~J~ ~ c~rcum~ncc bcyon~ ~ control o~ the ~p~sor. Il w~ll suitably opera~ and mnhatain noise compatibility prop'am ilem~ Iha~ it o~s ~ con.la ~p~ which Federal ?unds have been expended. Hazard Removal and Mitlgat~n. it will ~a~e appr~riatc aclion ~ assure 1hat such ~rmin~t airsp~e as is required lo pr~e~t ins~ment and v~sual operations lo the at.crt (including egtnblishmt ~ni~dnqum ~ighl altitudes) will bc clear~ and pr0~ected by removing, lowering, relocating, marking, or light~ng ~r t~therwise miligating existing ai~o~ h~vanl~ act by pt~nting thc establishment ur c~eati~n of fum~ ai~on h~arOs, Compatible Land Use. 11 will ~a~e app;0pda~ acrid, to thc extent re~souabk~ includes the adopfio~ of z~ning laws, 1o testficl It~e use of land adjacent to ~r i~ Ihe immedia~ vicinity of the ai~o~t to aclivilies and pu~mc8 compalible with no~a[ ai~ort opmations, including landi~ a~d takeoff ~f air~afg. In ~d~tlun, if the privet is for noisc eo~a~bili~ pro.am irn~flemen~tion, i~ will not cause n~' pg~ nqit any change in land u~e, within it~ jurisdiction, that will ~duee im compa~ihiliw, wi~h respect to thc airport, ~f floe noise compafi~ili~ pro.am meosure~ up~ which ~edcral funds have expendS. Econnmic Nondiscrimination. di~criminat~ ~ ell t~es, kh~d~ and clas~e~ of ~ronaoti~a] activities, including committal ~eronm~lical aetivific~ off, ring se~iueg to fl~e public al ~e ai~L b. In any a~eem~L eon~acl.~ le~e, ct other ~a~gemenL under whlgh a fight or privilege ~L Lhe ~i~t is ~anmd any pewon, firm, or co~ralion to conduct or to engage ~n ~ny aeronaufi3al act[viw ~or fu~ishing ~erviees ~ public al thc ~i~ort, the ~tm~or will Jnse~ and en~ce wovi~io~qs i~uiring lhe con,actor (1) furnish 8aid ~e~ces ~ a reasonable, and n~ unjustly di~crlmin~to~, b~s m fl~ use~ ~hereoL and (2) charge ~asonable, and ecl ~miugfly d~scfimina~, pfiee~ ~r each uni~ ~ se~icc, provided that the may ~ allowed to ma~ r~sunable and n~d~sefiminato~ discount, ~ebates, ct other ~im~lar t~e~ of price wduclions t~ volu~ pxu'chag~.g. c, ~ch fix~-b~sed op~ntot at the at.crt shall be subject tt~ Iht same lares, fees, rcnmts, and o~he~ chases as are unifo~ly applicable to all other fix~-b~e8 o~eral~s making the same or similar us~ of suc& aiq~'t and u~ilizing the same or similar hcilifics. d, Each a~r c~n-ier nsing ~uch a{~o~ shal~ have the rigt~t to sc~[cc i~clf o~ to use any fi xml~sed opcrat~ thai authorized ur permi~ bythe ai~ to acme any ai~ card~ at such ai~. e. E~h air cae'let using such ai~ (whether as ~ I~nmq% non~ or submnanl o~ snorter air cantor t~) be subject to such n~discfiminatory an6 subslanl~ally c0mpgabte roles, re~flat4ons, conditions, rates, feg~, renmls~ aud ~her chases ~th r~peet to ~qeilities directly and suSs~fially relmefl to providi~g a{~ as are applicable ta all such asr easters whk~h make Sh~lilar use 0f such a~ofl ired u~tize simil~ s~bje~l ~.o reasonab]~ class(fications sud~ ~ tenant~ or n~an~ apl s~atffy carriers and nmsi~ato~ camps. Class~ficatlon or $~ms as ~enant or si~a~ shall not be un~onably wiflfl~ald b~ any ai~ an ~r ~n'ier assumes obligations s,bs~utinlly similar t~ th~c already imposed o~ air carriers in such classification or f. it will m~t exercise or grant any fight or privi Lege wh{ch ~s to prevent any persoo, firm, or con,at[on operating ni~ct'a~ on the ai~ from p~fot'mh~g any seizes on [~ o~ aiT~ fi. w~fl~ i~ o~ empto~es [inc[ntlin~ hut not limRed to ~intenance, repair, and fueling] that il may eh~e m perform. g. ~ the evm~t fl~e spons~ i~df cx~cSsea any of the fi~ an~ pfi~lege~ ret~ed ~u it~ Otis assurance, the se~ees involve~ will be prodded m the same tonalities ~ would app]y ~ the t~mish~ng of sud~ s~[c~ by c~merei~l aeronautical se~ice provid~ aulhorized hy the sponsor und~ ~ese p~ision~. The sponsor may establish such re,sociable, and not unjustly d~s~m~natory, conditions ~ he ~t by all users of the at,crt as may be necess~W for [Iqe safe and efficient operation o[the ai~ol3_ The sponsor may p~hibR ~ lim~[ any glvet~ ~e, kind w cl~s of a~nautiea~ nse of the ai~on if such aetLon necessary fo~ ~he safe o~tafion of ~he airport or ne~ssaw Io sewe the civil aviati~ n~s of ~e public. Exclusive Righis. It will permit no exclusive r]ghl fi'~r the use or,he ai~ort by any p~utt pr~iding~ or int~ding ~o pm~de, aeronntlli~al services Io the public. For pttOc~s of this paragaph, ~e p~{ding of the se~ices at an ai~o~ by a single fix~-based ~eralca' shall not ~ consWucd ~s an ex cluaiw r~ght if both ~f the following ~pply: a. It would be um'~onably cosily, buidmsgme, or inqprazti~al for mare than one fix~-bnsed oper~t~ to provide ~uda servic, es, and il-allowing ri]ore than ~c fix~-based oper~n~ to provide guc~ sewiees would ~quire lhe reduction of space Iea~ed pu~Stlant to an ~xist~ng a~eement between such single fixed-b~ed operator and sucl~ aimort. ]t fu~h~ a~ees thai it will not, e{thce diveelty or indirectly, grant or pe~it any p~on, fi~, nr corporation, ~e exclusive right at ~e ai~orl to conda~ any acronaufienl nctivilies, including, butno$ iim~6 ~o charier flights, pilot ~ining, a~rcmf~ ~ml apo sLghtseeing, a~ial photo~phy, crop 6usling, agrial adv~fising and 5u~n~ air ~arr[er operafion$~ at,rift and services, s~le of aviati~ pe~dc~m ~r~c~s whether or not c~duct~ m ~jxmelioT~ with otker aeronautical r~air and mamt~n~ of aircraft, sale 01' airL:m fL pal~s, aa~ ~y o~her activities which b~anse of thor didst ~lafionsh¥ to fire operation ~f aircraft can be regarded as a~J'Onautigal ~cfiviW, and fl~at it will ~'mina~e any exc]usivc right ~ contract an aero~mutical acfiviW now existing at such airport bef~e the ~ant of any assisLa~ce ond~ Title 49, United States C~e. ~ee aud R~ntal Structure. It w~ll malut~in a fee and r~m] s~uetuye tbr the faefiilies m~fl s~ices at the ai~ which Mil make the a~oo~ ~ self-sustaining as possible und~ the circu~mne~ ex~sting al lhe particular ai~o~, raking into accent sud~ factors ~ the volume of ~affic nnd ~onm~y ~f collection, No pan 0t' the ?ed~zl ~hm'e of an ai~on flevelopm~k airport planning or noise compafibiiily project for which a goat is marie und~ 't'il[e 4 g, ~ ]n i~d S~tes C~e, ~c Ai~o~ and Page 20 of 27 26. 2:1t, Airway improvement ^et of 1982, ~he Federal Airport Act or '~he Airpt,rt and Airway Developmcnt Am. nf 197{) shall be h~ctuded in thc rate basis in eatablishing fees, ,'ate~. and charges for users of th. at airport. Airport Re~,enue~. a. All revenues generated by lhe aiv~ort and any local t~xes on aviation Inet established afire December 30, 1987. will be expended by it for thc capital or op~ling costs of Ibc ai¢off; the lot:al air~o~ system; or Oth~ local facilitie~ which are owaed or operate0 by the oa',m~' or ~cral0r of the at,tat and which are direclly and substantially related to the actual a~r ~rmsp~lafion of passengers or property; or for n~se mitiga~on pu~ses un or off' [he airport. Provided, however, that ir uuvenanU or assuran~s in debl ,bligafions issued before Scpt~ber 3, ] 982, by tl~c o~ or operator ef [he airpmS, ~ pm~i~ion~ cnmled befi3re Septembm 3, 1982, · govem~g statutes ceeB'ailing thc omar or operator's flouncing, provide fbr the nsu {~[ litg r~enu~ from any of the o~ nr t~im'ator'~ facilities including the airart, to supper not only the ai,pm't But also the ti~t om~ or operalor'a general debt obligations or uther facltities, then tb~a ~im~talkm tm ~he uge of all rev~ues g~erated hy lhe ifi~po~t (atxd, ~ the case of apublic m~art: l~al ~xe~ on aviaficm h~el) shall not apply. b. A~ p~[t of the annua~ audit required und~ the Single Audit Act nf ~ 984, tim ~pms~ wiB d~rect thal lhu audit review, and the resulting audit report will provide an ~]nion concerning, the use ofai~ tcvcgue and ~xes in para,apb (a), and indicating whether fund~ p~d or ~an~[ewed to lhe owner or operator am paid or ~ns[m*e~ in a manner cnosist~t with Title 49. Uttited S~ates C~c and ~y ot~er applicable provi~ion of law, including regtflatiun pmmul~ted by the Sem-elary m' Adminia~ator. Any e~vil penalties ~ other ~anel~ons will be imp~ed f~ violation of ~his ~qsur~ in accordance with provisions ,[ Sectim 47107 ~' Title 19, I Inked S~tes C~c. Reports and Inspections. Itwill: a. submit to the Secretary such annual or apeeial financial and operaLions rape, lq as the Secretary may reasonably request and make ~uch rape,ti available It~ [he public; make available to tile public at reasonable times and places a report of [he airport budget in a IBrmal prescribed by the Sec,clap/; h. for airport development projeels, make II~e airport and all airport records and documents affecting the airpmt, including deed;, lea~e& operation ant[ use agreements, regulations and other instruments, available tbr in~ecl.ino by any duly authorized agent of the SecretmT upon reasonable request; c. lb, ,eisa con~patibility program pr,~ieet~, make re¢ord~ and d.cumenB relating to the project and continued compliance with the terms, conttilio~s, and ~ssuranccs of file grant agreement including deeds, lea.qes~ ugreemenkq, regulations, and othe~ iaslrumenB, available 53r inspection by any duly authorized agent nf the Secrelary opm reasonable requesl; d. i, a format and time prescribed by the Secretary, erovfide ~t) the Secretary and m~ke avail,~ble to the public ibtiowing ~ach of ils fiscal years, an annual ret~ort listing in delail: ti) all mnounts paid by- [he airport to any otb. er unit efg. ovemment and the purposes lb, which e~ach such payment was made; and (ii) all services and property ~ovided by the airport lo ,fl~er unit~ of government and Ihe amount of compensation received for provision 0f each st, eh service and property. Use by Gavernment Aircraft. It will make available all of the lhcililie.q of the airport developed ~lh Federal finan~iat assislance aod all those usable for lm~ding and takeoff of aircraft lo the I Jailed Slates for use by Government aircraft, in commnn w/th other aircraft m alt times without charge, except, if the use ~ Government a~rcmft is substantial, charge may be made for a reasonable shine, proportional t0 such use, IBr lhe ct~st of operating and mmntammg file facilities use~, Unless elbe,wise de,ermined by the Sec,-etary~ r~r otherwise agreed to by lhe spr~sor md foe using ~genuy, sul~smatial use of an ~drp,3rt by Govemmem aircraft will be cnn~idered to exist when operations of such aircraft are in excess of tho~e whigh, in Ihe opinion of the Secretary, would unduly interfere x,.4th use of the landing area'~ by other auti~,xized aircraft, or during any ealenda,' month that- a. Five (5) or more (3ovemment aircraft are regularly b~sed at the airport or on land adjacenl, the,ale; or b. The total number of movements (eountl. ng each lantling as a m<~vement) of Government ~drcr-~ft ia 300 er m~re, or the gro~ a¢¢umu lalive weight of Government aircra~ using the al,pon (the total movement of Government ai,'cra~ multiplied by gross weights of such aircra[l) ~.~ io exces.q of five million pounds. Land for l~,~deral Facilities. it will h~m ish without cost to the Federal Government for u~e in connection wilh any air ~raffic control or air navigation activities, or weafl~er-repm't~ng and communication acfivitles related m *tit l'raffie mmtmt, any areas o[land or watch or estate therein, or rightq in buildings of the spon~m as the geeretary consider~ necessary or desirable consh'oc, linn, operation, and maintennnce at Federa1. expense cf space tlr facilities f~r such purposed. Such areas or any portion lherenf will be made available a~q pr(>vided herein within ~ur ,/loll~h$ after receipt of a written) reqtlest from the Secrelary. Airport Layout Plan. a. It will kccp up ta date al all times an air0~t layoul plan of tko a[ro0rt show/ag (1) boundmes of the aid, art and all propc~ed additions thereto, legate, er with [he boundaries of all offsite areas owned ur COhO'oiled by the ean~or for airport purposes and !~mp~md additions thereto; {2'1 the location and nature of all existing and prr, pnsed airport fa¢ili*.ics and ~;Iruetnre.,~ {such ~ runway5, taxiwuys, aprons, terminal buildings, hunters and road.q), including all proposed extensions and. reductions of ex~stmg air~ort facilities; and (3) the location of alt existing and prc}po~eel notlaviafion ure~s and of all existing ~mprovement.~, thereon. Such airport layom plans and each an'~ndment, revision, or mod ificatinn thereof, shall be sul~ject to the approval of thc Secretary which a'o~3roval shall bt evidenced by the signature of a duly authorized rel}~e.sentative Of the Secretary ~m the face of thc al,port lay,>ut plan. The ~ponsor will not make or permit ~my ctmnge.s or alterations in the airport or any oflt~ facilities which arc not m coofnm~ity wi~h thc airport layout plan as approved bythc Secretary and which might, in thc opinion of the 8eerelat¥, adversely affect the safety, utility rjr efficiency of the airptn-t. Page 21 of 27 30. 31. 33. 34. 35. 36~ 3'/. If a clmnge or alteration in Ihe airpmL wr the facilities is made which the Secretao' determines adversely affects the safety, utiligt, or efficient;~' of any federally ewncd~ leased, o,' tinted property on or offthe airport and which is not in eon fortuity with the airport layout plan ~ approued By the Secretary, the owner or operalor will, ~[ ~'equested, by the 8eerehnr~ (l') eliminate such edver~e effecl in a manner approved by the Seerel*~D'; or ('2') hear all cosls of relocating such property (or replaccmettt thereof) lo a site acceptalale to thc Secretary ami all en.~B restoring such property ,~of rel~laeement thercaf) to the level o[ safety, utility, efficicBey, and cost ~.d' t~peratiun existing bc£orc the u, approved change in the airport or ds facilities. Civil RiRhts. It will comply with such rules as are promulgated to astute Ihm nt-~ Tm$on sl~all, on thc ~ounds o[muu, crud, color, nafional ~ig[n, sex, age, or handicap he excluded tram pa~ieipating in any a~tM~ conducted Mth ar b~eGtiag from thnds r~eived fram lhis ~anT. ~lh~s ~tss[trance oblige5 the sponsor fm Ihe period dung which Federal t~nuncial a~sis~nce is e~tm~ed ~ The pro,am, except where F~dc~al fin~cial ~istance i~ m rn'ovid~, or ~ in thc fun of pe~ona] prope,~ ~ real properly m- Jntere[t thru'tlc or sm,crates o~ [mpmvcmenB ~ereun in which cast the as~ur~ee ob&thales the sp~s~ nr any ~m~[eree for the lon~ of the following periods: (~) thc p~d dm-ins which the pmper~ i~ u~ed f~ a pu~e rot which Federal financial assistance is e~ to,dee, m' f~ another pu~me h~volving th~ pmvi~J~ of similar se~ces ~ benefit~, or [b) the period duhng which the spuns~.,' ='etains omership or p~session of the pr~e~. Disposal nfl a. For hand purchased under a grant fn,' airport noise compatibility pu[pmes, it wilt dispose of the land, when the lead is no longer needed lbr such pnrp~es, at fair market value, al tile earliest practicable lime. That portion of the proceed5 of such disposifimt whir. h i~ prcrporfion~.te to thc I_lniied Stoles' ~hare of acquisition of sneh land at the discretion of thc Secretary, 1 ) he paid t~ thc $ceret~ry for dept.,sit in the Trust Fund, or 2) be reinvested ar, apl~roved noise compatibility proleut a.q prescribed by thc Seoretary- b. (1) Igor' land purchased under a Wahl for airport development purpt~es (other than noise compatibility), it when lhe land is n o longer needed £or airport purposeS, dispose of such land at fair market value or make available tn the Secretary an annum equal t~3 [he lJnitod States' propm'tionato share c>f the fair market value of the land That portion of the proceeds t.~r tach disposition which is proportionate to *.he UnitEd States' share of the cost of acq~fisition of such land will, (a) open application to the Sec*emry, be reinvested in another eligible airport impruvement project o~' projects approved by the Secretary at thaL uirpor~ c,r wi~thin the national airport system, or (b) be paid to die Secretary Ior tlept>sit in the Trust Fund if no eligible project exists. (2) I and .shall be considered to be. needed fo' airport purpcees und, cn- lhia as.quran,'e if (a) it, may be needed for i~eronaulical purposes (including Ytttt','~ay prOtl~7~tiO~l ~X)?se.s) or ~erve as noi~ buffer land, and 03) the revenue inlerpn uses of such land con~butes to ~he financial self-sufficiency of lhe airport. Furfiaer, land purchased wilh a go,et received by an airport operator or owner before I)eeember 31, 1987, will be considered to gc needed for airp~)rt Imrposcs if the Secretary or [;-ederat agency making such grant befm'e December 3 I. 1987. was nohfied by ibc Olmlator or owner of the u'~es of such land, did not object to such nsc, m~d the land continues to '0e used Ihat purpcee, such use h~.ving commenced no later than December [ 5, t 989. ¢. Disposition of such land under in) or {h) trill be su't~ject to thc relenficm or reservation of any interest or right therein necessary 1o ensure thnt such land will only be used Ibr lCttrpmes wtxich are compatible with m>ise levels ~qssc~ciated with opera, tine of the ~firpm't. Englneeriag and Desigg ServJees. It wilt award each contract, or sul>.conlraC! for program management,, cons!xm:lion management, pinning studies, feasibility studies, archkectural services, preliminary ecg/noetics, design, enbnneenng~ ~urveying, rnapph~g or related services with respect to the project in ~c same [mimer as a cenlract for architectural anct eng4neefing services is negotiated under TLtle IX- of the Federal Property and Adminislrafive Services Act of 1949 ~ an equivalent qmflifieatinns-b~ed requirement prescribed for or by thc sponsor el the akport. Foreilln Markel Restrictions. It will not allow tunds provided und. er this grant to be used. to fund any project' which uses ally 'product or service of a fordg~ country during the permd in wi~¢h such foreign country is listed by the United States Trade Represenlal[ve as denying fa~.r and equitable market ol:~portunities for products and suppliers of file Unit. ed State~ pTocuremcnt and construction. Policies, Standard~ and Specifications. It will entry om the project in accordance wilh policies, standards, specifications aoproved by lhe Secretary including but not limited to the advisory circulars listed in the Current FAA Advisory Circulars l:u~ AlP p-rejects, deled 71t/99 md inuluded in this grant, and in accordance with applicable ~state policies, standards, and specifications approved By thc Secretary. Relocation and Real Properly Acquisition- (1) It will be gnided in acquiring rea] property, to the g/'~test extent practicable under State law, by Ihe land acquisition policies in Sut~pa't B of 49 CFR Part 24 and mil pay or ~eimhur.qe property ow'nm for notes;sty expen~q~ as specified in $ubparl B. (2) It will provide a relocation assistance program offering the services described in Subp~-I C and fair and reasonable relocid~on payments and assis~nce to displaced persons required in Subpart D and E of 49 CFR Part 24, (3) It will make available within a reasona't~lc period of time prior lo di.~plaeement, comparable replacemer~t dwellings to displaced pursues in accordance with Subpart E of 49 CFR. Part 2,1. Access By lnterclty Buses. The airpolt owner or operator will permit, ~o the maximum cx~ent pr'actteable~ inlert:ity buses or other tootles of transportation tu have access to the airport, ht~wever, it ha.q no obligation to fond special facilities rt'~r [n~erclty buses or for other modes o[ Irmrsportafion. Disadvantaged Business Enterprisers. Tile recipient shall not discriminate on thc basis of race, color, nalitmtd origin o' sex in t.h¢ award a~nd pcrfurmauce of any DOT-assisted eonS'act or in Ihe adminisl~atioa of its DBE program or ihe reqakenmn~5 of 49 CFR Part 26. The Recipient _qhal] m. ke all necessary and reasonahle steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensm'a nou discrimination in the award and admiu[stration of DOT-assisted et}nh'nc:Lq. 'I-Be roc¥1ent's DBE program, a~ req-Lred b~ 40 Page 22 of 27 CFR- Par~ 25, and ~:~ approved by DOT, is incorporated by legal obligation and failm'¢ lo ca~ oat ils term~ shnll b~ ~eat~d z~ a violation of this a~eeme~t. 13[mn notificafi~ to the recipienl ol'~tq fa~lnre to caffy and m}ty, in app~'opriate ¢~eS, reCer the matter [br enfom~ment und~ 18 U.S,C_ 100l md/or the Pm~am Fraud Civil ~emedles Am af 1986 (3t U.S.C. Page 23 of 27 CUIUIENT FAA ADVISORY CIRCUI,A RS FOR AIP/PFC PROJECTS The followings apply to both AlP and PFC Projects NUMI3ER 15015000-t 3 L50t5100-14C 150/5200-30A, CItG I & 2 15~/5200-33 15D75210-SB 150~521 (~71~. 15075210-13A 150/52t0-1dA 1507521 fl-15 150/5210-18 ] 50/5210-19 150/5220"1B 15 D15220- I OB 150/5220-13B ] 50/5220-16B 150/5220 17A t 50/522D- 18 150/5220-19 150/5220-20, CHG I 150/52213-21A 150/$3CI0-13. CHG 1~ 2, 3.4, 5 ] 50/5300-I 4 150/5300-15 150/5320-5B 150/5320-fiD 150/5320-12C 1 $0/$320-14 150/5320-16 150/53254A, CHG 1 15015340-10 150/534[14C, CHG t & 2 150/5340-5B, CHO I 150/5340-14B. CFtG I &2 15015t40- t 7B ] 5015340-18C, CHG l 150/5340-19 1. 5015340-21 150/5340-23B 150/534D-24, CHO I 150J5340-27A 15015345-3D 150,5345-5 ^ 15g/5345-?D..CHG I 150/_51t45 I DF, 1507534512C t 50/5345-13A 150/534526g~ CFIG 1 & 2 150/5345-2'7C ] 50/534_'i-28D. CH(3 l 150/5345-39B. CHG t 1501534542C. CHG 1 150/5345-43E 150/5345-44F, CHG 1 150~5345-45A 15015345-46A 150/534547A t $01534549A 150/5345-50. CFIG 1 15015345-51, CHG l 15015345-52 15015345-53A, (including .~ddendum) ] 50/536¢-9 150/53fiLM 2A Updated on: 7/1t99 TITLE Obstruction Marking and Lighhng Announ~ment of Availability-Rq-'CA lop-, Document RTCA-221. Guidance and Recommended Requirements lbr Airport Surface Movement Sen~or~ Architectural, Engineering, and Pkqnni.g Consultant Services for Airport Gmat Projects Airport Winter Safety and Operations Haxardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near Airports Painting~ Marking and IJghting n£ Vehicles I lsed on an Airport Airc~raft Fire and Rescue Commtmic,'~[inns Ware] Rescue Plans, Facilities. mqd l~.ltfipment A imort Fipe and Rescue Personnel Prolective Clolhlng Airpmt Rescue & Firefight[ng Station I~.uilding Design Systems for Interactive Training of ^i~p.rt Personnel D,-ivet's Enhanced. Vision System (DEVS) Wamr Supply Systems :~br Aircraft Fi,e and Rescue Protection G. ide Specification fo~ Water/Foam Type Aircraft Rescne and. F~refighting Vehicles Runway Surface Condition Sensor Speeificalion Guide Aatemated Weather Observing Systems for NonFederal Applications l-)esign Standards for A/reraR Reucue Firefighting Training Facilities Buitd ings for Storage and Maintenance of A iqmrt Snow and Icc Control Equipmenl ~md Materials Guide Specification for Small, Dual-Agent Aircraft- Rescue and Firefighting ¥¢hic[es Airport S.rav and Ice Cona'ol Equipment Guide Specification fcyr Lifts lJsed t<3 Board Airline Pmqsengers With Mobile. fy Impairments A'[rport DeniS. Design of Aircraft Deicing Facilitie~ Use of V~lu e Englneering for Eng/neering Design of Airport Grant Projects Airport Dn.inage Airport Pavement_ Design and Evaluation Mcasnremen I, Co. sh'uction, and Maintenance of Skid Resistant Airport Pavement Surfaces Airport Dmdscaping for Noise Conlrol Parpo~e~ Airport Pavement Design for thc Boeing 777 Airplane Runm~y l~ngth Requirements for Airpcnt Design Standards for Airport Matklngs lnsLuilation Detafl.q for Runway Center]lee Toucbdow~ 7rme Lighting System~ Segmented Circle Airport ~arkcr System Economy A pprcrach Lighting Aid~ Standby Power for Nozl-F.A~ Airport Lighting Systems Standm'ds for Airport Sigrl Sy~lem~ Tax[way Cm,terline Lighting System Airport Miscellaneous IJ. ghcing Visual Aids Supplemental Wind Cmos Runway aud Taxiway Edge Lighting System Air4u4_~,'ound Radio Control of Airport Lighting Systems Specil-ieation for L821 Panels for Remole Control of ^irport Ligh~ng Circ. R Selector Switch Specification for L824 Underground Electrical Cable for Airport Lighting Circuits Specil'ieation for Constant Current Regulators Regnlator M~rnltors Specifica'don for Airport and Heliport Beacm~ Specification far I~4l Auxiliary Relay Cabinel Assembly for Pilot Conlzol of Airport Light/ng Circuits Specification for I~823 Plng and Receptacle. Cable Connector~ SpeciSmtion fm Wind Cone Assemblies Precision ApprmPh Path Indicator (PAPI) Systems FAA Speeificmiun t.353, Runway and Taxiway Centeflme Retroreftective MarkPr~ Specitiealion for Ahport IJght Bases, Transfbrmer Housings, Juuction Boxes and Accessories Specification 1bt Obstruction Lightillg Equipment Specification tm Taxiway and Runway Signs Lightweight ApprLmch Light Structure Spccilieation for Runway and Taxiway Light Fixtures Isolation '['l-l~nsfi.n'me:r:s fei Airport Lighting Systems Spccifiualion 1.~54, Radio C~m. trol Equipment Specification for Pm-table Runway Lights Spccificafio. for Discharge-Type Flasher Equipment Generic Visoel (-liideslape Indicators (GVGI) Airport Lighting Fquipment Certification Program Planning and Design of Airport Terminal Facilities ar Noel-lob lxmations Airpor~ Signing & Graphics Page 24 of 27 i50/5360-13, CIIG 1 150)5370-2C 150/5370.6B 150/5370-10A CI-tG 1,2, 3, 4, 5, fi, 7, 8, 9 150/537¢11, CHG 1 150./537(3-12 150/5390-2A 150/5390-3 Planning and De. qign Guidance tbr .~irp~-t Terminal Facilities Operational Safety on Airports [)uri~g Consu'uction Consol[on Pm~ss and Inspectkm Repo~-Ai~o~ Gram Pro.am SUndard~ r~ Sp~lCng C:t}nstmoion of Ai~orB Use of Nondesmmtive Testing ~vices in lbo Evaluali~ ofA[~ort PavgmenB QualiW Con~ol of Conslmcfinn fm Ai~o~ Grant Pmjcc~ lle]ip~ Dcsi~ Veriipofl Dcsibm Page 25 of 27 ATTACHMENT C CERTIFICATION REGARDING DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQU.IREMENTS A. The grantee certifies that it will or will continue to provide a drug-free workplace by: (a) Publislxing a statement notifying employees flint the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possesslcn, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and .specifying the actions that will be taken aga[~t employees for violation of such prohibition: (b) Establishing an ongoing drag-free awareness program m i~ffcrm employees about- (i) The dangers of drag abuse in the workplace; (2) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drag-free workplace; (3) Any available drag counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (4) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occm'ring in the workplace; (c) Making it a reqtdrement that each employee to be engaged in the pcr£ornmnce of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph (a); (d) Notifying thc employee m the statement required by paragraph (a) that, as a condition of employment m~dex thc grant, the employee will- (l) Abide by thc terms of the statement; and (2) Notify the employer i.n writing of bas or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring m the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; (e) Notifying the agency in writheS, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under paragraph (d)(2) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, mfless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notices stroll h~clude the identification nmnber(s) of each affected grant; (i) Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under paragraph (d)(2), with respect te any employee who is so convicted- (I) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including tem~mfion, consistent w~th thc ~cqukements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (2) Requiring m~ch employee to ps,tic,pate sansfacterily in a drag abuse assistance ox ~ehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, Slate, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; (g) Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drag-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f), B. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance o£ work done in connecton with the specific grant: Place of l'erformance (Street address, city, county, state, zip code) 50~0 Airport Road D~nton, Donton County, Texas 76207 Check i[~tt~e arc workp~le that arc not identified here. Carla Romine,, Dirac_tar of N,,m~ ~eso,,rces ;l'yped Name and Title of Sponsor Representative Page 26 of 27 ATI'ACHMENT D PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM An effective pavement nmintenanee management program is one t2~at details the procedures to bc followed to assure that proper pavement maintenance, both preventative and repair, is performed. An airport sponsor ~my use any form o£ inspeclion program tit deems appropriate. The l~rogram must, as a minimum, include the following; 1. Pavement Inventory, The following must be depicted in an appropriate tbrm and level of details: Location of all runways, ta×iways, and aprons Dimen,~ions Type of pavement Year of construction or mo~t recent rehabilitation For compliance with the Airport Improvement Pr%ram assurances, pavements that have been constructed, reconstructed, or repaixed with Federal financial assistance shall be so depicted. Inspection Schedule. Detaflcd Inspectioa. A detailed in.qpecfion must be perfomaed at least once a year. Ifa history of recorded pavement deterioration is available, i.e. Pavement Condit/on Index (PCI) survey as set forth in Advisory Circulax 150/5380-6, Guidelines and ?rocedures for Maintenance of Airport ?avemcnts, the flequency of inspections may bc extended m three years. b. Drive-by Inspection. A drive-by inspection nmst be performed a minimum of once pet month to detect unexpected changes m the pavement condition. 3. Record Keeping. Complete infomtion on the findings of ail detailed inspections and oflxer maintenance performed must bc recorded and kept on file for a minimum of five yeats. The types of distress, their locations, and remedial action, scheduled or performed, must be doctmaented. The minim infomtion to be recorded is listed below. a. inspection date b. location c. dislxess types d. maintenance schcduied or performed For drive-by inspections, the date of inspection and any maintenance performed mast be recorded. 4. Information Retrieval. An airport sponsor may use any form of record keeping it deems appropriate, 5o long as the information and records produced by the pavement survey can be retxieved to provide a report to the FAA as may be required. 5. Reference. Refer to Advisory Circular 150/5380-6, Guidelines a~d Procedures for Maintenance of Aixport Cavements, for spccific guidelines and proce&~res ~br maintaining airport pavements and establishing an effective maintenance program. Specific types of disl~ess, their probable causes, inspection guideline, and xccommended method5 of repair are presented. Page 27 of 27 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM/DCM/ACM: January 4, 2005 Fire Department Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Demon, Texas, amending Ordinance No. 2004-001 prescribing the number of positions in each classification of Police Officer; prescribing the number of positions in each classification of fire fighter; providing a savings clause; providing a severability clause; and declaring an effective date. BACKGROUND Civil Service law, Texas Local Governmem Code, Chapter 143, requires jurisdictions with Civil Service employees to officially authorize their exact number of Civil Service employees. Therefore, the City Council must authorize by ordinance the number of authorized Civil Service positions. Since the last approved Ordinance (No. 2004-001) on January 6, 2004, the Fire Department and Police Department have made changes in their authorized Civil Service positions in the adopted 2004/2005 City budget. Staff requests the Council now authorize the correct number of Civil Service positions. Fire Department: The Fire Department's Division Chief will retire on January 14, 2005. Due to a reorganization of the Fire Department's management structure, a Deputy Fire Chief's position has been created to replace the current Division Chief when he retires. No new FTE's are necessary to make this change. Essentially, the Division Chief's position is abolished and a Deputy Fire Chief's position established at the same pay rate with a revised job description. In addition, the Fire Department's Captain-Logistics Maintenance Officer position will retire January 3, 2005. The Fire Department does not have an existing Civil Service promotional list to fill this position and desires to change the position from the specific Captain-Logistics Maintenance Officer to a Captain's position. There is no negative impact to the organization, as we will assign a fully qualified Captain to oversee the Fire Department's Logistics and Maintenance Program. No new FTE's are necessary to make this change. Therefore, the proposed ordinance changes the number of Captain positions from twenty-one (21) to twenty-two (22) and abolishes the Captain-Logistics Maintenance Officer position. The total Civil Service numbers also reflect the additional fifteen (15) Firefighters approved in the budget for Fire Station #7 increasing the previous sixty-six (66) Firefighter positions to eighty-one (81). However, the 15 additional positions will remain vacant until filled in September 2005. The total authorized Fire Department Civil Service positions will now be 147. Following are the proposed Fire Department number changes to Ordinance No. 2004- 001, which the City Council approved on January 6, 2004. CLASSIFICATION NUMBER Fire Chief 1 Deputy Fire Chief 1 Battalion Chief-Operations 5 Battalion Chief-Information Services 1 Captain 24 22 Driver 36 Firefighter (and Recruits) 66 81 TOTALS ,~,.,~ ~ '~ 147 Police Department: The Police Department was allocated five (5) additional police officer positions in the 2004-2005 budget process. The total authorized Police Department Civil Service positions will now be 142. Following are the proposed Police Department number changes to Ordinance No. 2004- 001, which the City Council approved on January 6, 2004. CLASSIFICATION NUMBER Chief of Police 1 Captain 3 Lieutenant 7 Sergeant 15 Police Officer (and Recruits) 111 116 TOTALS ~,-~ ~ '~ 142 FISCAL IMPACT There will be no additional fiscal impact due to the fact that all proposed changes are in the approved FY 2004/2005 budget. Respectfully submitted, Ross Chadwick Fire Department ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-001 PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE OFFICER; PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS iN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTER; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on January 6, 2004, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 2004-001 to implement the recommendation of the Fire fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Denton, Texas, upon the recommendation and request of the Director of Civil Service, Denton Police Department and Denton Fire Department, adopting and approving a schedule of Authorized Positions which relates to compensation and classification of police officers and fire fighters; and WHEREAS, since the passage of Ordinance No. 2004-001, the Fire Department has determined that this ordinance needs to be amended to more correctly reflect the total number of Fire Department positions: add one Deputy Fire Chief position; abolish the Division Chief position; abolish the Captain-Logistics Maintenance Officer position; add one Captain position; add fifteen Firefighter (and Recruits) positions; and WHEREAS, since the passage of Ordinance No. 2004-001, the Police Department has determined that this ordinance needs to be amended to more correctly reflect the total number of Police Department positions: add five Police Officer (and Recruits) positions; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 2004-001 is hereby amended by adopting the schedule prescribing the number of positions for each classification of police officer and fire fighter in the City of Denton, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 2. That Ordinance No. 2004-001 and all prior ordinances or resolutions of the City of Denton, Texas, in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION 3. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. &\Our Docu me nt s\Ordinlmce s ~D4\Fke and P~>lice p~itions.DOC PASSED AND APPROVED this the __ day of .,2005. EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT A CITY OF DENTON SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS POLICE DEPARTMENT The Police Department is authorized 142 positions as follows: Chief of Police Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Police Officer (and Recruits) TOTAL I 3 7 15 116 142 FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department is authorized 147 positions as follows: Fire Chief Deputy Fire Chief Battalion Chief-Operations Battalion Chief-Info Services Manager Captain Driver Fire Fighter (and Recruits) TOTAL 1 1 5 1 22 36 81 I47 AGENDA DATE: DEPARTMENT: CM: AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET January 4, 2005 City Manager's Office Mike Conduff, City Manager SUBJECT Consider nominations/appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND The following is a list of current board/commission vacancies: Planning and Zoning Commission - Bob Powell has resigned. This is a nomination for Council Member Redmon. Community Development Advisory Committee - Charlye Heggins was nominated at the meeting of December 7, 2004. If you require any further information, please let me know. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary S:kAgenda Items\Board-Commission vacancies.doc