Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-1986 ai tv%l d pt A Qj)u9~.SIt ~ 9,19 g ~ AGBNllA CITY OF DBNTON CITY COUNCIL August 19, 1986 Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 5:30 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 5:30 p.m. 11 Receive the final version of the 1986 Denton Citizen's Survey and discuss the results. 2. Review and continuation of the selection process for the municipal Judge. 31 Consider appointments to the Special Citizens Advisory Committee on capital improvements. 4. Consider appointments to the Board of Advisors of Flow Regional Medical Center. 5. Discussion with City Attorney. 6. Executive Session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A*T.S. B, Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S. (see item N2, 03, #S) Joint Meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Cable TV Advisory Board on Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 6:00 p.®. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 6:00 p.m. 11 Discussion of procedures to be utilized by the Cable TV Advisory Board in examining the new franchise for cable TV service in the City of Denton. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Two Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 19, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 7:00 p.m. 11 Presentation of a gift to the City of Denton from Mayor John Tilley, Tea Tree Gulley, South Australia, to be presented by Rev. Roger Hollar of Denton. 2. Presentation of Dollar-A-Day (DAL) awards to City of Denton employees. 31 Public Hearings: A. S-6. Petition of Donny Doster requesting approval of a specific use permit in a single family (SF-10) zoning district to permit the development of a 208 bed nursing home on a 4.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 1,S00 feet north of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive). The property is further described as a tract in the R. Beaumont Survey, Abstract 51. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 14 Adoption of an ordinance approving a specific use permit to permit the development of a 208 bed nursing home on a 4.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet north of U.S. Highway 380 (University Drive). B. Z-1818. Petition of Dimension Development Company requesting an amendment to a planned development (PD-19/PD-82) - and approval of a concept plan for the single family (SF-10), single family (SP-7), cluster housing and park areas located east of Lillian MiliRr Parkway at the intersection of Teasley Lane (FM 2141). The 161.7 acres was zoned planned development by ordinance 84-109 and permits the development of cluster, multi-family, general retail, single family - 10,000 square feet, single family - 7,000 square feet, office, park and a community facility site. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Three The amendment would change three areas: 15.00 acres - Prom: Cluster housing with a total of 120 units To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 30.39 acres - From: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 28.53 acres - From: Cluster housing with a total of 314 units To: Cluster housing with a total of 335 units (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 11 Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment to a planned development (PO-19/PD-82) and approval of a concept plan for the single family (SF-10), single family . (SF-7), cluster housing and park areas. C. Z-1819. Petition of Jack Price, representingg Fii~Texas Medical, Inc., requesting approval of a detailed plan and preliminary plat on 4.849 acres of a planned development (PD-1). The property is located at 2026 West University and shown in the Robert Beaumont Survey, No. 31. If approved, the development of a psychiatric hospital could be permitted with standards as shown on the detailed plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 1. Adoption of an ordinance approving a detailed plan and preliminary lat on 4,849 acres of a planned development tPD-1). D. Z-1820. Petition of Whtsenant Properties requesting a change in zoning frcm the agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD) district and approva'1 of a concept pplan on a 60.2 acre tract located on the south s}de of East McKinney St,det (FM 426) approximately 650 feet west of Loop 288. The property is further described in the M. Yoachum Survey, Abstract 1442, and the Mary L. Austin Survey, Abstract 4. If approved, the planned development will permit the following land uses: City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Four Parcel A - Garden Office - 5.77 acres Parcel B - Two Family (Duplex) - 14621 acres - 130 total units with a density of 9.15 units per acre Parcel C - Single Family Attached - 40.02 acres 478 total units with a density of 11.95 units per acre (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial.) E. Z-1832. Petition of City of Denton re uesting an amm`ent of an existing planned development (PD-60), and approval of a eevised detailed plan, on L! a 12.08 acre tract located on the east side of Audra Lane approximately 152 feet north of Paisley Streot. The property is further described as a tract in the Jonathan Brock Survay, Abstract SS. If approved, the amendment will change the rear yard setback from a 30 foot minimum to a 1S foot minimum building setback. ('The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 1. Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment of an existing planned development (PD-60) and approval of a revised detailed plan. F. Hold a public hearing concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 132.64 acres of land being part of the G. Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and part of the W. Durham Survey, Abstract No. 300, and beginning at a point approximately one mile south of FM 426 (East McKinney) and 1 1/2 miles north of I-35b. (A-37) G. Hold a public hearing concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 23.6420 acres of land being part of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and beginning adjacent and north of Edwards Road approximately S mile east of Mayhill Road and S mile west of Swisher Road. (A-41) 4. Receive a staff analysis of a revised concept plan on the request of Mel R. Lacquement for a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned development (PD) classification. The property consists of 412.12 acres located on the west side of FM 2164 approximately 1,850 feet north of Hercules Lane. (Z-1815) City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Five S. Consent Agenda: Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of -the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment under the Ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back-u information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items 6«A, 6.B). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss any item prior to approval of the ordinance. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. P.U. 074672 - Robert Filters Corporation - $14,101,IU 2. P.O. 074752 - General Electric Company - $32,596.00 3. Bid 09640 - Repair Cooling Towers Be Plats and Replats: 1. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the Denton Square Shopping Center Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Green and Moore Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 38 Approval of preliminary plat of the Holbert-Wyatt Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 4. Approval of final replat of the Kiowa Trail Estates Addition, Lots 1-10, Block A. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Six C. Contract. Consider approval of a lease between the City of Denton and Doris M. Shiflet for office space at 110 W, Oak. 61 Ordinances: A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. B. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. C. Consider approval of an ordinance that authorizes an increase in the number of certified police officers. 0 D. Consider approval of an ordinance for proposed oversize agreement with Greenfield-Woods Addition, Owner Teasley Road Associates, Denton, Texas, and/or their Assigns for a New Sanitary Sewer Line. 7. Resolutions: A. Consider approval of a resolution requesting that the Federal Communications Commission expedite its hearing process in the allocation of MHz bands 821-825 and 886-870 for use by public safety agencies. B, Consider approval of a resolution in support of Denton filing for an application for a grant from the Texas Water Development Board to study regional water needs for communities and non incorporated areas in Denton County and supporting Denton serving as the administrator for such grant on behalf of the "Water for the Future Committee for Denton County." . C. Consider approval of a resolution for condemnation of approximately 0.5011 acres (located in South McCracken Survey, Abstract No. 817) needed for Stuart Road Right-of-Way between Juno and Loop 288 from Joseph J. Tallal Development. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Seven 81 Consider approval of a proposal to allow the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Denton to approve and sign the promulgation statement and the City of Denton Emergency Management Plan in accordance with the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 and City Ordinance #65.48, Civil Defense (Chapter 91 Tabled Items: A. V-30. Petition of Don M. Bryant requesting a v! arTance of provisions of the City of Denton Subdivision and Land Development Regulations requiring sidewalk, paving, curb and gutter, and drainage improvements for perimeter streets adjacent to proposed subdivisions. Two 3.0 acre lots located adjacent and west of Hickory Hill Road between Gibbons Road and FM 1830 are proposed. The property is located in the City'of Denton s area of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and single family development is anticipated. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial.) 10. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 110 New Business: This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 12. Consider appointment to the North Texas Higher Education Authority. 130 Consider authorizing the Mayor to establish a Senior Citizens Opportunities Committee. 14. Executive Session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Eight is. Official Action on hxecutive Session Items; A. Legal Matters B. Real Estate C. Personnel/Board Appointments C E R T I F I C A T E 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 . rE! --day of 1986 at o'clock .m. {p.m. 2341C X14XKGENCY AGENDA ADDESDUM CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL August 19, 1986 The emergency and urgent necessity of this item being the consideration of a resolution in oppposition to reduce funding to higher education. 1. Consider approval of a resolution in oppposition to reduce funding to higher education. C E R T I F I C A T E I cartif y that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin and at the Gity all of the City o Penton, Texas, on the day of , 1986 at !fie) o'clock r GI BECK T R , 23450 t a I .i ` k AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL August 19, 1986 Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 5:30 p.m. 1. Receive the final version of the 1986 Denton Citizen's Survey and discuss the results. 2. Review and continuation of the selection process for the Municipal Judge. 31 Consider appointments to the Special Citizens Advisory Committee on capital improvements. 4. Consider appointments to the hoard of Advisors of Flow Regional Medical Center. 5. Discussion with City Attorney. 6. Executive Session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A,T.S. B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6254:-17 V.A,T.S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under See. 2(g), Art 6252-17 V.A.'F.S. (see item 02, N39 05) Joint Meeting of the City of Denton City Council and the Cable TV Advisory Board on Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 6:00 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 6:00 p,m. 1. Discussion of procedures to be utilized by the Cable TV Advisory Board in examining the new franchise for cable TV service in the City of Denton. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Two Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, August 19, 1986, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Municipal Building at which the following items will be considered: 7:00 p.m. 1. Presentation of a lift to the City of Denton from Mayor John Tilley, Tea 'f'ree Gulley, South Australia, to be presented by Rev. Roger Fiollar of Denton. 2. Presentation of Dollar-A-Day (DA.D) awards to City of Denton employees, 3. Public Hearings: A. S-6, Petition of Donny Doster requesting approval of a specific use permit in a single fancily (SF-10) zoning district to permit the development of a 208 bed nursing home on a 4.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet nol:th of U,S, Highway 380 (University Drive), The property is further described as a tract in the R, Beaumont Survey, Abstract 51. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 11 Adoption of an ordinance approving a specific Ise 1)ermit to permit the development oi, a bed nursing home on a 4.9 acre trace loc-lted on the west side of Carroll Boul.c yard, approximately 1,500 feet north of U.S. }i1&hwgy 380 (University Drive), B. Z-1818. Petition of Dimension Development Company requesting an amendment to a planned development (YD-19/PD-82) and approval of a concept plan for the single family (SF-10)0 single family (SF-7), cluster housing and park areas located east of Lillian Miller Parkway at the intersection of Teasley Lane (FM 2181). The 161.7 acres was zoned planned development by ordinance 84-109 and permits the development ul cluster, multi-family, general retail, single family - 10,000 square feet, single family - 7,U00 square feet, office, park and a community facility site, City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page 't'hree The amendment would change three areas: 15.00 acres - From: Cluster housing with a total of 120 units To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 3U.39 acres - From: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 28.53 acres - From: Cluster housing with a total of 314 units To: Cluster housing with a total of 339 units (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 1. Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment to a planned development (Pli-19/PD-82) and approval of a concant plan for the single family (SF-10), single family (SF-7;, cluster housing and park areas. C, Z-1819. Petition of Jack Price, representing First Texas .Medical, Inc., requesting approval of a detailed plan and preliminary plat on 4.849 acres of a planned development (PL-1). The property is located at 2026 West University and shown in the Robert Beaumont Survey, No, 31. if aipProved, the development of a psychiatric hospital would be permitted with standards as shown on the detailed plan. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 11 Adoption of an ordinance approvingg a detailed plan and preliminary plat on ~l.849 acres of a planned development (PD-1). D, L-1820, Petition of Whisenant Properties requesting a change in zoning prom the agricultural (A) classification to the planned development (PD) district and approval of a concept plan on a 60,2 acre tract located on the south side of bast McKinney Street (FM 426) approximately 650 feet west of Loop 2881 The property is further described in the M, Yoachum Survey, Abstract 1442, and the Mary L. Austin Survey, Abstract 4. If approved, the planned development will permit the following land uses: City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page, ' our Parcel A - Garden Office - 5.77 acres Parcel B - Two Family (Duplex) - 14.21 acres . 130 total units with a density of 9.15 units per acre Parcel C - Single Family Attached - 40.02 acres - 478 total units with a density of 11.95 units per acre (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends dental.,) E. Z-1832. Petition of City of Denton re uesting an acne 3ment of an existing planned development (PD-60), and approval of a revised detailed plan, on a a 12.08 ache tract located on the east side of Audra Lane approximately 152 feet north of Paisley Street.. The property is further described as a tract in the Jonathan Brock Survey, Abstract 55. If approved, the amendment will change the rear yard setback from a 30 foot. minimum to a 15 foot minimum building setback. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 11 Adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment of an existing planned development (PD-60) and approval of a revised detailed plan. F. Hold a public hearing concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 132.64 acres of land being part of the G. Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and part of the W. Durham Survey, Abstract No. 300, and beginning at a point approximately one mile south of FM 426 (Bast McKinney) and 1 1/2 miles north of I-35E. (A-37) G. }cold a public hearing concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 23.6420 acres of land being part of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and beginning ad)acent and north of Edwards Road approximately .5 mile east of Mayhill Road and .5 mile west of Swisher Road. (A-41) 4. [receive a staff analysis of a revised concept plan on the request of Mel R. Lacquement for a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned development (PD) classification. The property consists of 412.12 acres located on the west side of NM 2164 approximately 1,850 feet north of Hercules Lane. (Z-1815) City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Five 5. Consent Agenda: Bach of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment under the Ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back-up information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items .A, 6.B). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss any item prior to approval of the ordinance. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. P.O. #74672 - Robert Filters Corporation - $14,101.10 21 N.U. #74752 - General hlectric Company - $32,596.00 3. Bid #9640 - Repair Cooling Towers B. Plats and Replats: 1. Approval of preliminary and final replat of the Denton Square Shopping Center Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 2. Approval of preliminary plat of the Green and Moore Addition. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 30 Approval of preliminary plat of the Holbert-Wyatt Addition, Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) 4. Approval of final replat of the Kiowa Trail Estates Addition, Lots 1-10, Block A. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.) City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Six C. Contract: Consider approval of a lease between the City of Denton and Doris M. Shiflet for office space at 110 W. Oak. 6. Ordinances: A. Consider adoption of nn ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. B. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials, equippment, supplies or services in accordance with the prov13ions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. C. Consider approval of an ordinance that authorises an increase in the number of certified police officers. D. Consider approval of an ordinance for proposed oversize agreement with Greenfield-Woods Addition, Owner Teasley Road Associates, Denton, Texas, and/or their Assigns for a New Sanitary Sewer Line. 7. Resolutions: A. Consider approval of a resolution requesting that the Federal Communications C)mmission expedite its hearing process in the allocation of MHz bands 821-825 and 886-870 for use by public; safety agencies. B. Consider approval of a resolution in support of Denton filing for an application for a grant from the Texas Water Development Board to study regional water needs for communities and non incorporated areas in Denton County and supporting Denton serving as the administrator for such grant on behalf of the "Water for the Future Covamittee for Denton County." C. Consider approval of a resolution for condemnation of approximately 045011 acres (located in South McCracken Survey, Abstract No. 817) needed for Stuart Road Right-of-Way between Juno and Loop 288 from Joseph J. Tallal Development, City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Seven 8. Consider approval of a proposal to allow the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Denton to approve and sign the promulgation statement and the City of Denton Emergency Management Plan in accordance with the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 and City Ordinance #65-48, Civil Defense (Chapter 7). 9. 't'abled Items: A. V-300 Petition of Don M. Bryant requesting a variance of provisions of the City of Denton Subdivision and Land Development Regulations requiring sidewalk, paving, cur' and gutter, and drainage improvements for ;rimeter streets adjacent to proposed subdivisions. Two 3,0 acre lots located adjacent and west of Hickory Hill Road between Gibbons Road and NM 1830 are proposed. The property is located in the City of Denton s area of extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and single family development is anticipated. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial.) 100 Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 11. New Business: This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 12. Consider appointment to the North Texas Higher Education Authority. 13. Consider authorizing the Mayor to establish a Senior Citizens Opportunities Committee. 14. Executive Session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V. A. T. S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art 6252 17 V.A.T.S. City of Denton City Council Agenda August 19, 1986 Page Eight 15. Official Action on bxecutive Session 'Items: A. Legal Matters H. Real Estate C. Personnel/Hoard Appointments C E R T 1 P I C it T E 1 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, 1986 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY gliCKEIKRY 2341C " :3 DATE:July 29, CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT 1986 TO: Mayor and Meebers of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: 1986 Denton Citizen's Survey RECOMMENDATION: None SUMMARY: Attached for review and discussion is the 1986 Denton Citizen's Survey. BACKGROUND: For a number of years, a survey of the attitudes and opinions of the Citizens of Denton has been prepared to assist Council and staff in their strategic planning process. The 1986 survey gives particular emphasis to registered voters. PROGRX4S DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: All City departments use the information gained through th s survey '.n their planning processes. FISCAL IMPACT. None Respectfully submitted: f J. pared Lloyd Barre 11 , My M,i n ger Bryan tuar T la Administrative Assistant Approv i Name Be cKean TitleAssi taut City Manager 1!~ ottan atim •uevey Uses J. also$ July 1986 During the months of June and July 1996, a citizen survey was designed and administered by James J. Glass, independent consultant for the City of Denton. The 1996 citizen survey is the eighth successive citizen survey conducted by Dr. Glass for the city. As a result of the city council's and city staff's continuing commitment to the survey project, the opportunity to compare citizen evaluations and opinions over time now exists. The report is divided into six major sectionst methodology, sample characteristics, city services, city administration, development of Denton, and Denton as a place to live. ?L'rF AOY A similar methodology to that used to pat surveys was employed for the 1996 project. Again, a systematic random sample was selected as the most appropriate design for the study. To obtain a representative sample of all adult residents in the city, 370 completed interviews were needed. The actual size of the sample drawn was inflated to 900 to talcs into account non-working numbers, inappropriate numbers, refusals, and no contacts, The sample was selected from the most recent edition of the Denton telephone directory. After selection, the 900 numbers were then randomly divided among eight interviewers. The interviewers were recruited and trained by the consultant. ?raining consisted of three basic elements, First, interviewers wore informed about details of the survey. Such items as the reasons for doing the survey, the concept of a random sample, and the administration of the survey weir discussed. second, telephone interviewing methods were presented. The interviewer's attitude, methods of conducting an interview, interviewing 1 problems, and standard procedures were covered. Finally, the questionnaire was discussed with the trainees, Cach question was examined and the 9WIfic instructions on the questionnaire were explained, The interviewers were provided with written material on the interviewing proms, and they were instructed to conduct several practice interviews, All of the interviewers had previous interviewing experience to they were familiar with survey research and interviewing techniques. The interviewing was conductecl over a period of eight days from June 2 to June 111 1968• All of the interviswing was conducted in the City of Demon's Municipal Building under the supervision of the consultant, Three hundred and ninety-nine usable interviews were obtained. The number of responses exceeds the target number, to the survey population should be representative of Denton's adult population, As with past surveys, the data are presented in tabular form with some descriptive comments and only preliminary interpretation and evaluation. The obJectives are to secure overall citizen perceptions and to identify particular concerns for detailed evaluation by city officials, The analysis of the data involved two steps. rirst, the observed frequencies or percentages for each question were calculated, These frequencies are displayed in the text as the percent responding "yes" or "no" or "excellent," "good," "fair," or "poor" to a question. Upon completion of the first step, each question was then cross-tatxdated with the following eight chomterist ics 1. Length of residence 2. owner-renter status 3. Age 4, Cducation 2 5. Income 6. Ethnic group 7, Voter registration 8. Sex The eight characteristics comprise a set of Independent variables that could help to explain variations among responses of the resida*s, several of the characteristics proved to be useful in selected instances. In each of the following sections, the 1986 survey results are compared with past survey data whwn possible. Comparisons an ask only when the questions asked were the same or similar. When 1986 results are presented alone, either the question was not asked previously or its wording was altered significantly. SAi's IZ CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 presents a summary of the descriptive characteristics of the sample. Data on most of these characteristics were also gathered in previous surveys. As in the other surveys, Denton my be described generally as a predominantly white, middle- to upper-income, well-educated community. The respondents are divided fairly evenly between those 35 years of age and younger and those who are 36 and older, Additionally, there is a significant percentage (15.7) who are 61 and older. A majority of respondents (59.8 percent) owned their own hose. That Denton is a stable community is evidenced by the fact that 18,3 percent of the sample stated they had lived in Denton for 6 to 10 yearn and 40,6 percent stated they had lived In Denton for more than 10 years. The high percentage of home ownership and the percentage of long-term residents are contributing factors to Denton's stability, A majority of Denton residents-(63 percent) work in the city, Seventy-nine percent of the residents are registered to vote, 3 TABLE 1 Saw t e Cheracter 1 st• , -ts Characteristics percent !~!t l.~4~ Lam! .lYQ3. J.~1 Age 16-25 2017 17.5 20.5 2315 26.0 22.9 26-35 3111 28.3 27.5 28.0 2602 2316 36-45 1017 1916 17.8 1619 13.7 18.1 46-60 1349 1846 14.6 16.4 1613 1648 61 and Over IS/7 1610 1917 16.2 17.8 18.6 Sex Male 3702 3911 45.8 454 4409 44.2 Famo1 @ 6268 6049 34.2 5600 5406 $507 Rees White 9113 8843 8919 8814 Be.B 884 Black 414 609 6.3 7.1 6.1 S12 Hispanic 2,3 2,4 116 1/S 313 304 Other 2►1 214 2.2 3.0 1.8 108 Homeownership own 59.8 61.4 95.8 $914 54.7 57.2 Rent 40.2 38.6 44.2 40.6 4503 42.7 Income Lest than $5.000 516 7.5 706 10.5 9,7 9.4 150000-190999 914 7.8 11.6 11.3 15.8 1901 110000-1149999 1306 1109 131'5 14.8 16.9 1140 $lSo000-124.999 16.1 21.9 23.5 1919 20.8 24.3 1259000 and Over - 36.2 125,000-134.000 21.9 19.7 18.3 17.5 1664 135400-1499000 1617 2010 1543 1119 1312 $50400 and Over 16.7 till 1011 1400 7,2 4 TAM 1 CWT Sample Characteristics Characteristics Percent ML M Im Education Less Than 8 Years )10 005 4.6 4.1 311 2.5 Some High School 315 3.9 S.4 300 5.6 646 High School Graduate 194 22.0 204 24.6 21.2 18.3 home College 2913 3301 24.9 20.0 24.3 28.4 College Graduate 47.0 40.4 23.2 26.6 23.8 1910 Some Graduate School/ 21.4 21.8 21.9 24.6 Graduate Degree Registered to Vote yy~es 79o2 Mo 20.8 • - r.. rr Length of Residence 3-12 Months 513 8.3 819 7.8 7.3 5.5 1-5 Years 35.6 31.5 35.2 34,7 3319 35.0 6-10 Years 1813 17.4 17.5 15.0 1717 15.3 More Than 10 Years 40.6 42.7 3814 42.3 41.4 4308 Household !ember Handicapped yes 5.1 5.0 6.5 5.1 7.6 No 9419 9510 93.5 94.9 92.4 Place of Work Denton 63.0 76.7 7613 78.8 84.4 Dallas 9.7 8.3 14.3 7,3 613 rort Worth 016 010 0.8 2.9 1.6 L Wisville 411 2.3 0.8 4.4 1.6 Other 22.6 12.9 7,9 6.2 6.1 5 _ ._Wrr. rv,^....... , rte. ati 9% it The similarity awaq the percentages of the various characteristics over the six surveys is a very positive sign. In almost all cares, the percentages associated with the categories of each characteristic vary by seven percent or less, and in most cases five percent or less. As a result of the similar percentages obtained oar the six surveys, we can be incraaeingly oanfident that each sample was representative of the adult population of Denton. CITY SMICEB The largest rrwber of survey questions concerned services provided by the city. This section of the report presonts responses to the service questions. Included are the following services or service concerns. 1. Streets 2. Recreation, Parks, and Libraries 3, Garbage Collection 4. Emergency Services 5. Animal control 6. Service Ratings 7. Service Reductions 8. Financing Future Services Streets Although respondents continue to rate Canton's street and rose surfaces as less than good as may be seen in Table 2, there appears to be a significant increase in those rating streets as "mostly good" from 1985 to 1986. Library and Recreational Services Respondents were asked whether they ha+, used the Denton Public Library in the past 11 months and $1.0 percent said they had used the library. More 6 TABLE 2 Cond i t I Oil of Street and Road Surfaces (NoMIQ' Ratinq Percent 9„x,86 19~65 1984 INIII 1942 l "I (food All Over 0.8 O.S 2.1 1.3 4.3 I.B Mostly Good 41.9 24.4 3819 44.3 43.9 4113 Many Bad Spots 57.3 75.1 5819 54.4 5118 51.8 'Ail N's art for the 1986 survey. 7 Ur, owners than renters (6105 percent to S0.0 percent) were am likely to use the libraryo in addition. library use increased with educstim, !hose respondents who used the library were asked to rate the services offend. The results are presented in Table 3 slag with the rw*lnps from previous surveys. The results since 1912 should be sore accurate then those of previous surveyst since in the two pee-I"2 aucvhrs all respondentse, not just mare, were asked to rate library services. The 1*6 results indicate a somewhat higher percentage of respondents who rate the library services as "excellent." howevert the combined excellent and good ratings approximate the ratings of prior years. fore owners (S0.3 percent) than renters (33.3 percent) rated library services as "excellent." Respondents were than asked whether or not they or members of their family had used any of Denton's park or recreational facilities during the past 12 months and 63.0 percent said that they had. We of park and recreational facilities was higher asarg renters than homeowners, those in the 18-45 age group, and males, Recreational facility users than were asked to rate the facilities. Again, the results are presented along with previous survey ratings (see Table 4), As with the library ratings, the park and recreational ratings since 1982 should be sore accurate because only users were asked to rata the facilitieso As with the library ratings, there is an increase in those rating park and recreational facilities as "excellent," However, u with libraries, the combined excellent and good ratings approximate the ratings given in prior surveys. Homeowners rated the facilities higher than did renters, thirty-one percent of the owners rated the facilities as "excellent" compared to 23.5 percent of the renters who responded similarly. 8 TR,:: Itrt I nV of l 1 br,4ry Serv I ces (N•222) Rating Percent .19NA AM 1961 Excellent 44.1 3813 50.5 41.4 47.9 22.7 Good 48.6 54.1 4610 4913 49.1 58.7 Fair 5,4 717 3.5 8.4 7.S 14.5 Poor 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.6 4.1 9 M TABLE 4 Rating of Pork and Racreatlonal Facilities (N•247) Rat Irq Percent Excellent 28.3 22.5 32.6 23.0 20.9 23.7 Good 61.9 62.9 S6.S 6311 6414 57.1 Fair 8.1 12.9 10.5 12.4 13.4 14.7 Poor 116 1.7 0.4 1.5 113 2.1 10 tiatbape collection ft city's solid waste collection service is rated favorably by respondents. In the'1986 survey respondents were asked to Me trash and garbps collection as excellent-to-poor (see Table in prior surveys respondents were asked to report how many tines collectors atssed pickups (see Table 6). Respondents also were asked whether they would favor a reduction in garbage pickups from twice to once a week, if the money saved froa the reduction was used to pay for city cleanup and beautification prnmg ms. rorty-your percent of the respondents supported a reduction in pickups. Support for reduced pickups declined with length of residence, was higher amaq renters then owners (56.1 percent to 383 percent), and was favored more by non-registered voters than by those registered (52.1 percent to 62.2 percent). Emergency Services Questions were asked about police, fire and ambulance services and the responses are reported here under the general heading of emergency services. The first question asked whether respondents had requested the services of Denton's Police Oepartment during the put 12 months and 36.3 percent reported contact. Renters contacted the police more often than homeowners (63.0 percent to 31.1 percent) and whites had more frequent contacts than blacks 37.2 percent to 23.5 percent). Those who had contact were asked to rate the services provided by the police department. The results are shown in Table 7. In 1966, there was a slight increase in those responding "good" and a decrease in those responding "fair" or "poor." Excellent ratings were more likely amog homeowners (66.6 percent) than renters (17.9 percent). A higher percentage of females than males rated the 11 1 TABLE 3 Trash and Garbaps Collection Ratirps f11•3B1 ~ Rattrop Rara~nt Excellent 26.2 Good 5506 Fair 1!.s Poor 3.7 12 TNU 6 Grab "s Collsctlon Missed Timn Missed Ptresr,! _0 3 JM 1 I None 72.3 70.7 83.0 78.2 all's 1-2 17.9 1849 9,3 1467 13.2 3-4 449 7.2 441 340 l46 5 or "or* 4.9 3.3 346 340 307 13 TAN.[ 7 PoIIce Oswbon! Servlcs (No 1411) Responses Percent 9986 1"S 1964 1983 962 Excellent 32.4 3217 42.2 38.9 3668 Good 37.2 32.7 32.1 47.8 40.1 Fair 1616 18.8 11.9 8.8 1917 Poor 13.8 15.8 13.8 4.4 3.3 14 police service as "excellent" (30.3 percept to 17,0 pope nt). Respondents nho had contacted the police wiere also asked to rate the officer who responded to their call. Zhe officer ratings are rtwented in Table 0. The ratings of services provided by officers we higher in the excensrt category than these given police department service. The increase observed in those rating the officers as "poor" in 1985 seems to have been reversed, ift► a more and females again rated the off icers better than did their counterpartse rorty-nine percent of the owners and 63.6 percent of the females rated officers as "excellent" compared to 30.3 percent of the renters and 27,7 percent of the galas, Respondents were than asked several questions about Denton's crime prevention program. Responses to all the questions asked about the crime prevention program are summarized in Table 9. Respondents were first asked whether they were aware of the program, in the 1986 survey, 7d.i peresn said they were "aware." The 1996 percentage, while somewhat lower than previous years, is not significantly different from those responding "aware" in 1986 and 1993= the 19860 1985, 1996 and 1993 percentages represent a substantial increase over the percent responding "aware" in 1992. NoMeowners were more likely then renters to be aware of the crime prevention program (86,3 percent compared to 65.2 percent). Awareness increased with Income, Reported participation in the crime prevention program was similar'in the 1986 and 1995 surveys. Homeowners, longer-term resident.,k, whites and those with higher incomes were more likely to participate than their counterparts, Those who participated were asked which program they were involved with and all said, "neighborhood watch," All those who wets awe of the crime prevention program were asked whether they felt safer because of the program, and 32.0 percent said they did 15 .•-ice _ f'l.r,'-. F . , m.:-, . , - TAME A Ratinps of Pollee Officers (HE14t? Responses Percent 1984 I9e3 ExceIIent 4014 41.2 55.2 52.3 Good 3619 26.8 24.8 37.4 Falr 10.6 12.4 13.3 4.7 Poor 12.1 1916 6.7 5.6 i 16 TAKE 9 Oenton's Crime Prevent l on Proven Aware of Program (NO107) Percent 9996 i 5 5984 9 Yes 78.1 82.3 81.7 81.2 47.7 No 21.9 17.7 1813 18.8 52.3 Participation In Program Percent (N•305) im LIM IM M I= Yes 1810 20.0 2711 26.6 1469 No 8210 80.0 72.9 7304 8561 Safer Because of Crime Percent Prevention (N•273) 986 1986 1984 1983 1982 Safer 3210 34.5 4518 34.7 35.0 Same 61.8 63,4 52.7 63.3 6219 Less Safe 6,2 2.1 1.5 2.0 2,1 17 TAKC 9 CWr Demon's Crime Pmentl4i Mom Interested In Lsrmno Parcant Mora (M•267) 9"6 1985 1954 ign 1982 Yam 6519 66.3 65.4 62.0 64.7 No 34.1 33.7 34.6 38.0 35.3 Now NOW Am" of Proass Parcant (N•284) LM 1955 1984 1983 1982 Radio 700 5.4 Newspaper 18.3 23.7 Sipes 51.4 53.2 Ofclcer 9.9 5.4 Other 13.4 12.4 I 18 feel "safes." On incrwie In those who said they felt "lets safe" sbould be noted. Those who were not aware of tbi program and those who had not participated were asked if they would be interested In learning sore about the program and 65,9 percent aid they would be Interestedo rtnauy, resoondsrutI were asked hop they becasw -were of the arise prevention prosram and once "Win a majority (5194 percent) indicated they learned of the program through the neighborhood watch signs, with newspaper ads again running a distant second (18.3 percent). Mspandmia wen also asked how safe they felt walking alone In their neighborhoods at night. As Table 10 Illustrates, there appears to be a trend among those responding *very safe." The percent in the "very safe" category declined each year from 1960 to 1943; the slight reversal in 1984 was replaced with the lowest Fercenta" responding "very safe" in 1965, In 19860 a higher percentage responded "very safe" but the 1.8 percent increase from 1963 is not statistically different. There Is an observed net decrease of 17.6 percent in those who responded that they felt "very safe" from 1990 to 1985. Concurrently, the responses in the very unsafe category have remained relatively stable. Blacks, females and those in the 61 and above egos group felt less safe than their counterparts. Respondents were asked how often they saw a police patrol in their neighborhood. Thirteen percent responded they saw patrols *very often," 2S,6 percent said *often," 46.0 percent said "seldom," and 15,0 percent replied "never" (see Table 11), Blacks were much more likely to be aware of police patrols then were whites. rorty-seven percent of black respondents said they saw patrols *very often* compared to 11.6 percent of the white respondents, In the 1986 survey, those who said they seldom saw a patrol were asked how such that bothered them (see Table 11)9 Although black respondents reported 19 TAKE 10 SafatY of Me I ObWf lod {N•3!4) Rating Percent 1986 i m 964 1983 _82 1981 very Safi 2465 22.7 3567 33.2 3740 41.0 Saaewfiat Sala 3911 4004 36.8 4106 38.1 3216 Soaewhet unsala 21.6 25.1 13.2 13.3 13.3 1406 Very Ynsafa 1418 11.7 14.3 1109 917 11.8 20 TA" .J I I Pollee ftitrole See Prtrol Percent 1986 1985 1984 Very Often 13.4 11.9 15.0 Often 25.6 35.7 32.0 Seldom 4610 4103 4310 New 1500 11.1 1010 Bothered by Seldom or (ever Percent Seeing Patrol (N■232) 1986 1986 9^84 A lot 19.4 13.5 A tittle 37.9 47.4 Not At All 42.7 39.1 21 amino Patrols more often than did whites, those hUw* respondents who oakum saw patrols was mase likely to respond that 'ney wore bothered no lot" or "a little" (71.4 percent! then were whites (SS*$ paraintf. only 3.3 parcen of the respondents reported hewing called tbs.osntcn mire Department in the Past year and their ra UW of the service pnwU%d are displayed In Table ll. P1re service ratings bow varied over the six data points reported. Thaw variations are in pert a result of the small number who rate the service each year, but it appears the 1905 results may be" been a deviant eve. Similarly# those who called for an ambulance (6.3 percent) were salad to rate that service. As with fire service satires, the results have fluctuated over the six data points (see Table 13)► but in 1906 all respondents rated the ambulance service as "excellent" or "good." Animal Control In the 1966 survey, 20.4 percent of the respondents indicated that they had called the city about an animal control probl6m, Those whcp called about animal control were asked to rate the servicd. The 1986 reruits suggest a slut increase in the ratings over the 1985 and 1964 ratings (see Table 14). Service Ratings In this zection the responses to two questions about ten basic city services are presented, The first question iW;sd whether much, some, or no improvement was needed for each service and the second asked whether the service should be reduced if that were the only way to keep taxes and rates at their present levels. The responses to the question about service improvement are presented in Table 16, The responses are ranked from the higheat to the lowest based on the percent respwdim "much improvement," In the fourth colusn► headed ff 22 TPAU 12 ilre Service, petlna X11.18) . Itrt 1 no Percent MG 905 "4 1993 1902 ["I Excellent 69.2 40.0 64.7 5415 0517 02.6 Good 23.E 40.0 35.3 36.1 14.3 4.3 Fair 0.0 617 040 4.5 040 4.3 POW 7.7 13.3 010 4.S 0.0 617 23 TAKE 13 AmbuIonce Service Rhine ~Ib23) , O.t1nq P*resnt 1906 1905 ,1904 „903 X94„2 i 9~ Exc*il*nt 60.0 7609 5610 5911 75.0 6016 Good 40.0 1912 3610 40.9 20.0 3003 Fair 040 010 4.0 010 S.0 6.1 Poor 010 3.0 410 010 040 310 24 TABU 14 Anlrl Control fttlno (NOW) III!inos Pal wI lei tl011 l~e4 ExceIIant 22.4 211.4 23.1 20.0 1719 Good 3500 2319 26.2 4010 3715 Fair Igoe 23.4 te.s 1203 1719 Poor 2307 2504 32.3 27.7 2640 25 TPALI 15 Sarwica Its 19811 Rank Servia@ Much sow no If t E 1 Street Maintenance (10494) 47.5 4314 9.1 9019 2 Utility lulling (N•381) 1917 24.1 S612 43.8 3 Electric Services (N•385) 1448 2710 5862 4168 4 Police Protection (N•378) 1264 45.5 42.1 57.9 S Water Services (N•368) 766 19.6 7268 27.2 6 Sewr Services (N•367) 6.3 1913 74.4 25.6 7 GwIm" Collection (N•377) 5.6 28.1 66.3 33.7 e Fire Protection (16=297) 460 22.9 73.1 26.9 9 Parks/Recreation (10415) 3.2 39.4 57.5 42.6 10 Library Services (N.288) 1.4 23.6 75.0 25.0 26 S, the "mach ieWCW# m *v and "acme UPCOVeN wft" rseponses have been cured to obtain the total. PercwMoe Of raoondwrts hero felt the service nja !here is an obvious and sionifiant drop frog street nintwsanice Mere 473 percent stated "sssch ispeovesent" me heeded, to utility billimo Mere 19.7 percent responded similarly. 1:Ookb* at the 11 + s column, only for street maintenance (90.9 percent) and police protection (57.9 percwit) did a MdJOrlty see a need for "sloth" or "some loprowwent." And only for utility billing, electric services and parka and recreation did 40 percesst or man see the need for "some improvement." in 'tables No 17, 160 19, and 20, the service ratings obtained in 1963, 1964.•1963, 19112, and i961 are presented. The same ranking procedure discussed above we used in each of the other surveys. The most obvious conclusion that may be drew rn from the six data sets is that streets continue to be identified as a primary problem by a majority of residents, However, the percent responding that the streets needed "muff improvement" declined from 61.6 percent in 1985 to 47.5 percent in 1966. Shifts in the rankings for the other services have occurred over the six surveys, however the percentages involved in the much improvement category are relatively small and would suggest that residents do not view any of the other service areas u being major problems. When the hi + s column is examined, however, it should be noted that three service arcs, recreation, police protection, and garbage collection ranked the highest in each of the six surveys, with utility billing being added as s fourth high ranking service in the 1966 and 19115 surveys, and electric service moving up in 1966. Respondents were read the ten services again and they were asked whetter they would favor reducing any of them in order to keep taxes and rates the 27 TAME 16 Service la oveman 1 1906 ly~ie sorv I ca Nuch Sme No M t S 1 Street Neintenence 6116 3319 415 95.5 2 UiTl ity Sitting 15.0 28.9 5611 43.9 3 Electric Services 9.6 41.7 48.7 51.3 4 Pollce Protection S.7 28.2 63.1 3619 5 Water Services 6.8 22.7 70.4 2915 6 Sewer Services 6.6 37.2 56.2 43.8 7 Garbage Collection 6.2 22.8 71.1 29.0 8 fire Protection 3.8 47.9 48.3 51.7 9 Parks/Recreation 3.1 22.8 74.1 25.9 i0 Library Services 1.5 27.7 70IJ 29.2 28 TAKE 17 Service Isprovemmnts 1984 Rartlc Sarvlea "Loch so" No M + si l Street Haintaunce 46.7 43.5 7.8 92.2 2 Electric services 9.3 24.6 66,1 33.9 3 Mater Services 549 22.9 7111 28.8 4 Garbapa CoIiactIon $60 40.3 $319 46.1 5 Police Protection 5.6 40.6 5319 46.2 6 Sewer Sorv Ion 4.4 24.6 7008 28.2 7 ParksJPhcreation 311 43.4 53.5 46.5 11 library Services 106 27.2 71.1 28.11 29 TALE Is service lsapro"Mmts I9s3 Rea~it Service Nuch Saws No M ♦ 1) I Street lieintenence 49.4 14.8 519 9402 2 Electric Services 8.s 27.1 6411 35.9 3 Gerlmw Collection 603 3303 60.3 3906 4 Reereetionel Services 5.2 3908 5560 4310 5 Police Protection 319 3916 5605 43.5 6 Water Services 3.2 1915 77.3 224.7 7 Seaver Services 2.7 22.2 75.1 24.9 A Library Servfces 2.1 27.0 70.9 2961 9 Flre Protectlon 1.7 22.7 75.7 24.4 I 30 TAB[ 19 Service lorovownte 1962 Rank Service Much So" NO M t S I Street Maintenence 3669 52.3 1018 8902 2 Police 4.6 43.1 52.3 47.7 3 Gerbape Collection 366 28.4 6714 32.6 4 R.*creation 311 3743 40.4 5 lire 145 29.4 6911 30.9 6 library 0.8 243 7417 25,3 31 TAiL[ 20 Service Saprovowts 1961 dank Service Much So" No M ♦ 8 1 Street Maintwume 3609 5213 10.0 09.2 2 Police 4.6 43.1 52.3 52.3 3 Library A Recreation 444 30.5 57.2 42.9 4 fire 2.6 2916 67.0 3242 5 Garbs" CoIIOct Ian 2.1 3900 50.9 41.1 3~ ; v i "r. t E INtS r save se they are today. Its services are twit ftla the highest to lowest percent awing 'yes* in the 1"6 survey (see Table 21). As in the past, no service recorded a me3ority in favor of redaction. However, in the 1906 suswy in three service areas--0atl a Collection, pucks/recreation,. and the library--forty percent plus of the respondents favored reductions. indeed, in each of the ton areas mentioned, the percentage favoring reductions aims larger in 1906 then in 1985. Saw of the observed differences ware slight and others quite lame but regardless of the else of the difference, the pattern of greater over~C\l support for reduction is worthy of note. rinencing Future texwices in the 1946 survey, respondents were asked for the first time whether they would support capital improvement programs financed by the sale of municipal bonds in each of five areasi street improvements, drainage improvements, park. Sand acquisition, park development, and recreational facility development. In the question respondents were told that the issuance of bonds sometimes requires a tax increase. As may be sm in Table 22, for each area except park lanA acquisition a majority favored a botJ program. In two of the areas--street and drainage improvements--large aajori~ias were supportiveo streets (81,9 percent in favor) and drainage (74.5 percent in favor). The, patterns of responses among owners and renters, blacks and whites, and those registered to vote are interesting and are presented in Table 33. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, a higher percentage of renters are in favor of bond program in each area then are homtowners. The greater visabilitY of the tax burden to homeowars may explain these observed differences. Similarly, blacks are more in favor of booed programs in each area then are whites. Voter ro4:tration was included because of the virtual 33 TAMA 21 Percent Respoo Ing Service Should 8R Reduced Rank Service 1981 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 I Gerber CoIIactIan 43.2 21.4 1719 27.8 3061 24.7 (N.375) 2 ParksiRaereation 4103 34.8 3268 45.6 40.9 33.6 (4W363) 3 Library 4016 3919 29.2 38.2 38.4 33.6 (4.340) 4 Utliity Billing 36.2 32.9 (4062) S Electric Service 2S.3 1919 19.8 22.9 (4.371) 6 Water Service 22.1 1316 1367 1713 (4..366) 7 Sever Service 20.2 1061 1119 1317 (4067) 8 Street Maintenence 20.0 12.0 12.0 1510 19.7 12.0 (N•38'S ) 9 Poticm Protection 8.6 5.6 4.4 7.1 4.4 S.4 (N■ 384 ) 10 Fire Protection 712 4.6 310 518 3.7 3.4 (N■375) 34 11: . TANU 22 Mould yl -N por : A fond PrWm for Listed Aron? Area Percent yes Street IMprovownts (Nw364) A1.9 Ora i nage I vorovownts (N.364) 7405. Perk Land Aevulsitlon (N■364) 45.1 Pmt Osva l wmnt (WO) 54.0 ilecreatlonal Faclllty Developmot 56.5 (N•363) 35 TIBLE 23 Citizen Support For Municipal Bonds Resident Status Race Voter.Registr tion Areas Homeowne rs Y WnI 9 Streets Yes 76.4 89.9 81.8 87.5 83.0 00.5 No 23.6 10.1 18.2 12.5 17.0 19.5 Drainage Yes 71.5 78.2 73.1 87.6 75.2 72.4 No 28.5 21.8 26.9 12.5 24.8 27.6 Park Land Ves 40.2 51,7 44.5 56,3 43,9 80.6 No 49.8 48.3 $5.5 43.7 56.1 49.4 Park Development Yes 50.7 57.8 5?.9 62.5 54.1 53.8 No 49.3 42.2 47.1 31,6 46.9 46,2 Recreational Development Yes 52.4 62.2 55.4 6818 56.0 58.4 No 47.6 37.8 44.6 31.2 44.0 41.5 :T agreement betwos i the two groups In am* bpd area, aw law of v4Rwt for bond programs would seem to be gsnsr&Uy the same among registered voters and non-registered voterr► in another aossition related to finmcing and tamp roMmUnts were asked if they would favor a tax to help support r1ow HHnspital and 6S.8 percent said "yes." Tn VAS, 61.4 percent said they would favor .wh a t=11 CITY ADMHiMTTON In tAs section of the report, various aspects of city adtinistration are discussed. The topics include direct assessments of city opwe;: an and services that are being classified as aftinistrative. Respmndsnts wen asked whether they had contacted any' City officials about a complaint, a request for services, or for information in the past 12 months, and 28.3 percent said they hod contacted a city official. Tho" who had made a contact then were asked who they contacted, whether ttay ware satisfied with the results, and whether the individual was helpful. Txbila 24 presents the responses to all these questions.. The response patterns for the office contacted, the degree of satisfaction, and the opinion of the contact have remained relatively constant over the six surveys, although 4there was a 10 percent decline in those resPording "satisfied" from 1985 to 1996. in the 1986 survey, 75.0 percent of the blacks having contact were not satisfied with the results compared to 40.4 percent of the white respondents. Homeowners were less satisfied then were renters 0:7.4 percent to 24.5 percent). Since the 1982 survey, several questions about utility billing have been askeds rirst, respondents were asked whether they had experienced a problem with their utility bill in the past 12 months wd in 1901, 39.1 percent said they had experienced a problem. in all three surveri► incorrect billing was 31 ?AWC 24 Ccnteet With City Office Contacted (N•93) Prrcent 1996 65 1904 1og-% 1982 1 City Manager 917 5.8 8.2 1116 6.4 6.0 Playor or council 6.5 3.8 411 613 6.4 4.6 Police 615 20.22 8.2 613 12.8 11.9 Plaminq/Comity Dey. 9.7 12.5 Utility Service 33.3 34.6 30.1 43,2 32.1 30.5 Streets 6.5 Sanitation 6.5 Animal Control 413 r r Other 17.2 23.1 43.8 26.3 37.3 24.3 Satisfaction (N■lll) Percent 1986 1985 1984 x,983 1962 -1 91 Satisfied 59.5 69.6 54.0 75.8 71.2 67.3 Not Satisfied 33.3 78.7 33.3 23.2 21.2 31.5 Not Complete 7.2 1.7 2.7 1.0 7.5 1.2 Opinion of Contact (M•107) Percent IMA IM LW au LM Helpful 87.9 8814 81.1 87.8 86.1 83.0 Not Helpful 12.1 1116 1819 12.2 13.9 1710 38 ties the most common problem (Si.7 pirve t in 1196) followed by meter rWIM errors (17.5 percent in 1196). Mspondsnts squally contacted G»tomer ",vices (44.0 percent) and aw utility Department (44.5 percent) about the pres. rinally, res"Wents were asked if the problem wms satle!4vtortly resolved. in the 1996 survey, 47 percent said the problem was resolved. In each of the three, prior surveys, approcimately 53 percen of the respondents said the problem wa resolved. In a wwral question on city administration, respondents w : asked to rite the way the city was run. The results are presented In Table 25. TM results over the six surveys are consistent, the msiority of respondents continue to rate city administration as "good" to "excellent." •Respondents also were asked whether they had enough Information about the issues and problems faking Denton and Its citisens. The following responses were obtati.ed (see 'Cable 24) . The rercentage respo,rdinq positively has remained fairly constant over the six surveys. In 1956, homeowners and longer-term residents %ore more likely to respond "yes" thin the*ir counterparts. Respondents were asked whither they had used the free energy audit program offered by the city and 6.5 percent said they had used the service. of those who had not used the service, 31.4 percent said they were interested In participating in the program. DiMON AS A PLACE TO LIVE ?his section of the report presents the responses to a series of questions about Denton w a place to live. First, new residents (less then one year) were asked why they moved to Denton. Although there were only 21 people In this catebory, most said either a "job" (42.9 percent) or "college" 39 ?0M.O 25 Now Well Is Denton Run? (N•390) Rat t„ q Percent 1906 1905 1964 1903 19,02 1981 Excellent 9.5 9.9 loll 9.9 10.1 all Good 60.3 6145 61.2 67.9 6119 6019 Fair 75.9 25.1 24.0 1916 74.1 26..° Poor 4.4 3.S 4.7 2*0 3.9 4.2 40 TAKE 26 Oo You Maw Enouo 10~10"? ~M•896) Rosponsf Prrc~nt 996 9~89 1994 195 1982 !A t Yes 59.2 6013 62.9 5919 62.6 60.3 No 44.9 3917 37.0 41.1 37.3 39.5 i al . (3s.1 percent) cawed theme to move to Denton. A second question dealt with the appearance of neighborhoods. %Us 27 presents the responses to the question that asked respondents to rate their neighborhood in terms of cleanlinesse, quality of hooves, and general appearance. Homeowners were much more likely to rate their neighborhood me "excellent" than were renters (32.2 percent to 11.0 percent). OhItes were more likely to rate their neighborhoods as "excoU nt" then wetu blacks (27.0 percent to 5.9 percent). Respondents were asked about actions the city could take in order to N** Denton a more beautiful am pleasant place in which to lives specifically, respondents were asked about improving existing sidewwalks, adding more sidewalks, developing more attractive entrances to the city, erecting new "Welcome to Denton" signs, landscaping street medians, and planting more trees and shrubs. The responses to this series of questions are presented in Table 20. Respondents do not seen to bri too interested in the entrances to the city or signs welcoming visitors. However, large majorities support activities in the other four areas. Renters and black respondents were more favirable towards improving sidewalks and welcome signs than were their counterparts. Blacks were more supportive of adding more sidewalks and improving welcome signs than were whites, whites, on the other hand, were more supportive of landscaping than were blacks. Finally, support for landscaping and trees declined with 'length of residence. Respondents who said they favored any of the beautification progress were then asked if they would be willing to pay higher tav@s for these programR. A majority, 61 percent, would be willing to pay higher taxes. More renters (67.8 percent) than owners (56.3 percent), blacks (85.7 Percent) thorn whites (59.6 percent) and non-registered voters (67.9 percent) 42 TABLE 27 NO I SI A rf~ood Rat i ng {N•396) Rating Percent 1996 L"j 1964 199 I 1991 Excellent 25.0 24.1 24.3 24.9 25.3 24.2 Good 50.0 5017 48.1 51.5 51.0 46.7 Fair 21.2 22.0 21.1 21.1 20.4 23.2 Poor • 318 3.1 6.4 2.5 3.3 3.7 43 TABLE 28 Actions/Programs To Beautify Denton Program Yes No Improve Sidewalks (N■357) 69.2 30.8 More Sidewalks (N«371) 71.7 28.3 Attractive Entrances (01=385) 57.4 4216 New "Welcome" S i ons (N=390) 5411 45.9 Landscaping Medians (N■J89) 72.2 27.8 Planting Tress/Shrubs (N=392) 82.4 17.6 I 44 then registered voters (59.9 percent) supported higher taxes. Support for higher taxes declined with lwgth of residence and age. Respondents were asked if they had cable TV service and 503 percent said they were cable subscribers. Homeowners were more likely to haw cable then renters (58.0 portent to 40.0 percent) and subscriptions increased with income. Thoee who had cable service were asked whether they had experienced any problems with installation, response to complaints, repairs, reception, billing and if they were aware of the weather and storm information provided by the cabis service. The responses to these questions are provided in Table 29. In all areas except reception, small percentages of residents have experienced problems. The vast majority, 96.5 percent, are aware of the cables weather information. Of those experiencing problems, homeowners were more likely to have had a problem with repairs than were renters (19.7 percent compared to 6.3 percent). Conversely, renters were more likely to have had a problem with billing than were homeowners (18.8 percent compared to 7.5 percent). Several questions about traffic and driving in Denton were asked of respondents. First, respondents were asked how serious a problem traffic is in the city. Twenty-seven percent said traffic was "a serious problem," 43.8 percent said traffic was "a problem," and 29.5 percent said traffic was "rot a problem." in a second question, a majority, 64.3 percent, thought traffic signals were set to promote the orderly flow of traffic. The 1985 responses to both questions did not differ significantly in any category. In two related questions respondents were asked whether portable advertising signs obstructed their vision while driving and whether such signs interfered with traffic in other ways. The responses to these two questions are offered in Table 300 A majority, 65.2 percent, feel such signs obstruct 45 TABLE 29 Cable TV Service Concern Yee No Problem with Installation (N•i99) 1011 8919 Problem with Response to ComplO nt 22.2 77.8 (N■198) Problem with Repair Work (Mu197) 15.2 81.8 Problem with Reception (14401) 60.2 1918 Problem with Wiling (N•198) 1111 8819 Aware of Weather/Storm Information %15 3.5 (NoIW ~.r 46 TAI LE 30 Portable Ach,*rtfs#nq SO" and Traffic Problem A Lot A Little Not At All Obscure Vision (N■384) 20.1 4511 34.9 Obstruct Traffic in Mays Other Than 1010 32.5 57.5 Vislon (N•379) 47 vision to same extant, while 423 percent feel the signs Interfere with traffic in other weeys. in a question unrelated to traffics respondents were asked whether portable signs detracted from the beauty of Denton. In this case SO J percent said such signs detracted "a lot" from Denton's beauty and 30.8 percent said the signs detracted "a little." Respondents ware asked how they rated Denton as a place to live and the results of that question are displayed In ?able 31. Denton residents continue to rate Denton as an "excellent" to "good" place to live. Specifically, more homeowners then renters (43.5 percent to 21.5 percent) and more whites than blacks (36.1 percent to,17.6 percent), and those in the higher income groups rated Denton as an "excellent" place to live. Dom' Or DfJtM While several questions about development were included in past surveys, in the 1996 survey more detailed questions about development were asked. First, as in 1965, respondents were asked If Denton's overall growth rate in terns of houses, apartments, commercial stores, and offices was too fast, about right, or too slow, The results to the growth rate question are provided in Table 32. In 1986, a somewhat larger majority thought Denton's growth was "too fast." Longer-term and older residents were more likely to see growth as "too fast" than were their counterparts. Also, more homeowners than renters (64.2 percent to 51.7 percent) and whites than blacks (61.8 percent to 50.0 percent) thought growth was "too fast." The next question asked respondents to indicate whether they favored or opposed each of nine specific types of development in Denton. The results are provided in Table 33 and some interesting observations may be made. There are three groupings of percentages. The most favored types of development.. 48 TABLE II Rat Ing of 001tan As A Place To Live (W94) Rat f nQ Percent 1996 1985 1964 1963 1"2 1981 Excellent 34.8 3011 3319 3810 3911 46.2 Good 94.3 59.4 5510 49,9 $016 45.0 Fafr 9.4 9.9 915 1048 9.4 8.5 Poor 1.6 065 1,6 1.3 110 1.2 49 TAKE 32 Citizen Opinion of Oenton's Growth Rate (N•3dOf Response Percent For 1~ 1965 Too Fast 60.3 5314 About Right 35.5 45.0 Too Siow 4.2 1.6 50 TAKE 33 Cltlzans' Maws Rapisrding Selected Types of Dove lopsent In Denton Ranked by Percent In Favor Development Favor Oppose I Restaurants (other than fast food) 80.8 19.2 (N■391) 2 Industry (N■381) 75.1 24.9 3 Single-Family Housing (N■371) 72.5 27.5 4 Entertainment Establishments (N.367) 71.9 28.1 5 Offices (N■363) 4411 55.9 6 Retail Stores (N■385) 43.6 56.4 7 Hotels/Notels (N•368) 41.6 58.4 8 Apartments/Rental Units (N•387) 20.4 79.6 9 Fast Food Restaurants (N■390) 16.2 83.8 51 restaurants (other than fast food), industry, single-family housing, and entertainment establishments--all recorded between 71.9 percent and 80.8 percent in favor. A break then occurred and the next three mot favored types of developWvt--affices, retail stares, and hotels/m*tels--recorded 41.6 to 44.1 percent in favor. The final break lotft apartments and fast food restaurants as the least favored development recording 20.4 and 16.2 percent in savor, respectively. Analysis of responses to potential development twos by selected subgroups reveals several identifiable distinctionso e Respondents in the 61 and older age group were less favorable toward restaurants than those 60 and younger. Of those 61 and older, 51.6 percent favored restaurants compared to 82 to 89 percent in favor in the other age groups. A higher percentage of whites (83.2 percent) than blacks (56.3 percent) favored restaurant development. e Support for Industry Increased with income. Again more whites than blacks supported industrial devslopmsnt (76.3 percent to 62.5 percent). Support for Industry varied with age as the following percentages in favor of such development illustrates 18-25 (64.6 percent), 26-35 (77.3 percent), 36-45 (81.7 percent), 46-60 (87.0 percent), 61 and older (64.8 percent). e support for single-family housing was greater among blacks (94.1 percent) than whites (71.7 percent), those registered to vote (76.7 percent) than those not registered (57.9 percent), and males (79,0 percent) than females (68.6 perceeLl.). e Renters were more in favor of entertainment establishments than were homeowners (82 percent to 65 percent) as were more blacks (82.4 percent) than whites (71.3 percent). Support for entertainment establishments declined with length of residence and age. 52 e Renters (52.0 Percent), males (50.0 percent), and blacks (56.3 percent) were more suppoj:'.'"s of offices then were homeowners (38.0 percent), females (40.0 percent), and whites (43.6 percent). Support for office development declined with length of reeldence and ageo e Retail stores received sore support from renters (51.6 percent), blacks (52.9 percent), and non-registered voters (54.5 percent) then from homeowners (37.6 percent), whites (43.8 percent), and registered voters (41.0 percent). e Between 40 and 50 percent of those under 61 years of age supported hotel and motel development, whereas only 23,1 percent in the 61 and older age group favored such development, e Opposition to apartments increased with age and income. Renters (27.4 percent) and blacks (35.3 percent) were more in favor of rental unit development than were homeowners (15,5 percent) and whites (19.1 percent). e Although garnering little support from any subgroup, development of additional fast food restaurants was favored more by renters than owners (21.7 percent to 12.2 percent), blacks than whites (35.3 percent to 14.9 percent), and males than females (21.5 percent to 13,2 percent). Both the differing subgroup responses and the overall pattern of responses suggest that as of development are viewed quite differently by Denton residents. Respondents were asked if Denton was doing enough to attract economic development and 67.3 percent said "yes." The 1986 percentage responding enough was being done to attract economic development compares to the 80.4 .percent responding similarly in 1985. In 1986, blacks (86.7 percent) and females (74,4 percent) were more likely to indicate the city was doing enough in the economic development area than were whites (66.2 percent) and males (58,7 percent). 53 Finally, for the first time in 1906, respondents were asked if they favored a city ordinance that required developers to contribute land for open spaces and parks to the city, A very large majority (06.5 percent) said they favored such an ordinance. CONCUlSIONS The results of the 1986 Denton Citizen Survey provide a goad decision- making data base, particularly when the 1906 results are compared to the findings of previous surveys. With a few exceptions, the 1966 swrww results indicate an overall level of general citizen satisfaction with municipal services. Despite this prevailing sentiment, however, it is important that special attention be focused upon particular municipal functions about which citizens expressed concern . The most apparent areas of general concern among the survey respondents remain streets and street maintenances 57.3 percent said streets had "many bad spots," 47,5 percent said street maintenance needs "much improvement," and 81.9 percent would support a street ba.sd program. However, it does appear that progress is being made. The percentages of respondents saying the streets had "many bad spots" and that street maintensice needed "much improvement" were noticeably lower in 1966 than in 1985, Police protection, utility billing, ssarks and recreation, and electric services are other areas of concern to a significant number of respondents. The level of concern in these other areas is of a much lesser magnitude. Apart from responses pertaining to individual municipal services, survey results suggest citizens would strongly support bond programs for street and drainage improvements. Support for bond programs in other areas is not as 54 strong. Citizww generally were supportive of beautification programs, especially planting tress, landscaping street medians, and building more sidewalks. A slight majority, 61 percent, said they would pay higher taxes to support beautification programs. Although a majority of citizens belie" Denton is growing "too fast," large percentages of citizens are favorably disposed to the development of restaurants (except fast food), industry, single-family housing, and entertainment establishments. Conversely, straw opposition exists toward the development of more apartments and fast food restaurants. 'r.a overall impression left by these survey results is that the citizens of Denton appreciate good municipal services and are willing to pay a reasonable price for the continuation of those services. Residents, like Denton as a place to live and are concerned that its continued development be of a desirable nature at a moderate pace. 55 1D OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor $ Members of the City Council FROM: Debra A. Drayovitch, City Attorney SUBJECT: Section 7,9 of the Council's Rules and Procedures (Conflict of Interest) DATE: July 1, 1986 At the City Council retreat, on May 19, 1986, Mayor Stephens requested an opinion as to whether section 7.9 of the Council Rules and Procedures was in harmony with our Charter provisions and applicable state statutes regarding conflicts of interest. For purposes of this memorandum, it is relevant to cite section 7.9 which reads as follows: Section 7.9. Voting Required: No member shall be excuse from voting except or lack of information and except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct, or where his personal interests are involved, and in these instances he shall abstain. Any member prohibited from voting by personal interest shall announce at the commencement of consideration of the matter and shall not enter into any discussion or debate on any such matter. The member having briefly states the reason for his request, the excuse from voting shall be made without debate$ This provision harmonizes with our Charter provision and state law provisions regarding conflicts of interest. However, article 988(b), Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. (Vernon 1985), requires that, in certain circumstances, a councilmember must file an affidavit with the city secretary with respect to any matter in which he has a statutory conflict of interest And then refrain from discussing or voting on the matter in question. Thus, while the filing' of the affidavit is not mentioned in Section 7.9 of the Council Rules and Procedures, it is mandated by state law when the councilmember has a substantial interest in a busi- ness entity that would be peculiarly affected by any official action taken by the council. A person has a substantial interest in a business if: Honorable Mayor $ Members of the City Council July 2, 1986 Page Two (1) the interest is ownership of 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the business or entity or ownership of $2,S00 or more of the fair market value of the business entity; or (2) funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 10 percent of the person's gross income for the previous year; (3) a person has a substantial interest in real pro- perty if the interest is an equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of $2,S00 or more; (4) an interest of a person related in the first or second degree by either affinity or consanguinity to the local public official is a "substantial interest". For purposes of the statute, the terms affinity and consanguinity should be defined. Affinity is kinship by marriage, as between a husband and wife, or between the husband and the blood rela- tives of the wife (or vice-versa). (See Exhibit 1) Consanguinity is kinship by blood, as between a mother and child or sister and brother. (See Exhibit 2) The situations in which the statutory provisions will apply will be few and far between as our Charter provisions titally prohibit the City from entering into a contract in which a councilmember has a substantial interest. A situation where a councilmember should file an affidavit and abstain could be chara,.terized by the following situation: Councilmember X (or relative of the specified degree) owns $2,500 of stock in IBM. The City wants to purchase 10 IBM computers. An examination of cases involving the common law doctrine of conflict of interest upon which our Charter provisions are based reveals that such a purchase would not result in a conflict of interest, as the financial gain realized as a result of the purchase would be extremely remote to the councilmember. How- ever, the councilmember should file an affidavit and F Honorable Mayor 4 Members of the City Council July 2, 1986 Page Three abstain from participating in any discussion or vote on the purchase. Att'y Gen'1 Op. JNI-291 (1984). The applicable Denton City Charter provisions provide as follows: Sec. 2.02. Qualifications (a) Each member of the council, in addition to having the other qualifications prescribed by law: (5) Shall not be interested in the emoluments of any contract, job, work or service of or with the city, or interested in the sale to or by the city of any articles, materials, supplies or equipment, Sec. 14.04, Personal interest. No officer or employee of the City of Denton shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with the city, or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale to or by the city of any land, materials, supplies or services, except on behalf of the city as an officer or employee. Any wilful violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office, and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall forfeit his office or position. These requirements are more strict than the state law and a violation thereof would result in forfeiture of a councilmember's office. Each time a councilmember feels that he or she may have a potential conflict of interest with respect to a particular agenda item under consideration, the City Attorney's office should be consulted as soon as possible so that we can advise the councilmember. Of course, we can only offer advice, and the ultimate decision must be made by the councilmember, Some of the more common conflict of interest questions that have arisen in the past include: (1) Whether the fact that a councilmember lives within 200 feet of property on which a zoning change is z Honorable Mayor Members of the City Council July 2, 1986 Page Four pending has a conflict and should abstain from vot- ing. Attached is an opinion written by Assistant City Attorney Joe Morris analyzing this issue. The thrust of the opinion is that in such a situation, a councilmember is not automatically disqualified. However, if he feels that he cannot be objective with respect to the merits of the case, he should abstain. (2) Whether the fact that a request for annexation, zon- ing or platting of property owned by a councilmember is pending before the council would pose a conflict for a councilmember. This office has, in the past, always rendered the opinion that in such instances, the councilmember should abstain. While no court cases have addressed whether or not an affidavit should be filed prior to the meeting, it is our opinion that a disclosure affidavit should be filed with the City Secretary as well, in cases where it is reasonably forseeable that the Council's action would confer an economic benefit to the business entity the councilmember has an interest. Whether annexation or platting of a particular piece of property would confer an economic benefit would depend on the facts involved in a particular transaction, i.e. whether the property was under contract for sale subject to annexation, etc. (3) Whether a councilmember who is a professor of a university may vote with respect to any matter affecting the university. Again, this is dependant upon the facts in the particular situation, but the general rule is that unless there is a personal pecuniary benefit to the councilmember, there is not a legal conflict of interest. (See attached Opinion of Paul C. Isham former City Attorney dated October 2, 197S.) Again, however, there may be a personal conflict depending on the particular circumstances. Honorable Mayor $ Members of the City Council July 2, 1986 'r'age Five It should be noted that, in the past, when a councilmember has a conflict of interest with respect to an agenda item, the usual procedure has been for him to announce this fact at the time the agenda item is scheduled for consideration, and then exit the Council Chambers until the item has been voted upon. We whole- heartedly recommend the continuation of this practice, as it serves to remove the merest taint of any impropriety or illeality and, as the court in Graham v. MCGrail, 345 N.E. 2d 4R8 ?Mass. 1976), stated; Ordinarily, the wise course for one who is disqualified from all participation in a matter is to leave the room. See also Att'y Gen'l Op. JM-379 (1985) a copy of which is attached hereto for your review. Last December, this office rendered an oral opinion to the City Council in executive session in response to whether it is legally permissible for a board member (in the particular case, it was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission) to appear before the Council on a zoning change request. I reiterate my earlier oral opinion chat while there are no reported cases addressing this particular point, such an appearance would cast doubt on the impartiality of the board member's vote at the Commission hearingg and might lead to a legal attack upon the validity of the Commission's vote. I also suggested that the Council could enact rules prohibiting a board member from making a personal appearance before the Council on a matter when he or she earlier acted on the matter in an official capacity. The provisions of our Charter are applicable to all City board and commission members and the provisions of article 988b are applicable to all boards which exercise responsibilities beyond those which are advisory in nature, i.e. the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment, the Building Board of Appeals, the Civil, Service Commission, and the Board of Trustees for the Firemen's Pension Fund. With your approval, I would like to provide members of such boards with copies of this memorandum. Honorable Mayor $ Members of the City Council July 2, 1986 Page Six In conclusion, Section 7.9 of the Citv Council's Rules and Procedures i:, not in conflict with our Charter provisions or state statutory provisions. However, where applicable, a Councilmember must comply with the affidavit requirements of article 988b. Snould you wish to amend the rules to reflect the statutory requirement, please advise. A copy of the affidavit form that is being filed with the City Secretary is also included for your review. Respectfully submitted, l J ^ r I r~p~ DAD:js xc: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager Attachments War dparMtI SpoYN 01 ntt. a» - UncM or Aunf . • • • • • • ~ ~ ~ AuM Grsndlaaher• Iml aw Orandmother•In•Law Second Degree Firm ut kCou.in • • • • Cousin - C ParMt3 Of FSI-1- --Wifher • In•Law e or r 1I W Brofher•In•Law Brottw Countii~nember Mu$Wd I L+ I In•Law Sister 7 _ _ a'irsl Opree Nephew Child Or F' Son-in-Law Niece Oauphrer • In• Law Husband w Wife of Nephew a _ gkond Niec i3randchild ~(irandeon•In•Law, or geQrw Qrandauphter•In•Law = Flnship by blood Exhibit 2 = kinship by marriage Kh ship by Affinity (Kinship by marriago as views through On eyes of tho councNmmwfw) Weal Wendpwertta Kinship in the Oreel l1nc~ Third Degree or WeM Aunt Orrndporents Kinship In Iho Seeond Degree Uncle or Aunt Parenla Counciimember Brother Kinship in the or sister First Degree Child Iq OrarWcRlid Nephew or Niece t:owln Kinship In the - - Second Degree Wat Orand Nephew III :=:Od Kinship in the Orendch~kd once Co~ukn Third Degree Orartd Niece Exhibit Z Kinship by Consanguinity (Kinship by blood as viewed through the eyes of the councilirmober) crrY of oa~vra,v ra. OFFICE of THE Cl!'Y,!7"!'0RNk`Y ~KE~1dQR.}~yDU'~f Joe D Artomry Roden 8. Nur'ttr, A.t n4nt CUY Attorney DATE: August 15, 1984 TO: The Honorable Ray Stephens, Councilman FROM: Joe D. Morris, Acting City Attorney SUBJECT: Potential Conflicts of Interest You have asked this office to give an opinion As to whether you may have a conflict of interest in voting upon a petition for rezoning which is to come before the Council in the near future. The question of the potential conflict of interest as related to us is based on the fact that you"I residence is located within 200 feet of the property for which the rezoning is requested and that you have a lease with the petitioner for land forpasturing a horse. The lease was originally made with petitioner's grantor of the land and was assigned along with the conveyance of the land to petitioner. The difficulty or determining conflict of interest questions as applied to local government officials results from the general rule that any particular question of a conflict of interest necessarily must be determined based on the particular facts of the case. Historically, the rules governing conflicts of interest were based on the comaton law doctrine requiring "local officials to act in scrupulous good faith as fiduciaries of the municipal's commonweal. This facile generalizatio,, often reinforced by reference to the Biblical principle tht.6. 'no man can serve two masters', tells little about which officials are bound by the rule or what kind of disqualifying interest will trigger a judicial nullification of local legislation tainted by the participation of the disqualified. Sand and Libinati, Local Government Law, Section 11.10. Generally, the common law rule concerning conflicts of interest focuses on pecuniary or financial interests. In most staters which have enacted conflict of interest statutes for public officials, the statutes relate to financial or pecuniary concerns addressed by the common law rule. y .-sa -s.' ~~.r 4`T.T. ♦,...'sv~ -i1Z .1.. rv -.r. i'c';~@ The Honorable Ray Stephens August 13, 1984 Page Two Article 988b, Taxes Revised Civil Statutes (Vernon, Supp. 1984), a copy of which is attached, governs conflicts of interest of local public officials. The statute prohibits local public officials from voting on matters involving a business entity in which the official has a substantial interest if it is reasonably foresee- able that an action on the matter would confer on economic benefit to the business entity involved". (Section 3 Article 988b) "Substantial interest", as defined in section 2 of the statute, is based on a financial interest or a familial relationship. Based on the facts you supplied to this office 7ou do not have a "substantial interest" in the "business entity' petitioning for the rezoning and therefore are not disqualified from voting on the rezoning by reason of the provisions of article 988b. However, the fact that you would not be disqualified by the conflict of interest statute in voting on a particular matter, does not foreclose your disqualification from voting on a particular case for reasons other than financial interest or familial relationship. ordinance No. 81-35, Section 7.9, states as follows: "Section 7.9. Voting Required. No member shall be excused from vat ng except or lack of information and except on matters involving the consideration of his own official conduct, or where his ersonal interests are involved, and in these nstances e shall abstain, Any me' mbe prohibited from voting by personal interest shall announce at the commencement of consideration of the matter and shall not enter into discussion or debate on such matter. The member having briefly stated the reason for his request, the excuse from voting shall. ~e made without debate." (emphasis added) Although the "personal interests" of a council member would include financial interest or familial relationsnipst as governed bey article 988b, supra, there may be some other personal interest' involved, not covared by the statute, that would disqualify a council member from voting on a particular case. There is no statutory or ordinance definition of "personal interest" and, as stated before, each circumstance must necessarily be judged on the facts of the particular case. Although there are few Texas court cases dealing with the question of the conflict of interest of local public officials, there is some authority indicating that the courts will generally apply the same standards of disqualification as are applied to court judges. Generally, tho cases focus on the common law standard of financial or pecuniary interest. The Honorable Ray Stephens August 15, 1984 Page Three In Mood v. City of University Park, (Civ.App.-Dallas 1955, writ refrff n.r.e. e p a n sue to have set aside the order of a board of adjustment grantin a permit for development of a free parking area. The plaintt'If argued that the order of the Board was invalid because three members of the Board wore disqualified based on their respective financial ox personal relationships with the permittee. One member, who was in the insurance business, had written a policy of insurance for the permittee. A second member's wife was an employee of the permittee. The third member was a third or fourth cousin of the permittee. In applying the disquali- fication test applicable to judges, the Mood court held that "to be disqualified for interest, the judge mus , by the judgment in the case, gain or lose something, the value of which may be esti- mated. ...The 'personal relationship' ...of certain board members does not constitute a disqualification under these well established principles of law." 278 SW2d at 919. In other jurisdictions the courts, although not always consistent in their rulings on conflict of interest questions, generally hold that in zoning cases a member of the administrative or governing body is not disqualified unless there is a clear showing of a "rather direct, personal, and concrete interest in the outcome of the particular proceedings, other than the general interest of all members of the community in seeing_ that the general objects of the zoning regulations are implemented. 10 ALR 3d 694. In Committee v. Board of Su ervisors, 90 Cal. Repts. 80, it was held' at there was no conflict o nterest shown where a member of the zonin commission owned a bar in the neighborhood where the property being rezoned was located. In Anderson v. Zonin Commission of Norwalk, 253 A 2d 16, it was he that trig c a rman o EEG zoning commission was not disqualified because of financial or personal interest on the outcome of a request for a zoning changs merely because the member lived near the property being rezoned. in Stale v. Lower Marian Township, 69 Montg. Co. Lit 407, it was heat that member ofa zon ng board of adjustment was not disqualified to pass upon the application for rezoning of land where the member owned land in the vicinity which would be more valuable if the rezoning were granted. In cases where a member does not have such a "substantial interest" in the business as to be disqualified pursuant to the provisions of article 988b, supra, each member must necessarily make an individual subjective judgment as to the existence of any personal interest" that may disqualify such member from voting on a particular matter. In making such udgment, the member should consider whether there are any persona circumstances relating to the case that would so prejudice the member as to preclude the member from exercising his independent judgment, acting in his The Honorable Ray Stephens August 15, 1984 Page Four capacity as 4 public official acting for the good of the community, in making a decision or voting on a matter before the council. Based on the particular facts presented to us we would conclude that you are not automatically disqualified by law from considering and voting on the petitioner's request for rezoning of property. You must, however, necessarily make as to the existence of an " Y Your own judgment proximity of your residence to ethanal interest such as the Tamily mamber's opposition to the rezoniproperty ng, your bung membership rezoned, a neighborhood organization which is in o z iany or other similar personal factors or circumstances, that would so prejudice or influence you as to preclude you from making an independent decision or voting on the matter acting in your capacity as public official for the pod of the community and not based on any such "personal interest'. J7 D, MORRIS-~ JDM:js ' • C 10 111~ AND YL"U Art p111 "Ws tiger, hrshsns b db, Uwrs, W esmaq► liras Oespoetlre assodsdw Imo, rwM snot of V" cubes IS an ow An w dq or on w • ~ Sy pus hm -quip - a' Under do esPllits has a onseistitu a Oft Of mere member of he tMe dqr at lire„ at gov" err or"" I bmW or eat q~ Weep if no am by mmbw it do beaefk bow tJw 7'• • oe aaow dmwm wo rewire a p as baft" In As ~ d~tributrd seaera yfl to m~nb of ~i coo refiedw in gibe to Aby astdidsre tar Aem 1101, evth Leg., p. 2M, *L W, 1 1, off. Jews IL 1161. , 71W of Aop tgvm shall Me Ma LNseeir *sMesese mss, P1soe.Na 1", Am Awli to eeotrids d hilsrost 1let~foiNal o.siut? a, Plies Na d", or IOW gowr+aneaes, ~ 1Mf, pd, CJd Mamiew ~*q" ! W et how $ad offbe of. 2m, eh t;V, aq. r of each madkbte adidate. Art. NW Aeneas in v toeW P"# off MW Aar hder" a IN tmrne m arc DWb*6 r 9ectba L to tk's Act: (1) "Loral paW ofllaW" meow a member of site governing body or an ow officer, whether Oh WW or appointed, paid or unpaid, of say disafet ( s no e•121. school district), county, dty, predect, ceatrai spprsissl district, trertsk antler orporotiorr !t a72, or district, or other Iaoal iloveraraentai entity who exereieee respomiftwe beyond those that an advisory in aspire. (2) "Business entity" mesm a sole propeietorshiP, Corpora. tbn, holding company, join"tock company, receivership, trusk r otbw entity recognised in taw. tyor union he it a SANAGOW lttt~ mu, $0 election Sec. 2. (a) A person has a substantial interest in a business it cos A with the the wren was not r( o! the tine btrest is eowners* n of 10 Wrcoat or from of the voting stock or siness units it the arcs is sliewales oft business ere tit or ownership of 0,500 or more of the hir market ward from which (2) funds noNwd by the person froea the business entity exceed 10 percent mmoves from the of the person's gross Wow for the pwriow year, at. (b) A person bas a sabstadl interest In reel property If the into sm is an toot, equitable or iepl owmn* with a fair market value of i200 or more. applketba stating (o) An interest of a,persos related in the tint or second degree by either, ionthe next pnad. affinity or corwsngaimity to the local public offieW is a "substantial interest," e city 11ra to did sot ord't which wouid MsYiMN woes deb's disquaiifiea. Sec. & (a) Except as pow Section b of this Act, a local POW ter (Sup•illb) sat ok&W comm" its oKems ft he Iwowf iy: (1) ~ is a rots or dedsim as a matter W"Mm a business amity In whM famsem" that as soda om the ntsNer weald phut k; f 7. off. Jas. t, businw eathy involved; ~ (p rteb as surety hr a bnrimw eatlty that hiss a Zoubvek work, or busiom tM p"nmmaW entitlri at (8) acts as surety on say of kW bond required of an atfkw of the sowernmental entity. (b) An offence under this seatim is a Chw A misdmomor. if r.. #W-t in ~ . I Ica /Myh.aw, 1 Art no 41! M TO" AND ViW.AOq C 11tie >s ! Ateilavlt ~ Met or asses j d~ D by eftw ar a nhtrd to tstiat oMeW in the ' interest is a buainae that ~M bay ~ Msbya anbstantW a pmes ~~dw body. the lawl been 40Y ft4&w a vote or A 0 W, shsa aabn cad eotI .0 of the tans be > ~ ~ asaMdavk the In the MWW' The Widwit P"MMftW 8 Sec. a. (a) The P CCI body of f°► W aadty nu ,,eoabut for e the purcltaae of sarnle of t body Iw a substantial intawt it the, pp~b' is fut'ia kdoa of the eentity a►arothnwataW amity the and Is the needed the service of product wit the on the oattraet. Daly WusfAeas sadly that bids (b) Tba governing body must take a "womb vote on an ti ! ! • b' dadkatad bus a Contract wkh an entity bt which a membar~ofi the a row body has a substantial later at and the aflodW member moat abstain d from separate vote. The member who has mnphed is abeWMW in such " vote under Proosduaea set forth ht SWUM 8 cad 4 of thin Act may vote on a ati Mal budget only after the matter in which he is coneeraed has bean evolved. G RearevW from ernes L Sec. 6, The Peneltlaa and remedin provided by this article do not limit 1 a rtmedift ' 0*mmoe 1&wr mandamus. 'K COWUM or equity, Including a suit for dasea ma A does not render an flrgftg by a court of a violation under dtis articN i was no sub ICU" of the governing body voidable unim the me"" that feet of an awtiop Involving connst of interest would not haw peened a the gotivierning body without the vote of the p@mmn who violated this artieU. Aeb INk 41M L*C., p. 409'1, eh. 640, N 1 to b, pffd. jysa. 1, 1i61, n to v >hAa thwart fi Aa Act eel of pen to aeaflake of b of both 1111 W 11f eoafa+iefe by whM i ICCtl ~f11 ; deAai09 ofaasn sad Property woupW by ddiz 0 a Ply; Npeft Article 1ft ant a plaft to be an WustrbJ dbuw and vbed Stooges, r amend Acts IM and that for omen years it would not P1 Nth Leg., P• 4M, olk M aaanr the Pe"Wo, and their auppsrtlnd vs otdiasaw wen row beeauee, at the Nme l~•i Cur ask both eoatraw were executed, the flea dty V,T.C Pmak Close A MWhas , aw a~ey wu fs"M =8Y ly MKWGW fie Cede,1 lt1.t1. from defeadaat alw with ewpset to 1!9'0 t a former sky eeuaw Mwja. as - ber wW, for k wan SW as employee Mesa d Deeb4aas of dshedwl' a on the nwrks wr sf nraaaary m Clarify ouch beer as wheMer a t. Gaalrpgea assd the brow d4 &I has as locust is MPWafts after or bot aaaacts suffideat to invaH~ A w T10109 [hooterArL NIAfop daow~, irdPnea1 ICcon of eaennsary samse W*W SAW 'H Pod AW Vers a'$ Aae.M (190 arts l~ that no infhuar wan exereww is s (t'CPOWet ass, now, V,T.C..*, net dsgrmfaauve of whether "atnet wr .0111 ni4oh Mat the pn, vW&I Of conflict of inWm ordbwaee R by a do a(fkw be a "Per. MW etaeuge. Deity Qee, Coast, a v. Cky i dale a soataaet bets 00 sky sad aasdt. M& rot Lr* (Ctv.App.1100) /?f 9.YY.2d A Chy V. Did Kum 11f!)C 461 Rld ewtiaeesi ds . ((CN Roe+usr yes. 111 (see, now, tlds srtklel &CL 4% 401 US 104 14 "JAM 11& a eOa W of interest w rival C otlleMe w rWP!>ak'+bbto how rule 194 CITY 0" DENTON 14Ef10RAN7lIM October 2, 1975 T0; Mayor Tom D. Jester, Jr, & City .,~iunci _ Me,. er, FROM; Paul C. isham, City Attorney SUBJECT; Conflict of Interest & NT i; Sect'.cn 14,04 of the Deoton City Charter states that no officer or employee cf tha city shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with the city, or he financially - terested.,, Section 2,02 of the Charter states that no member of the council shall be interested in the emoluments of any contract, ,fob, work or oervice of or with the city. `.('he word "emoluments" connotes financial gain, The question is "Are each of the councilpersons employed by NTSU disqualified from deliberating and voting upon NTSU's request to close certain public streets in the campus area because of the charter provisions and state law, if any?" It is the general rule in Texas that, an,v action of the city council in which any council member has a personal pecuniary interest is void. Whether there is a personal pecuniary interest is a raeltion of fact that must be determined on a case by case basis, However, I have concluded that each of the cour,cilpersons employed by NTSU do not have a personal pecuniary interest that would prevent them from voting on this matter. There have not been many cases in Texas dealing with the conflicts issue, The Texas cases have dealt with the question of financial interests and have interpreted the conflict of interest statutes as requiring that the prohibited interest by the city official be a "personal pecuniary interest" in order to invalidate a contract, Other states have followed this thinking. The Utah Supreme Court has held that the mere fact that a majority of the city commissioners we ) members of a particular church did not void a contract betweer she city and that church. The Court said there was no conflict because the officials did not have a "personal and pecuniary interest". Mayo. Tom D. Jester, Jr. City Council Members October 2, 1975 Page Two The Supreme Court of Washington held that there was no conflict existing when the Mayor was an employee of the power company who furnished supplies to the City. The Court said: "To come within the statutory prohibition, it muet appear that Downing directly or indirectly profited from the relation between his employer and the town of which he is an officer. The facts found utterly fail to show any such situ- ation. It cannot be presumed without any proof on the subject, that Downing owes his employment to the fact or that, if the town should cease to deal with his employer, he would lose his posi- tion or receive less compensation for his ser- vices." Thus, since the NTSU employees -councilpersons do not have a per- sonal pecuniary interest in the closing of the streets at the re- quest of NTSU, they do not have a legal conflict undez Texas law and would not be in violation of our City Charter if they voted on the request. However, there may be other Interests prevalent which would create a personal conflict and prevent any or all of the NTSU employees from voting. The California Courts have held that "nothing in the relationship of a public officer should prevent him from exercising absolute loyalty and undiviIcid allegience to the best interest of the muni- cipality he serves, He should be absolutely free from ary influ- ence other than that which may grow out of the obligations he owes to the public". One California Court said that "no person can, at one and the same time, faithfully serve two masters representing diverse or inconsistent interests with respect to the service to be performed". The only case I can find that is similar to our, situation is one decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey and involving Princeton University and the Borough of Princeton. The majority of the Council were Princeton University professors and they passed a resolution approving a determination of a blighted area in the city so as to receive funds under the Blighted Area Act for the improve- ment of the area. Princeton University owned a substantial area of the land determined to be blighted and which was to be improved. The Court held that there was a conflict of interest and voided the resolution. Some of the language that they used in holding that cue Mayor Tom D, Jester, Jr. & City Council Members October 2, 1975 Page Three there was a conflict is as follows: "The question is whether there is a potential for conflict, not whether the public servant succumbs to the temptation or is even aware of it," In the instant case, it is true that the prime in- terests of Councilmen-Professors Lester and Sorenson in the University are in its academic affairs. But the same long standing association which these men secure in their positions could tend to bind their loyalties to the University in such a manner that they would be interested in all matters affecting the institution. The potential of psychological influences cannot be ignored. We do not hold that these matters had an effect in the instant case. Nevertheless, we per- ceive the rule to be that the mere existence of a conflict, and not its actual effect, requires the official action to be invalidated." The states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and California have followed this analogy. There is one additional factor that must be considered. Many of the citizens of Denton have concluded that there is a conflict in- volving the NTSU-Councilperson9. The closing of public streets, and particularly Avenue C, has generated much publicity and diver- gent opinions from the community. It is a "hot potato" and would be even if the oounoilpersoris were not NTSU employees. I an sure that some or all of you are feeling the pressures of being oon- neoted with the University and being responsive to the interests of the community. Each individual is the only one that really knows whether such pressures exist and whether they are influencing his thinking, splitting his loyalties and affecting his decision making processes so that he is not acting in the best interests of the community he serves. If so, he has a personal interest which is conflicting on this issue and would require him to abstain from the vote. 1 Mayor Tom D. Jester, Jr. & City Council Members October 2, 1975 Page Four CONCLUSION There is no legal conflict of interest under Texas law which would prevent NTSU employees -councilpersons from voting on the request of NTSU to close certain streetei, but there may be personal, psy- chological conflicts that are affecting each or all of the employees and would require them to abstain from voting on this issue. This is an individual decision that should be made prior to the discussion and vote on tiie matter. Respectfully submitted, Paul C. Isham PCI: js ~/rt it j .7~D'II:Y Rr I1Ili. September 12, 1975 The Honorable Paul C. Isham City Attorney Municipal Building Denton, Texas 76201 Dear Mr. Isham; You asked our assistance in gathering relevant materials concerning the potential conflict of interest on the part of city council members who are employed by a university which desires the city to close certain streets through campus. I have found no definitive authority on the issue of whether the fact of the employment constttutea a conflict. The question most often arises in the context of contractual relations between the governing body and an entity in which one of the members of the body has some economic interest. Enclosed are a number of Attorney General Opinions which you may find helpful in dealtnsl with the question. Also, you may find the following cited authorities of some assistance. V4'7 Tex. Jur. 2d Public Officers. § 129; _Mayers v, Walker,276 S. W. 305, 307 (Tax. Ctv.App. --Eastland 1925, no writ htst. City of Edinburg v. Ellis, 59 S. W. 2d 99 (Tex. Comm' n. App. 1933, holding approved); 10 McQuillin, Vfhe Lawof Municipal Corporations, § 29. 99 (3rd Ed. 1966); dward E. Gillen Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 183 N. W. 679 (Wisc. Sup. 1921);ntockton Plumbing & Su 1 Co. V. Wheeler, 229 P. 1020 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App~/, 1924); filler v. City of Martine x, 8 P. 2d 519 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1938);~E3obbs, Wall~& C-o v Morap, 293 P. 145 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App, 1930); People ex rei. Pearsall v Sperms, 145 N. E. 344 (Ill. Sup. 1924);'fingewald v. Minneapolis Gas. Co, 142 N. W. 2d 739 (Minn. Sup. 1966); Byrne & Speed Coal Company v. City of Louisville, 224 S. W. 883 (Ky. Ct. App, 1920); Griggs v. Borough of Princeton, 162 A. 2d 862 (N. J. Sup. 1960). An Equal Oppornmity Employer The Honorable Paul C. !sham, page two The problem is a difficult one. You suggested that perhaps con- . demnat: .on provides a means of resolving the matter, There is some precedent for this alternative, see enclosed Attorney General Opinion 0-3307 and WW-1406. I hope this information is of assistance to you. Very truly yours, William G Reid Assistant Attorney General WGR,c,; Enclosures THE STATE OF TEXAS I CITY COUNCIL. COUNTY OF DENTON I AFFIDAVIT ON ASSTENTION FROM VOTING The undersigned, as a member of the City of Denton City Council makes this affidavit and hereby on oath states the following: 1, and/or a person or persons related to me in the first or second degree by either affinity or consanguinity, have a substantial in- terest in my own business, or in the below named business enrityy • that would be peculiarly affected by a vote or decision of the Denton City Council as those terms are defined in Article 988b, V.T.C.S. The business entity is I ame rass The matter to be voted upon by the City Council is: 1, and/or such relative or relatives have a substantial interest in this business entity for the following reasons: (Check all which are applicable) ( ) Ownership of 10; or more of the voting or shares of the business entity. ( ) Ownership of $2,500 or more of the fair market value of the business entity, ( ) Funds received from the business entity exceed 101 of my ;.;id/ or such relative's or relatives' income for the previous year. ( ) Real property is Involved and 1, and/or my relative or rela- tives have an equitable or legal ownership with a fair market value of at least $2,500. ( ) A relative of mine has a substantial interest in the business entity or property that would be affected by a decision of the public body of which I as a member. Upon the filing of this affidavit with the City Secretary of the City of Denton, I affirm that I will abstain from voting on any decision involving this business entity and from any further participation on this matter whatsoever. Signed this day of On this day of 19 before me the under- signed Nary public, person`-TTy a`ppeared'" and on oath stated that the fact hereina ove state are true to tha best of hAs/her knowledge or belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me, on this day of 19~, WITNESS my hand and official $eal. ROTARY , My CoAmission expires: • 'WOW • The Attorney General of Texas JIM MATTOX Novemtyr 14, 1985 Attorney General Supreme Coun Sullding Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr. P. st sox 12544 Opinion No. Jrt-379 ausUn, TX. 707 78711. 2548 974 E 572/475.2601 to Harrison Street Rer Whether a school trusts Telex 9101074.1367 Brownsville, 'texas 78520 es article 988b, V.Trust t Telecopier $12/175.0266 violat by discussing with school board its lawsuit against a bank in 714 Jackson, Suite 700 which he Oarlas, TX, 75202.4806 owns stock 214J7424944 Dear Mr. Eurestit 4824 Alberta Avs You have requested an Attorney General Opinion on the application sulre Teo oz conflict of interest law to a school trustee, 8l Peso, TX, 79006.2793 school district Where a trustee of a 9151533.3484 owns more than $16,000 in eon-voting stork of a bank that is involved in litigation with the school distrct, and such trustee abstains from voting for or against any matter perraining to 1001 Texas, Suits 700 such litigation, but does discuss the litigation with members of the Houston, 31223.TX. ri002.3711 board of trustees, has the trustee nevertheless violated the law 7131223.5868 regarding public officials and conflicts of interest? 808 6+oadway, suits 312 You state that the trustee owns 400 shares of non-voting stock in Lubbock, TX, 79401.3479 a local bank under a Keogh individual retirement plan. The Shares are soer747•5238 valued at $16,000. The bank in question sued the city and the school district aling 19with r local s 80, ochallengingbathe 4308 N. Tenth, suits a property tax 'valuation of their stocks, The suit was amended to McAllen. TX. 78501.1685 challenge valuations made in subsequent years. Tt was settled in 5121682.4547 October 1984, 200 Main Plata, subs 400 During the course of this litigation, the trustee was a share TX . son Antonio, a, 7Is 40 797 holder in one of the plaintiff banks. He was not named plaintiff in 5x2/225.4191 any of the proceedings, although as a trustee he was named defendant, You state chat it appears that this trustee abstained from voting for An Equal Opport~~nityl or against any matter pertainir.Z to the tax litigation, although he Affirmative Action ityl r may have discussed this matter with other trustees. We assume that any such discussiona were held in compliance with the Open Meetings Act, article 6232-17, V,T.C,S., and do not consider the conflict of interest inpliaatioas of discussions held in violation of that statute. Article 988b, V.T.C.S., is relevant to this question. This statute became effective January to 1984s and does not apply to JM-171 t (1984)oi onductrpri alt date. of oct vAttorney e ate oft article opinion 988b, p. 1131 i:'u Flonorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr. Page 2 (JM-379) V,T,C,S „ was governed by common law conflict of ictes,,%.; doctrines, The comma law, in essence, barred school districts from contractiug with any entity in which a trustee had a pecuniary interest, no matter how small. Attorney General Opinions MW-342 MOO; q-916 (1976); $se Citv of Ediabur v. Ellis, 39 S,W,2d 99 (Tex. Comma App. 19w +4r$ approve ; s t etric Coa tru tion Company v, Cie o San on , 437 S.W. u iId W t re n.r.e.); B Cou ex. v' PP• - SoMtoni 19696 App. v' Weq o h. 378 SW.2d 126 6 (Tex. Civ, 216 9,w, 305Sa(nTeAntoniv, Writ ra n,r,s. AMover PP. - Eastland 1925 no writ ;.AtWalker vor r'od torney General Opinions JM-171 (1984); MW-l19 (1980); M-1236 (1972). You have not informed us of any conduct prior to January 1, 1984 that would violate the common law prohibition against contractual conflicts of interest. After January 1, 19640 the trustees wtire n bfeet to article Wb, V.T.C,S, Los Attorney General Opinion JK_171 (19$4), Article 988b, V,T.C.S „ providos in part: Section 1, In this Act: (1) 'Local public official' means a member of the governing body , , , of any district (including a school district), . . . (2) 'Business entity' means a sole proprietor- ship, partnership, firm, corporation, holding company, joint-stock company, receivership, trust, or any other entity recognized in law. Sec. 2. (a) A person has a substantial interest in a business ifs (1) the interest is ownership of 10 percent or more of the voting stock or shares of the business entity or ownership of $2,500 or more of the fair market value of the business entity. . . . , Sec. 3, (a) Except as provided by Section 5 of this Act, a local public official commits an offense if he kaowin=lyt (1) participates in a vote or decision on a matter involving a business entity is which the local public official has a substantial interest if it is reasonably foreseeable that an action on p. 1732 y Honorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr. - Page 3 (44-379) the matter would confer an economic benefit to the business entity involved= (b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. Sec. 4. If a local public official or a parson related to that official in the first or second degree by either affinity or consanguinity has a substantial interest in a business entity that would be peculiarly affected by any official action taken by the governing body, the local public official, before a vote or decision on the matter, shall file an affidavir stating the nature and extant of the interest and vhall abstain from further participation in the mutter. The affi- davit must be filed with the official recordkespsr of the governmental entity. Sea. 5 (Exception for contracts for purchase of services or personal property where business entity is only supplier within the jurisdiction and the only bidder on the contract.1 Sec. 6. The penal►:ies and remedies provided by this article do not limit cosason law remedies of tort, contract, or equity, including a suit for damages, injunction, or mandamus. The finding by a court of a violation under this article does not render an action of the governing body voidable unless the measure that was the subject of an action involving conflict of interest would not have passed the governing body without the vote of the person who violated this article. The trustee owns more than $2,500 in stock of a plaintiff bank. His interest in the bank is a substiWal interest within section 2(a) of article 988b, V.T.C.S. See Attorney General Opinion Jul-291 (1984). You have informed us that the school trustee abstained from voting for or against any setter -pertaining to the litigation, although he may have discussed this natter with other members of the board of trustees. Section 3 of article 988b, V.T.C.S., prohibits a public official from knowingly participatia= in a vote or decision on a matter involving a business entity in which he is substantially interested, to our opinion, this provision reaches knowing participa- tion in a decision by discussing it with other board members. p. 1733 11 Ronorable Benjamin Euresti, Jr. - Page 4 WN-379) A Massachusetts court discussed the terse "participate" as it appears?. in a conflict of interest statute. Graham v. McGrail, 345 N,E,2d 888 (Uass. L976). The Massachusetts statute descr as the prohibited participation in greater detail ^han does article 988b, V.T.C.S.; nonetheless, the court's discussion is pertinent to our question. The statute discussed in Groha■ v car , 345 N,E.2d 888 (Mass. 1976) prohibited a municipal employee rom participating in a matter in which he or his immediate family had a financial interest. Three school committee members had immediate family members who were school system employees, The three school committee members voted on the budget which set the compensation of school system employees, including their own family members. Each committee member abstained from particular budget decisions that affected his relative, but all attended work sessions and formal meetings on the budget. On occasion, a school committee member presided over a vote from which he disqualified himself because of his relative's financial interest,. The Massachusetts statute prohibited school committee members from participat(ingj . . , personally and substantially as a . . . municipal employee, through approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or othelvise. 345 N.E.2d at 891, The court stated: We agree with the judge that this definition encompasses more C,an the act of voting. To preside over a vote is to participate in it, aad it is clear that two of the individual defendants presided over some of the contested votes while purporting not to participate. Moreover, there is every indication that during the 'work sessions' they participated in other ways in the contested matters. To participate in the formulation of a matter for vote is to participate in the matter. Ordinarily, the wise course for one who is disqualified from all participation in a matter is to leave the coos. 345 N,E,2d at $91-892, Section 3 of article 988b, V.T.C.S., prohibits conduct which includes, but is not limited to, formally recordiag a vote when the board takes official action, in particular, the language participates in a . . , decision" indicates that the legislature iatcnded the statute to reach more than merely casting a I100. Cf. V.T.C.S. art. 6252-9b, 16(a) (state officer personally interested~n p. 1734 i a Honorable 8aajamin luresti, Jr. - Sage S ON-379) decision pending before his board "shall not vote or otherwise participate in the decision"). Section 4 of article 988b, V.T.C.S., which requires the interested public official to file an affidavit stating his interest, requires his to "abstain from further participation in the matter." This provision is not limited to participation in the board's vote; it prohibits all participation. In our opinion, participation "in a vote or decision" in section 3(a) of article 988b, V.T.C.S., includes deliberating with the board about the matter, A narrower interpretation, of this language would undermine the legislature's effort to control conflicts of iatsrast, in that a trustee with a personal interest in a matter could discuss it with board members and influence the board's final action with impunity as long ax he abstained from the formal vote. We do not have sufficient information to determine whether the school trustee has participated in a vote or decision of the board. You do not state with certainty that he even discussed the litigation with other trustees. Only discussions which occurred after the January 1, 1984 effective date of article 988b, V.T.C.S., would be subject to its provisions. Moreover, section 3(a)(1) also requires a showing that it is reasonably foreseeable that an action on the matter would confer an economic benefit on the business entity, and we have not been provided any facts on this question, You do not know whether the trustee filed the affidavit required by section 4 of article 988b. V,T.C.S.; therefore we cannot express an opinion on whether he violated section 4 of article 988b, V,T,C,S. The penalty provision of article 988b, V.T.C.S., does not apply to violations of section 4. But see Penal Code 339,01 (abuse of office). S U M M A R Y A school trustee who engages in school board deliberations leading up to a vote or decision on a matter in which he is substantially interested has participated stn a vote or decision of that matter within section 3(a)(1) of article 988b, V.T.C,S. Very ruly your JIM M A T T 0 X Attorney General of Texas MARY REELER Executive Assistant Attorney General p. 1733 Honorable Benjamin Surestis Jr, - pate 6 (JM-374) ROBERT GRAY Special Assistant Attorney General RICK GILPIN Chairmans Opinion Comittes Prepared by Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINION COWTTEE Rick Gilpin$ Chairman Colin Carl Susan Garrison Tony Guillory Jim Moellin`er Jennitor RiSp Nancy Sutton Sarah Woolk NVV7 u CITY OF DENTON p. 1736 LEGAL GEY(. DAM August 70, 1986 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council {{{,,{ll///V/V FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager StWVCT: Joint study session with the Cable Television Advisory Board concerning the upcoming CATV franchise renewal process, RECOMMENDATION: Define the CATV Advisory Board's role in the franchise renewal process and discuss other issues to be considered during the process. SUMMARY: The City of Denton has received notice from Sammons CommUH-cations, Inc. of the intent to seek renewal of their existing franchise agreement with the City. During the franchise renewal process, the City staff will be addressing several issues including upgrading and replacing present system equipment, expansion of channel capacity, new types of services, financial analysis of the present cable system and revisions in the existing CATV ordinance. BACKGROUND: The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 requires that the franchising authority (City) follow specific proceedings during franchise renewal, PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFF"?CTED: FISCAL IIiPACT c During the franchise renewal process, the City of Denton will negotiate to increase the current Cable Television franchise fee from 3% to 5%. This will, generate an additional $30,000 to $50,000 per year for the General Fund. Respectfully submitted, 4140y 9-Harren City Manager Prepared by: n1-0: ! Nom : Title: Approved by: AlZ , l Naf t Title: pw2 MINUTES CABLE TV ADVISORY BOARD JULY 2, 1986 PRESENT Joseph Fearing Charles McNeil G. L. Seligmann, Chairperson Darlene Whitten ABSENT Judith Abbott STAFF' PRESENT Bill Angelo, Assistant Director of Public Works Bob Hunter, Assistant City Attorney Julia Moore, Administrative Assistant The Cable TV Advisory Board was called to order by Chairperson Seligmann in a special session at 12s20 P.M., on Wednesday, July 2, 1966, in the Civil Defense Room of the Denton Municipal Building. ITEM $1 SWEARING IN OF NEW MEMBERS Charlotte Allen, City Secretary, swore in Joseph Fearing, Charles McNeil and G. L. Seligmann for their respective terms. ITEM $2 ELECTION OF OFFICERS Chairperson Seligmann opened nominations for Board Chairper- son. Darlene Whitten nominated Gus Seligmann and the nomination was seconded by Joseph Fearing. Mr. Fearing made a motion that nominations cease, this was seconded by Mr. McNeil. The Board voted 4-0 in favor of the nomination. Chairperson Seligmann then made a motion to accept nominations for Vice-Chairperson. Darlene Whitten nominated Charles McNeil but Mr. McNeil declined the nomination. Mr. McNeil then nominated Darlene Whitten and the nomination was seconded by Chairperson Seligmann. The Board voted 4-0 in favor of the nomination. W` !V of MOWN DI/ "W, rEz" 70"1 DATEt August 13, 1986 TOt Lloyd Harrell, City Manager FROMt Julia Moore, Administrative Assistant, Public Works SUBJECTr REPORT ON CABLE TELEVISION REFRANCHISING ACTIVITIES The following overview details the City of Denton's status concerning the cable television franchise renewal process. The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 contains specific provisions concerning renewal of existing franchise agreements between a franchis- ing authority and the cable operator. According to Section 626 of the Act, "During the 6-month period which begins with the 36th month before the franchise expiration, the franchising authority may on its own initiative, and shall at the request of the cable operator, commence proceedings for the purpose of (1) identifying the future cable-related community needs :nd interestsi and (2) reviewing the performance of the cable operator under the franchise during the then current franchise term." This section goes on to describe other steps that the franchise authority (City) must follow if a request to commence proceedings is received. These steps include: (1) submitting a request for proposal to renew to the cable operator; (2) receiving the proposal for renewal from the cable operator by a specific date; (3) providing public notice of the proposal; and (4) within 4 months of completion of the aforemen- tioned proceedings, either renew the franchise or issue a preliminary assessment that the franchise not be renewed. In the case of the City of Denton, the 6-month period began on Janu- ary 16, 1986, and ended on July 16, 1986. On July 11, 1986, the City received correspondence from Sammons Communications, Inc., notifying the City of the cable operator's intent to seek renewal of the franchise and requesting the City to commence proceedings. The City of Denton has responded to this notification by informing Sammons that it was neither physically or legally possible for the City to commence public proceed- ings within the time frame specified by the Act. Because the City was unable to proceed pursuant to the requirements of Section 626 of the Act, it has requested Sammons to provide a timetable that would be REPORT ON CABLE TELEVISION RErRANCNISING ACTIVITIES August 13, 1986 Page 2 mutually agreeable to proceed with the renewal preeess. Therefore, the City of Denton has taken the position that they are willing to negotiate a new franchise agreement with Sammons Communications, Inc., but that these negotiations do not have to be within the scope of Section 626 of the Cable Act. In order to arrive at a franchise agreement that is in the best interest of the citizens of Denton, the City will have to address several major issues during the refranchisement process. The:* issues ineluder (1) a financial analysis of the present cable systems (2) a technical analysis of the present cable system including the cost, feasibility, and techni- cal requirements for a system upgrade. Tests should be conducted on signal quality, level and attentuation in the cable, picture quality and radiation emission. The overall system design should be evaluated in terms of the type of equipment in place at the present time, replacement of substandard equipment, and addition of new equipment if the system '_.a to be expanded! (3) determination of changes/additions that need to be included in the new franchise agreement such as an increase in the franchise fee to 5 percent, provision of new services or expansion of channel capacity, the length of the franchise term, etc.1 and (4) legal issues concerning compliance with the 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act in terms of a new franchise agreement and revision of the existing City of Denton Cable Television Ordinance. Because of the complexity of the above listed issues, the city staff is recommending the hiring of a consultant to assist the City in the renewal process. The cost of using a consultant, which is estimated to range from $20,000 to $30,000, would be a major negotiation issue, as the City would request that the cable operator reimburse the City for refranchising costs. The franchise renewal process is anticipated to be a fairly lengthy and time-consuming project. The city staff with the assistance of the Cable Television Advisory Board and a private consultant (if approved) antici- pates completion of the franchise renewal process within the next six to eight months. qw~' '1'Q ulia Moore JM/sc pw3 71 DATE: August 12, 1986 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM$ Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTi JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH CABLE TELEVISION ADVISORY BOARD A joint study session between the City Council and the Cable Television Advisory Board will be held on Tuesday, August 19, at 600 P.M. in the Civil Defense Room. The purpose of this study session is to discuss the role of the Cable Television Advisory Board in the upcoming franchise renewal process. During the Board's July 2 meeting, the members expressed concern about receiving some direction from the City Council on what the Board's responsibilities are. Since the City of Denton is to begin proceedings for negotiating a franchise renewal agreement in the near future, the CATV Board felt that this was an appropriate time to meet with the City Council. nuring this study session, the Board and city staff would also like to discuss the hiring of a consultant to assist the City of Denton during the franchise renewal process. Minutes from the July 2 Cable Television Board meeting and a staff report which discusses the activities involved in negotiating a new franchise agreement have been included in your agenda back up. The Cable Television Board is looking forward to meeting with the City Council and establishing is basis for their future role in cable tele- vision activities. loyd V. Harrell JM/c pw3 MINUTES CABLE TV ADVISORY BOARD Jssly 2, 1986 Page 2 ITEM #3 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION ON USE OF CONSULTANT Julia Moore, Administrative Assistant, briefed the board members on the staff's position concerning using a consultant to assist the City of Denton during the franchise renewal process. Ms. Moore explained that since the passage of the 1984 Cable Communications Policy Act, franchise renewals have become more complicated, Ms. Moore further explained that during the renewal process, the following issues will have to be addressed: (1) a financial analysis of the present cable system; (2) a technical analysis of the present system including tests for signal and picture quality, evaluation of the system design and recommendations for upgrading equipment; (3) revising the present franchise ordinance to comply with the 1984 Act; (4) revising the present franchise agreement; (5) legal concNr,ns that have been addressed in recent court cases. Ms. Moore then discussed the fact that the City does not tiiave an engineer on its staff that is capable of testing the cable equipment or providing an analysis of what is needed to upgrade the equipment. Bob Hunter, Assistant City Attorney, added that the legal staff does not have the time to spend researching all of the legal requirements which the City must comply with, especially since the 1984 Act is so ambigu- ous. Chairperson Seligmann interjected that Mayor Stevens wanted to have a study session with the CATV Board to explain their function before they started working on the renewal, Darlene Whitten then made a motion that the CATV Board ask for e joint study session with the City Council to discuss the Board's role in the franchise renewal process and to develop a scope of services for the Board. Mr. Fearing seconded the motion and a vote of 4-0 in favor was taken. Ms. Whitten then stated that she felt the City did not need a consultant to assist them and that the Board should formulate a rec- ommendation on this. Ms. Whitten made the motion that, "In general, the Board is in favor of the use of a consultant to assist the City in legal and technical matters related to cable television refranchisement." This motion was seconded by Joseph Fearing. The board voted 4-0 in favor of the motion, Staff was asked about the possibility of the City taking over ownership of the cable company, Bill Angelo, Assistant Director of Public works, responded that it had been discussed but was not really being considered as an option at this time. MINUTES CABLE TV ADVISORY BOARD July 2, 1996 Page 3 ITEM N4 UPDATE ON SAM14ONS COMMUNICATIONS Ms. Moore then provided an update on activities by Sammons Communications, Inc, She expl tned that the cable company was now -arryinq the CSPAN channel and that they were in the process of changing o-at all of the cable boxes. The new boxes can be operated by remote control and will allow for pay per view programming. Ms. Moore also discussed the possibility of increasing the franchise fee that Sammons pays to the City from 3• to 5%. She said that the staff is planning to meet with Sammons to discuss this. The Board then asked the staff to invite John Enlow, General Manager of Sammons Communications, Inc., to attend the next board meeting and discuss several issues with them. These issues include the monthly charge for tha remote control device that can be used with the new cable boxes and service to the downtown Square area.. Darlene Whitten then made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Chairperson Seligmann. The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 P.M. pw2 i DATE: August 19, 1986 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT Mayor and Members of the City Council , T0; FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT.: DOLLAR-A-DAY (DAD) SAVINGS PLAN AWARDS RECOMMENDATION: NIA SUMMARY: Presentation of awards for the City's recently concluded Dollar-A-Day (DAD) Savings Plan. Winners include Greg Muirhead, DiAnne Lehrer, John Lobaugh, Patricia Strickland, and Marsha Howell, Honorable Mention winner, BACKGROUND: The "DAD" program was developed in response to our City-wide efforts to reduce operating costs and improve productivity. The idea behind the program is to give employees the opportunity to make suggestions for reducing operating costs which will save at least one dollar per day (;250.00 per year), and could be implemented at little or no cost to the City. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: All City employees FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated savings total at least $165,000. Actual savings on uome of the conservation suggestions can not be determined at this time. Respectfully submitted! IYI 40Pd V acre 1 City Manager Prepared by: r, ODR I - , Paulette Owens-Holmes Program Administrator Approved: Betty XcKAn Assistant City Manager CIT1~ Of D&WONt TWUS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. McKINNEY ST. / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 M X H 0 R A N D U M DATEt August 5, 1986 TOt Members of City Council FROMt Paulette R. Owens-Holmes, Program Administrator SUIJECTt DOLLAR-A-DAY (DAD) SAVINGS PLAN In response tr our City-wide efforts to reduce costs and impror;e productivity, the Operations Analysis (OA) Division introduced a cost-savings program in April called the Dollar-A-Day Savings Plan. The idea bohind the program is to give employees the opportunity to make suggestions for reducing costs which will save at least one dolla.^ ($1) per day ($250 per year), and could be implemented at little or no cost to the City. This program appears to offer an excellent avenue to voice these suggestions and reward p-rticipants for doing so. Primary objectives are tot 1. Develop a small step approach to reducing operating costs in which employees can participate. 2. Increase problem prevention awareness of all employees, aid 3. Improve communication betwyen management and employees. The Operations Analysis (OA) Division received fourteen (14) final entries. It is my understanding that there were more entries, however, some entries were not approved and therefore not forwarded by the department/division coordinators for OA review. The overall total of how many employees participated in the program is unknown. Four (4) first place winners and one (1) Honorable Mention were selected in four categories. The categories, the winners, and the winning suggestions aret 1. Largest Fiscal Impact - City-Wide Patricia Strickland, Patrol Division Reduce fluorescent lighting 817/6968200 DI W .WETRO 49t-2W -77 Council pg. 2 2. Largest Fiscal Impact - Work Unit John Lobaugh, Solid Waste Rental equipment/ temporary worker landfill excavation 3. Most Easily Implemented - City-Wide Greg Muirhead, Building Inspection Reduce electric consumption Honorable Montion Marsha Howell, Central Stores Using Central Stores copier for 100-plus copies 4. Most Easily Implemented - Work Unit DiAnne Uehrerp Animal Control Reduce trash bag usage The anticipated savings total at least $765,000. Actual savings on some of the energy conservation measures cannot be determined at this time therefore the savings could be substantially more. Our investment cost totals approximately $600 which includes $400 for four first place winners, $100.00 for plaques and certificates and $100.00 for supplies, advertising and printing costs. Overall, the DAD Savings Plan was well received. We were impressed by the enthusiasm and cooperative spirit displayed by the majority of the employees and members of management as well as the quality ideas presented for our review. The Executive Committee has approved that the Dollar-A-bay Savings Plan be held annually. Ile anticipate an even stronger response next year, Paulette Owens-Holmes grogram Administrator DAM 08/19/86 9MCI~ S+OR? tOIIMIIZ -CM ,i- A TO; Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM; Lloyd Harrell, City Etanager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR S-6 AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDIMANCI! RECOM7NDATION: The Planning and Zoning Comission considered this item at its' meeting of July 9, 1966 and voted to recomsend approval of S-b by a vote of 6-0. SUMMMI This is a request for approval of a specific use permit in a single family (SF-10) district to permit the operation of a 208 bed nursing home on a A.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet north of U.S. Highway 380. BACKGROUND: In July of 1969, the City Council approved a opcoific use permit for a nursing home at this site; however, no site plan or ordinance was ever adopted. A 168 bednursing home facility is now located at this site and the owner is requesting approval of an additional 60 bed wire to the facility. PROGRAMS. DEPARTONTS OR QR2UP,S AFFECTED, Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact on the general fund. Res otfully subaitted: L oyd rr 1 Prepared by: City Manager 6 ux, Denise Spi ey Urban Planner Ap ove a Jeff Director of Planning and DevelopsMnt 14?4s/2 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIUN TO CITY COUNCIL To: Denton City Council Case No.: S-6 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Donny Doster 2229 N. Carroll Boulevard Denton, Texas 76201 Status of Applicant: Area Supervisor Requested Action; Approval of a specific use permit in a single family (SF-10) district to permit the operation of a 208 bed nursing home. Location and Size: A 4.9 acre tract loc,:ted on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 11500 feet north of University Drive (U.S. Highway 380). Surrounding Land Use and zoning: North - Vacant, Single Family Residential; 2-F, SF-10 South - Church, Fairgrounds; S-113, SF-10 East - Single Family Residential; SF-7 West - Vacant, Good Samaritan Retirement Center; MF-1, MF-2, PD-21 Denton Development Guide: Low Intensity Area SPECIAL INFORMATION Transportation: The property has frontage on Carroli Boulevard, a residential street that functions as a collector. The two driveways shown on the site plan are existing. A sidewalk will be required along Carroll Boulevard. A 20 foot driveway will be provided along the south property line to provide access to the proposed wing at the rear of the property, • '~4 a`.rt y.gfi ~ .U2`.M.gt.py x M 'Y.1tP r 3`. l if~ Y r yam. gyp,:, (case S-6) Page Two SPECIAL INFORMATION (continued) utilities: The existing 6" water line in Carroll Boulevard should have sufficient fire flow for this development. The existing 6" sanitary sewer in Carroll Boulevard provides service to the existing 148 bed nursing home. The developer must extend a 10" sanitary sewer approximately 450 feet along Carroll Boulevard south to the proposed sewer of the Infinity Strata Addition. Drainage: The developer should work with the developers of the Infinity Strata Addition on a joint solution to drainage problems. Off-site permission and improvements may be required. HISTORY In November of 1968, a specific use permit for a nursing home was approved on a five acre site west of the First Assembly of God Church and Central Baptist Church. In July of 1969, the City Council approved a change in the location of the specific use permit to another five acre site north of the First Assembly of God Church and fronting on Carroll Boulevard. When this request was approved, no site plan or ordinance was adopted( however, a 148 bed n.,xsing borne facility is now located at this site. The current o~.:ser of the property is requesting an amendment to the existing specific use permit to allow the construction of an additional wing to the facility that will contain 60 additional beds. ANALYSIS The following is an analysis of the proposal according to Denton Development Guide policies and City of Denton Zoning ordinance Standards: 1. Intensity - The property is located in a low intensity area that is under the standard based on existing land use and existing zoning. Approval of this request will not violate the intensity standard for the area. (case S-6) Page Three x►NALXSIS (continued) 2, Access - The property has frontage on Carroll Boulevard, a residential street that actually functions as a collector. The two driveways shown on the site plan are existing. A twenty foot driveway will be provided along the south property line to provide access to the proposed wing at the rear of the property. 3. Setbacks - The existing building meets current building line regulations except that the northwest corner of the building is 9.97 feet from the property line and the ordinance requires a 10 foot setback. The proposed building complies with current setback regulations. 4. Parking - The City of Denton zoning Ordinance sets the parking requirement for nursing homes at one space for each six beds, Under this standard, 35 spaces are required and 73 are provided. 5. Height - The existing and proposed structures are single story and will be compatible with the single family homes in the area. 6. Landscaping - Although open space is featured on the property, staff recommends that a minimum of 209 of the project should be lands^,iped, 7. Screening - A six foot solid screening fence is recommended along the northern property line as a buffer to the recently platted two-family lots to the north. 8. Signage - The size, height, and setback of the existing sign are consistent with City of Denton Sign Ordinance Requirements. No additional signs should be permitted. RECOMMENDATION Since the proposal does not violate City policies or standards and will legitimize the existing facility, the Planning and zoning Commission recommends approval of s-6 by A vote of 6-0 with the following conditions: 1. No additional detached signs will be permitted, 2. P., minimum of 20% of the property shall be landscaped, 3. A solid six (6) foot screening fence shall. be erected along the north property line, i J . I' '1h :S (case S-6) Page Four ALTERNATIVES I, Approve petition 2. Approve petition with additional conditionb Deny petition ATTACHMENTS 1, Location Map I 2. Site Plan I1 3. Mailing List 4, Reply Form Totals 5. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 9, 1986. 1270) ' wIA'Oe~y,M+ WINDfOR DRIFT ow • ~THAIDeff 4 ~ J d11tN0 M TIM I A IR OMOVA w pi Li A OtIMIL'RI HILL 1H~" pM RD. 1U URN W►OGAM LOO, nCINCTar ILL; UL &A ac ac aft"IRIAII i l T f _ IMSS * r (V/ w j ( woaolano`_ AMNUasr ht!,AN OR, hwr aeo Z s G SUNIET WESiwhY II C J 1 -J C~C COLL• or ~J LJ ~ II j 1 J GA)VE 3 el - LQARY -1 ,rj SE L :N~1' x I - , FF ' Rr - _ eauaowAV J ~ ! 1 4,,i C a q C PA-N#4 LL- J loaN C y , a ~ E.- LA!IOEA J~ -yJ C! J L ~C f~ N~~ w R PE„AL ULAP#O J 2-F ZONE I I I , i ` Iv IMITY R~r~00ri ltw / ~ f 1 J/ 11[/ - s.e~'e1 role.: 829.~g• its lA l i p ~ /i/ / \ 1 I } \ Si., fii \ h m 111 i I ! yPROPOSE d E:fIA11NA : N ~f..9TONY BRICK 40~ ~a ~ r,~ fe , 111r J-GAI LIME 7v1 a ,t~ r. I -~a x rte `f a,~ \ J/ , ` M,.' t ' " te•., uti~iiY SE~1-y- N/ AIS i•iµ oar 1 'LT ML i R. \ OEAlN10NT \ ~ ~ \ 8i1RVEY A~31 ~ ~ ~ aY AfC eArsr.ft "SO r'w~~ of ptu lCM 40 NO1E I. 1NI5 TRACT IS 1101 IN A FLOOD H17AR0 AREA LUM(03ER ot"IWACCORDING 10 1NE fL0f10 BOUNDARY MAP, PANEL MUMA 480194 0015, 041 O CIfFEat117le N9YEMeER e3. 1e 5-113 & SF"10 ZONEP. PAOPMD SI#4LC ,10AY BUILOINO HAS APMXIWAYELY 20,850 SWAar. FEET OF GROSS \FLOOR AREA, N. es REoViov", A. @Iif ReDNFlitll Anen',le 4 REYI S I" ' OENTON MIMIN9 CENTER ADDITION LEetWD _ 4,994 ACREl1 ~RNGSPI UHCW KW4Y, A-31 rip - hMtl iron pin OWNER F(IUi/ CITY AND COUNtY OF 001TON, TLUI SIP - WL Ir" PIA -M- - F&KO LIM CVTI111, f \A'~' ' I 1 ft.rIw1R'u awl9m m CmmTm •E- - -23e11trtt LI" TruAan S01t5• Pr441Nnt ! _ fl y' ~~~~'1 W PUMT~0 IWf -r• - 701 Joe L I" P.O. e,f 4104 !t 0111 a'M W - "W"IN 101"It► F4119, tot" I Mill 11112.141119 411wk If M - Powl• Pal♦ hill e9e-!E•11 aR.14Fr SCALE DATE rN Ft" NFerMt VICINITY MAP ige 41110. Crq Iwo ,.e.L. flow, 5-1-66 swift PROPnRTY OWNER REPLY FORMS CITY COUNCIL S-6 IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION UNDECIDED None Received None Received -~wrrrrrrrirY i • i 9t .a..r,. .ts '~r'A*rv~r L-. v ►'~~C ~`t.' i~r, 4~y i +4 404- -':r r>74J. %lif ' at ~.,(Y i ~I aJ yl I t Jr~ ~~fT'i t~~{♦~it I~ lik'i 1 '?aS 15:~♦ ar +'yJy1 „,~j r C 'f t '•tNY,1.j I ~ i ri'4~{ f rt t 1 ri I V'M1ii~i`~. ~'(\t~rt ' I,♦J ,♦'j'. -JiJ4 , JD16 I I'd A] odBOO 00160 ti I _ i , , r ~ I I 1 i ed 2Sk 316 I 018 NO - ~ ♦ °.i i QQf~ f C as . ILL, 'q - ?moo V a 1 ]z i r • Minutes Planning and Zoning Commission July 9, 1986 The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton Texas was held on Wednesday, July 9 19869 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the Municipal kuilding. Present: Suline Brock, Bill Claiborne, R. B Escue, Jr., Ivan Glasscock, Judd Holt and William Kamman Absent: Ruby Cole Present from Staff: Jeff Meyer, Director of Planning and Develop- ment; Denise Spivey, Urban Planner; Cecile Carson, Urban Planner; Joe Morris, Assistant City Attorney; Dave Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities; Jerry Clark, City Engineer; and Susan Mitchell, rc(;retary Chairman Bill Claiborne called the meeting to order and introduced and welcomed the two new members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Ivan Glasscock and William Kamman, 1. MINUTES: It was moved by Mr. Escue, seconded by Ms. Brock and motion carried (4-0) to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 11, 1986, Mr. Glasscock and Mr. Kamman abstained. 11. CONSENT AGENDA: It was moved by Ms, Brock, seconded by r, sCUe an unanimously carried (6-0) to approve the consent agenda as follows: A. Approval of final plat of the Green Valley Ranch Addition. U. Recommend approval of preliminary plat of Hannah Estates, Phase IV, Block 1. C. Approval of final plat of the Whitney Park Addition. III, PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition of Donny Doster requesting approval of r a specific use permit in a single family (SF-10) zoning district to permit the development of a 208 bed nursing home on a 4.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard approximately 1,500 feet north of U.S, Highway 380 (University Drive), The property is further described as a tract in the R. Beaumont Survey, Abstract 51. Eleven notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; no reply forms were received in favor, one reply form was received in opposition. PETITIONER: Donny Doster stated that they are operating a 14 be nursing facility and are requesting an amendment to the permit for an additional 60 beds. He said that they have been experiencing a 971 occupancy rate. He said that there is a steed for more beds in Denton because Denton and Denton County patients are being sent to Dallas and sur- rounding areas. IN FAVOR: Lee Keith, Denton County Veteran officer, stated - that he assists 10-30 veterans a month who need placement in nursing homes. He said that Denton Center is a low cost nursing care facility but that they have been unable to ac- comnodate the veterans because of lack of space. He asked for favorable consideration towards approval to take care of the veterans in need of nursing home care. Karen Long, Director of Social Services at Flow Memorial H?sgital, stated that she aids in the placement of pa- tets i nto nursino homes. She said that Denton Center is P 4 Z Minutes July 9, 1986 Page 2 • one of the few nursing facilities that accepts Medicare and that the additional beds would be a great help. OPPOSED: None present. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Spivey said that no ordinance for this s ec c use permit was adopted by the City Council after the public hearing; however, a 148 bed nursing home facil- ity is now located at this site. The current owner of the property is requesting an amendment to the existing speci- fic use permit to allow the construction of an additional wing to the facility that will contain 60 additional beds. She said that this proposal is located within a low inten- sity area and this request, if approved, will not violate the intensity standard for this area. She said that a twenty foot driveway will be provided along the south prop- erty line to provide access to the proposed wing at the rear of the property. She said although open space is featured on the property, staff recommends that a minimum of 201 of the project should be landscaped and a six foot solid screening fence is recommended along the northern property line as a buffer to the recently platted two- family lots to the north. She said that since the pro- posal does not violate City policies or standards, staff recommends approval with conditions. Ms. Brock asked if the area of Carroll Boulevard would be widened in front of the property. Ms. Spivey said no. Mr. Meyer stated that at one time it was being considered but the City is no longer considering the expansion of Carroll Boulevard. Ms. Brock asked about the future of the North Texas Fair- grounds. Mr. Meyer stated that they planned to meet with the North Texas Fairgrounds Board on Friday and discuss the matter. REBUTTAL: None offered. Chair declared public hearing closed. UECISW N: Mr, Claiborne stated that the negative response in eg`ards to traffic had validity. He said that the sub- ject property is land k eked at the present. He said that the traffic would t;,crease by .151. lie said that he tends to favor because of the appropriateness of the land use. Mr. Kar,iman asked about the increase in traffic. Mr. Claiborne stated that the increase In traffic would be caused by visitors to see the additional patients. Mr. Holt stated that he had never had any trouble with traffic in this area. Mr. Claiborne asked about the projected vehicle trips per day. Ms, Carson stated that the trips per day are based on the number of beds and employees on tote gross acreage. She said the proposal will not significantly increase the intensity. She said that this area is predominately resi- dential and institutional in nature. bir. Kamman asked how the landscaping is determined. Ms. Spivey said that 201 of the total square footage is the standard used by the City. She said that staff is unsure about landscaping because a building exists. Mr. Claiborne moved to recommend approval of S-6 subject to the following conditions: d P 4 2 Minutes July 9, 1986 Page 3 1. No additional detached signs will be permitted. 2. A minimum of 101 of the property shall be landscaped. 3. A solid six (6) foot screening fence shall be erected along the north property line. Seconded by Mr. Kamman. Mr. Escue stated that since the building exists that it needs to have an ordinance. He felt that the beds pro- posed are a little high but felt that they are needed. He said since it does not violate the intensity he would vote in favor. Vote was called and motion unanimously carried (6-0). B. 2-1818. Petition of Dimension Development Company requesting an amendment to a planned development (PD-19/PD-82) located east of Lillian Miller Parkway at the intersection of Teasley Lane (FM 2181). The 161.7 acres was zoned planned development by ordinance 84-109 and permits the development of cluster, multi- family, general retail, single family - 10,000 square feet, single family - 7,000 square feet, office, a park and a community facility site. The amendment would change three areas: 1. 15.00 acres tom: ?``luster housing with a total of 120 units To Single Family with a minimum lot size of • 7,000 square feet 2. 30.39 acres tom: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 3. 28.53 acres romuster housing with a total of 314 units To: Cluster housing with a total of 339 units Nine notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; one reply form was received in favor; no reply forms were received in opposition. PETITIONER: Bob Wachter, representing Dimension Develop- ment Corporation, stated that they have owned this prop- erty and the 136 acres to the east for two and one-half years. He said that they have worked heavily on this pro- ject for the last year. He said that this is one of the final steps before construction. He said that this pro- posal has been reduced by 20 units from the last proposal. tN FAVOR: Jerry Cott, owner of Sundown Ranch to the south, stated that they were basically in favor because the ppro- posal offers variety. He said that one comment that he had was that when the original planned development was approved that Mr. Wachter shook hands on a major screening wall on the entire south part of the property, He said that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Gnmaission meeting of September 25, 1985 reflect this agreement. lie said that the agreement is not shown on this proposal and that he understood from staff that the agreement can be attached at the detailed plan stage, He said that he believes the . deal still stands. He said that this proposal is a clas- sic -ase of cumulative zoning. He said that in the future when giving this kind of density In a section of town the Commission should look ar the whole area. He said that it is really unfair to those with major pieces of property because no intensity is left in the area. He said that they are forced to do something that it not good for the i community. IS29L NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, GRANTING A SPECIPIC 4 USE PERMIT FOR A NURSING HOME; PROVIDING FOR THE REFERENCING OF SUCH USE ON THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-11 AS AMENDED, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 4.9 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARROLL BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY I,S00 FEET NORTH OF U. S. HIGHWAY 390, AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF $1,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS; SECTION I. That the 4.9 acre tract located on the west side of Carroll Boulevard, approximately 1,500 feet north of U. S. Highway 380, in the City of Denton, Texas, as is more particularly described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, which is classified as a single-family (SF-10) zoning district under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, is hereby granted for the use of said property a specific use permit for a nursing home, subject to the following conditions and restrictions: 1. That the property shall be developed and used in accordance with the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B", being Incorporated herein by reference. 2. That a minimum of twenty (201) percent of the property will be landscaped. 3. No additional detached signs, other than those legally existing of the effective date of this ordinance, shall be constructed, maintained, or used on the property. 4. A solid six (61) foot screening fence shall be erected along the north property line, SECTION II. The Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 1969, as an Appendix to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas under Ordinance No. 69-1, as amended, shall be referenced to show the property herein described being granted a specific use permit for the use approved herein. SECTION III. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens, S-6/PAGE 1 SECTION IV. Any person who shall violate a provision of this ordinance, or fails to comply therewith or with any of the requirements • thereof, or of a permit or certificate issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Each such parson shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above. SECTION V. 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 cuurt of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such Invalidity. SECTION VI. 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 1986. RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CH701LOTTE ALLEN, CITY SECFffM CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: `~11~G1 S-6/PAGE 2 EXHIBIT "A" ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE A. KAUMONT SUAVEV. A09TRACT MAW* 31. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS. SAirl TRACT NINO 9*0 Sy DEED TO COTRU, INC., AM RECOMID IN VOLUME 502. PAST 841, \ DIIEFDRECOR OF DEMON COUNTY, TEXAS. AND SEINE MORE FULLY DESCRIBED SESINNIMS FOR THE EASTERMUOST SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT SEINE DESCRIBED HEREIN AT AN SAM PIN FOUND. SAID CORNER ALSO aEINN INC NORTHEAST CORER OF THAT TRACT OF LANG SHOWN SY DEED TO THE ASSEMBLY OF SOO CHURCH. KCW490 IN VOLUME 444. PASS 875, OEEO RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. AND BEING ON THE WEST LINE OF CARROLL BOULEVARD, THENCE WEST, A DISTANCE OF 3!0.00 FEET TO AN 18011 PIN FDUNO FOR AN ELL CORER OF HEREIN DESCRIBED TRACT, ALSO REIMS THE NORTHWEST CORNEA OF SAID VOLUME 445, PAST 872, TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 00 DRONES 33 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST. A DISTANCE OF 200.09 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND FOR THE WEST[ROMI SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAIO VOLUME 445, PAIR 572, TRACT AND REINS ON THE NORTH LINE OF A TRACT SHOWN GY DEED TO CENTRAL BAPTIST CHURCH OF OENTOM, RECORDED IN VOLUME 439, PAIR S2S. DEED RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 00 090MIS 31 MINUTES 30 SECONDS HEST, A DISTANCE OF 241.90 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND FOR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HEREIN DESCRIBEO TRACT, ALSO SEINE THE NORTHWEST COIIMER OF SAID VOLUME 439, PASS 125. TRACT AND SAID CORHIRR ALSO BEINN ON THE EAST LINE OF A TRACT SHOWN BY DEED TO DENTON PROPERTIES, LTD., AECOROEO IN VXUNR 1033, PAGE 810, OEED RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE MOUTH 00 DRONES 41 MINUTES 00 SECOMB EAST ALOWS THE WEST LINE OF MINIM DESCRIBED TRACT AND THE EAST LINE OF SAID VOLUME 1553, PASS 810, TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 472.68 FEET TO AN SAM PIN FOUND FOR THE NORTHWEST CORNEHk 'IMENCE SOUTH G9 DRONES 51 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST ALONG 74 NORTH LINE OF HEREIN DESCRIM TRACT AND THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID VOLUME 1339, PAGE 810. TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 889,88 FEET TO AN IRON PIN FOUND FOR DHI W COAMRK GRID COANEA REINS ON THE WEST LINE OF SA10 THENCE SOUTH 01 DRONES OI MINUTES 00 SECONOG WEST ALONE THE WELT LINE OF SAID CAIMIOLL BOULEVARD. A OISTANC[ OF Mr. 24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BESIMNINI AND CONTAINING 4,834 ACM OF LAM. r i S-8 z-F Zola h/Op11~i1 II M ~ \,\1011 ~~1 J.~. R v rpmpm 1' ! 1~ ~i MAY Mlac I !1ri. Q 1 ` tl G ( 1 1{1 1 / M •-011,11 (A 4 /YWr1" 1 111 I ~ - I l i...... ! • 1 Illll Klr~-_ _ - 1.. !~-41fi 1'W fYY {CW:f N Ql , - E L T ! i~ ` until lied./ j 1KUwaNr \ wpveY Jai r ~i 1 IY~ /IIWI YIYa1M,~Y1 - _ - ~`1 / / / qi[. i, In ri IIUCf I1 KI IM 111000 IMINO ANA / NC0101 i Id MU 8000 114MdM W, LAC FPEpMIT - uwlw pelt wrm \ A r 9-113 C Si-l0 ZONE/ / o. awwlnn°ie6No WONA w onml REvian M MM ItIOlrlt♦ X10 1[ I1510M IV - IwN IrM ►In WO t tYN1CNt riTu A•af Pat- uKb tNO f. I'm I'm ►le Y MO w fR11TIM TtXA~ COU'OIIATf011 IM i1R.Mb11•IxM/W -1• - III,IMMI lIM ► C 41 r0/, -rte by 1 W IIIIg11, ■ilnilr 1,111. IbM M - hM' h11 Nf 11 eWI Iwo, Ir1,F,~1 W YIGINTif MII 0►e11I Oli1E -0E M. _,r DATE: 08/19/86 CITY COUNCIL REM ET FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council PROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE FOR Z-1818 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request. SUMMARY: The request is for an amendment to a planned development approved in September of 1984 for cluster housing, multi-family, office, retail, single family-101 single family-7, park and community facility. BACKGROUND: The amendment does not significantly impact intensity. The addition of single family-7 on the cluster site makes a better transition. The change from single family-10 to single family-7 does not provide as much buffer to the single family-10 to the north, but the increase in single family-7 does provide more balance of land uses in the area. The third change is a slight increase in the cluster housing density and does not violate any policies. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR. GROUPS AFFECTED: Nine (9) reply forms were mailed to property owners within 200 feet. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact can be determined at this time. Resp~tfully submitted: I Lloyd a cell Prepared by: City Manager Cecile Carson Urban Planner Appro d: Jeff Meye Director of Planning and Development 0343e PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL To: Denton City Council Case No.: Z-1818 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Dimension Development Co. 17UU Pacific Ave., Suite 4500 Dallae, Texas 75201 Status of Applicant: Owner Requested Action: An amendment to a planned development (PD 19/82) approved in 1984. The amendment would change three areas in the 161.7 acre planned development: 15.00 acres - From: Cluster housing with a total of 120 units To: Single family with a minimum lot size of 71000 square feet 30.39 acres - From: Single family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet To: Single family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 28.53 acres - From: Cluster housing with a total of 314 units To: Cluster housing with a total of 339 units Location and Size: A 161.7 acre tract zoned planned development and located east and west of Lillian Miller Parkway at the intersection of Teasley Lane (FM 2181). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Planned development-87; SF-10; agricultural South - Agricultural; Sun Down Ranch; planned development-16 East - Planned development-20 West - SF-10 Denton Development Guide: Low intensity area (Case Z-1818) Page Two f SPECIAL INFORMATION Utilities: city may participate on oversizing water line along Lillian Miller Parkway. Parallel sewer line needs to be constructed along existing outfall through development. HISTORY Ordinance 84-109 approved September 41 1984 established a planned development on 161 .7 acres of ProPertY The planned development permits the following land uses; Single family - 1U,000 square foot lots, sing],e family - 7,000 square foot lots, cluster housing at 8 units per acre, cluster housinc, at 11 units per acre, multi-family with 390 total units, general retail, office, a park, and a community facility. ANALYSIS The property is located in a low intensity area that is currently 60% under the intensity standard based on land use and 6% over the standard based on zoning. The amendment would increase the intensity by 114 trips per day and the violation of the standard based on zoning would remain at 68. The amendment would change the 30.39 acre single family with 10,000 square foot lots to single family with 7,000 square foot lots. The property to the north is zoned single family (SF-10) and planned development .esidential at 6 units per acre. This request would permit additional diversified housing in the area. The only other single family on 7,000 square foot lots in this area is in this planned development. The density in this specific area would be slightly increased. The second change would eliminate cluster housing at 8 units to t:;e acre and replace the area with single family (SF-7). The combination of the change of SF-10 to SF-7 and the cluster to SF-7 would result in 80.49 acres of SF-7 zoning in the planned development. While the amendment significantly increases the SF-7 zoning, the planned development still provides considerable diversity and provides housing diversity in this area of Denton. The last area of change is an increase in the total number of units in the cluster housing; area on the east side of the (Case Z-1818) Page Thee ANALYSIS (continued) planned development. The planned development includes 314 units on 28,53 acres with a density of 11 units per acre and the amendment would increase the total units to 339 with a density of 11.88 units per acre. Multi-family is considered anything over 12 units per acres therefore, this amendment would riot violate policy. The amendment would not impact the intensity standard but would pr(jvide a better transition to adjacent land uses and add diversity in the area. RECOMMENDATION Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Z-18184 by a vote of 5-1. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve petition 2. Approve petition with additional conditions 3. Deny petition ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Concept Plan 3. Existing Concept Plan 4. Development Conditions 5. Develcpment Schedule 6. Ordinance 84-109 7. Reply corm Totals 8. Mailing List 9. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 9, j 198b 1439s SIN n l ' Lr 't91f1~01T'~ T•'1 YNNUR[T LAN Z-1818 Loll- .,c [ [ R ~3 \ J CNA r I ui $"ESTIN DR J rN r o~kMUASr sr ~ Q BNIERCLIff DR IRIONTO~N'/7 W .p ~[Mra~KS De. ,r'1 3 CIA f L - ° MTON OF -<1 Proposed changes for PI1-1.9 el pD-y -J~ a, c161-1o I P r- 3 -N- F T1AY0 ~ TAD-q/IM-Al1~dW , If^1 ~w ' hr w» M M ju ri~;Iw: M ' rw '1+ Ark~Av~ f 1 f 10 •1 i, 1 I...,. 10-II/OwrMM100 ~rl r , ' 'i',. tip', ~y • f t ~r+ ~u.~wa. cur , _ OWWWMMM t T~w{ANy~ , M%#4 '~•f. f i ~rk• L" On 9 AN" oft MwMN "oft Vift o+1th ow 0A CMMw "816 *4 am 60 *A L1 f ww HOW" w "it *wow Rmd I IM 0 *a" MIw' MAO M OlA 0010 Md"&I4 Ill/>t 010b%w Wo *a'/ MO "n cow W 0 OHM ~ 10,000 w /w ft* IN 0 NA WA WA OT-/0 140 10 w-W 10 100 WNW" OAt I" 01t Ohl at 9011 Iwn+ww oww9I IJ0 0 Owoo om *up" WA boom TWIOrlpAwa WAS t000 Tom 10fIt ~ww....wrwwr. ~W~Y riw ~~YIIM dr>♦iw~ wrrr~ Aaprw WNW* CONCEPT PLAN no ftwom f iy aw 'J DIMENSION DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RIDGEWAY MEADOWS ff j"l 0 nnI{rrr~ Or IM/ 9+9wr~nlti ~a•IM+IK ~L4tv=w - ~r AN~Nwa #aM. ~ ondsr111MM slawrey PY•P 2~.r1__rM 4 _ Iw Wt_~G6II3. ---q env*, AY111r Wx1>.Yt Ne0 110 ~ IAS b 1a.11- A O"'m , 1►Hipe..rlery M~ mv~," I to N0o Il0 M p I}A •NW /weq/Is~ " \ O..Irr1•r / Cm"w 1 0.1 IoN 114 IM a.N N MwM'M \ NW /Yteeq,etl VNIII/ Y N 1]M w 0 0 1711 , M~11'4 t.Nt/leeel lr MNlr St.* 3011 M f N M Ir h 1.4• .5 I•I Mw fwA, Lyt tpiry ,ww y-r 1400 IM M 110 7710 UWrtMUO O wtINM 00 \ ' / 0".4 T 11.10 0 0 0 170 Cn r .YI 71 oN1y teFwM MN•1 A 06 dp ' 1,111.1l u nm fee la Iar •<u1eaN booft"d 4• IM 41'4q' M•Ns" PINq 1 MrMOrnroM 6urnlelrT • , 5 Cgbalo~ UMP NN IFFY t ►.NI10000et+ __2drr1 14N k__ I N OF 1a Ilse 4 t 1" 1 4S W 10 711t /t it w i4u AM b ]1!a 0 J!1 0 t) re 5 \ de[. A 400 0 a5 0 144 L.~Y~r. \ G'. ttfe IIM. 4 i R 0 41 . N b It'1411e1 11. 141t 1q~_1 NAt 41N 117 IeJl ~ ~ • IuF fl.Itrt•,1N•t IIWM4oof moeftw• To1M MrNoonNM SWl~Y Nr...MeMr 1NM _ aN.01 M Ilan 1• ]e Ie 4.I71t f11A4 J< • , IF 4.3 14+I1b...,, Ilr,r.• \ UPI ~ 6.0 lIPA ' nt«i felll. he/r/ ~ "on do •a ~1 \~5\ 1S1M r.eeq aull.w _:.r. ahl hw ~ taSM McWrlktl { ~ ~ Lral.r. 00" ftua r. ei «~ww w w n n/w : V IAr1er4A1trN • u1r IIt1001 117 \ a•.Nn'e ~ VNN Existing PD-19 rIow r yy /..1, Zoning Approved 9/4/84 - \ «rNl PD-20 c ~ woo 0 r5 r1 11•ru.n e..F `.t,, t ~ 14IN I~ /rwM► RIw.41w\ hlll a Late 441\\ ~e~N r4rrr/ o`NNr 010,11*8111 lift % RIIEWAY M 4/3/86: r►r. crgl EADUVtrS 1 u•r•.•»w INIt4tIY 4q SON" •Y.htw NN1 ►47ti.~IM YMl' .2.~ r ~ / •~~~~y" 4"~- ~ . er1w~~ ~ ~ Af RIDGEWAY MEADOWS - PHASE I We are prepared to begin development of the property, however, market conditions dictate that this rezoning be accomplished to meet the high demand for additional 7,000 square foot lots. This rezoning is in substantial compliance with the existing comprehensive plan and in fact allows for slightly less density than the current zoning. In the long terry our intent is to provide this area of Denton with quality mixed use development. The sequence and durations of activities are shown in the attached schedules which, in general summary, will progress as follows: 1.) Build primary infrastructure (relief sewer line, mass grading, drainage channel, collector streets and associated utilities.) 2.) Construct infrastructure for single family lots (in one to three phases depending on market) and sell those lots to builders, 3.) Either sell the remaining sites (retail, commercial, office, M.F., cluster) to outside developers or develop them ourselves as the market or our internal staff load dictates. The tot layouts shown for the single family areas have been drawn .in accordance with the City standards for size, width and depth. Building setbacks shall conform to appropriate City requirements. cluster housing district 1. approximate location: as shown on the concept plan 2. maximum height: Three stories 3. minimum building seperation: one foot for every three feet of building height 4. 25.53 acres 0 11.9 • 340 units Olmension Development Company RIOGEWAY MEA11OWS-OENTON, TEXAS rixas Land Divislun REPORT TYPE :51ANDARO LISTING PRINTING SEOUENCE ;Earnest Activities First SELECTION C91TERIA :All PLAN I.D. ;RMPHIMAY VERSION S TIME 901i GATE ;261MAY/86 fsiits1L7217fttslitYisattsia2L 27722::2 Is Ia: 12a3z2227zSI:af11:::2::2a:2::3:22x:2Sul 2s /1/22227 ::1 :t2:fi:::::1 $a soft ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION EARLIEST EARLIEST LATEST LATEST DURATION FLOAT START FINISH START FINISH :72:2 is t::s It: 3 t 37::72t322T 1:27222-.27::::: s Its 3277: 37 Is:29 I:22:12f:733:13 f 3::ISlasts s3:3 40- SO P.D. Concept Plan Approval 261MAY186 28IJUL186 261HAYI86 18/JUL/86 10 0 ' SO- 60 Sewer 81ds and Approvals 4/AUG/86 29/SEP186 4/AUG/86 29/SEP/86 9 0 ' SO- 70 Desfun Malor Infrastructure 4/AOG/86 19/SEP/86 I5/SEP/86 IOINOV/86 9 6 60- 80 Construct Sewer Line 6/OCT/86 Z910EC186 6/OCT/86 29/OEC/86 13 0 ' 10- 60 Malor Infrastructure Approvals 6/OCT/86 l1/NOV/86 I1/MOV/86 2910EC186 7 6 10- 90 Prepare S.F, Detail Site Plan 6/OCT/86 2910EC/66 5/JAN/87 30190181 13 13 80- 100 Construct Malor Infrastructure 5/JAN/87 1/JUN/91 SIJAM187 I/JUN/87 22 0 ' 80- A S.F. Infrastructure OesfUn 51JAN/87 30/MAR/87 9/MAR/87 I/JUN181 13 9 90. 110 S.F. Detail Plan Approval 500187 2/%AR/87 61APR181 I)JUN181 9 13 110- 120 S.F, Lot Construction 8/JUN/87 28/SEP/81 B/JUN107 28/SEP/87 11 0 ' 120- 140 Prepare M.F. Detail Slte Plan S/OCT/81 2810(C181 51OCT187 28/OEC/87 13 6 7 120- 130 S.F, House Construction 51OCT/87 241SEP/90 I3/JUN/88 3/4111/91 156 36 140- 130 V. Detail Plan Approval 4/JAN/88 29/FE8/88 41JAM188 29/FEB/88 9 0 " ISO- 160 N.F. Final Deslgn 71MAR188 301MAY188 1/MAR/88 30/NAY/88 I3 0 " 160- 170 N.F, Constructlon 61JUN188 311OCT/88 6/JUN/88 31/OCT/88 22 0 ' 170- LBO Prepare OFFICE Detail Plan 7/NOV/88 30/JAN/89 71NOV/68 JOIJAN/89 13 0 ' 180. 190 OFFICE Detail Plan Approval 6/FEB/89 3/APR/89 6/FE8/89 3/APR/89 9 0 ' 190- 200 OFFICE Final Oeslon I0/APR/89 31JUL189 101APPM 3IJUL/89 13 0' 100- 210 OFFICE Construction 10/JUL/89 2/APR/90 101JU09 21APRI90 39 0 210- 210 Prepare C.N, 11, G.R, 00,ai) Plans 9/APR/90 2/JUL/90 9/01100 1/JUL/90 13 0 ' 220- 240 C.N. 1 G.R, Final Design 9/JUL/90 1/OCT/90 91JUL/90 I/OCT/90 13 0 f 220- 230 C.H. 1 G.A. Detail Plan Approval 91JOL190 MEMO 6/AUG/90 i/OCT190 9 4 240. 250 C.H. A G.R, Construction 8/OCT/90 301.14/91 8/OCT/90 3/JUN/91 35 0 ' as: 72:x22: 2::7:227 a 2I:7azsa es 77:72 ata2ts223iastzlst:s:isz: saa isa322cie2sa2a3:s:3:xs:si:::fisrt7f7: a::::itr: :z::::::2 v:x Oleension Development Company RIDGEWAY MEADOWS-OENTON. TEXAS Texas Land Divlslon REPORT TYPE iMILFSTONE PRINTING SEOUENCE ;Earliest Activities first SELECTION CRITERIA ;MILESTONE PLAN I.O. ;RMPHIKAY VERSION 5 TIME HOW OAT[ :26/MAY/86 :2::::s2iS22:Sf 22122 sla9ssi :i siiif2sa::.:= 2 Is 1:312 A saxts:::223139073:::2:::227:2:as 22::2 sit: : 7tis7:Lis:stss 9:339 I27 s S2:Sig 222:7:121 MILESTONE EARLIEST EVENT LATEST EVENT DESCRIPTION TINE TINE I"2s2111022:12t sit ::7227=tfisfata a::sis:2aaasaa:Is:Isla :2::3371fsasi:2Ass:III 72:2: tsars s xtssat27:I:sit S.F. DETAILED SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 5/JAN/87 6/APR/81 M.F. DETAILED SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 4/JAM/88 4/JAN/88 OFFICE KTAILEO SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 6/FES/69 6/1'£8/89 C.N. 1 O,R, DETAIL SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 91JUL/90 91JUL/90 it%%%SIS%st4if if 7977::aasanf:sai2zl21s2:22a 22:ass211S2232Itssic$ias s A 133ss2t4ssastIs as 224 t:ls7sstiiz7:1a ts21:2t is a tstts222 2 3 as 7212: =l• Jf.: 1, 5 1' No. ~9 { tir AN ORDINANC11 REVEALING TUB EXISTING VLANNED 0EV11LOPHSOT DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND ENACTING A NEW PLANNED 0EV%LO1`M11NT-DISTRICT ORDI- NANCE FOR TEE P90PERTY NEREIN 09SCRIA900 AMENDING 4-1111 ZONING MAP Of TUB CITY Of 090TON, TEXAS A$ SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO TOE 000E Of ORDINANCES Of TES CITY OF DEMTOM No. 69-1 TO PROVIDE FOR A COAM011 IN 1041110 C SY aROINJAND US LUSIFICATION OESIONATED FROM SINGLS FAMILY _•SP-10" T FLAW W-DR AND USE 'PD' DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE AS SAID PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND ZONING MAP APPLIES TO ifl-I ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION ar TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER PAAK'WAY AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN/ AND PROVIDING FOR AN EttECTIVE DATE. TOR COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of 09NTOM, TEXASo HERESY ORDAINS= 'C ON , That the existing planned develops1e0t district zoning ordi- nance applicable to all cc pact of the property descrioed as Tracts 1 through 10 in Exhiait +A' attached hereto and mace A part hereot for all purposes, is hereby repealed in its entirety and thee* is hereby enacted 4 new planned development district ordinance ana comprehensive site plan of 0414 property. i yTN. ' That thu zoning classification ana use assignation appli- cable to any or all of tae property deseriasa as Tracts 1 tnrougn la in Exnibit $A• ateached hereto and mace a pact nervto for Ali purposes is hereby cnanged from Single Family "S1'-10" District Classification and Use to Planned Oavelopment "PO• District Classification and Use. SECTION I*_I. a :hat tna property aescriood ndrain ana :eai^,na-ed -s:a::z 33 piannea development zonin-1 .oisr,ric: 3:a:i, C:ia. :o :-a iisuancy of any, certificate of occupancy c;r :-e c33 0IJ any Quiidin tnvreon comply witn the to.lowing conai::Jn3: 1. Tnat sidewalxs meeting tna City's stancaras ens specifications oe installed on ac least ono 4ia4 o! tns streets tnrougnout the development, 3BCTION IV. The development of the property shall oa in suoacantial compliance with the alts plan attacnsa nereto ono made a part hereof foe all purposes. The Zoning map of the city of Denton, Texas, saopted the 14th day of January, 1969, as an Apponaix to :ne Coca of Ordinances of the City of Denton, .sxas under orainance No. 69-1, ca, and the same is heresy amendaa to snow sucn cnange in District Classification and Usa subject to tno aoove conditions and specificatt,ons. S ICS. V, That the City Council Of the City of Denton, Texas, nersay finds that such cnange is in accordance wits a comprsnsnsive t-11if1/ROSEBT G. wAGkTLa/PAuE 1 . i3.A i 5.. piss for tae purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Dentdno. Texaa, had with reasonable considscation, among .v.,.~ other things. for thr character of the district and foe its peculiar suitabillty' or particular uses, and with a vier is conserving the value at the buildtngsr protecting human lives, and eacouragiag too most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SRCTION VY. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after its passage and approval, the requireulic heactngs having herdtotore been held Oy the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council of the City of Denton, Tetras, otter giving due notice tnereot. PASiSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1984. f 4Of01 D~ TON, TGAS Y S ATTISTr G ~ C' ' • C L Y CITY OF DENT ON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: JOE D. MORRIS, ACTING CI:Y ATTORNEY C:"Y OF JENTON, TEXAS 2-1360/ROBERT C. nAC ea ~~rs w 191 . r, , TRACT l N10n~9 wt of s t61.W.4dre tract of land as Now on a survey for 0lwanafen t0ovolorant Coo04ny by 11"t Nu/ton 6 Asseaiotee, Inc. dated March, 1916, and being •srs hartieulafly described H fellenot ' COSYS[MClIN at the Intoraoetfen of the easterly I Inc of P.M. Nf the south If" of said 16).66-sere tredtl glh++Y 2181 and 01r i[fllalongg sold south Iles, South ef1023'46" [sot, 311.16 feet to the POINT TNINa North 0024'20" blot. 622.16 feet t0 a point in the canterflna of a propesN road (60 poet right-of-way at that peent)l TIM along said esntorline, South [9044,37" [asst, 773.90 fat to the beginning of a curve to the rfghtt TMINCI along said curve, an are having a central angle of 14°01'21", a radius 1 330.00 poet, a length of 130.33 feet, and o chord which Bears South 02 61'56" West, 130.00 feet to the and of said curvet TNINC[ $"th 72035'23" last. 00.35 feet to a point at the beginning of a curve to the lofts TMIMC[ along said curve, an arc having a control angle of 12050'51", a radius of 300.00 feet, a length of 67.27 fiat, and a chord which bears South 79 00'491' test, 67.13 fact TNINCI laving sale conterlino, South 0046'57" Vest, 394.21 fast to a point In the south time of said 161.66-acre tracts TNENCI along said south f 1n0, North 00023'46" Out, 1033.29 feet to the POINT OF SIGIMNiNO and containing 15,00 Merest mare or less. rxs:3:r 'A4 t-1660/R081XT C. NACHTER/PACE 1 r ,c r1111Cf t b VO in* pm ecee~My a " b 0Y-aerq treat of 104 at the0wt on a avrvh, for Of • Oew ~p~ent :goy, MwtM i Asseoletee, Ina, dated Margl .i>sir and being mare pertlcularly dswlbeel as reflawt C"1110CING et the Interseatiur of the easterly I Ino of P.M. MI i'N the $Weft llne of sale 161.66-acre treed i y'11 aM rMEMCt 04" sold south line, South $842314411 [eet, 141004 sett r"Ntt Merth 0°24'20" r wse,. itt.t♦ that., to the POINT or stoIMNIMS, said ; point beln9 In the centorllne of a pr4oosod recd (60 feet right-of,ray at , that points Tma North 0*2402000 Wstr 579011 feet to a points rmiNCt North 090t90S9" west, 340.90 feet to a point in the contarl)ne of proposed Ridgeway Orivo, said point bslnq oA a curve tithe right; THEM alonq said curve, an arc having a central angle of 8044105", a radlus or 1000.00 feet, a length of 191,04 feet, and o chord which bears north 25035,07" East, 152.09 feet to the enf of sold curve) THENCE along said centorlina, Moreh 2!090111" 18010 449.90 feet to the eanterllne InterseetlOA of Ridgeway Drive and a proposed road (60 foot right-of-way); THEM along the centorlino or the proposed 60 feet redo South 59051'12" Ease, 165.S0 foot to the ttiglnring of a curve to the right; rMINU along sold curve, an art having a central angle of 21033'55", a radius of 329.00 feet, and a length of 12:.32 feet to the end of the curios • rMENC[ south 3001x+11° Esst, 391.34 feet to the boglnning of a curve to the lofts redlius of along 1fsaid eot,cand a lengthcofa463.00feett to lthe 6 a of the 'cvrve~ a rMENCE South 890:1'20" East, 39.19 feet to a POIntl rMINCE Ioavinq said contorline, South 1014,270 Watt, 156.53 tggt to tot bsglnnlnq of a curve to the lofts rHENCE along sold curve, an arc havinq a eentrsl anglt of ;y°;3 " a radluf of 260.00 feat, and a ltngth of 135,63 tttt Co t-t and )t t^e !el: THEN`[ South 28017'52" fast, 89.47 !'tot to tno .eji~nl-q o' d -;req 73 t"e Exsxatx •A• L-166°/tOAt:N2 c. 4ACN:83/PAGE 2 r N N.~1loot oM a Iar W11 • oaletral angle of 0024#4e0► o aMeh ).12 loot to the MN of the eurveI ram South $6,042837" coat. 19.17 feet, . ""I", Perth 4,14197" Moat, 93.64 post to a point in the oentorl ine of • propoood so foot roar and a cur" to Cho right, r alaq sold sontwllne and curw► a» are having o aoneral angle of 12 91.9111, a rodiuo of 309604 foot, a length of 41.27 f which Nary North 19eijow MK)at, 47.1) foot ooto aced a chord to the end Of the curroi rN[Np North 72035,23" Mast, M.39 feet to the Inn, toftt boo e►g of a aurw to the TN[NC[ alOn said eurw, a length n are of having a 94ner41 W910 of TOOV2110, e radius od 9 0.01 fact, a 130.)) feet, and o Chord WIVIr,A bears North $2 41,441, vest, 1)0,00 foot to the end of curve; rKmcc North 80A'17" west, 773.90 feat to the POINT OR OIOINNINO and Containing 17.12 oaros► more Of feea. `AFPrlT'f T'..~TT.'axm.~a.G o+w+v r. } n. y .a s. d~ c~bY~~',~r'.i' 1 cyf ~ "Yf~il =I R1 f'~~',lf~~'S!(..S+~~t!111~ L 2~, 11. seinf wt• of a MAil-Wo trade Of led as shnrn On a survw'for slwadelim, Oevelorlaant Cord oy by R ahoy. Nrstasz a Msftiatoa, Inc. 4aeN Marel►R, i90► and bo I M eve we i ou1 ori y d"ar i bee as fo t l ero a NOINNIM at the I01to"44114" of tho easterly Ilea of /.N. Highway, 2181 and the "well line of said 161.660acre treat, fold Mine MIM ao a curve to the left$ ,.,TplNt40104 1614 eoetariy I Ina', M We NOVlnn~q a central angio of l3°26'91", a radlua of 16j.20 feet. aM a tanyth of 17.8.16 poets and a chord which boars North 16 021211, vests 17111,2S fen to a going' In tho' emeorl Inc of propow Illdgowy. Drive (80, foot right-sfewoy)1, THEM alew$ sold eontarlinor North 1006'111 Wet, 637.70 feet too point at the boginnlnq of a curve to the right= TIM along sold curve and eantoriine. an arc having a control angle of 22 16'22110 a radius If 1000.00 poet, a length of 388.73 fait, and a chord which bears North 10 03'561, last. 386.29 fat to a point; mma leavinq said contorllne, South 89°19'5911 fast. 360.90 feet to a point; NMI South 0°26120" lasts 1197.65 fat to a point In the south line of said 161.66-acre tract; TNINCI No-th 88°23'6611 Wet, 381.86 feat to the POINT Of el01NNINC and containing 11.66 acres, more or less. • EXHIBIT •A' -1o6U/AOi3ERT G+ NACHT-ci/?ACg TRACT 4 " Seim we of a 161.66-secs tract of low of shown on a survey For afool Ion Qeve apwsrtt Cpspe"y by 96111"t Huston 6 Assesiates, Inc, doted hfreh, ! , amid being AWO particularly described 08 followe t IEOlN1111N ae a 1/2-Ineh ire" red at the wrest northwastarl 1161.66-acre traeti y corner of raid TNENC= Moan= the West northerly 11" of said tract, Nsrth 13°49'99" East, 939.00 feet to a point In the center of propesad Aldgewey Orive (1p loot right-of-wMy)i THENCE along the cent4rl11ne Of told Afdg" Drive, South 29091'11" Wst, 926.2f feat to a point at the beginning of a curve to the loftl THENCE atom laid eenterllne and curve to the left, an ore having a central angle of 21 10'41", a radius of 1000.00 Feet, a length of 491.14 fact, and a chard which hears South 19 52'46" West, 416.90 Patti THENCE leaving said eentarline, South 19049'99" Vest, $47.75 Peet to a point In the rest line of said 161.66-fare treats THENCE along said west line, North 0036'41" East, 924.19 Fact to the POINT OF IEGINNINC and eontalnlng 14.80 acres, more or less. EXHISI: *A" i6w ROBr,itT G. 4ACH:2R/PAi% 4 i ' 291 ' : ricers $*I"# part of a 161.114-aare tract of law as ahmww an a survey for olmens,we 0evslepnMnt CsWmV try 1"t Ruston 6 Aso"lates, too. dated MorchT 1%4, and being more wi laularly do"rib" ao Fellow$ CONNOCINa at the northwest corner of bald 161.K•88re treat= TRIM siong the meet northerly lino of '0o14 tract, North 1yo69'S9►' East, 915.00 flat to the POINT OF italNNllli► aid paint being In the centers Ins of Proposed Ridgeway Drive (84 foot right'of'wey)1 rNENCE along said northerly line, North W4915911 past, 2209.56 foot to a points TRW South 0846'11" East, 708.56 feet to a point In the carttarline of a proposed 60 foot roodl THENCE along aid contorllno, North 89823'28" wost, 1391.19 foot to the beginning Of a Curve to Cho rightl THENCE along said curve. an arc having a central Angie of 51806'11", radius of 520.00 feet, and a length of 463,10 flat to the end of curves THENCE North 38017'+)" west, 351.34 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; rTHECE along of 325.OOI feet, curvet a length having feet) to angle of 2103315511, the end of curvet a THENCE North 59051'12" west, 165.50 feet to the centerline IntersettIOM of Bald 60 foot road and said Ridgeway Drive; THENCE along centerline of Ridgeway Orlva, North 29058'11" East, 52,79 `eat to the POINT Of IEOINNINd and containing 30.49 acres, more or less. :-1660/aodeed: G. WAC T'j ?,•,,3 , 10 T11~MQ ata~ ♦ curve to the debt, an are having • General •ngie of f cu'S1urves "r a rNlw of 110.00 fact, aid a length of I4J.11 feet to the Ow of c IniiM-9. South lo21*W Wt, 01.12 feet to the beginnl" of a Curve to the left; t TwoMl along sold cum*, an are harm! a eenrraa angle If radlus of 200.00 feet, aM a length of 10).71 feet to h t a Ind of curvet TNtNO South !1613'!5" last, 101.96 fat to a I if F said IE1.01 point In the south (Inc of -acre crests TKNO along sold south line, North 51633140" West, 1000.45 fat to the 1113100 13/ 3141"114 and Containing 35.00 awes, More ar loss. f l 7- !77- T "ACT I i feirrle~g fart o1 a 161.66-fore tract of Iand as abeam 4" a Survey for 0►esndlww Oavelepwaot Cea*aoy by tYMV, Nuaten i Asbdlat"p IM$ dated Nareh, 19", and being NW4 Wtlaulwly dteeflaed as f*116ree w: a ItRiNMINO at the Incersettlem of the aAatorly r10htM1wMay e/ P.M. Nlgheeoy "I and the wet tlna of said 161.(A-mare treat, TNENCt along said ,Meet I lno, North 0*36'41'4 tact, 2011.62 feet to a polntI fNtNtr leevlmg 1414 nest Ilse. North ~l04!'9!" fast. 9;7.7! face co the aafell ar Orlw too feet right-of-wy), said point being ng ► an a na of curve is the frefo tNtl ei TNtNCt 010+00 0414 eentarllne and Curve to the loft, an are having a central angle of 2 91'39'1, A radius of 1000,00 feet, a length of 49.93 feet, and a Chord which burs south 0 21'36" Wu t, 49,93 plot to a point at the and of said curvet TNtNCP along bald centerllne, South' 1004'17,1 jest, 197.21 feet to a point at the eemtorltne Intarseetlom of told Aldgeway Orly* anJ proposed Teasley lane (90 foot right-of-way)i r"INCE along centerline of said Teasley Lame, North 19044137" ''West, 434.91 feet to a point In the easterly Iine oI P,N- Highway 2181, sold point being on a curve to the loft; THINCL along sold curve, in are having a central angle of 9°17'09", a radius of 761,20 feet, a length of 123,37 foot, and a Chord which bears North 73'58'45" west, 123.23 feet to the POINT OF ILOINNINO and'eontalning 3.05 acres, more or less. "c%N:N:: *A* '-156J/~~ i fain? rert.,of a 111.41-44ra treat of fend as thwwron o awvoy for OiMn•Iee. ` OevO a Cal"" W tally, *sew • Ot,aa, ►ea. dated Marsh end being Nero prtlarlarly described yA•IS'sl~s: 1lli' } . COItNtN~1111 at the Intorsoetlan of the wee line of said erect and Mel ehoetMei fiA'•-ef-was of P.M. Nlglhwy 211t, sai/ point Ning on • awvo to T KNCI 4104 told and curvao 4 l an are hevind a central angle of 9017'09", a radius o point f 711.20 feet, end a ttngth of 123.1 fast to the rolN► Of ltOiNfillfi, Said wY)i being an the contoritne of prNaod rea•loy Land t9# fat right-e1• tNONa along said eentorlino, 5"th Na44,170, tat. 431.ff poet to the eentarline Intersection of sold roasloy Lane and prod (10 foot right•of-way)l Aldgewey Drive THING along centerline of said Rldgw►ay Drive. South 1001'17" last, 440451 feet to a point In the easterly 1,me of P.M. Mlghwey 2181, said point boing on a curve to the leftl 'r"NCt along Said curve, an are h•ving a central angle of 480)4'22", radius o~ 761.20 fast, a length of 645.1t feet, ant a chord which boara s North 45 02'58" West, 626.16 feet to the Pow 0I 810101140 and containing 1.55 acres, mars or less. EXHl3:: .t• Z-16oQ/HOtlEH': G. .rACH:E~/?,~G"s g rilACr f . going part of a 161."-4cre treat of land es shewn en a survey far Olma,►slon Ooveieps»nt C0411104ARY M' 10"i Huston t Asnclates, Ina. dated March, 1904, and b°fng nwe partlculaflY dosarlbed of foliftst ''zs COROCIN4 at the westerly northeast corner of $old 161,46-acre trectl ,ij~. TN[WJ 3l"IN 0°16'tro lest, 701,96 foot to the IDIOM W /tOINN,Nt2, s810 point boing in the conterlino of a prowoo 60 rest read, TNINCI along sold centerline, South 3!°23't3,1 lost, 17!.76 foot, rW*CI 1eavJng said Centerline, South t°03'12" ,Meet, 479-39 feet; THINCII North 8I11°23129" Most, 432.01 feet, TNLNCI North 1°03'06" last, 463.43 feet to a point In the centerline of a proposed 60 foot rood, TNfNCS along said centorlino, South /9°23'21" last, 236.23 feet to the POINT Of 1941NNt"G and containing 4.63 acres, more or less. ax-413:r s TIIACT 16 icing part of a 161.66-acre tract of lad as shown en a our o•veiostisent Cos*any by '"s Nustoift 6 Ats•elata, Ina. vey data/ Na Icr re Ofh,;,ssans 191 i on o and bciAg more Nrtiayl4rly d••sribed as hifawas 1941NNING at the eeath•ast earner of 1414 l61,".We tracts THENCE along the south fine of laid !pact, 108"k 8023'46" West, 481.77 foots TN[NCI l"Ving said south linen North 21~13~29~~ blast, 166.96 feet to tee beginning of a eurvo to tho right, THENCE along said curve, an are Awing 4 control angle of 29036'13", a radius if 200.64 fact, and a length of 103.9tj hot to the and of ourvas THENCE North 1022148" East, 61,82 fact to the beginning of a curve to the lofts THINCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 74°50'$11+, a radius of 110.00 feat, and a length of 141.70 feet to a point of reverse curves THMCE along is curve to the right, an are having a cent:-al angle of 66' 41 114", a radius of 90.00 feet, and a length of 104.75 foot to the and of curves THENtt North 6046'49', blast, 40.22 feet to the "glnning of a curve to the leftt rNINCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 54035,49", a radius o1 160.00 feet, a tongth of 152,46 feet, and a chord which boars North 34 04'411" West, 146.76 fact to the and of curvet THENCI North 1008'13" [*$t, 513.35 root to a paint in the centerltne of a proposed 60 foot roads THEHCI along said centerline, North 89023'28" Wost, 195.76 rats THENCE leaving said centerline, North 0046'12" Wait, 402.45 faatt THENCE North 89049'15" last, 1013.43 feett THENCE South 0020'14" West, 1789,72 feet to t`a -~OIYT OF 3f~l.Yri!rG a~a Containing 29.53 acres, more or less. EXHI3I: *A* L-1460/a08E~T C. ;iaCj:~R/?AG: 1 tl r~ I 1. ~ fib ~ , • _ . 'I~+f1,1 ,J1 , Ir:f I ,"I,1~ 1 ^ ~ / 'j"I Vii: ~ r~1.. '1 / I l+ C ,r1= 1~~~ 4 ~Irr• y.•~'I ''I } f....:;;~'. '•'••'f 1 I t'f 1. I' 1)~' I' 1' / ,~f r ,I~ y` •~\~~r., ~JM•ir/j ! ~ L..,t I,,.S. r•' I1''; I 111 I \ l ii{` ' ` 1,4; f~r to .Kil -'It; , l • i ~ ' l ; I 1 ; 1 l .i J"'' ' 1, ~ i11iW w1~ /r III+...r ' t ; 7 1 ~ I It ,~j~ 'qty.--.,,~ I 4111'IL.N! 111JI'~ Y 111 r • . INIy1.l HN.r1 11.11 1 A.v 1+''ti ...~/1i' • ~...,y I W Ilpl•w.dA 1111 11 11 1i~` ; ~~i~1"1ni1 ~N ~r II j.l II1. 4966' I W ! f , 1,••f• •MA•.ll'.I.NI 111 1 t M.Iuvu..u ,r . 1'UII I/W{111 "I y r fi ~rl :a~;~, i.~u o,«L Aae." ..-i.ilii j I ~ I ~~IFIN P)N I)I''.VI;I,~ ~I'~I!':NT I'~1NY ~.w.. .w k IN Fr. bm IILI U. UI.../ r `i _-s~~"--...._~-_~-.~._+~+~. PROPERTY OWNER REPLY FORMS CITY COUNCIL Z-1818 IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION UNDECIDED J. H. Thomas None Received ^710 I-35E :Tinton, TX n`r, , r y~~ 'Y•~I ,Y ."Y"+t L .yY.,:\ I A 1 1. ,.rte Lt.^jS '+y?•iE IYIN. 1 , ' 4Zr ~ r ~ raY ~ ~riFk~l~t •~~+r~~ e; xkt-~~f~?r•'~>` i J ~ I , Jl f ~ 1 ~ L , rla )!e{1 a ~.,~y, yJ F b`:7~• ti/~s w. r" !_H Y~ 1:~• .r ~l e ~'>~t iLl~ t.l !1 3' J !~'46~i~7j":tar, y~fl ,~~LLLrxS / 1 1. rJ ~ i I 1 7 klxR. , I. VIP VA. I f,a! y ~i'•I1 15 v 1 14 - 1, MIA, ~ .•.c:s., ar, , . , Y. ~ frn. J jr 1 1 S E~ 1 4 t! Jx 4' L ` 4710 1-33 I1 ate 1!: 1': NIAJ 75" .2~ Qo ~d &-A4 JA I L~ 1 06 Ai'& 11A, f nom- P 6 Z Minutes July 9, 1986 Page 3 1. No additional detached signs will be permitted. 2. A minimum of 201 of the property shall be landscaped. 3. A solid six (6) foot screening fence shall be erected along the north property line. Seconded by Mr. Kansan. Mr. 8scue stated that since the building exists that it needs to have an ordinance, He felt that the beds pro- posed are a little high but felt that they are needed. He said since it does not violate the intensity he would vote in favor. Vote was called and motion unanimously carried (6.0). H. 2.1818, Petition of Dimension Development Company requesting an amendment to a planned development (PD-19/PD-81) located east of Lillian Miller Parkway at the Intersection of Teasley Lane (FM 2181). The 161.7 acres was zoned planned development by ordinance 84.1U9 and permits the development of cluster, multi- family, general retail, single family - 10,000 square feet, single family - 7,000 square feet, office, a park and a community facility site. The amendment would change three areas: 1. 15.00 acres roF m: GWuster housing with a total of 120 units To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 2, 30.39 acres rom: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet To: Single Family with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet 3. 28.53 acres rom: uster housing with a total of 314 units To: Cluster housing with a total of 339 units Nine notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; on^ reply form was received in favor; no reply forms were received in opposition. PBTITIONBR: Bob Wachter, representing Dimension Develop- ment Corporation, stated that they have owned this prop- erty and the 136 acres to the east for two and one - half years. He said that they have worked heavily on this pro- ject for the last year. He said that this is one of the final steps before construction. He said that this pro- posal has baen reduced by 20 units from the last proposal. IN FAVOR: Jerry Cott, owner of Sundown Ranch to the south, state that they were basically In favor because the ppro- posal offers variety. He said that one comment that he had was that when the original planned development was approved that Mr. Wachter shook hands on a major screening wall on the entire south part of the property. He said that the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 25, 1985 reflect thin agreement. He said chat the agreement is not shown on this proposal and that he understood from staff that the agreement cat: be attached at the detailed plan stage. He said that he believes the deal still stands. He said that this proposal is a clas- sic case of cumulative zoning. He said that in the future when giving this kind of density in a section of town the commission should look at the whole area. He said that it is really unfair to those with major pieces of property because no intensity is left in the area. He said that they are forced to do something that It not good for the community. 1- 71, 1 11 1, r..-.„ ,r P Jj 2 Minutes July 9, 1966 Page 4 OPPOi18D: 41tchell Turner, 2116 Stonegate, stated that he was opposed to two of the throe changes. He said that he Is opposed to changing the 30,39 acres from SF-10 to SP-7 because it wtil increase the density of the tract. He said that tae is opposed to incressitg the 28.53 acres of cluster Loves from 314 units to 339 units . He said that since February he has been working with the Land Use Planning Committee, He said if current trends are allowed to con- tinue 35.401 of the population will be in southeast Denton by the year 2010. He said that this will create a lot of problems for the roads and some of the roblem will be caused by this proposal. He said that ?he proposal would be more diverse by retaining the SP-10 because there are plenty of SF-7 lots in town. He asked the Commission to approve the amendment from cluster homes to SP-7 and deny the other two changes. He added if this is not feasible under current policy to deny all the changes. Mr. Claiborne asked if he felt SP-10 a proper transition to multi-family, Mr. Turner said that the area should remain SF-10 and the multi-family should be changed to SF-7. STAFF RBVORT: Ms. Carson stated that in regard to Mc. -ot~s concern, Urdinance 84-109 does not mention a screening device. She said that a general development plan is required by the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations to get an o~orall view of a large tract. She said that the screening wall can be discussed at the de- tailed plan stage. The Commission can recommend the screening wall on the detailed plan but since this is an amendment to part of the planned development a condition for the wall cannot be included at this stage. She said that this property is located in a low intensity area that is currently 601 under the intensity standard based on land use and 61 over the standard based on zoning, The amendment would incresse the intensity by 114 trips per day and the violation of the standard based on zoning would re- main at 61. She said the amendment would change the 30.30 acre single family (5F-10) to single family (SF-7). This request would permit additional diversified housing in the area. Tho density in this specific area would be slightly increased, the second change would eliminate cluster hous- ing at 8 units to the acre and replace the area with single family (EF-7), She said that while the amendment signifi- cantly increases the SF-7 zoning, the planned development still provides considerable diversity and provides housing diversity in this area of Denton. The last area of change is an increase in the total number of units in the cluster housing area on the east side of the planned development. The planned development includes 314 units on 28,53 acres with a density of 11 units per acre and the amendment would increase the total units to 339 with a density of 11.88 units per acre. Multi-family is considered anything over 12 units per acre; therefore, this amendment would not violate the multifamily poticr. The amendment would not impact the intensity standard but would provide a botter transition to adjacent land uses and add diversity in the area. She said that staff recommends approval of 2.1818. Ms. Brock asked staff to clarify using up density or intensity. Ms. Carson stated that it has bebn a tendency chat if a proposal did not exceed the intensity but used up the ma ority of intensity, the proposal would be eq - proved. he said that from a staff viewpoint it is dif- ficult t becausa staff typically would recommend approval because the proposal didn't technically violate policy. She said that it is difficult for the overall City plan to worst on a first come, first serve bast;. She said that staff is continually fighting with othea property owners whRn all of the intensity is allow red. P A Z Minutes July 9, 1916 Page 5 REBUTTALt Mr. Wachter stated that it would be difficult to market the SP-10 along the northern boundary and that in this area there is a shortage of SP-7 lots. He said that they were begged by others to not put any more SF-10 lots on the ground. He said that they are retainin the SF-10 on the west side of Li M i n Miller Partway. ~e said that they have a shifting or relocation of products in this proposal. Chai• declared the public hearing closed. DECISION: Mr. Claiborne stated that land use in this area gas been a predominant topic for this Commission. He said that Mr. Turner's concerns have grounds for support. He said that the SF-10 adjacent to the multi-family is not a good transition. He said that the cluster to the SP-7 on south portion is a good transition. He said that the cluster on east next to light Industrial is an excellent transition. Ms. Brock stated that trend analysis is what can happen but that they can change trends. She added that trends are not inevitable. Mr. Holt stated that the next time this area is up before the Commission and has high density, he would vote against. He said that the Commission needs to look at this whole area. He said that he would probably vote for the change because of diversity. He said that the Commission is caught either way they vote. Mr. Hscue stated that he voted against the original pro- posal; however, he added that he finds this proposal is not a significant change and moved to recommend approval of Z-1818. Seconded by Mr. Holt. Ms. Brock stated that if she had been here in September of 1984 she would not have voted for this proposal. ,sir. Claiborne stated that the first come, first serve, policy has done the city more harm than good, lie said that the context of this situation is If the proposal improves the area if approved. Vote was called and motion carried (5-1), Nis. Brock voted no. Mr. Cott asked about his concern on the major screening wall to be erected on the entire southern boundary. Mr. Claiborne stated that he understood from staff that the wall could not be addressed at this stage but could at Lthe detailed site plan stage. C. Z-1819. Petition of Jack Price, representing First Texas Medical, Inc., requesting approval of a detailed plan and preliminary plat on 4.849 acres of a planned development (PD-1). The property is located at 2026 West University and shown in the Robert Beaumont Survey, No. 31. If approved, the development of a psychiatric hospital would be permitted with standards as shown on the detailed plan. Seven notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; no reply forms were received In favor or opposition. PETITIONER: Bob Gladney, representing Psychiet ir. insti- tutes o erica, stated that the property is owned by First Texas Medical. He said that the plan and building is being done by the Psychiatric Institutes of America. 14266 NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A REVISED 0 CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 84.109, AS SAID PLAN APPLIES TO 161.7 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BAST OF LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH TEASLEY LANE, AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That Ordinance No. 84-109, approved on September 4, 1984, establishing a planned development district for 161,7 acres of land, being more particular) described therein in Exhibit "A", reference to which is made for all purposes, is amended by the adoption of a revised concept plan for said district, in accordance with the provisions of article 11 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Cade of Ordinances, as amended, said plan being attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, so that hereafter said district shall be subject to said concept plan herein approved. SECTION 11. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to ordinance No, 84.109, showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1986. RY~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHULOTTE MEN CITY SECRETDY CITY OF DENTON,,TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: 3\f. C) tAf%n Z-1818 EXHIBIT "A" TRACT I ' 1110 part of a 161.66-sere tract of tend as shown oh a survey for DIR*nston Oeve o{ iwaenngtorCoenipparenyltu tbylerEspeY dey l asMuttl eonbsdtaAseocl lplatwea, , and be Inc. dated March, 1984 fol r COMMENCING at the intersection of the easterly tine of F.M. Highway 2181 and the south line of said 161,66-acre tract{ THENCE along sold south llne, South 88023'46" Of BEGINNINOt East, 581,81 feet to the POINT THENCE North 0024'20" west, 622,14 feet to a point In the centerline of a proposed road (60 foot right-of-way at that point); THENCE along said centerline, South 89044+37" East, 773.90 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right{ THENCE along said curve, an arc having a tentral angle of 14005'21", a radius oS 530,00 feet, a length of 130.33 fast, end a chord which bears South 82 41'56" East, 130.00 feet to the end of sold curvel THENCE South 72035'23" East, 80.35 feat to a point at the beginning of • curve to the left; THENCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 12050'51;', a ra$lus of 300.00 feet, a length of 67,27 feet, and a chord which bears South 79 00'45" East, 67.13 feett leavi InEthe southngllrtelofc$oldr161.66sacre tract{7" Est' 594,28 feet to a point THENCE along said south line, North 88023'46" Wet, 1033.29 feet to the POINT Of BEGINNING and containing 15.00 arras, more or lass, Z-1818 1 EXHIBIT "A" Existing SF-LO/Tract 2 Iel pwt of a 161,66- Oeve epwant Comporly by t pay, Huston tE A segfeo aj a dote ydfMereh,~19#40 and being more particularly deocr)bod as follows$ COIMIENCINO at the northwest corner of said 161,66-acre tract, THENCE along the most northerly line of sold tract, North 89049'59" East, 935.00 feet to the POINT Of IEO1N111Nt1, $aid POlnt bei"g In the contrrl Ine of proposed Ridgeway Drive (80 foot right-of-way)l THENCE along sold northerly time, North 89049'59" East, 2209.54 fast to a polntl THENCE South 0046'12" East, 708.56 foot to a point In the centerline of a proposed 60 foot road, THENCE along said centerline, North 89023'28" Vasty 1393.19 feat to the beginning of a curve to the rlghtl THENCE along said curve, an are having a control 8"910 of 51006'11", a radius of 520.00 feat, and a length of 463,89 feet to the end of curvel THENCE North 38017'17" Vest, 351.34 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left) THENCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 21033'55", a radius of 325,00 feet, and a length of 122.32 foot to the end of curve) THENCE North 59051'12" West, 165.50 feet to the centerline Intersection of said 60 foot road end sold Ridgeway Drivel THENCE along centerline of Ridgeway Drive, North 29058'11" East, 58.79 feet to the POINT Of M INNING and containing 30.49 acres, more or less. x-~rr 2-1818 EXHIBIT "A" Existing Cluster Wusli"WPOet 2 (21.0 IAA) Owing pert of a 1lI.K•aere erect of land a$ shown on a survey for Dimension • Oevs Opswnt CM*Ofty by Es"Y, Must" B Asseelatss, Int, dated March, 1984, and being more portieularl, described as Fellows, #14INNINO at the •euthesst cornof of said 161.66►6ere tract; THENCE 61001 the south line of $Old tract, North 11023'46" vastp 481.77 feet, THENCE leaving said south line, North 21013'25" West, 164.90 feet to the beginning of a curve to the rlghtl THENCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 29036'13", a radius of 200.00 fast, and a length of 103.54 feet to the and of curve; THENCE North 1022'41" East, 61.12 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; THENCE along said curve, an are having a central angle of 74050'51", a radius of 110.00 feat, and a isngth of 143.70 foot to a point of reverse curve; THNCE along a curve to the right, an are having a central anq'o OF 66' 41,1411, a radius of 90.00 feet, and a length of 104.75 foot to the and of curve; THENCE North 6046'49" West, 40.22 foot to the beginning of a curve to the left; qq sold radius aao160 00 fost,va # leengthe of n152.46 central and a angle chord 5which 4boars North 3410414111 vast, 146.76 feet to the and of curve; THENCE North 100/113" Eastr 513.31 het to a polnt In the centerline of a proposed 60 foot road; THENCE along said centerline, North 89023'28" ;last, 195.76 feet; THENCE leaving sold eenterllne, North 0046112" vest, 402.45 feeti THENCE North 89°49'15" East, 2013,43 feet; THENCE South 0020'14" hest, 1589.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 28.53 acres, more or loss. 2-1818 L'XHIBIT "B" CONCEPTUAL PLAN CONSISTING OP: 1. Site Plan (1 page); 2, Development Standards (l page); and 3, Development Schedule (2 pages), Z-1818 PD•erl6F-An.cnwe I eF-,o IlMe RIN M N YNw 1MN Rem H N ReN Rome ft to Apicawhrrw le w)! oswm /.MOM i, YM IW N W M M 1. 40. NYyM \I f -Ua N f I l ~ N't r. . „ % i ~ i ~ •1~,'Iaia.rr r i O + w R n t tiu,/ ~ r. l t , k M 6i-f0i 1owf -1. w..1 e...,rM A PD-20448M MY»MIH y. Apt ♦ IeleM 1 ' M \ Q ap@, ( PMk ~t , w7nwwr btM leer ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r TN NY sMOMJ fr ra..w ,.N tome M. • WOO too r L PO-18!(Iwllwwl RwIwY ~ Y w UI N i - _ - i ' ~9 is iiito'f ~ 1 C i - I ;.,1. ~ I n_ ~ tir Nili~'~• • ° e terN H' lnrlw ~ . 'IrMY OUlleelfll ' ' w e-w M u sell I le 1,' moomwmwmw~a wC wrYrp these Re" le p. 1 Owowrwl A.t.M Towr*w:e" wet wr le cN SF-I Pwd, lAII o~a SwM111wIM SON Day Trw71k VoMtrllw Lw16 Use OrwMIMn1' Aonw IA+b OwlwrmwM Tram UNIw h woM Out , OWN LMI 28.60 040 (ntW cwa w/ rWJ" $0 2217 0wewwl PAW I IA 0 Ow,wwl Rolm 1 IMOOO SP OLA 6670 Mm*fwmy 77,12 260 000 Mw*491MY 600 2676 am* 6,06 0 Dtlbw r 60,000 SF ids Pork 4.0 0 F" WA WA INMrww M-10 1410 40 SP-10 40 400 0P-7 $am 227 !P-7 027 0061 1 r.wwfw wow Swrvbw SAS 0 so,** OAS 60M N/A TWI Ow6w Awnw 181.N 1087 TNM H1417 w.rlnw w. wewr 'tRle eh om.a. aerrRe eV, ae'rM e WpI1.Ny.rMe YIIM Wr ieWs wrewMy f won" awwoor ~/~/w.ayf P LM Uses. MMNw w Fh ,www DimENSK)N DEVELO PMEIN'I' COMP. NY _ RIDGEWAY MEADOWS NM.IwM Aewew. 61we iy« 6ewMt rYM aww, ,L.,n»1►, wwwelt RIDGEWAY MEADOWS - PHASE I We are prepared to begin development of the property, however, market conditions dictate that this rezoning be accomplished to meet the high demand for additional 1,000 square foot lots. This rezoning is in substantial compliance with the existing comprehensive plan and in fact allows for slightly less density than the current zoning. In the long term our intent is to provide this area of Denton with quality mixed use development. The sequence and durations of activities are shown IA the attached schedules which, in general summary, will progress as follows: I.) Build primary infrastructure (relief sewer line, mass grading, drainage channel, collector streets and associated utilities.) 2.) Construct infrastructure for single family lots (in one to three phases depending on market) and sell those lots to builders. 3.) Either sell the remaining sites (retail, commercial, office, M.F., cluster) to outside developers or develop them ourselves as the market or our internal staff load dictates. The tot layouts shown for the single family areas have been drawn in accordance with the City standards for size, width and depth, Building setbacks shall conform to appropriate City requirements. cluster housing district 1, approximate location: as, shown on the concept plan 2. maximum height; Three stories 3, minimum building seperation; one foot for every three feet of building height 4, 28.53 acres 9 11.9 = 340 units 11~- lp/~ 0inenslon Development Company 4IXE'JAY MEADOWS-DENTON, TEXAS T:aas L11111 Div REPORT T PE :STANDARD LISTING PRINTING SEOUENCE :Ear!?est Aetly{ties Flr;t SELECTION M TE.RIA SAIL PLAN I.D. ;RNPHIMAY VERSION 5 TIME NOW DATE ~c61MAYl85 :tt::ittililttli ifEa tttfiiilff QQti2iZ ititiittli: if SiTl7:77f 7tttiiii7iiiiiiiSiT7f:lf22f7t171777fa af`.7:7.i._SS ••SS:T:e:SS:[:ft1T! ACTIVITY OESCRIPTION EARLIEST EARLIEST LATEST LATEST DURATION FLOAT START FINISH START FINISH SfEitiitiTiti7fi7lt7iiS2LEEftiL33i7Sttiiii:T7 titT::iitif t7t7TfltIl236tf9Q:if EliEt7373TT3 Hlt7Tliiiil7tfi2 :ft..i..it]: ".S:TT77i'7 ii:t 40- 50 P.O. Concept Plan Approval 26/MAY/86 28/JUL/86 261'MAY186 28IJUL/86 10 0 ' SO- 60 Serer Bids and Approvals 4/AUG/86 29/SEP/86 4/AUG/86 291SEP/86 9 0 SO- TO Oesign Maiur Wrastructure 4/AU6186 19/5EP/86 I5/SEP/86 10/NOY/86 9 6 60- 80 Construct Sewer Line 6/OCT/86 29/OEC186 6/OCT/86 19/0EC/86 13 D ' 10- 80 Ma for lnfrastructure Approvals 6/OCr/86 11/NOV/86 I1/NOV/86 291OECI86 1 6 10- 90 Prepare S.F. Detail Site Plan 6/OCT/86 29/OEC/86 9/JAM/81 30111aR/81 13 13 80- 100 Construct Maiur Infrastructure 5IJAM181 IiJUNl81 51J0/81 1/JUN/81 22 0 ' 80. 110 5.F. infrastructure Design - 51JAN/81 30/MAR/81 9/MAR/81 1/JUN/81 !3 9 90. 110 S.F. Detall Plan Approval 5/JAN/81 2/KAR/81 6/APR181 I/JUN/81 9 110. 120 S.F. Lot Construction B/JUN/81 28/SEP/81 O1JUN181 18/5EP/81 17 120- 140 Prepare M,F. Detail Slte Plan 5/OCT/81 281DEC187 S/OCT181 18/DEC/81 ;3 0 ' 120- 130 S.F. House Construction 5/OCT/81 2415EP190 13/JUN1'88 311JUN/91 156 36 140• ISO M.F. Detail Plan Approval 4/JAN/88 29/FEB/88 41JAN/88 191FE8/88 9 0 ' 150. 160 M,F, Final Design 1/MAR/88 30/MAY/88 1/MAR/88 30/111AY/88 1) 0 160- ITO M.F. Construction 6/OMB 31/OCT/88 6/JUN/88 31/OCT/88 22 D ' 110. 180 Prepare OFFICE Detall Plan 1/NOV/88 30/JAN/89 1/NO'J/88 31WAN189 13 0 _ 180- 190 OFFICE Detail Plan Aoproval 6/FE8/89 I/APR/89 6/FE8/89 3/APR/89 9 0 ' 190. 200 OFFICE Final Oesiun 10/APR/89 3/JUL/89 10/APR/89 I/JUL/89 1 0 ' 200- 210 OFFICE Construction 10/JUL 189 2/APR/90 10/JUL/89 2/APR/90 33 9 210: 120 Prepare C.H, I G.R. Detail Plans 9iAPR/90 2/JUL/90 9/APR/90 2/JUL/90 13 0 ' ..............................................................i_...... , 224- 240 C.H. I G.R, Final Desion 91JUL190 !/OCT/90 9/JUL/90 L OC1190 II 0 220. 130 C.H. d G.R. Oetail Plan Approval 9/JUL/90 3/SEP/90 6/AUG/94 1/0CT/90 9 240- 250 C.H, I S.R, Construction 8/OCT/90 3/10/91 8/OCT/90 3/JUN191 3S 3 ' 0 *nslon Dere,odment Cc,riodnv RIOGEWAY MEADOWS -HNTON, TEXAS REPORT rYPf 14!LE570NE re, is :iria D!'l PR NTIN5 SEOUENC£ ,Earlier*. Actlr lies F~rst PLAN 1 .0, ;RMPHIMAY VERSION S if1f,:1IONN CR!'t~:A ;MILf51ONE TIgE N`) DATE :261MAY1186 s:x737112 I ii 1171::iris::3a8t912019299 2122 r1 iri:7x131:1: 21:: 21 i a194 s 1112 i:72:3: 3 s i 2 x: 3: 92 i 1 i i 3::::9932::230:i~`i:i::ix:::i::::xx MILESTONE EARLIEST EVENT ATEST EVENT OESCRIPI!ON TIME TIME zzti:ila71771::::xs2iliiii9ti:liftl9iit::/f9i::9791:772919722:A7t7:::7tr:7i7i1xitxiS 771111ilGtxl:::s73: aii' ::i:::t a::173t2S S,F, DETAILED SITE PLAN WO$1 5SION S/JAN/81 6/APR/01 M.F. DETAILED SITE PLAN c98MISSIOM 41JAN168 41JAN/88 Off ICE DETAILED SITE PUN SH MISSION 61FE6189 6/FEB/89 C.H. i G.R, DETAIL SITE PLAN SUBMISSION 9/JUL/90 91JUL/90 7ttiCt:72:::3[x:732Jt2ix7 i`. `::27L27:Ji:Siii27:722:1223:t7T22a1i272li110i92ii72C212:::i13si17:i1ixt:iifi:ti:i7:iii :3:::333i17:i:33S i ,y, NO. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ORDINANCE AND ENACTING A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT OROI- NANCE FOR THE PROPERTY HEREIN OESCRI4E01 AMENDING ;HE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AS SANE WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF D6NTON BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1 TO PROVIDS FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND USE $PD"GDISTRrCT CLASSIFICATION IAND USE lAS SAID PLANNED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND ZONINA MAP APPLIES TO 161.7 ACRLS OF LAND LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN .MILLER PARI(NA'I AND AS MORE PARTICULARLY UESCRIBED HEREINr AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. Tnet the existing planned development district zoning ordi- nance applicable to all or pact of the pccperty aescriaed as Tracts 1 througn 10 in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and mane a part hereof for all purposes, is hereby repealed in its entirety and tnere is nereoy enacted A new plannea development district oraina ce -)no comprenensive site plan of Baia property, SECTION II. Tnat tha zoning classification and use ce3i.}nation appli- cable to any or all of the property oescricea as Tracts 1 tnrougn 10 in a nibit "A" attached hereto and mane a part nereto for alt purposes is nereoy cnanged from Single Family 43F-1J' District Classification and Use to Planned Development "?J" District Classification and Use. SEC' r I rIrr :"at the pr7pert( %escri:ed 3 Daannea aevei)pment Zoning j19C:1Ct . e:l S „ y 1.3 seance of any C9rC..CiC3..2 of OC J', ; -,a r -3 CJ~an:y oui;ding tnareun, comply witn e foII;win 3'~ g c . na:t.J"13: Tnat 3iaewali(3 meeting tna City's 3-anoaras 3n specifications oe installea on art leas: one aloe o; the streets t;,rougnout the development. SECTION :y. The development of the property shall oa in substantial compliance with t::e site plan attacnea nereto ana made a part hereof for all purposes. Tne Zoning MAp of the City of Denton, texas, icopced the 14th day of January, 1469, as an Appencix to the Ccce of 69-l o etas and tne e same y is heroy a amendea a to jncer suCn i c .ange NIn District Classification and Use sunjoct to the aoove cuno:tien3 and specifications, SECTION V. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, ;eceoy finds that sucn cnange is in accoraance iitn a comprenensive z-1660/ROBERT G. 'RACHTER/PACE 1 plan for the Purpose of promoting tle general welfar9 of the City of Denton, Texas, and witn reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability or particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appripriate uses of land for the maximum benstit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SECTION VI. That this ordinance snail be in full force and effect himmedeariiatehlyv&!t*c its passage and aPprovalt the the Planning required and public oning Commission ana the City Council of the City of nenton, Texas, after giving due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of1984. AITT!FF . AYOfD NTOP+, TEXAS ATTEST: C-itAifLO,.E a~~zl~ .r SECRE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: j0F D. mor.RIS, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DEN ON, TEXAS ay: Z-1640/R09CRT C. WAC!?TEa ?aGE • :92 MACT i cling part of a 161.66-sore tract of 14Rd N ><n "Ia eurv/y nor OrnNnslon hvelopwent Co"any by Espey, Huston ! athora , rte. dated March, 1984, and being Mwo particularly deseribad as foels follow e COMMENCING at the Intersection of the easterly lint or ?,M. Highway 2181 and the south lint of said 161,66-acr* trscti THEM along sa'd south Iine, South 88023'46" (Sit, J81.84 feet to the POINT OF QEGINNINGi THENCE North 0024'20" Nest, 622.14 Poet to a point In the centerline of a proposed road (60 foot right-of-way at that point), THENCE along said csnterllne, South 89044'37" East, 773.90 Peet to the beginning of a curve to the rlghtl THENCE along said Curve, an are having a Central angie of 14005121 a radius 1 530.00 Feet, a length of 130.33 fast, and a chord which oears Seut.4 82 41'56" west, 130.00 feet to the and of said curvet THENCE South 72035'23" East, 80.35 feet to curve to the left, • point at the beginning of a THENCE along said Curve, an arc having a central angle of 15141, a raglus or 300,00 Peet, a length of 67.27 feet, and a chord which bears South 79 00'45" East, 67.13 feeti THENCE leaving said centerline, South 0046 57" west, 594.21 feet to it point in the south line of said 161.66-acre tracts THENCE along said South Iine, North 88023'46" ',lest, 1033.29 feet to the POINT Of 3 M ING and Containing 15,00 acres, more or less, Exh:3:r 'A' 5-'660/ROBERT G. ;iACH;ER/?AGZ 1 2!2 rMCT 2 $ *In? part of a 161,66-acre tract of Iand as Shown on a survey for Afmonslon Oeve opmtlet Company by Eapay, Huston t Aesoelotee, Inc, dated March, 198:, and being More particularly described ae followst COMMENCING at the Intersection of the oasterly Ilne of F.M. Highway 2181 and the Muth line of laid 161.66-acre tract; THENCE along laid south ilea, South 88023'46" cast, 381.84 feet, THENCE North 0024'20" west, 622.14 feet to the POINT Of 8[OINNING, $aid oiittpoion in the Centerline Of a proposed road (60 foot right-of-way at p thantll THENCE North 0024'20" west, 575.3! feat to a point; THENCE North 89019'59" west, 360.90 feet to a point in the centerline of proposed Ridgeway Orive, sold point being on a curve to the right; THENCE along said curve, an are hav;n9 a aantrsl an91e Of 8046'05", a radius ofo 1000 00 feet, a length of IS3.4 lost, and a chord which bears ,Vorth 25 35 07 East, 152.89 feet to the and of sold curve= THENCE along said centerline, North 29058'11" East, 469.50 fiat to the centerlino Intarsectlon of iidgeway Orive and a proposed road (60 foot right-of-way); THENCE along the centerline of the proposed 60 root road, South 5yo51'12" East, 165.50 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; rad;us oflong325.s00aifootd curvet and anlenare gthhof1122.32 feat alto athe eend of 1othe 'cur~e+ THENCE South 38017'17" East, 357,34 feet to the beginning of a curvR to the left; rHEMCE along Said curve, an arc having a central angle of 51096'11", a rsdlus of 520 feet, and a length of 463.80 feet to the and of the curve; THENCE South 89023'28" East, 39.19 feet to a point; THENCE leaving said center) ine, South 1035'27" '.Jest, 156.553 `met to t"e beg Imm Ing of a curve to the left; THENCE a10119 said curve, an arc having a Central Angle ,f :5o53 11V1 a radius of 260.00 feet, and a length of 135.63 feet c3 t-s end if t-e THENCE South 28017'52" East, 89.47 feet t0 the tvj innrng nt a :;rve :0 t-e left; EXHIBIT "A" L-1660,'ROBEHT G. 4ACH:ER/PAGE 2 ~ J TWO along 1410 curve, an arc h4v1 a control angle of 58024145po, e radius of 160.10 feet, and 4 length of 16j.It fqt to the end of the curvet TWO south 86042'37" Last, 15.87 feet, TN[Nct South 0046157" west, 9,1.64 foot to a point in the centerline of a proposed 60 fat road and a curve to the right; Tgmes along $old centerline and curve, on arc having a antral angle of 12 which , a radius 0 which boors North 790000 300.00 feet, 4 length of 67.27 feet, and a chord 4511 West, 67.13 feet to the end of the curve; TNINet North 72035'23" West, 80.35 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; NMI along Sold curve, radius og 530.00 feet,a Isngth c of having 33 feet, central angle lchard lwhich 2boors North 82 41'461' West, 130.00 feet to the end of curvet TNINCI North 89044137" West, 773.90 feet to the POINT Of WINNING and contalning 17.12 acres, more or less. 2!2 TRACT 3 8e1ng pert of a 161.66-sere tract of Isnd as shown on a survey for Olnwnfl°n QeveloP"Mt COMpany by Espisy, Muster 6 Assizclates, Inc, dated March, 1984, and being more particularly described as follows; 8101NNING at the Interseetien of the easterly Ilne of F.M. Highway 2101 and the south IIme of told 161,66-4cre tract, said point being on a curve to the left; THENCI along said easterly Ilne, an arc having a central angle of 13°26'51", a radius of 764.20 feet, and a length Of 178.66 feet, and a chord which bears North 14 02121" West, 178,25 feet to a point in the Centerline of proposed Ridgeway Delve (80 foot right-of-way); THENCE along said centerline, North 1004'17" Nest, 637.78 feet to a point at the beglnning of a curve to the rlghtt TMjNCE along said curve and centerline, an arc having a central angle Of 22 16'22", a radius 8f 1000.00 feet, a length of 388,73 feet, and a chord which beers North 10 03'54" East, 366.29 feet to a point; THENCE leaving said centerline, South 89°19'59" East, 360.90 feet to a point; THENCE South 0°.24'20" East, 1197.45 feet to a point In the south line of said 161.66-sere tract; THENCE North 88021'46" West, 381,84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and contalning 11,44 acres, more or less. EXHISI "A" -166U/R08E1: G. WACHTSR/?AGE 3 4 291 TRACT 4 8e1n9 port of a 161."-scro tract of IoM i, shq~ on a survey for OIAW910n Qeve dps►ent Caspony by Eapoy, Huston , Asaoctstos, Inc. dated March, 1984, and being more particularly described as follows, 1E0fNNiN4 at a 1/2-tneh Iron rod at the Asst northwesterly corner of sold 161,66 -acre tract; THENCE along the most northerly Ilse of said tract, North 89049'59" Bast, 935.00 feet to a point In the center of Proposed Ridgeway Orlve (80 foot rlght•of-way)i THENCE along the centerllne of sold Aldgeway Orlve, South 29058'1}" ;rest, 528.29 feet to a point at the beglnning of a curve to the left; THENCE along sold eontorline and curve to the left, an are having a central angle of 28 ,0'48", a rodl,rd of 1000.00 feet, a length of 491,84 feet and a chord which beers South 15 52'46" west, 486,90 Poet; ' THENCE leaving said conterllne, South 8904 S9„ point In the west line of said 161,66-acre r west, 547.75 fact to a tree t; THENCE along sold west time, North 0036'41" East, 914,89 foist to the POINT OF 69GI (KC and cantalning 14,80 acres, more or lass. Ullr317 'A' 1660/e20BEAT C. WACA.-rR/?AG5 4 10 292 TRACT 5 1e1ng part of a 161,66-sere tract of land of shown on a survey for Oireension Development Coaspany by Espey, Huston a Assocletes, ;ne, dated March, 19841 and being more particularly described as follows, COOWNCINO at the northwest corner of sold 161,66-acre tract, THENCE along the most northerly Itne of said tract, North 89049'59" Ease, 935.00 feet to the POINT Of 1119MMING, said point being in the centerline of proposed Ridgeway Drive (80 foot rlght-of-way)1 THENCE along sold northerly line, North 89049'59" East, 2209.54 feet to a point; THENCE South 0046'12" East, 708.56 feet td a point In the centerline of a proposed 60 foot road; THENCE along sold centerline, North 89023'28" west, ,393.19 fast to the beginning of o curve to the rights THENCE .long said curve, an arc having a central angle of 51006111", a radius of 520.00 feet, and a length of 463.80 feet to the ono of curve, THENCE North 38017't7" west, 351,34 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left; THENCE along said curve, an are having a control angle of 21033'55", a . radi-I of 325.00 feet, and a length of 112,32 feet to the and of curve; TMENCE North 59051'12" West, 165.50 feet to the centerline Intersection of said 60 foot road and said Ridgeway Orive, TMENCE along centerline of Ridgeway Drive, North 29058'11" East, 53,79 feet to the P0114T Of BEGINNING and containing 30.49 acres, pore or less. X413;: 4A* tN~NCt 41009 a curve to the right, an ara +avl0g a central 4n91t of 74 9015114 , a radlua of 110.00 feet, and a Iongli of 143,70 foot to the end of curvo; Indeui South 1°22148" V*St, 61,82 foot to the beolnnin9 of a curva to the left; rKmCI along said curve, an ere having a control angle of 29°36'13", a radlua of 200.00 foot, and a length of 103,34 Poet to the and of curvAl UINCI South 28°11'25' Sast, 168.90 feet to a point In the south )(me oP sold 161.66-acre tracts THINCI along said south lima, North 11023'46" West, 1664.48 feet to the rolNY Or SIGINNINO and containing 35.10 acres, more or loss. rRACr ~ Ieing put of a 161.66-acre tract of land as thrown on a survey for eOlmanslrM evelopstent Co"*" by Espey, Huston 4 Assoelatee, Inc. dated March, 19dy, nd being aro►a poetlcularly described as followst IE61MNING at the intersection of the easterly right-of-way of I.H. Highway 2111 and the west Ilne of sold 161.66-sere trectl THENCE along said west line, North 0036'41" case, 209.62 feet to a points THENCE leaving sold west fine, North 89049'59" East, $47.75 feet to the cantorline of proposed Ridgeway Drive (80 foot right-of-way), said point being on a curve to the left; THENCE aioag sold :smtorllma and curve to the left, an arc having a central angle of 2 51'39", a radl8s of 1000.00 feet, a length of 49.93 feet, and a chord which bears South 0 21'36" Nest, 49.93 feet to a point at the end 00 said curval THENCE along said centerllne, South 1004'17" East, 197.27 feet to a point at the centerllne Intersactlon of said Ridgeway Drive and proposed Teasley Lane (90 foot right-of-way)i 434N9t feetntto acantor point line the of s ea terlyTeal I In. of LP.M, , Highway North $904 13711 sold pant being on a curve to the left; THENCE along said curve, an arc having a central angle of 9017'09", a radius of761,20 feet, a length of 123.37 feat, and a chord which hears North 73'58145-1 Nest, 123.23 feet to the POINT Of BEGINNING and containing 3.05 acres, more or less. r 292 TRACT 8 h log part of a 161.66-acre tract or land as shown on a survey For Oln»nston. Oaw lOpe►ent COapanY by Espey, Nusten 4 Assoalstes, Inc. dated March, 1984, and being more paftleuiafty described as foliowst COMMENCINo at the lnterseotlon of the west line of said tract and the easterly fight-of-weY of f.M. Highway 2181, said point being on a curve to the ,Ightl THEM alocd sald curve, an are having a central angle of 9017'09", a radius of 761,20 feet, and a length of 12),)7 feet to the POINT Of ![GINNING, said Point being on the centarllne Of proposed Teasley Lane (90 foot right-of- "ay) I THENCE along said centerline, South 89044')7" East, 434,91 feet to the caneerilne Intsrsectlon of said Teasley Lane and proposed Ridgeway Oriva (80 foot right-of-way); THENCE along Centerline of said Aldgeway Delve, South 1004117" East, 440.51 feet to a point in the easterly IIna of P.M. Hi4hw.y 2181, said point being on a curve to the left; THENCE aloe said curve, an arc having a central angle of 48074'12", a radius od 761,20 feet, a length of 645.31 feet, and a chord which bears North 45 02158" west, 626.16 feet to the POINT Of 8E0INNING and containing 1.55 acres, more )r lass. EXH:817 4A' 2 Q-16o0/R08ZRT 0. n1ACH"S ~p.ac~ d . IT 2!2 rIIACT ~ going part of a 161,66•atr• traetHui of It* "44090094 ooms on a survey for Otme,#I, sgBilon, Oavor"weet C4"4"y by Ispey, eon la hte, Ins. 4atad Marsh omd being mare parttculorly described as rollor,er CONMINCINO at the w surly northeast eerner of said 161,46-acre tractl TNENCI South O°46'l2" last, 708.56 fast to the POINT OI 1114tNNINC, said point being In the conterl(ne of a proposed 60 root road= ?WINCE 01009 said conterllne, South 89°2)'28" lastr 195.76 feet; THE IICI leaving said center IInot South 1008'13" wait, 475-35 feat; THINCI North 88°28'25" west, .)2,01 fast; THENCI North I°08'06" last, 468,43 Past to a point In the conterllne of a proposed 60 foot roads THENCE along said conterllne, South 89°23'28" East, 236.'-8 feet to the POINT OF sfaiNNiNC and contalning 4,68 acres, nepre or les„ EX.'q!3:P 4A4 yv: 01 . 292 i TMCr Is $eing 4-srt of a 161.06-sere tract Of land As shown on a survey for Olm"l lon Oeve opeanc Company by Repay, Huston 6 Assoeittas, Inc. dated March, 1986, and being more particularly dascribed as foilewsi BEGINNING at the southeast Corner Of 10:4 161.66-acre tract; rHENCE along the south line of 1614 tract, North 88023'46" best, 481.77 feetl THENCE leaving said south Ilne, North 28013+25" Vest, ?68.90 feet to the beginning of a curve to the right; THENCE along said curve, an arc having a central angle of 29036'13', a radius of 200.00 feet, aml a length of 103.54 feet to the end of curve; THENCE North 1022148" East, 61.82 feet to the beginning of a curve to the leftl THENCE along sold curve, an are having a Central angle of 74050'51", a radius of 110.00 feat, and a length of 143.70 feet to a point of reverse curve; THNCE along a curve to the right, an arc having a central angle of 66' 4111411, a radius of 90.00 feet, and A length of 104.75 feet to the and of curve; THENCE North 6046'49" Vest, 40.22 feet to the beginning of a curve to the lefts THENCE along laid curve, an arc having a central angle of 54035'49", a rsdlus oS 160.00 feet, a length of 152.46 feet, ,rro a chord which bears North 34 04141" west, 1'+6.76 feet to the and of egrve; THENCE North 1008'13" East, 513.38 feet to a point in the centerline of a proposed 60 foot road; THENCE along said centerline, Morth 89023'28" West, 195.76 feat) THENCE leaving said centsrilnep North 0046'12" West, 402.45 feet) THENCE North 89049'15" East, 1013.43 feet; THENCE South ?020'14" West, 1589.72 feet to ttka 29110T OF 3ESI4NfNG am4 containing 29.53 acres, more or less. dXHI3.: 'A' 4-.660/a08aaT c. 4AC:i:2-d;?AC? :j i I~ Ali 1/ / ''"r 1~ .1,, J ~N II 1'1~. .'f~(~I.. 5~ i tl r,7 41 yy 11 Y ! 1~~(i f\ ~1 , 1.. M'Lbf/1•r J ~ l 1 1 ~eH /I _ 1 ~S 4 i 1 I 1 I YYYY ~~j}/I~,~J~' I i' ~ y r I' N M• ~l f IJ \ i155• 1• < <S, ~I i i } 1 \~'`'1\ ~ 11, ~ "1/ f ,51,f''• ',f• ' f 11 {1•,. •l 1 4~ f~•f 11 ~ 1- ;'J ~f''~ ..J/11 ~ 'J , ,I. 1 i •5 Y kl~l`~`1 5•, ti.l`'1 ((».1. 1 tLT;utsw f - .iif t w~INr'{ 1, 1 `f4•.i.♦,~/ ~'I` S'1~~ i1~ f ~•h e1 \~.•Y ~ •;rl 'i 5 ~ I 1 1 'I % I .f~ ~ .,~~`•rrMf to / ~i , , ~ ~ •1 ` • L 5 r c, / 5 I 1 11 +lilfl';7~1iY'i".I'u~iil i;~~l ty, 'i'~ f~l/ 1 ,I f 1 4\ ~~('`,_.'~._II `\''''•~•1 I 55'1 41 ~KiL S.~~ 7f' / ~ i ! II' , 1 ~ .5. I X11 Nr, i y ;1 16 w " J, , W I,Y.NU KIII !•14#1•W Illl1' iii \15 i 'l .•y' . ,.J~Ir y, r , e:-r Y Ilrl,•r•11IN 11.11 ' 7 YI--- 11 Imr•Ld a 1J 11 AI IYIYu.,•Jis .1114I '1'+'1 /.•r t '1 i.':J i ♦ ` p~1 11YIILN b 1IY61 t i ' 1• • I .~11, 1 } U \ LIIIIYIYJ IIIIIH 7W I !1/ ' ~ S . 1•IIJIYIttWJ IJIi ( L,I,~f)il1 11b~11"d111 ~~I Yi I►Irl I ~U 11QIrJJ LU•- ..'{111111./ y , PROPOSED Z ~IEN• III yN 1)I•',V1';I,( l'fvlI';NT OWIVANY . 4YY 411,Y. YWI bq♦ 1•I.. 111 •ll OVA '_I ~ i1/11 mod. DATE: 08/19/86 CITY COUNCIL RNPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF uRDINANCE FOR 2-1619 RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Zoning Commieslon recommends approval. Ub MMARY: The property is located in a planned development approved originally in 1964. The planned development has L-een amended namerous times singe 19641 but still requires detailed plan approval. BACKGROUND: If approved, the property may be utilized for a psychiatric hospital. The property :'s currently the location of the Denton OsLiopathic Hospital and clinic and the proposed use will not significantly impact inteo.sity. The detailed plan conforms with all requirements of the planned development ordinance and the preliminary plat conforms with the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Seven (7) reply forms were mailed Lo property owners within 200 feet. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact can be determined at this time. Respe tfuliv sUbmi tads L qv-d- Va r', ell Prepared bys City Manager l all lGtlc.~~.,~91 ~ Cecile Carson Urban Planner Approv s Jeff Meye Director of Planning and Development 0343e/2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL To: Denton city council case No.: 2-1819 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jack Price Harwood r;. Smith & Partners, Inc. 1111 Plaza of the Americas, N. LB 307 Dallas, Texas 75201 Status of Applicant: Architect Requested Action: Approval of a detailed plan for planned development-11 approval of a psychiatric hospital as the land use and approval of the preliminary plat of the PIA/FTM subdivision. Location and Size; The property is 4.849 acres in size and is located at 2026 W. University, Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - City of Denton North Lakes Park South - Planned development-5, general retail East - Planned development-1, general retail West - Planned development-1, general retail Denton Development Guide: Low and moderate intensity area SPECIAL INFOR14ATION Transportation: One driveway from US Highway 380, a primary major arterial, is permitted and will need a Swale for the 100 year overflow. Utilities: Existing 10" water line needs to be extended across property frontage to provide fire flow of 1,500 g.p.m. Existing lU" sanitary sewer will have sufficient capacity. (Case Z-1819) Page Two SPECIAL INFORMATION (continued) Drainage: The property is located in the floodplain. A formal map amendment would be necessary to remove the property from floodplain. Channel improvements are required which must be concrete and culvert improvements are necessary. HISTORY The property was originally zoned local business with conditions to ordinance 64-2 as planned development-1. The original ordinance has been amended on numerous occasions altering or eliminating conditions; however, the planned development status has not been changed. ANALYSIS The property is located in low aria moderate intensity area according to the Denton Development Guide. This was the site of the Denton Osteopathic Hospital and clinic and the change to a psychiatric hospital will not impact the intensity. The existing structure on the 4.849 acres will be removed to permit the construction of a 50,000 gross square foot, one-story structure, The property is zoned planned development and a detailed plan is required before construction could begin at the site. The detailee,, plan complies with all requirements of the planned development ordinance and all information is shown on the attached detailed plan. The detailed plan meets or exceeds all requirements from parking to landscaping. I^ audition, the planned development ordinance requires the preliminary plat to be submitted with the detailed plan. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat and recommend approval of the preliminary plat. (case 2-1819) Page Three RECOMMENDATION Planning and zoning Commission recommends approval of detailed plan and preliminary plat, by a vote of 6•-0. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve petition 2. Approve petition with conditions 3. Deny petition ATTACHMENTS 1, Location Map 2. Detailed Plan 3, Landscaping Plan 4. PIA/FTM Preliminary Eclat 5, Survey Plat 6. Development Description 7. Reply Form Total 8, Mailing Giat 9. Minutes of Commission meeting of July 9, 1986 0268e I C WINalo LwwuNe 0 )q CN j / P~ bf ~ L r - NOP'~Q P~' ~ = aR11LTt o- i ~I LAN NADDARD LN, yf~ RiNCTON CT. DArrNeR14A i T ANC T i 4km C ~ MN RCT I L Q _=J UNIVlRCITY DR. W v , - C EMCRY r] II EMERY 7 T~tH TCR 21 NT C~ aR T , r ❑ J ~ ~ M W J L - Q 9F,NA V Nt. 1.4, FA NLI~.v• I II ALAM L ~ r.,.yww. . ' W fIM 1•Iq W , rA LIII. 141 /rl/. •OI/N MM MwM lot, Odom No"= ~,~^r, •IMw/ NI/IM 111.• MJlli M w Mw•fl Mw YM 4600 0111" f ow rye a ~1 r ; ~w.r ItttYptCtLt ~~--.1 1 ...a r 10 1 =96 =No 00 rnw rr oc L"04" mi 1!I SITI IIAM rMwlift" r1 MYaar~ ,i Ta w r rMal u r wr . wrl 1 ~.1i 1~ ~ w,• 111 w'w= i7y~~ ~ [3 ~ 1 1 Ir~~ rr`III Irr11w~MIMMM No" Ills" im ~ i:,:.i~'1~+If'IS~l~L"1Z•.fll~'lw'>L!Q ~ i Boom r M fR WffA . IVA 1~ "Visit) %ilrrq 1 I i I 1 ' 1 1 I I #w.m*Ae Aw J "AAMAJ r I,1 I• I f•,~ I I I I - n. it ou . r . _ (0.1jr .4 Aew+ owoo. ~rraMw w? ril..u4 V ~ • w•MM~I Ir14'~, ~1 mile* ON" • 10, i7 i ' ra . . ~ `1 i ~ • I r . • w rJ a.... r..l P.a...u.+~ r R&ISE PLANT MATERIALS LIST Shade Trees Live Oak Red Oak Cedar Elm Chinese Pistachio Goldenrain Trees Ornamental Trees Bradford Pear Yaupon Holly Crapemyrtle Purpleleaf Plum Eldarica Pine Shrubs Fraser Photinia Nandina Junipers Indian Hawthorn Dwarf Crapemyrtle Savannah Holly Groundcovers Asiao Jasmine Junipers Dwarf Hollies Dwarf Hawthorn 1 rr r.• •~.~IMrw~ll~ ••MIr NCI 1 YI rw . IM rl~w•I II« r'' ^ I. r.•r.... •,•.......r..• `rte.=ro~•" ~._..r.-.:...:....:.:. .._...J / ow$It rlr 4111140 to" 0, I ,,I..• r..rr --r.n'r' Mli •.w lwl •«rM N« /I/r. l~ ^ to '!wf w s ~ w r« ur. I•«► ~ ~ ' ~ .w 1 . II ' • .•r W IIN I ' OWN 4 . Y•1l• M MIMMI I • l~~ 1 Y M I TI" f rN~ M• wr a• ~1►✓ L, n _J}r-r~I{,~• '~r J 'R4 j Teo" 1411 01" Iswlw i I r M f w l~ ►AT 01[ _ • - tel. • • . . em K0= am ......Tr....r Yf -'_`-_.....r~~ it _ rlv .•ual •I i ~ wlilt M1 yin. 10 11 NNy~ri in{~..w■~ , /I' • Kr%uw 0 M AL tOMM 04-1 w• ~'w• Iw• w• Ir LI• rMr r ffrr nw rr ~y` 1 ~I Iowa ` ~•~1.111 I I{'.. rrr•'.r '7.."..4h1 II n10y W _ fis 1 4 1 1 I--r•Y or grMIl IM 1•y• ,ray •.•••••."•'•fM•IKMMt Wglft""•"f.l7Y- I - IMt .,wl„ .T{.► w 1.11011Pon IMI .I •«'If wl n1 M1' M ~M r....Y *two$ M w .M... ~11'N•41~ "T 49 It 0.MM ~ ~ - J?.mow ttMM 1 r ~ 1' ' i 1 . fi • rllC~Sll~LitlIlQld ,f.{' Jima r J'r"" Ml rw• srI ®wMLI 70 IrrMnJ'~ M~ "Wows 104" 11M MM Li'm MLLMrwYIY PLO a" WAOSIff 40~4 low 0M.L."o- ~ ~.N1 AOMp 1 I r ~ • • • M MIN r . f llrf .I "MIT OF wwl . is.. RIC VA OWN rn ~ w r, Ir•• . • S .x / z•/J/y 1 REVIS.77.!.A a.w W A 1111 n.. / r M. r1n 1 al}n.wY I«wrr ~ ~ 1 011,040, AaaE■ ~ r \ N11I!wINllllw '~,_I/•. ZONED PO-1 Cf ♦ ■ A 1I IIf0114Z..Ay1~.1[i.i~.-1.~.J-f-~ ~ / 1 Ar►. 111 M Y~ \ r-•~.~•r..~~••••~"• rMMwYMr rrl/wrYw _ .....IIMMM ' 1 ':~.;p fC~i1 .S+{. EA. s1J"mem:.~ a!'✓'A nn1 nut „ w1 Y1YY YYy Y~w~1 w w ~.r1 W M, r Yw. Vy 11Vllrl W VIN ~ NN rl+ V W M MM pW r,Y~Yw, y Iwrw1Y VI IIY, lyl YI M Iv lWil .iwl VN M1WNIY4wYYlYwyrY'rw11w~ YWW. W VIV YWryldy1.13M`IYYrMVY MIwY' Nr MOM ~'rWwr it YY IWI Wr MIr1 YM IW IY wIWII'wM.M ll ilH i~+w M. V~YYW t. Ww • ~IN Y ' ` 1114 MII !Y YwY 4Yl YY Mw11 *'rY. W Nr Yy M lr w! IIIr ~1M IW N I.I. Ilrr 1Y Coll of YM11~YMrr'Ib11Y1 YYr 1M • IIMI Ylri II X1111 ~►YI YIYY.~IwM/ rrr WN Y 1~.1y 11 rwr YYr NW IY rM YY 11 W11r11NIyl MwI IH MIIY r Y11 IIr N 'M WIN .IV lllw rl WIY1 YI« YN/'/ /1Y 11br N /Y.111111 V Y Ir1 X1 WAY lu~w r w'r w rlw MII IHIr MI IW 111 Mr VnI .IV ql wwl V W IW. II GII N W+ww w I VI VIg, W wW II IW hH Mw MIW II~MY 141,0l4 ~H 11 Yyy~yyW AYywr111rr1M1I1 VwW~lr WwY NWI11uH pW W~I..IN YIWw1 1r11l~w Id M M .1y1 11 »Yr IrYr 1 111 N IY W qwl YY ~Ilw w .2 IN Y 1 u'will 11. y'II V Ir1iWr11 wlii YI, 11a llfl rwrr 11111Y YNWIM 1.~1I1 IY M11 Yr N.-SyI M r.rl MNYN •I~Yw HI Yw 11 ~W.I 1111~1yr.. W.w w 1r ^1 AI•H'71ti, 1i'"1:'Yw I N w wll W r H«YI Y L.lyl 1~ 11'~ri'~Nil ft Y NI , Nwwl Iw 1♦ r !w X11 w II tr yNrw ww Y I I~.VI 1 IIY IY WII IY Wllyll ww N WIf11M IWI WHI Ilr 1. W MIY w11111r' 01 yy~1 yYW H ~MI1M y wrY yH yW IV Yp Iw 'I MII,Nr /rM IIYrN NIII, W I• w111"i +11 I W N W11,4 rlYl Vvr Yl. 1 +IVwi M III.Y /w V IV MV 11 VnW V W ."N" 1. W Yw YI IyyWyyMlyYyrylyy lywl lr~WM IwN a N~w~Mrwlll Iwllrlryr ry1j11V W 1VMw1M1 My11~~y a YW r n rrylrMl, rw1l IMI r M11YI YN /MYN1» 1~/w1 MIrM~MWM IrilN.11111WIII II Iw Ir111Yi YM ~1rr1'yjW JIIN 1~I W 1Yy1 11111y wY IYI ►1w11 Ir M1 r1l111y 111 N w X11, r VIII W YrI N w Wy WNllllry 1 Y.1 },w , ~ CalWIIVYI WI W ww q W wM111y1Y Nlyr Y ww1IrW Ir 1. « IY wrH W W WI wW. rr~lr e41MIY~ [M ~~ylylyYRl/w 111 • M , IY" ~~yIII ~i 1Y~M N M M wl .rM.i ~wMrrir~iwr ~1 ~~Ir1y1N1 ''';1M 1Y r 41140 /}(Y~wl • MIMII MII Y It • • VIVA DENTON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL HKS Project No, 3191 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Denton Psychiatric Hcipital, developed by First Texas Medical/ Psychiatric Institute of America, will be a 76 bed acute care facility located in Denton, Texas. The hospital will provide comprehensive Inpatient and outpatient services for both adults and adolescents. All of these programs will have a common goal: the return of each patient to a healthy and productive life with family, friends and co-workers. The facility will be constructed on 4.849 acres of land, zoned PD-1 (Planned Development - General Retail), The adjacent tract of land to the east and west of the site is also within PD-1. The property to the south of the site, located across U,S, Highway 380, is zoned C (Commercial) and the tract to the north is zoned A (Agriculture) with the northeast corner of the site bordering on a tract zoned MF-R (Multi-Family Restricted), Currently, the site is occupied by a one story hospital which will be demolished prior to construction. The site is a relatively level parcel of land with no existing noteworthy vegetation, The existing concrete bridge, over a drainage channel, shall be used as the access point into the site from U,S. Hwy 380, The proposed psychiatric facility will be a one story steel frame struc- ture with a brick facade, It will consist of approximately 50,000 GSF. Parking for 115 cars will be provided for; this includes the handicapped spaces as required by code, Based on ITE trip generation manual, the projected amount of traffic generated by the proposed facility will be 867 trips per day (using 11,4 trips per bed), An outdoor dining/seating area along with recreation spaces (swimming pool and half basketball court) will be provided. Construction will commence upon Planned Development approval and issuance of all permits required, The construction will proceed for approximately 12 months until completion. r PROPERTY OWNER REPLY FORMS CITY COUNCIL 2-1819 . IN F~AVORR IN OPPOSITION UNDECIDED None Received Masterex Texas, Inc. 15851 Dallas Parkway The Madison Building Suite 1250 Dallas, TX r « f~I. t is r ~uiatt t + 4, t t s .l'is yf.~~f ~xf ..fiR4n ~l K+.. 1( \ yrk`'~ 'b IJ ytr. fw x i.i yt. ~rr + y •t +~1 ~ I _a ISIS •~.t r ~J •'to" ~~S'bp' 7 y ~.r .1o-eo940 r .1 8 0 0 ` a .3Go i 7ksi I' U r 1 ° . r 7x Pw)f~~ r I - r*, S4 tl Ala er ' y ~.+',.1. ~ ~,*~~'S`.L' J~FA`e 'V' w,5 ~ ~f tli .'F~ ~ • ~Jt ` ~ , f r~r ' ~ . ➢iq`~'~~:w#~tr~ ~ „r;}~ ri~~1l~A1 SFiF~~~iitih~t ~+1 77.1 r yf7attrr.~ \P fIc~F ~r .f 1 ysa' s 3V,1~• ~ . I i 1 ~ I I I www~ i i f .r i - P i z Minutes July 9, 1986 Page S REBUTTAL: Mr, Ka-hter stated that it would be difficult to market the SP-10 along the northern boundary and that in this area there is a shortage of SP-7 lots, He said that they were begged by others to not put any more SP-10 SP-10 ontthegwestdsideeofaLillian MillerrParkctaynin atsaid that they have a shifting or relocation of prod+,cts in this proposal. Chair declared the public hearing closed. DECISION; Mr, Claiborne stated that land use in this area has been a predominant topic for this Commission, He said that Mr, Turner's concerns have grounds for support. He said that the SP-10 adjacent to the multi-fomiI is not a good transition. He said that the cluster to the SP-7 on south portion Is a good transition. He said that the cluster on east next to light industrial is an excellent transition. Ms. but that kthey tcantchange ~~trends. Shei added tthcan happen at trends are not inevitable. Mr. Holt stated that the next time this area is up before the Commission and has high density, he would vote against. He said that the Commission needs to look it this whole area. He said that he would probably vote for the change because of diversity. He said that the Commission is caught either way they vote, Mr. Escue stated that he voted against the original pro- posal; however, he added that he finds this proposal is not a tipnificant change and moved to recommend approval of Z-1918. Seconded by Mr. Holt. Ms. Brock stated that if she had been heve in September of 1984 she would not have voted for this proposal. ;dr. Claiborne stated that the first come, first serve policy has done the city more harm than good. He said that the context of this situation Is if the proposal improves the area if approved. Vote was called and motion carried (5-1), Ms. Brock voted no. Mr. Cott asked about his concern on the major screening wall to be erected on the entire southern boundary. Mr. Claiborne stated that he understood from staff that the wall could not be addressed at this stage but could at the detailed site plan stage, C. Z-1819, Petition of Jack Price, representing First Texas ~Tcil, Inc, requesting approval of a detailed plan and preliminary plat on 4.849 acres of a planned development (PD-1). The property is located at 2026 Nest University and shown in the Robert Beaumont Survey, No. 31, If approved, the development of a psychiatric hospital would be permitted with standards as shown on the detailed plan. Seven notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; no reply forms were received in favor or opposition, PETITIONER: Bob Gladney, representing Psychiatric Insti- Pirst Texas medical. He sthat ho aid thatptheeplanii dwbuilding to being done by the Psychiatric lnstit,48 4;.Asierica. P Z Minutes July 9, 1916 Page 6 He said that they are planning a 76 bed full service acute care psychiatric hospital to be erected on the property which currently has a 26 bed osteopathic hospital which will be removed. He said that the benefits to the commun- ity arat treatment, employment, and working closely with all agencies. Mr. Claiborne asked if other patients outside of psychia- tric care will be in this hospital such as drug dependency, Mr. Gladney said yes and that they will have four programs: adult substance abuse, adult general psychology, adoles- cent substance abuse, and adolescent general psychology. Mr. Claiborne asked if there would be a need for a security facility. Mr. Gladney stated that this hospital is secure by nature and that they would certainly watch the people inside the hospital. He said that these people are normal ordinary people not the criminally insane. Mr. Glasscock asked If the patients would be in-patients mainly. Mr. Gladney said yes. He said that they had two methods of treatment: full time hospital and partial hos- pital. He said partial hospital was leaving the hospital for part of the day but that tho patient was not ready to return home. Ms. Brock asked if patients would be admitted involuntar- ily. Mr. Gladney said yes in the case of those who want to commit suicide or by court action. Mr. Glasscock asked if the students would be going to school in the general area. Mr, Gladney said yes. He said that part of adolescent treatment is school, He sold while the student is In the hospital they have an in- patient school. He added that they have a program to teach preventive measures in all agencies such as the schools. Mr. Holt asked if most of the people in the hospital would be from this area. Mr, Gladney said yes. Mr. Claiborne asked if general medical practices would be done. Mr. Gladney stated that it is available but that they were not a medical surgical hospital. Mr. Claiborne asked if they would pick up an emergency call if it were close. Mr. Gladney said that they would not intervene, unless there is an emergency like a tornado. Jack Price, Harwood K. Smith 4 Associates, presented the project to the Commission and explained the quality and design of the structure. Mr. Claiborne asked about the floodway and floodplain area in this project. Paul Names, Engineer, stated that they will be filing an smendmenc for those areas with FEMA. OPPOSED: None present. STAFF kEPORT: Ms. Carson stated that the property is loca- te in a ow and moderate intensl,ty area. She said that this is the site of the Denton Osteoppathic Hos ital and . Clinic and the chone, to a psychi:~trlc hospital will not impact the intenst y The existing structure on the 4.849 acres will be remo.:, to permit the construction of a 50,000 square foot, one-story struoure that contains 76 beds for patient care. She said 0-s t t.ce property is xened planned development and a detailed plan is required before construction could begin at thi; site. The detailed plan compiles with all requirements of the planned development ordinance and all information is shown on the detailed P ` Z Minutes July 9, 1986 Page 7 • plan. She said that in addition, the planned development ordinance requires the preliminary plat to be submitted with the detailed plan. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat and recommends approval. She said that a formal map amendment would be necessary to remove the property from the floodplain. She added that the staff and engineering department see no problem with the map amendment. She said that staff recommends approval of Z-1819. Mr. Claiborne asked if the egress to the property had any visual problems. Ms. Carson stated that there have been no problems and none are anticipated. b:s. Brock asked if the present bridge at the entrance will remain. Ms. Csrson said yes with improvements and this bridge serves two way traffic at present. REBUTTAL: None offered. Chair declared public hearing closed. DECISION: Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval of Z-1819. becood-ed by Mr. Glasscock and unanimoualy carried (6.0). D. FINAL REPLAT OF THE FREEWAY PARK ADDITION, Lot 4B, Block A. Mr. Holt stated that he had a conflict of interest and left the meeting. . STAFF REPORT: Ms. Carson stated that this is a 2 acre tract located south of the intersection of Barcelona Street and Mess Drive. The property Is zoned light industrial (LI) and a medical office has been constructed recently. The lot was divided to establish separate ownership In May, 1986. The purpose of the replat is to reconfigure the lots makinj them more equal in size. She said that the Development eview Committee recommends approval of the final replat. PETITIONER: Greg Edwards of Metroplex Engineering corporation stated that he was available for questions. IN FAVOR: None present. OPPOSED: None present. Chair declared public hearing closed, DECISION: Mr. Escue moved to recommend approval of the Final replat of the Freeway Park Addition, Lot 4B, Block A. Seconded by Ms. Brock and unanimously carried (5-0). Mr. Holt returned to the meeting. IV. CONSIDERATIONS A. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE SUN COUNTRY ADDITION, Lot 1, block . STAFF REPORT: Ms. Carson stated that the existing sewer • on e~ rte-Street does not have sufficient capacity to serve this development. She said that a sanitary sewer line is proposed for Eagle Drive in the Capital Improve- ment Program and the city has been unable to start the project because all of the easements needed for this line have not been obtained. She said that the developer will have to extend tho line or wait until the capital improve- ment program project is finished. She said that drainage is a significant factor, She said :hat detention is re- ~ - rlisrr Fro 1527E NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON 7'dXAS, APPROVING A DETAILED PLAN FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-I, AS SAID PLAN APPLIES TO 4,8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2026 WEST UNIVERSITY DRIVE, AS IS MORN PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PENAL?'Y OF $1,000,00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: r SECTION 1. i That for the 4.8 acres of land described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, having been zoned as a planned development "PD" by Ordinance No. 69.1, there is adopted the detailed plan shown in exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, in accordance with the provisions of article it of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances, so that thereafter the use and development of said land shall be governed by and be in accordance with said plan. SECTION II. Any person who shall violato a provision of this ordinance, or fails to comply therewith or with any of the requirements thereof, or of a permit or certificate Issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offenso for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above, SECTION III, That this ordinance shall become affective fourteen (14) csys 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) dayo of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1986. RAY STEPHENS-0 MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST; CITY OF DENTON,OTEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DBNTON, TEXAS BYt EXHIBIT "A" FIEt0 NOTES + All that certain tract of land situated in the Robert Beaumont Survey, Abstract Number 31, Denton County, Texas: said tract also being a tract i shown by deed to First Texas Medical, Inc. as recorded in Volume 1264, page 313 of the Denton County Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas, and being more fully described as follows: Beginning for the southwest corner of the tract being described herein at f an iron pin; said Iron pin also being the southwest corner of said First Texas Medical tract, and the southeast corner of a tract shown by deed to Shaul C. Baruch as recorded in Volume 1443, page 06 of the Denton County Real Property Records, and also being in the north right-of-way line of U.S. Highway Number 380; i Thence North 01 degrees 33 minutes East, along the west line of said First Texas Medical tract, and the east line of said Baruch tract, a distance of 931.19 feet to 6n Iron pin for the northwest corner of the herein described tract; said iron pin also being the northwest corner of said First Texas Medical tract; Thence South 86 degrees 38 minutes 01 seconds East, along the north floe of said first Texas Medical tract, a distance of 227i to an Iron i pin found for the northeast corner of the heroin described tract; said I iron pin also being the northeast corner of said First Texas Medical tract, and in the west line of a tract shown by deed to G. R, Wilkinson as recorded in Volume 345, page 148 of the Denton County Deed Records; i Thence South 01 degrees 33 minutes West, along the east line of said tract, and the west line of said Wilkinson tract, passing Wilkinson's southwest corner, the same being the northwest corner of F.ot 1, Block I of the Ace Addition as recorded in cabinet C, Slide 330 of the Denton County Plat Records, In all a distrance of 924.26 feet to an iron pin found for the southeast corner of the herein described tract; said iron pin also being the southeast corner of sold First Texas Medical tract, and in the north right-of-way line of said U.S. Highway Number 380; Thence North 88 degrees 22 minutes 41 seconds Wevc alongg the south line of said First Texas Medical tract, and the north ri ght-of -way line of said U.S Highway Number 380, a distance of 221,10 feet to the Point of Beginning and containing 4.849 acres of land. The undersigned does hereby certify to Psychiatric Institutes of America that the plat hereon is based on an actual survey made on the ground 23 April 1986 and that It is a true, correct, and accurate representation of the property a3 surveyed, that there are no visible and apparent easements except as shown on said plat, that the quantity of land therein has been accurately calculated, and that said property has access to a roadway unless otherwise noted. This plat and field notes were prepared for the exclusive use of the person, persons, or entities named In the above certificate. Said certificate does not extend to any unnamed person without an express recertific,:61on by the surveyor i.dning said person. 14 May 1986 oy roan, Registered' Public Surveyor No. 1797 l 2-1819 EXHIBIT "B" DETAILED PLAN FOR 4.849 ACRES OF LAND CONSISTING OF; 1. Project Description; 2. Site Plan (1 page); 3. Landscape Plan (2 pages); 4. Preliminary Plat (1 page); and 5. Utility and Drainage Plan (1 page), Z-1819 DENTON PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL. HKS Project No. 3191 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Denton Psychiatric Hospital, developed by First Texas Medical/ Psychiatric Institute of America, will be a 76 bed acute care facility located in Denton, Texas. The hospital will provide comprehensive inpatient and outpatient services for both adults and adolescents. All of these programs will have a common goal: the return of each patient to a healthy and productive life with family, frien6 and co-workers. The facility will be constructed on 4.849 acres of land, zoned PD-1 (Planned Development - General Retail). The adjacent tract of land to the east and west of the site is also within PD-1. The property to the south of the site, located across U.S. Highway 380, is zoned C (Commercial) and the tract to the north is zoned A (Agriculture) with the northeast corner of the site bordering on a tract zoned MF-R (Multi-Family Restricted). Currently, the site is occupied by a one story hospital which will be demolished prior to construction. The site is a relatively level parcel of land with no existing noteworthy vegetation. The existing concrete bridge, over a drainage channel, shall be used as the access point into the site from U.S. Hwy 380. The proposed psychiatric facility will be a one story steel frame struc- ture with a brick facade. It will consist of approximately 60,000 GSF. Parking for 115 cars will be provided for; this includes the handicapped spaces as required by code. Based on ITE trip generation manual, the projected amount of traffic generated by the proposed facility will be 867 trips per day (using 11.4 trips per bed), An outdoor dining/seating area along with recreation spaces (swimming pool and half basketball court) will be provided. Construction will commence upon Planned Development approval and issuance of all permits required. The construction will proceed for approximately 12 months until completion. MM ado w" w" Am 1601 all" AM 1161. w.rr Mr MAY N MI .4111M lop •arM ~ ~ I "W" Slow t nn d = Nq.•I M.Lr. w Wrr• •Yr M4 1 : W6 1 ~'1.~ r Lt fo ~I r • ~ . ~ r~i.~r~i 4 MITI PLAN Aft MOM Askou ASIA ~ W. dp SITE DINTON are-AV" Y~.~ Y~..N~.r~~•wrlw ~•~~w ..~••i~ .w •.Nlr 1 • ~ 16.1161 r.. w~.•11 yi•..A.~rw•. r• W n1 •'IMY. w•Y M Y• ~ N M r 1611 111 r ~ Yip rN. Ay" 161616 +.•16.16 wr 1 ' ray TI ..16.16" ~l. rl• rvr, ri. r 16.1161 N'Ir rN..rr.r. w•N.r w Qw wwrNllwrYN ~'M br~llrlr ry 1.16 16.16 .'r • I. •4Mr • r ~ • rYr1.N .1 O Y.I Y r rN M /1611 N~y~~y1 y Y I.NJ11 1. 161'16 Y`M NIOIM•. •I ~~•11 •I IIIN N r N.I. M11'NXIA'N' ' y r!1Wr NN•'.' r 1111 • 1 .b.11q MII Mr y... Y,r•Y1.M'N'V IIrYM1 N/.~0A Y1N'N.q Mw 1 Ir• yljlwl'~N•1.. N1'YllWrr. ow 1616 1 ril. YI'i1 rrll•+1'•{1 IMII \.~11.INMW11• 1 r'• N111.M r.r•ANNM160 M 1 • ~11A1 'r'•M •.M.~1"w 1/11~y /Y~r. jtyY. ~Y1+1616. M S•.HY"iAl11YV W~ •YYwY~11.Nlyn~yl M~i Y.r'Y•1.1 r Y. NI~A~iy.M ~1 Y 1~rrY/r•1'~1Ir~1f1111.•~Y I I 1~.'1,M MN ~~i.W.1 ~I_/W M M..IN 1 mom MM ON `p'Y. N1.. I.rq YMY .IM •rlW~ 1 pu DINTON PSYCHIO Ri HOGWAL erHro~t TtJIAi y r REVISED 'K ~„~.•a../+l t~ wd~ l Maw l""~'„"~7 Gr"~`""`"'""' -o. - PROW; H4 r r - ! ii tiw ;m ! ' ~f.wJl~ NA.Y ~wYuw wN •l" r, REV PLANT MATERIALS LIST Shade Trees Live Oak Red Oak Cedar Elm Chinese Pistachio Goldenrain Trees Ornamental Trees Bradford Pear Yaupon Holly Crapemyrtle Purpleleaf Plum Eldarica Pine Shrubs Fraser Photinia Nandina Junipers Indian Hawthorn Dwarf Crapemyrtle Savannah Holly Groundcovers Asian Jasmine Junipers Dwarf Hollies Dwarf Hawthorn I I rrrr r.a' ~w~r IM r r Ifr•t f •-rl/''Mw/rrWR ~ ..,r•ti., irj ~~{i. 1«.. t,.r• _ IL oo IMP WINN. kil IS, F r cn•••.•••.••••uuxstitaslzs r[isesaL ean>tr ` , tMZl'.1 y M• •if r ~ . ; " ~ j n.r• , • y • M ~ ..r ir. w.w 11 ` i' wINNN1r N n.wl rT i r• ,r• w•, r~ _ Ifs' C_ • • . fowl , ~ ~ clod dl/ / - ' Mw IR l 1 1 _ wr wr w. Low ON prw r TIN • _ rrlr 40 w i - --r _ . ~ ~ ' rrwY f a rtrrr •rrt w. •Iwrf • rtK•YTMC TMTM ITYRO Or rCI11fI \I yr' r • ' 11 ~ur/• MINI, u~ ttllTOw KI tAK NOMILL two N•1 oJC___..... 11' ►l STUM i Yru _ ' ~ r+ 'w wr 'r• I fi• ' ~ « \ wr l/• •1111 1M ~r rr C j a~*"01 •11"rl•1~\ l.\ wrrrr 1.a"..!' ' rrll •....frll/ r'•H•hi r4 irr. 1« ....___._..•/AYM.IwC."--. •q1 ~111r 11/• 1 ♦ 1 r, ,r ~ r rrlrbl IIN t•M'•' „ •M•N•rl •MM ~rrr•.+r~rrr~r~ I.1. .w .M y rMr f r... 40 Ir•ww •1 I ra •►•1 w. y•1•.r~ 1 Y+ I n.a•r I, ~ r•If ,•.w 1. ~ ~ ~ i 1 f fi.~H f` r 1 rr 111f Nr / raw 1ti![ emu •u~ r.wer •ra rr a•rrflrrl/r flr•1 rr+ nel Lltlt rllauawr ILA Iwuor► torwtATloMO w WWI- rr IIA~ r r•r r W w r wf r I•~wwn rrrl rr r • • • rr N N ••f•• =01841 YICNMTT ILI► N • / • • j na frt r •p•,INIM r•1••r !N il♦J Lt! wvr.rlwrlfr Ir,r••. r«b 1 !.t l! w r rlw •~r a i i Mn ru. tlrr,rw MIL REVISED`- + I II 1r.µ 111 h.Nl l.~ ■ I 1 ! 1.4.10 11 -6.044 AoA/s 1 1 ~ ~ \ MIIr'INIIINw1W 5 ~...r....... -AL.- 0.010 J,~• .IY 1 ~ 20NED rQ-i \ ` I.r ~ T w AYM"OML wuw_~-+=~.r-ii~...~•._-. r..----.^~.~__..._i~ 4 x \ 11.r ' / 1 Ir rrYr Y.. W , SMIN - M' ~ r yr •^`w ~ 1 ' ~.J KwY~'. ♦r 1 1 rC' F7.u•YO t •y~~r r<r~ T tor t K" I Ir~l 11 i~ ~I, ~ ' M ~ I ~ c ff111 U111 1NI 111, IIYr Ir« r N If11 Y W Irv, 41rrn 4rw. IWwI YY, 11. iNr twrf~ N4Y W f.w I'wrMY ~Yrw1 • "NM Iy 114W W I.NW. M. 4 NMM Y NIW 11M. Iyr Ml N tV 1nr frr«I y MIIIIy r NIIr~ ~1r y1y N W 1Yw I.~W M~iN NM 'W rYWir~W WWII x r IW Mn MI Ir1I rN 1. 4wi Y MW IYI• M .wl rr N 1 wl Wr 4Iw Y WNN H~K NI, N xrw lw.. r1 Ir. NIIIr N4 fr. r 144rx 4N14N hwhl Vrrll. MNN Y1y N 1Y WN,INe~ «IW Y r{, /y.y rw w l,I, q Ir .r 4K u« •INq Mxi 11 IWrllWrln. = 4..rr it l 41 N W Krlw.u Y.r,l 1, I4 11YY rY N ypl p r,wN I„1. 1/W W µM1 Ir r MI Nw NW I. aLy .,rirglbN l'MIM U\ IHI. .NFylf xl 111MW1 YYIH II YY IV rNYr1 MrIYWYbNy IW INr11'NYIrWUYyr I l.ri ~«...1 Il II (IJ4Y11rrr r,r IN YW wNr lY wNY1N wW r M111w 1W 'YNW Iwr~ 1r1r/ I! Iw YY~yr frNrl fyy~ irl,~ l~Y WYw%1.W~i4NYlw~llw wYw•NII4 IYwN~Iwrl~w, WWNr hW1wrH MfwMIN1~N~i 1 New N >ll. f1 IN.~II Nx Irl r rY Y~irr I~rw1 4rKNrMM, W WI IW N 1 wl N,r M W 41,1. :~I. w~l~ Mxw141, M1M Nrww r >d, NII N W.,1 N1,.rW 4«1 r~xyW 7E N rW bkN,r4. WN. IWxVN rtl, W1Y 4xIwrWl .Ixlr. wl IN 4N IINr. 4rwINlb WWr ~YYr IK,hW rrw,~ W4. j11r 41A ~(r 1. yr IN14 Y1 WYr YNWM M~M1w~( M i N ~ tIW N Y 14 440 ~IIM MYY, M NI .1. M NI,i11K 4 r N,I r1, 4W 1w 1\ WIWN ,yxr N 14 rW 4NNA rwr IWA Wy Nw ,1 w Ir r „r1I xtlyf ~ W w~ Irw M rr Iw W41 Nw. M N W wN Nlr. NW, MNY W,W iI WNNx •ey ,r NM IwNrY hw NW IMWI NMI rW,~f11,M1• • ~r 1 W r r4l.l, ~.N ~wYl~ ~~IwW N M.II wl Y W 4W N 41w1~ w IrWr,y 1.M 4» N ' M W Mi1N 4nN/ 4 NN4rN W wa I rw w W Mx rw.r x 4W w N wM w« rN r IINy ,V YW y1r11 1x1 W NM N N 11H. W' I1 w 11fNr1 4y WyN1r N W NMIN N Y.IIII,W ,W K ' M Ir IW rMrr xVrr1 Yw I~ w r rN Nw. IW W rrllll + 4y 1«Nr W IrM 00111 rNIW W. P.wr1'M bW II I IWyf MW .NwNN ylY. IM flry /rY rNl .`t 11y ~1 I1. ,I I W~ MIN NrM YN IW NNr. N.. W Mri 4 r W K4rr•. W N W r.rllrW. r WNW Ylr Y W rr, WINIW. ' .I.. IIMMN IW ~Miy1 WWW11NrI W.K N4YrI HWfN1Mw N.4 M4K WIMWwW. w • IxY111Y l W 'N" r4ly NMTM N M M Aft► f1ONlr0 ~ Y n ~rlN ~ .w~lall I w IrM - N~.r w.. . rw r. ~ r AI~N rwwrl 1 r : Mwer 4000 rrr w w w ft=r r omm rrr 1 •w ww Iw/ DATZ: 08/19/86 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager 8UBJ8CT: PUBLXC KKMINO FOR Z-1820 The Planning and Zoning Cos:mission considered this item at its, meeting of July 23, 1986 and voted to recommend denial of Z-1820 by a vote of 4-2. SUMMA)iY This is a request for a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned development (PD) classification on a 60.2 acre treat located on the south side of Hest McKinney Street approximately 650 feet west of Loop 288. It approved, the planned development will permit the construction of offices, single family attached units, and duplexes. BC • ROU : This proposal violates the intensity standard for this low intensity area, and the office concentration policy for low intensity areas. Furthermore, the proposed land use is not an effective buffer for adjacent and surrounding single family zoning and land use. EMUMS, DEP&MNTB OR GRQVPS JIPF8CT8D: Not applicable. fWAL IMPACT: 'there is no impact on the general fund. Rea otfully s:r~nitted: loyd rre 1 Prepared by: City Manager ~k"A dd~d ~ b e s Denise trey o Urban Planner Appro JOft Meye Director of Planning and Development 1K7~1s/3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO: Denton City Council Case No.: Z-1820 Meeting Date: August 191 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Whisenant properties 14755 Preston Road Dallas, Texas 75240 Status of Applicant: Owner Requested Action: Change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned development; (PD) classification to permit; the following land uses: 1. Office - 5.77 acres 2, Single family attached - 478 units on 40.02 acres, density of 11.95 units per acre 3, Duplex - 130 units on 14.21 acres with a density of 9.15 units per acre Location and Size: A 60.209 acre tract located on the south side of F,M, 426 (E. McKinney street) approximately 650 feet west of Loop 288, Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family residential, church; SF-7, A South - Vacant; PD-41 (single family), LI East - Vacant) PD-41 (retail/single family land use) West - Single family residences, Vacant) A, LI Denton Development Guide: Low Intensity Area + 'r`:+?4Tre ..--z W'T ryee-.T~x-~s~'..sri'.. Case ('L-1820) Page Two SPECIAL INFORMATION Transportation: Off-site improvement of Lane Street from E. McKinney to the northern boundary of Parcel C will be required. The developer should be encouraged to pursue an extension of Lane Street from the southern boundary of the pro- ject to the proposed collector street in planned development (PD-4i). Locating a traffic signal at the intersection of Loop 288 and the proposed PD-41 collector street will maintain the desired 1/3 mile signal spacing. Utilities: The existing 20" water line paralleling Loop 280 and the 8" existing water line on the north side of E. McKinney Street may not have sufficient flow for fire protection for commercial uses. Developer must extend 12" water line from existing 20" water line along McKinney across property frontage, Developer must extend a minimum 10" sewer to and across property frontage along McKinney from existing sewer for a distance of 400 feet or from existing 30" Pecan Creek sewer. Drainage: The developer will be responsible for drainage generated by this tract. Channel improvements will be required and some off-site improvements will be necessary. HISTORY On March 26, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a planned development that would have permitted the following land uses: 1. General retail - 2.83 acres 2. Office - 2.94 acres 3. Multi-family - 608 units on 25.37 acres, density of 24 units per acre 4. Single family attached - 249 units on 21 acres, density of 11.9 units per acre Case (Z-1820) Page 'three HISTORY (continued) 5. Single family attached - 40 units on 3.43 acres, density of 11.9 units per acre 6. Park - 4.64 acres On May 28, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a planned development that would have permitted the following land uses: 1. General retail - 2.83 acres 2. Office - 2.94 acres 3. Single family attached - 251 units on 14.78 acres, density of 17 units per acre 4. Single family attached - 279 units on 16.3 acres, density of 17.1 units per acre 5. Single family attached - 57 units on 3.4 acres, density of 17 units per acre 6. Two-family - 122 units on 15.10 acres, density of 8 units per acre 7. Park 4.64 acres ANALYSTS This property is located in a low intensity area. The Denton Development uuide designates low intensity areas as primarily residential in nature. The following is an analysis of the proposal based on Development Guide policies: 1. Intensity - This low intensity area is approximately 148 over the standard based on existing zoning. Any approval of upzouing in this area would increase the violation of this policy. 2. Retail/Office Concentration - The Denton Development Guide specifies that office/retail concentrations may be permitted in low intensity areas if the concentrations are limited to four (4) acres in size and separated from other concen- trations by at least one half (1/2) mile. The office parcel in this request equals 5,77 acres which exceeds the four (4) acre limit by 1.77 acres. Furthermore, this parcel is adjacent to a ten (10) acre retail portion of planned development (PD-41) and across the street from an existing retail tract. Approval of additional office zoning would be an obvious violation of this policy. (Case Z-1820) Page Pour ANALYSIS (continued) 3. Multi-Family Concentration - Development Guide polices limit multi-family concentrations in low intensity areas to 200 units which must be separated from other concentrations by one half mile. This policy also specifies that anything over twelve units per acre is considered as multi-family density and is subject to multi-family policies. The single family attached density level has been reduced to 11.95 units per acre, thus bringing the level below the twelve unit per acre multi-family standards however, the developer has incorporated the five acre park parcel into this tract to reduce the density, A ten acre multi-family section of planned development (PD-41) is located approximately 900 feet east of this proposal and an existing multi-family development is located approximately 11000 feet north of this site. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposal is an improvement over earlier submittals, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of Z-1820 due to the violation of the area intensity standard and the office concentration policy. If the Planning and Zoning Commission is inclined to approve this request, staff recommends,, the following conditions for development: + 1. Developer shall improve the entire portion of Lane Street from E. McKinney Street to the northern boundary of Parcel C before any building permits are issued on Parcels B and C, 2, Development standards for Parcel A shall be consistent with office district standards, development standards for Parcel B shall be consistent with two-family district standards, development standards for Parcel C will be determined on the comprehensive site plan. 3. Fencing or landscaping buffers on the northern and southern boundaries of Parcel At the eastern and southern boundaries of Parcel B, and the northern boundary of Parcel C shall be erected before any building permits are issued in those parcels. Other fences and landscaping shown on the concept plan shall be erected before certificates of occupancy or utility connections are issued for those parcels, 4. Electric service for this development shall be undergrouiAd, (Case Z-1820) Page Five ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve petition 2. Approve petition with additional conditions 3. Deny petition ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. proposed Planned Development Concept Plan 3. Planned Development (PD-41) Site Plan 4. Former Concept Plan Z-1796 5. Former Coacept Plan Z-1808 6. Development Standards 7. Mailing List 8. Reply Form Totals 9. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 25, 1986. 1632g ''u'ii: ti.; " A r ' 1 a ali© ,y rFA ra~ w ((4 TOW oft J ~ CL i I 1 w ■w. . r / SOS SF-10 ...-4 po, P0.73 •9 `Ow~ P040 r t A LI I 1 1 Mom. S-172 SF-7 f, 1 Iii i f QFR , a ` y,1.1• 1 I CL ii + 1 r• i I I A 1 r- 1 1 ww+-_ I 1 Lf 1 I L! I PD 41 Z- 182 0 r r ~ I LI r,. I~ LI 1 S-170 ( II 1 I L+ ~ f , J ~ I 1 , ~r*+1. • ,mow,. fss PO-1S L l 14 Comm* ac M I ~ ~N 41 \^1~ 1 f • \.R-~ } it ~ t NMI OPLWC ~IVONVPEiA[IVO ` ``,.'sr~/` \1\~-~~f~r p ON, ow oftwo ago w r.•rme r ~ASS!•J cmm@PTs MAN ® ..6.«.W 0: Aft"W~/rrm.rw~wr WHISSNANT PROPURTiSS P. f j ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~l DOMMYACIAL/G,p. ~~f 1 PROOF ~ • ~ Po-41 P,nwinsr+a Onow"Ve" L--It 3 ` SIR MOVOLOPWA"m U047 MMUMMAL PAW AREA WIMS A00,01, IL, .K~ ti . L _ _ J1 or ow" N1E7T:OPLtX iiDii49 V COFtl AATION ` /may l l!; fly: w~" J~ t ~ cFa]]- - "p 4w wNs"o ol"M~M IoM.... \ \ ` \ I~ /~1/jl 11 r -0~~~ M it jil I 1 Mwwrs wn~ uM• Mrw14fNRN~yK UONT IN0 U»lTp1A1~ ji/` Ill ~'~iy III :w•mr 0 SAM ►wN gpll II INII / I ii~IA m •r dik"PAvr V u!M q WHIOUNA T Pi~OP~RiTiBIi3 =MANPOWER P. 2 C~ 1 r 1 ri•~ vJ )))))77 I /1Af►/N1t.idt UAIIZ~ \ \ •M w ~ ~I ~ f~MlTYI/,S UMiT INCui TRIAL\\\ \ ~ J ON" rMA r.M ~6M ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ f 1 L !~i9'-' 1 r } r ENGINEWWNGI COMPORATnIC Nr1 "Of NO Of Ywt Ifff*K IOM /111• sr % J~`\~" .l~/~ ~ ~~r ew~r~".,. RrwM Ilfl'rONrFI1N ••RM1 1 fL~ YNIiNiNiN ~ •f/1p~ II, WHIERNANT Pgop gTIBj3 P. 3 1:r 77 SITE PLAN MLf TROpIf r toU111ES . :'~I.IA 16J•p GENERAL RETAN, yA l1ENERAL,,, SITE PLAN LAO* USE DWR1CT YO1, At r ewy RE T AN, :'~I;,f ralrl • urw•.IL,, a<aK• to.U flo. r° STRICT ,'~t w. f ►Irr ;c, l,,,f,~, yl• Mtr l u sr.et 1 L I~ jryyb ' ..I 1 1pfs1 117,11 Kiltf ~ n !1, y r a M 10111CM414 yw~r/ .a.leat SWORE FAMILY DWELL r AITA(HED i N/G 0191RIC1 MULTI-FAMILY - .10.0 GWEILN G WS10C1 • GWEL4Il0 OLSTpICT n~ ae. f al,ult.lrls/w,r, 10.1b M1o. 13.75 At, SINGLE fA1rILY DETACHED 7 OWELLNIG D191RIC1 MLN.TI-FAMILY +Z DWELLING DOW 10.la Mkt. Q r 7 T MUl 1-f Ak1N. Y 1 f.11 Ao. OWELIf fG OIaTpICT / 1 ~MM'OS/A tM IftIA4 tlMtl' • 3,af► ~ L , r:.. II N. M 81NGLE FAMILY DC Moro O"LLOG 018TR1C1 f M rl .r O.aa.o. 10.aa7Mt. ? fo.31sc la•' flrti.r.cr carror v f site Plan Pa-41 ~(t' r rv 4 INDUSI'AIA~~~ DEVELOPNEENT CONCEPT' „Mme . I , WNi8Kr*JANT PACIPMAT188 '.wz+aliaeeo.au 11 too, ILA N I W III Ml ry,~ • .Ir ! I 11 rl MOf r•~ 111 /wr MMM V* ow 0041 mlow f, .1 t~ *CONM./G.R. pa 44' /A~ LIGHT INOUSTAIA a 0 wv~~appll©NT CO1NCOPT o TOP WHUMMANT PPK3PMTIEW I 13 June 19% 86-0014.PD Gt! ST DZY or Whisenant Properties 10 Swat of I,nteat A. To develop a multi-use community with office, single family attached, and duplex units as permitted by each appropriate zoning district. B. Development and marketing to coincide with established and future market demand. Construction to be accomplished by phasing. 2. Relatiga to garoroMsive Plan The proponed district is in a low intensity zone according to the City of Denton Development Guide. This development has been designed to meet the intent of the Development Guide. 3, A,L"Le i Parcel A - 5.77 acres Parcel B - 14.21 acres Parcel C - 40.02 acres Acreage - 60.00 acres 4. Land Uses A. Existing land use - agricultural, pasture - 60.00 acres B. Proposed land use: Parcel A - office - 5.77 acres Parcel B - duplex - 14.21 acres Parcel C - single family attached - 40.02 acres 50 Cff Sita Igfo~on As shown on the Concept Plan • 6. Tr_;lfic gad Trywoortation As shown on the Concept Plan A. Projected amount of traffic: Parcel A - 2,020 V.T.D. Parcel B - 1,300 V.T.D. Parcel C - 4,780 V.T.D. Total - 80100 V.T.D. Note: Rear access by 20-foot private access easement for all residential uses permitted 7. BuIl„ :mod s A. Approximate location: As ^hown on the Concept Plan B. Maximum height: Parcel A - 45-foot, two-story Parcel B - 45-font, two-story Parcel C - 45-foot, two-story C. Minimum building setbacks: Parcel A - 25 feet Parcel B - 25 feet Parcel C - 25 feet D. Maximum total gross floor area: (non-residential) Parcel A - 125,671 S.F. E. Number of dwelling units and units per acre: Parcel B - 130 dwelling units - 9.15 d.u,/acre Parcel C - 478 dwelling units - 11.95 d.u./acre 8. Residential Subdivisions A. Number and location of lots as shown on the Concept Plan Parcel B - 65 lots - duplex B. Minimum since, width, and depth of lots Parcel D - 6000 S.F „ 60-foot width, 100-foot depth C. Minimum front, side and rear yard setbacks Front Side Rear Parcel B 20 feet minimum separation 15 feet between units of 10 feet I 711 1 9. Wow god Prolmn As shoat on Concept Plan 10. Utilities As shown on Concept Plan 11. Tees As shown on Concept Plan. There are tree masses located on the property with Oaks 3 inches in diameter or greater. A majority can be saved with the land uses proposed. 12. QPlA. JgM As sham on Concept Plan on Concept Plan Parcel A - 10.00% open space, private Parcel B - 10.00% open space, private Parcel C - 12.49% open space, private or public 13. Scrming As shown on the Concept Plan 14. Development Schedule A. Estimated start of construction: 1987 B. Estimated phasing as shown on the Concept Plan according to market demand: Phase I 1987-1992 Detailed Site Plan, June 1987 Parcel 8 Phase II 1988-1993 Detailed Site Plan, June 1988 Parcel C Phase III 1989-1994 Detailed Site Plan, June 1989 Parcel A 0 PROPERTY OWNER REPLY FORMS CITY COUNCIL Z-1820 IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION UNDECIDED Tom Jester None Received P.O. Box 280 Denton, TX W. C. Tunnicliff 3200 East McKinney Denton, TX Paul M. Haywood, Jr. 420 South Carroll Denton, TX t, s. • ~ as r T 7777iH' x l;: _ r yt~ e ,try IA4 al All, fl ~ T~ ~ f~ , J • ~y y~I S r 1~j• X51 I' ~'l e+ ~t t~'rv~ F' + 5 Y -gl7to e. //j ~ I ~I 1 ff1 1 s ' A# Loma I - yl r ~ i ~.r ic -00-100 i i i • r "~+'1 ~r 44-fpq P 4 Z Minutes` July 23. 1906 Page IV. PUBLIC RIAN Z-3910: Petition of Miiseasat Properties requesting a change is toning from the • ricultur•l (A) classification 9 ~ to the planned develePmwat district and approval of a concept plan on a 60.2 acre tract located on the south side of Bast NcIt Street (PH 426) approximately 6s0 feet west of Loop a . The property is further described in the N; Ygarhasm Survey Abstract 1442, and the Mary L. Austin Survey, Abstract L If approved, the planned development will permit the following land uses: Parcel A - Garden Office - S.77 acres' Parcel H - Two Family (huplex) - 14.21 acres 130 total units with a density of 9.15 units per acre Parcel C - Single Pamirr Attached - 40.02 acres 476 total units with- a density of 11.99 units per acre Might notices were mailed to pro arty ownerL within 200 feet; four reply forms were received in favor, no reply forms were received In opposition. PETITIONER: Roger Barrett, Netroplex E ineetlag Corpora- , steed that the pro Oct started with information from tion MP/F Ressarch. He as Id that the MP/F Research contains percentages -f population of househo M incomes in' the City of Denton. he said that the research is the basis for the + concept and the marketing approach. He said that they have tried to tailor to the first time home buyer market. He said that they har,e tried to create a diverse, buffered land use concept with open space and landscaped proposed. He said that the landscaping and sore of the roads will be in place prior to development and the petitioner agrees to the conditions recommended by staff. He said that they have reduced to 608 dwellintt units and now have five acres of park totally out of tho-floodplain area. He said in ad- dition to the five acres of park they have proposed a club- house, pool, and tennis courts in another location. He said that the proposal has been reduced to 10.14 dwelling units per acre, the maximum density within parcels 1s 11.959 the maximum building height is two stories, and that there will be no apartment use or general retail. He said that they have tried to buffer in a difficult area with the light industrial to the south and SP-7 to the south and east. He said that this ores is 141 over stan- dard and that they are trying to work with the land uses currently in place. Mr. Holt asked if it was his understanding that if the petitioner built one building, the area would still be over the intensity. Mr. Barrett stated that nothis can be done about the intensity area because of the light industrial zoning In the low intensity area. Mr. Holt asked if this proposal was the only project in the whole intensity area, would it exceed t a intensity standard. He said that he probably would not be opposed it the proposal did not violate the intensity standard on its own. No. Carson stated that the intensity for the 60 acres would excood the 7S trips per day standard. Mr. Barrett statiod that this proposal has a tremendous #mount of buffering and good trons.itioning with screening walls and extensive landscaping with ppark and open space. He said that they have (roariod a livable environment. He said that the Commission approved a 164 acre parcel with no park site. t •.~a - 24 1986 'Pao 3 • r~, '1N► :I rl.`i Mr,.Holt'stated that he understood the park was eliminated. tW*. Col stated that it would not have been a public park. !!l~ Mr. Barrett stated that the city did not ask that the park be dedicated to them but that it is still a requirement of the planned development. i Mr. Holt stated that he understood the problem of intensity with the light industrial toning. He said that the garden office space violated the Development Guide and asked for the reason for this use. ' Mr. Barrett stated that several nodes throughout the city 1 have been evaluated by staff and that staff made the comment that by adding garden office to the medium intensity node there would be no additional diversity because office could occur on PD-41. He stated that they felt this is a proper use in a proper location. f IN FAVOR: Gwendel Nulkey, speaking 1n the behalf of his Es~Ty, stated that his father asintains four and one-half acres that borders on Bast Mclinney and just west of garden office area. He said that the City annexed the 6S { acres that they used to own and the property value was 1{ increased. He said thi,t they endorsed the project. OPPOSED: None pres►nt. STAFF REPORT: Ms. live; stated that two previous submit- T87~i'WrIF- ifnied by he lanning and Zoning Commission. She said that this proposal is located In a low intensity area that is approximately 144 over the standard based on existing toning and any approval of uptoning in this area would increase the violation of This policy. She said th a moderate node exists and can be expanded if diversity exists. She said that PD-41 has potential for an office use and that garden office in this proposal adds no diver- sit), %nd therefore staff feels that the moderate area should ;tot be expanded. She said that the office parcel in this request equals 5.77 acres which exceeds the four acre concentration policy. Futhermore, this parcel is adjacent to a ten acre retail portion of planned develop- ment (PD-41) and across the street from an existing retail tract which violates the separation policy. She said that the sinfle family attached dri;i1ty level has been reduced to 11.95 units per acre, thus bringing the level below the twelve unit per acre multi-family ~ standard; hovever the developer has incorporated the five acre park porcef into this tract to reduce the density. A ten acre multi-family section of planned development (PD-41) is located approxi- mately 900 feet east of this proposal and an existing multi-family development is located approximately 1,000 feet north of this site. Although the proposal is an im- provement over earlier submittals, staff recommends denial of Z-1810 due to the violation of the area intensity atan- dard,office/retail concentration policy, and land planning for the area. She said if the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion is inclined to approve this request, staff recommends conditions. Ms. Brock asked about the parks in the ores. Ms. Carson stated that the City is trying to negotiate park land in the light Industrial area along the creek, there is a park adjacent to Robert A. Lee School and there is Mack Park. Ms. Brock asked if there were any improvements to be made to last Mclimasy Street. Ms. Spivey said no. r P 4 Z Minutes July 23. 1086, Page + Mr. Holt asked if this area is over the low intensity b`- cause , of thk light industrial. Ms. Carson said it is the main reason. She said that this proposal would double the 75 trips per day standard for a low intensity area on the 60 acres. . , Mr. Holt said that it $eems unfair to penalize because of the light industrial zoning. No. Carson said that the staff has done a study,&$ requested by Mr. Pearson to an- alyze the light industrial area. She said that the inten- sity would be lowered if residential was built but there is no guarantee and that the staff' must look at the land use existing to determine what may develop. Ms. Brock asked if this light industrial area could develop as highly donee Aulti-family. Ms., Spivey said yes. Mr. Escue asked when the 14 ht ladustrial.area was granted. Mr. Ellison said 984, REBUTTAL: Jim Mcilhomey, represeutinl Whisenant Prop- aftleest stated that this is their third plan and it hat been cut dramatically from first two proposals. He said that they have five acres of ood developable land for park purposes and are prnpare~ to maintain with a Home owner's Association. He said that Parcel A for office is used to buffer the residential from the retail. He said that they have eliminated the multi-family. He said that they will be proposing a day care center facility for this neighborhood. He said that their lender has required them to make the living sinits owner occupied. Ht said that the single family attached will be four-.plea units. He said that they are prepared to do the project and hope that they will set a tone for the light industrial property with this residential development, He said that staff has made heavy recommendations and that they agree with them. Chair ueclared public hearing closed. DECISION: Ms. Brock stated that the Commission is hearing aaaboUtFirst .:ome, first servo zoning. She said that the Commission if faced with the problem of mistakes made in the past in this area. She said that this proposal has some attractive qualities but that there are still 608 living units and office. She asked if a day care facility could be utilized in the office area. Ms. Carson said it must be approved on detailed plan. Ms. Spivey stated that there are development standards for each parcel that were not included in the back-up. She said that staff recommended the development standards as an additional condition if approved. Ms. Brock stated that 3-1820 violated the intensity stan- dard density was decreased with tt .9dition of a park, traffic problems, and had an impact the Robert r,, Lee School. She recommended denial of 2-1820. Seconded by Mr. Escue and motion carried (4.21. Ms. Cole and Mr. Glasscock voted no. s • DATN: 0d/19/8b CITY CMCIL RK"RT tQ MAT E TO% Mayor and Kembers of the City Council FROK: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE FOR Z-1832 RECQ~NDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at its, meattug of August 13, 1966 and voted to recommend approval of Z-18112 by a vote of 5.142,. s This is a request for an amendment of an existing planned developnsn:s on a 12.08 acre tract located on the east side of Audre LLAW approximately 150 feet north of Paisley Street. BACKGROUND: The developer desires to awnd the required 30 foot rear yard setback to a minimum setback of 15 feet. PROQ AKS. DEPARTK61. OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not appi:%,able. FISCAL WfiCT: There is no impact on the general fund. Res sotful,.;f~ su"itted: loy rrel Prepared by, City manager APAL. Denise Sp ve Urban Planner Appro : aAAL.4- ..Teff Keyer Direntor of Planning and Development 1#?#s/1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL To: Denton City Council Case No.: Z-1832 Meeting Date: August 19, 1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 Requested Action: An amendment to a planned development (PD-60) to make the tollowing change: Change rear yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. Location and Size: The property is located east of Audra Lane and north of Paisley Street and is more fully described as Lee Meadows Addition, Section I and II. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single family (SF-7)t vacant South - Single family (SF'-7)1 residential East - Single family (SF-7); vacant West - Single family (SF-7); PD-91 residential Denton Development Guide: Low intensie,y area SPECIAL INFORMATION Transportaticn: Audra Lane has been improved with proper right-of-way. Sidewalks along Audra Lane will be required. Drainage: Drainage for area was analyzed using park runoff calculations, and a drainage study will be necessary, improvements will be required if another land use is approved. i I i (Case Z-1832) Page Two SPECIAL INFORMATION (continued) Utilities: An 8" water line Is Located in Audra Lane and a 6" water line is located in the streets of the subdivision. A 15" sanitary sewer line is located in Audra Lane and an 8" sanitary sewer line is located in the subdivision streets. HISTORY The property was zoned planned development? PD-60, and an ordinance wis adopted August 2, 1983. The planned development allows a mr,..imum 94 sirgle family detached homes with a typical lot size o- 351 r. 1001. The 13.407 acres has been vacant, but construction began on 10 lots in early 1986. Tho planned development was recently amended to eliminate a private park area f,Aom the original proposal and establish setbacks and building separations which were omitted from the original ordinance. ANALYSIS The ordinance for this planned development was recently amended to provide setbacks for the development which were oml.tted from the original ordinance. The developer provided a typical building placement showing a 25 foot front yard setback and 6 and i foot side yard setbacks. No rear yard setback was shown on the plan. Staff consulted the construction plans submitted to the Building Inspector and determined that aill submitted plans showed a 3U foot or larger rear yard setback, After the amendment to the planned development was approved, the developer submitted additional building plans showing rear yard setbacks of less than 30 feet which necessitated the latest request. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning commission considered this item at i.ts` meeting of August 13, 1986, and voted to recommend approval of z-1832 by a vote of 5;wir. I (Case 7-1832) Cage Three ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve petition 2. Deny petition ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map 2. Revised Detailed Plan 3. Ordinance Number 83-78 4. Ordinance Number 86-124 5. Reply Form Totals 6. Property Owner List 7. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 27, 1986 8. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of August 13, 1966 1314s a { MF-I I w r ~ i i III , ~ r` PD. MI ~ SF- i F-I I PD - I • r 1 i ~I i NS PD - --t PD-9 .4 _ i S 2 1 r ~ f S-172 I i SF-7 solo j + MFR j j q MF•I A f 1 MF*l 1 ~ ~ ff /1 ~ 1 1 i 1777,,] 14 r Iu.r r ' I kpi f ~ ~ VM PR. I t. UMMM Aft DOW" AOI ,mss is" ~ ' ~ur~u,~owtf► tau rtt+Kag t -1I3+t Pow c~a AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ;ONI,NG MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAM9 WAS ADOPTED AS A.N APPENDIX ToQ rHE CODE OF ANDI AS SAID UP THE H APPLIES TO APFRRIMIITELY , 13Y S07 DACR93 OFOLAND•IN DENTON COUNTY AND D DE DEC , TEXAS; A,VD NORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; LARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION-1- The Zoning Classification and US* designation of the follow- Ing described property, to-wit: BEGINNING at an iron rod found, said iron rod being the at the Southeast corner of the Jonatnan Brock Survey ana also being to the North line of the r. Vii. Downing Survey; THENCE North 00030133" ;rest a distance of 155.4 feet to the point of beginning; THENCE South $905213011 West a distance of 9.79 feet to a point for a corner; THENCE North 000713011 West r distance of 170.72 fast to a point for a corner; THENCE South 49052130" West a distance 'ji 130.0 feet to an angle point; THENCE Norte 496371S:" Was, a distance of 50,0 feet to in angle point; THENCE South 89°S2' ;:;,59 feat to a point 11 :he East rtint-of-way line of .udra 0r, SJ feat rt;nc•~f•.a;:~ fJr j :ornar; THENCE North 20°8'13" East ai~ng sal I :Iin of•~a: Ind a aistince of 759.01 feat :a a pcLac t;r j :ornar; THENCE !forth 49013113" East a distance of o53..d ;eat t.3 a point for a corner; THENCE South 00.19100" East a iis:antia of ;49.76 feat to t;1a point of beginning and containing 331,u.' square :aat jr 13.107 acres of land, more or lass. And being a portlon of the land 1es,,ci:aa in chat .ar:ain Warranty Dead from C. F. PoiA nl :o Coaaonwaal:n Development co,, dated Jacoaber 29, 14% ana (tied for recora .;anuarv s, 1 73 :n Volume o03, page Z92, Dead Racoras of Denton Count;., Taxis. is hereby changed from Single Family CSF-7) District Classifi- cation Use to Planned Development L?D) Uist:ict Classification and Use under the Comprehensive ;,oning ijrdinancs of tns City o; Denton, Tsxas sub)ect to the following conactlot,e: 1. Plat approval constitute site plan approval. 2.1343/DeAOKGE/tiE.ygT03(E DEV.•PAGg V\IS ~ r 2. Recreation or Playground area shall be maintained by an approved homeowners association and, 1f required, an + propriate bond shall be posted for future maintenance. (Intent is to ensure that Clcyy Of Denton will not be obli- gated to expend public funds Eor maintenance of the recrea- • tiara area.) 3. Overall dea"sity of development shall not exceed 7,23 units per acre. • 4• Audra Lane shall be improved in accordance with applicable City of Denton subdivision regulations and construction standards from its intersection with Paisley Drive no the northern edge of the property in this request. S. Final ri ht-of-way width of Audra Lane shall be determined during final platting stage; minimum of 60 feet, maximum of 60 feet shall be provided, 6. Mack Drive shall not be extended northward beyond this development. 7. Sidewalks shall be provided throughout the development on all public streets, S. Ii site is not developed within four (4) years, the zoning will rev4rt to its previous single-family (SP•7) classifi. cation. The Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 19690 as an Appendix to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, under Ordinance No. 69-L, ba, and the same is hereby amended to show such change ►n District Classification and Use. SECTION H. That c+,e City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability or particilar uses, and with a view t3 conserving the value of the buiLdings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benetit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its clti:ans. SECTION iii. That t .'s ordinance shall be in full force and effecz hearingsehavingehereto cfore abgeennhela pbyvth0 Planning sand cninc Commission and the City Cou.;ciL of the City of Denton, Texas' after giving due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ,clay a I dS. Ci Y OA L~CNTONp TEXAS ATT ST R4 CITY OF DANTON,s,T1XA$ s o APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: C. J. TAYLOR JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF 01. N,^TE BY: J~ \ 4 1 N r + P• ~ cor~7 + ~ r 1 • ~ s I l • ♦ f r r• L9 l • a Lw 11KIt A 1 1 1 ~ LI Lw ~ ~ •a 6 L• LM• ! x a w w r to cal 1 J7 7 / N 10 a , n. J Ow • A 1 J 7lr 1 i tir.l • I l f 1• L M/ H ~ ~ I a ,I. ff r " ~ ~ ~ I t 1! w r I i fYi ~ Gomm IFl • rJM. .f .Y. 1Y Lit NCeDOW3 r ...1491E NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SANE WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CIF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69.1. AS AMENDBD, iNL AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 13.4 ACRES OF LAND LOf1,TBD BAST OF AUDRA LANE AND NORTH Of PAISLEY STREET, AS I^ MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMBNDMBNT OF THAT PLANNPD DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CREATED BY ORDINANCE N0. 83-78 BY REDUCING THE ACREAGE INCLUDED THEREIN; AMENDING THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO SAID DISTRICT, APPROVING A REVISBD DETAILED PLAN FOR SAID DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the planned development district approved by ordinance No. 83-78 on August 2, 1983, is hereby amended, by reducing the acreage within said district so that hereafter said district shall include the land described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference. SECTION 11, That the planned development district approved by Ordinance No. 83-78 on Au ust 2, 1983, is hereby amended, by amending the conditions applicable to said district, so that hereafter the land described herein in said district shall be governed and controlled by the provisions of this ordinance, the conditions of Ordinance No. 83-78 being herein amended to read as follows: 1. Single-family detached dwellings shall be the only permitted use within the district. Overall density of the district shall not exceed 7.23 dwelling units per acre. 2. Audrs Lane shall be improved from its intersection i with Paisley Drive to the northern edge of the district in accordance with the standards provided for in Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances of the City cf Denton. 3. Mack Drive shall net be extended northward beyond the limits of the district. 4. Sidewalks will be constructed along one side of all public streets within the district, S. The single-family detached dwellings shall maintain a minimum thirty loot (301) rear yard setback and a miniauas seven foot (7' separation between adjacent dwellings. SECTION Il.l. That Ordinance No. 83.78 is amended by adopting a revised detailed plan for the district as described herein, said detailed plan being shown on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, so that hereafter the district shall bu governed by and developed in accordance with said revised detailed . Q Plan attached hereto and the conditions heroin contained. SECTION V1, That the Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 19691 as an Appendix to the Code of Ordi- nances of the City of Denton, Texas, vender Ordinance No. 69-1, as amended, is hereby further amended to show the change in the district herein approved. SECTION V. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such zoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SECTION VI. Any person who shall violate a provision of this ordinance, or fails to comply therewith or with any of the requirements thereof, or of a permit or certificate issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One °Aousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every ds or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above, SECTION V11, That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directod to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published ti+tca in the Denton Record -Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1986. MAYOR CIT OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHARLOTTE ALUM# OtITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TLAAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORNt DEBRA ADANI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: '1(h,pyy~ Z-180$/PAGE 2 i ~ p „ ywu f)( ~ ~n N cn wN ra• li,~~j , ; I . / T 3 ©Cs) C C~> ) Cf i r (1) f r!. (r,T, (y„ U U MACK A 4 -0 1 ~ C~) O .Ugflldf PR~SI!%'fIM r,~ t (1 / 10 L~ n - y r.4kgq 6004-1 pp~VlS I msaL Mr An. ~ 1+7.?! X16 bjJCO jam ZOEJ1l.~l~ G~Uaf.ll~~ ~Xlry „ +N UfIUrICf Aft ewiwp + R~SbJfOtIA1 Tqz+ 4f~ g. L~1?y( PROPERTY OWNER REPLY FORMS CITY COUNCIL 2-1820 IN FAVOR IN OPPOSITION UNDECIDED None Received None Received ry , J l..r r~_. - a ♦ _»i y ,~~,~,rn~1" ~ytrr6 •~~I~14M Jl ...r t .ti ``r I' " . ::1 y,, r~. r 63Z . MWA Ala r.' •t Ali ! to 1 f 4 + - warn a rx, g/ VA A di, 74i, .ZZA,~ 3ga 0441' r OR- ~ 0 tip ~ 4 ~ - oaao . rM~~S" > y{~/ rf - 5~ ."1. 5~.:"v, j °i'?"\~1 Ir'.. '~'vl►r I~.r:+r "Yl7~fr'f.'"•: r, ~1.~~:r ~rl: ' I W 1 T L P.I FYy .1 il!I 11.~pY..-.. ry, .1i` r ~1.. .Y~ r• 1 ~~,~r~o 11 ri i' I ' ~}Y' N,d ~ ~ ~ , 4i'411'v. VY~ Y r.'~r. ,yl{a``1t~ll al.e. }a ! r3 jltrtwY S4r;M~ rf '/r.i~li ~~l,j~r Vl ff tvl~ .'•I~ }~f/X~F-f 1;~ IS - ~ - 'ILA f i oo 1111111 { o~ - a { I i 621 - vlvoo ~ i I al a) - 607 ao 8 ~aU • IO o~ + oraec, , . oa , i ~r 30 - b l c7r~C~ 'a`~f7 1 ODi ILL, V2 130 - 0 laoo , 13 0 o a. b C) xk. V/ ILL, ' 13D - oo~ac:? ''o - r>o5~nc, L 4 /~7 o -oo I c5 383 -6&b Z- `,6n -0151 9 P 8 Z Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 3 DECISION: Mr. Juren moved to recommend approval of -IUU4.Seconded by Ms. Cole. Mr. Claiborne stated that he felt it was not fit for commercial or office or any other use other than light industrial; however, he felt it was premature for a planned development, He added that he has some reservations. Vote was called and unanimously carried (6-0), B.) Z-1805, Petition of Amos Schwartz Construction Company, Inc. requesting an amendment to a planned development (PU-60). The property is located east of Audra Lane and north of Paisley Street and is more fully described as Lee Meadows Addition, Sections I and 11. If the amendment is approved, the following changes will be made: Front Yard Setback - 25 feet Rear Yard Setback 30 feet Side Yard Setback Minimum of 6 feet Side Yard Setback - Minimum of 1 foot Minimum Separation Between Structures - 7 feet Eliminate Private Park Requirements Seventeen notices were mailed to property owners within 2UU feet; one reply form was received in favor, one reply form was received In oppusitlon from person not on the mailing list. PBTiTiONEk: Brian Burke of Burke engineering representing mos c wartz and Jay Balentine, stated that the purpose of this request is two-fo1d. He said that one is to re- move the private park requirements and the second Is to establish building lines to avoid constant confusion be- tween the city, developer and contractor. Amos Schwartz stated that they originally obtained the 93' lots and the original developer kept the one acre park. He said that they are requesting that It be taken out of the planned development because they do not own the land. :N FAVOR: None present. OPPUSED: None present. S'T'AFF kbpuh,r: Ms, Carson stated that the property was a5n0planned developpment, PL-bU, and an ordinance was adopted August 2, 1983, t'ne planned development allows a maximum 94 single family detached nomes with a typical lot size of 3S' x 1UU1. The 13.407 acres Is predominantlyy vacant, but construction began on 10 lots in early 1980. She said that the setback information will eliminate con- fusion about development requirements and the requirements are consistent with other zero lot line developments in the City. She said that the main purpose of the amendment to the planned development is to remove a condition from the ordinance concerning a private park, She said that the condition in the ordinance states, "Recreation or playground area shall be maintained by an approved nome- owner's association and, if required, an appropriate bond shall be posted for future maintenance." She skid that the Intent was to ensure that the City of Denton was not obligated to expend public funds for maintenance of the area. The City of Denton is not interested In maintaining a public park at this site because of its proximity to Mack Park and Lee Elementary School. She said after dis- cussion with the Legal Uepartment it was determined that the City could not enfnrco a condition requiring that a homeowners association be organized. In addition trio Parks 01 P 8 Z Minutes May 27, 1986 Page 4 and Recreation Department has stated that private parks onerall are maintained for a short time only and then ~ecome the responsibility of the City. She added that staff recommends approval of Z-180S. Mr. Pearson asked if the park was part of the original planned development. Ms. Carson said yes. Mr. Pearson asked if it Is possible to sell off part of the planned development. Ms. Carson stated that it happens all the time. BBH UT1,AL: None offered, Chair declared public hearing closed. DECISION: Mr. Claiborne stated that the setbacks speci- o are consistent with other development. He said that he voted against the original planned development but that setbacks were a definite improvement, L Mr. Claiborne moved to recommend approval of Z-IsuS. Seconded by Mr. Pearson and unanimously carried (6-0). C. Z-1811, Petition of Jay Salentine requesting a change Tn toning from the planned development district (PD-60) to the single family (SP-7) district, The property is located east of Audra Lane and north of Paisley Street and more fully described as lot 22, block S, Lee Meadows Addition, Section 1. If approved, the property may be utilized for any purpose permitted in the single family (SP-7) district by the City of Denton Zoning Ordinance. Three notices were sailed to property owners within 100 feet; one reply form was received in favor, no reply forms were received in opposition. PETITIONER: Brian Burke of Burke Engineering represent- ing Jay Salentine, stated that he was available to answer questions. IN FAVOR: None present. OPPOSED: None present. STAFF REPORT: Nis. Carson stated that in order to develop th prpperty in the planned development (PU-oU) for rest- don al use, an amendment has been requested to eliminate the private park requirements in the ordinance. Tnis prop- erty was originally zoned as the private park in the panned development and would be unzoned if the amendment is approved. Therefore, the petitioner at the request of the City of Denton is proposing single family (SP-7) zon- ing, The property was zoned single family (SP-7) prior to being zoned planned development (PD-6U), The petitioner is also requesting a specific use permit for a day care center, She added that staff is recommending approval of Z-1911, REBUTTAL: None offered. Chair declared public hearing closed. DECISION: Mr. Juren moved to recommend approval of VIM. - Seconded by Mr. Escue and unanimously carried B. S-190, Petition of Jay dalentine requesting a specific use permit for a day care center. The property is located east of Audra Lane and north of Paisley Street and more P 6 Z Minutes August 13, 1986 Page 4 E. 2.1832. Petition of City of Denton requesting an ameraent of an existing planned development (PD-60? and approval of a revised detailed plan on a 12.08 acre tract located on the east side of Audra Lane approximately ls2 feet north of Paisley Street. The property is further described as a tract in the Jonathan Brock Survey, Abstract 55. If approved the amendment will change the rear yard setback from a 36 foot minimum to a 1S foot minimum build- ing setback. Seventeen notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; no reply forms were received in favor or opposition. PETITIONER: Brian Burke Burke Engineering, stated that tFGbUlLa rs are requesting a smaler rear yard setback because they realized the market is better for relatively larger homes. Mr. Hol: asked about the size of the houses. Mr. Burke stated that the builders started with 1,050 to 10100 square feet and the homes are being increased by 100 to 150 square feet. Mr. Holt asked about the size of the lots. Ms. Carson said 3,500 square feet. Mr. Burke added that some are deeper lots. Ms. Brock asked if the homes would be the same as on the south side of Paisley Lane. Mr. Burke said yes. • Ms. Brock stated that she was astonished to see all of the houses on the south side sold. Mr. Burke stated that they are excited about the sales and would like to get approval to start building. IN FAVOR: None present. OPPOSED: None present. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Spivey stated that the ordinance for ttE s planned development was recently amended to provide setbacks for the development which were omitted from the original ordinance. The developer provided a typical building placement showing a 25 foot front yard setback and 6 and 1 foot side yard setbacks. No rear yard setback was shown on the plan. Staff consulted the construction plans submitted to the Building Inspector and determined that all submitted plans showed a 30 foot or larger rear yard setback. She said that after the amendment to the planned development was approved, the developer submitted additional building plans showing rear yard setbacks of less than 3U feet which necessitated the latest request. She said that staff would prefer the 30 foot rear yard setback but will recommend approval of Z-1832. REBUTTAL: Mr. Burke stated that he would answer questions. Chair declared the public hearing closed. llEC1SIUN: Mr. Escue moved to recommend approval of 2-1832. Seconded by Mr. Claiborne and the motion carried (5-2), Ms. Brock and Mr. Holt voted no. • f i510~ NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NO, 86-124 FOR 13.4 ACRES OF L ,lID LOCATED EAST OF AUDRA LANE AND NORTH OF PAISLEY STREET, AS 1S 140RS PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED THEREIN; TO PROVIDE FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK: PROVIDING ROR A PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $10000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS; SECTION I. That Ordinance No. 86-124, approved July 1, 1986, providing for amendment of a planned development district to include 13.4 acres of land as described in Exhibit "A" thereof, is hereby further amended as follows: 1. By amending Section II, paragraph "S" to read as follows: S. The single-family detached dwellings shall maintain a minimum fifteen foot (1S') rear yard setback and a minimum seven foot (71) separation between adjacent dwellings, 2. By adopting a revised detailed plan for the district, said plan being attached hereto as Exhibit "B-1" and incorporated herein by reference, so that hereafter the district shall be governed by, used, and deve- loped in accordance with said revised detailed plan and the conditions applicable to said district. SECTION II, That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No, 86-124, showing the amendments herein made. SECTION III. Any person who shall violate a provision of this ordinance, or fails to comply therewith or with any of the requirements thereof, or of a permit or certificate issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00). Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above, SECTION IV. 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. Z-1832/PAGE 1 i PASSED AND APPROVED this tho day of 1986. CITY OF DBNTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHARLOlTN , CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCII, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY; Z-1832/PAGE 2 K_ R~ I F (t X11 1. IN . Yl!4SCf_ ] 1h Y ♦M j7' NON I i ljjj~ if I f4.. , 1 I pp1p0 r1~ _4A I ` .rMU~ 1 100 N ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ } 1 ✓ r ~ Otpoof fit ~ .W Nan T- 1 «I, W ,w ~ 111 A4Wp ZAJW4 AM* M4haW!, as" 440"uw vajm. cohm"W, *n y. i,t2 +uda+►. , VWJM 7 71 - , 1492E NO.~G~1a2~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON* TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF ' THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1. AS AMENDED, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 13.4 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF AUDRA LANE AND NORTH OF PAISLEY STREET, AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN. TO PROVIDE FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CREATED BY ORDINANCE NO, 83-78 BY REDUCING THE ACREAGE INCLUDED THEREIN; AMENDING THE CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO SAID DISTRICT, APPROVING A REVISED DETAILED PLAN FOR SAID DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENkLTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $1,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the planned development district approved by Ordinance No, 83-78 on August 2, 19830 is hereby amended, by reducing the acreage the district that Exhibit hereafter A , attached ihereto and incorporated by reference. SECTION II. That the planned development district approved by Ordinance No. 83-78 on August 2, 1983, is hereby amended, by amending the conditions applicable to said district, so that hereafter the land described herein in said district shall be governed and controlled by the provisions of this ordinance, the conditions of Ordinance No. 83.78 being herein amended to read as follows: 1. Single-family detached dwellings shall be the only permitted use within the district. Overall density of the district shall not exceed 7.23 dwelling units per acre. 2. Audra Lane shall be improved from its intersection with Paisley Drive to the northern edge of the district in accordance with the standards provided for in Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. 3. Mack Drive shall not be extended northward beyond the limits of the district. 4. Sidewalks will be constructed along one side of all public streets within the district. S. The single-family detached dwellings shall maintain a minimum thirty foot 5301) rear yard setback and a minimum seven foot (7' separation between adjacent dwellings. SECTION 111. That Ordi, 83-78 I amended y adotn a revised detailed plan for nancetheNodistrict as describedb herein isaid detailed plan being shown on Exhibit 'IS", attached hereto and Incorporated herein by reference, to that hereafter the district shall be governed by and developed in accordance with said revised detailed Plan attached hereto and the conditions herein contained, SBCTION VI. That the Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of. January, 1969, as an Appendix to the Code of Ordi- ` nances of the City of Denton, Texas, under Ordinance No. 69-10 as amended, is hereby further amended to show the change in this district herein approved. SECTION V. That the City Council of the City of Denton, finds that such zoning is in accordance with a comprehensiveeplan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration, wrong other things for the character of the district and for Its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SBCTI,W 0` . or fa An iyspetroson who requirementordinance, or awi with vanyo of fthe this thereof, or of a permit or certificate issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above. SECTION VII. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days frow the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twine 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 L day of 1986. Lle-Za4w CIT OF OBNTBN, TEXAS ATTEST: CITY OF DENTON,sTEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DBERA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH6 CITY ATTORNEY CITY Of DBNTON, TEXAS BY: erg u: M EXHIBIT A io all that certain 12.08 acre tract of land situated in the Jonathan Back iurroy, Abstract Number 55, Denton County, Tosses said tract being part of acct shovn by dead to Ansel Chahin, at ux and recorded in Volume 730, Plga 767 of Deed Records of Denton County, Taxes and being more particularly iescri= bed as follows 3ECONIUG for the Southwest corner of the tract bein described herein at an iron pin located in the East right-of-way line of Aura Lane a distance if 152,31 fast Northeasterly from the canterlina of Paisley Streets THENCE North 20 Degrees 06 Minutes 42 Seconds East with the East line of Audra Lana 295,35 feet to a point for a corners THENCE South 82 Degrees 28 Minutes 43 Seconds East 53,25 feet to an angl: points ;;I,:;CE North 89 Degrees 51 Minutes 51 Seconds East 211.00 feat to a point for a corners T;IJICE North 00 Degrees 08 Minutes 09 Seconds pest 160.00 feet to a point for a corners TNEMCE South 89 Oaeress 51 ?Haut" 31 Seconds pest 207,37 test to a point for a corner in the East line of Audra Lanes T1'.ENCE North 20 Degrees 06 minutes 42 Seconds East 298.96 fast with the Mast line of Audra Lane to a point for a corners THENCE ;forth 89 Degrees 11 Minutes 56 Seconds East 653.62 feet to an iroi pin set in the ground at the Northeast Corner of said Angel Chahin tract; THUCE South 00 Degrees 16 Minutes OS Seconds East 718.52 feat to an iroi pin at the Southeast corner of said Chahin tracts 7e.== South 89 Degrees 24 Minutes 02 Seconds pest 139.22 feet to an lro.i pin found at the Northeast corner of Lot 13, Block 7, Mack Additions THENCE North 89 Degrees 24 minutes 18 Seconds pest 49.81 foot to an iron pin found at the Northeast corner of Lot 11, Block 3, Hack Additions THENCE South 89 Degrees 51 Minutes 31 Seconds Vest 728.22 foot to the. POINT O1P BEGINNING, and anclosing 12.OU acres of land. EXHtnrr M•'r low w . to M ' , 4. Wam 10. ►•MYr aM+yl~~ !FM"~ iLf ASO ti "r►'I $4 MANN" rvw '"~'R • rw~~, AM* MW4W'► 000 AM 4 mom f i~ "rn ep ~ S fMAi) 1~ tyN Z•1808 i Pogo A uAr c%. L~.nt. • NO, _ja:~:z AN ORDI.VANCB AMENDING THE ZONING TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED As AAP OF THE CITY OF AE+fTON, ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DBNTON AM APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 13 ya07DACESEOf so. LA.ND.t 0814TON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND MORE PARTICULARLY OESCAI8E0 HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECSECT The Zoning Classification and Use destination of the follow. ing described property, to-wit: BEd INNING at an iron rod found, said Iron rod being ttie at tree Southeast corner of the ,lonatnan Brock Survey Ana also being in the North line of the r. .~I, Downing Survey; THENCE North 00.30'33" west a distance of 115.1 feet co the Point of beginning; THENCE South 6~@S2'30" West a distance of 9,79 feet to a ?Dint for a corner; THENCE North 0047130" xesc a distance of 170.,% east to a point for a corner; THENCE Souch 89'52'30" ;pest a distance of L30.u feet to an angla point; • THENCE North 89437,52" 'w'est a aiS:ance Of 50.0 feet :3 in 3.1;la point; THENCE South 89'S2' of ':;.53 feet CO a PO,,j-. in Et rignt•of•way line of Audri :,r. ,50 fast riiac-,;r'-Ad;'i1er1iJ corner; THENCE North Z046'35" cast along 3ai1 .,,.a: distance of 758.01 feat a Pcinc ::,r a corner; :1na a THENCE North 89'13113" East a distanc# ;,f o;,,:s fad: ,o a posit for a corner; THENCE South 00'1900" East a distance of jjy,-e teat :o cne Point of beginnini and containin, 534,J:7 3y.Jara :ea: Qr 13,107 acres of lane, more or less. And being a portion of :no :and descrL:as :n sass car:ain warranty Deed from C. F. ?ofanl to Commanweal:n Deve;apment Co,, dated Udcsmber 2199 18;1 ens filed for racors ;anuarv s, it73 :n Volume 663, page 2SZ, Deed Recoras of Denton County, ;s.cas. is hereby cnanged from Sinile Family (SF.7) District Classie r carton Use to Planned Development k?DJ uistrict Classification and Use under the Comprehensive Zoning 1.rd1nance of :ne City s: Denton, Texas subyect to the fall,;wing conditions: 1. Plat approval constitute site plan approval. • 15 43/ DeRONDE/G1M$TO.VB OEV. - PAGE ONE Z. Recreation or playground area shall be maintained by an approved homeowner's association and, if required, an a propriate bond snail be posted for future maintenance, (intent is to ensure that City of Denton will m-P be ooli. Sated to expend public funds for maintenance .rie recrea- tion area.) 3. Overall deniity of development shall not exceed 7,23 units per acre, 4. Audra Lane shall be improved in accordance with applicable City of Denton subdivision regulations and construction standards from its intersection with Paisley Drive to the northern edge of the property in this request. S. Final ri ht-of-way width of Audra Lane shall be determined during f~nal platting stage; minimum of 60 feet, maximum of 80 feet shall be provided. 6. flack Drive shall not be extended northward beyond this development. 7. Sidewalks shall be provided throughout the development on all public streets. 9. If site is not developed within four (4) years, tha zoning will cavort to its previous single-family (Sf-7) clsssifi- cation. The Zoning Nap of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 19691 as an Appendix to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, under Ordinance No. 69-L, be, and the same is hereby amended to show such change in District Classification and Use. SECTION It. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereoy finds that such change is in a:;eoraanco with a comprehensive .plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for thi character of the district and for its peculiar suitability or particilar uses, and with a view co conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human Lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of lava for t*a maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and Its citi:dns, SECT10: That this ordinance shall oe in full force and effect immediately after its passage and approval, the required puolic hearings having heretofore been halo by the Planning and oning Commission and the City Council of the City of Dencon, Texas, after jiving due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the A:: d a y o 1 e3. i CI Y OP V .44T1) z MA Y 4 r ON, TEXAS i ATT/SY CITY Of DS.MTONa u TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FOAM: C. J. TAYLOR JR. CITY ATTOR,MSY CITY :E-!. No TE BY: -imp ~ t' " UI■ &I •W - W as C'm it a w Yr 1 • ■ II LM rovR` N l y 1 1 l I , I~ If Y I 1~ I~ 'T' ~ ~ 1 it ~ ■ I. . 1 • I !J 11 I f I 1■ ~ ~ ay I y ~w }~tf~#~ •Mxa o■IK Y yy ' wr ~ M MtM■fiRf~■1 ; r~M. ~O M.N UT NtACCW9 •.NM Mr .Iy. • r ' r . 1 now DATE: 8/I9/6~ CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TOt Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing concerning the proposed annexation of approximately 132.64 acres of land being part of the G. Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and part of the W, Durham Survey, Abstract No. 300, and beginning at a point approximately one mile south of F.M. 426 (East McKinney) and one and one-half miles north of I.H.-35E (A-37) RECOMMENDATION: A Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation will be forwarded at a later date, SUMMARY: The property in this request is owned by the Corps of Engineers, and the annexation petition was precipitated by the need to have all land that will be affected by the proposed major thoroughfare for the proposed Lakeview Development annexed within the City of Denton. The Parke and Recreation Department requested annexation of additional property for their planning purposes, The City of Denton would be the Petitioner of this proposed annexation. BACKGROUND: Not applicable, PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: City of Denton, Corps of Engineers, Miller of Texas, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: Undetermined, Resp tfull submitted: L oyd oflarfell / Preparejd} by: City manager C.CX ~~1 David Ellison Senior Planner Appr ed Jeff Mey ~ Direotor of Planning and Development 1626a 1468L A - 3-1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT: The City of Denton, Texas, proposes to institute annexation proceedings to alter the boundary limits of said City to add the territory described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, to the corporate limits of the City of Denton. A Public Hearing will be held by and before the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, on the -day of #A d ,P d4 on "W 1986, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. in the C ty ouncil C am rs o -the Municipal Building of the City of Denton, Texas, for XI persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard, Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. A Public Hearing will be held by and before the city Council of the City of Denton, Texas, on the fQ~ day of ZtA_Y 1986, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. in the C ti y Council . akbe,ggs o t e Municipal Building of the City of Denton, Texas, for a M persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard. Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. J R PRO TEM Y OF DENTON TEXAS ATTEST: CH -LOITTE L , • EXHIBIT "A" All that certain lot, 0 tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the . Walker Survey, Abstract 1339, and part of the W. Durham Survey, Abstract 330, Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described as follows: BEOlmulma at a point in the present city limits as established by Ordinance No. 85-230, Tract It said point also lying in the West boundary line of the W. Durham Survey, same being the last boundary line of the 0. Walker Survey, said point also being a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-250-Wt THENCE South 89. 05' East along said present city limits passing at 1,116.57 feet the Southeast corner of said Tract It continuing for a total distance of U,S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-251-WI THENCE Southeasterly along the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers boundary the following six (6) courses and distancest (1) South 10 48' East, 823.0 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-252-W: (2) West, 69000 feet to a U.S. Army Corps.of Engineers Monument P-253-W1 (3) South, 420 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-254-No (4) West, 196.0 feet to a U,S. Army Corpo on engineers Monument P-255-No (5) South 356 35' East 623.4 feet to a point for corner, said point being a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-256-W1 (6) South 580 21' east, 562.8 feet to a point for corner, said point being a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-257-Wi THENa- South 384 46' 59' West crossing the Corps Tract and the Pecan Creek Pork 4 Lake Lewisville, a distance of 943.72 feet to a point for corner, said point being a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-234-Wi TkeNCE Northwesterly along the U,S. Army Corps of Engineers boundary the following sixteen (16) courses and distances] (1) North 500 10' west, 477,5 feet to a U.S, Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-235-Wi (2) South 824 21' West, 244,0 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-236-Wj (3) North 210 45' West, 1,162.8 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-237-W1 (4) North 670 431 West, 310.06 feet to a U,S, Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-238-Wt (5) South 820 18' West, 236.4 feet to a U,S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-239-W1 (6) South 690 35' West, 556.8 feet to a U;8; ,Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-240-Wt (7) North 380 59' West, 1,140,8 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of engineers monument P-241-Wi (8) South $84 12' Wect0672#9 feet to a U.S, Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-242-Wf (9) North 880 $8' West, 547.2 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-243-W; (10) North 174 12' West, 341.7 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-244-Wt (11) North 270 41' East, 164.7 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-245-Wo (12) South 88. 58' East 932.1 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-246-W1 (13) North 561 $9' East$ 668.0 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-247-Wi (14) North 02• 54' East, 153.0 feet to a U,S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-248-W; (15) East, 1,46461 feet to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Monument P-249-Wj (16) North 006 24' West, 0.5 feet to the point of beginning and containing 132,64 acres of land. A- S? Now PLAN OF SERVICE FOR ANNEXED AREA, CITY OF DENTON,,~ TEXAS WHEREAS, Article 970a as amended requires that a plan of service be adopted by the governing body of a city prior to passage of an ordinance annexing an area; acid WHEREAS, the City of Denton is contemplating annexation of an area which is bounded as shown on a map of the proposed annexation, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 970a as amended, Texas Code Annotated, there is hereby adopted for the proposed annexation area the following plan of service: I. Basic Service Plan A. Police (1) Patrolling, radio responses to calls, and other routine police services, using present personnel and equipment, will b€: provided on the effective date of annexation; (2) Traffic signals, traffic signs, street markings, and other traffic control devices will he installed as the need therefore is established by appropriate study and traffic standards, B. Fire (1) Fire protection by the present personnel and equip- ment of the fire fighting force, will be provided on the effective date of annexation, C, Water (1) Water for domestic, commercial and industrial use will be provided at city rates, from existing city lines on the effective date of annexatiw-n, and thereafter from new lines as extended in -%ccorda,nce with article 4.09 of appendix A of the code of the City of Denton, Texas. D. Sewer (1) Properties in the annexed areas will be connected to sewer lines in accordance with article 4.09 of appendix A of the code of the City of Denton, Texas. E. Refuse Collection (1) The same regular refuse collection service now pro- vided within the city will be extended to the annexed area within one month after the effective date of annexation. Service Plan Annexed Areas Page two F. Streets (1) Emergency maintenance of streets (repair of hazardous chuckholes, measures necessary for traffic flow, etc.) will begin on the effective date of annexation, (2) Routine maintenance on the same basis as in the present city, will begin in the annexed area on the effective date of annexation, (3) Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installa- tion of storm drainage facilities, construction of curbs and gutters, and other such major improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the governing body, will be accomplished under the established policies of the city, G. Inspection Services (1) Any inspection services now provided by the city (building, electrical, plumbing, gas, housing, sanitation, etc.) will begin in the annexation area on the effective date of annexation, H. Planning and Zoning (1) The Planning and Zoning jurisdiction of the city will extend to the annexed area on the effective date of annexation, City planning will thereafter encompass the annexed area, 1. Street Lighting (1) Street lighting will be installed in the substan- tially developed areas in accordance with the established policies of the city. J. Recreation (1) Residents of the annexed area may use all existing recreational facilities, parks, etc,, on the effec- tive date of annexation, The same standards and policies now used in the present city will be fol- lowed in expanding the recreational program and facilities in the enlarged city. K. Electric Distribution (1) The city recommends the use of City of Denton for electric power, Service Plan Annexed Areas Page three L. Miscellaneous (1) Street name signs where needed will be installed within approximately 6 months after the effective date of annexation. II. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The CIP of the fty consists of a five year plan that is up- dated yearly, Ahe Plan is prioritized by such policy guide- lines as: (1) Demand for services as compared to other areas based partly on density of population, magnitude of problems compared to other areas, established technical standards and professional studies, and natural or technical restraints or opportunities. (2) Impact on the balanced growth policy of the city. (3) Impact on overall city economics. The annexed area will be considered for CIP planning in the upcoming CIP plan, which will be no longer than one year from the date of annexation. In this new CIP planning year the annexation area will be judged accordingly to the same established criteria as all other areas of the city. i 1 ~ 1 ~ buy . ~ ♦ ~ • ff ";tv!; arse TX I 1 1 , F 1 • Rd NZ • 4_arALxd. I ck% A~37 1 , [~VI (N \ ~ 1 1 SHADY S <1 - ' a LAKWAnsw TTF*MOOLi XMPAPE wrr"N Coops pplopnon""TY l ~ Nlix V AP MA CO ROAM r4 4.0880 ACRES A-37 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE ✓July 70 1986 Submit City Council agenda item 6,--'July 9, 1986 submit agenda back-up * +.4uly 15, 1986 City Council sets date, time and place for public hearing V uiy 22, 1986 Notice to Denton Record Chronicle V'July 25, 1986 Publish notice and mailout ✓ July 28, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item ✓July 30, 1986 Submit agenda back-up for City Council * August 5, 1986 City Council holds first public hearing at regular meeting ✓Auqust 6, 1986 Notice to Denton Record Chronicle ✓August 8, 1986 Publish notice and mailout August 11, 1986 Submit city council agenda August 13, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendation ,/August 13, 1986 Submit agenda back-up * August 19, 1986 City Council holds second public hearing at regular meeting August 25, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item August 27, 1986 Submit agenda back-up * September 9, 1986 City council institutes annexation proceedings at special called meeting September 11, 1986 Ordinance to Denton Record Chronicle September 14, 1986 Publish ordinance October 13, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item October 14, 1986 Submit City Council agenda back-up * October 21, 1986 Final action by City Council at regular meeting * Denotes action by the City Council 09648 DATE: 8/19/86 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT go C70 TOI Mayor and members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City manager SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing concerning the annexation of approximately 23.6420 acres of land being part of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract No. 1330, and beginning adjacent and north of Edwards Road approximately .5 mile east of Mayhill Road and approximately .5 mile west of Swisher Road. (A-41) RECOMMENDATION: A Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation will be forwarded at a later date. SUVMARYo The Tommy Corporation States in its application that it is requesting annexation for the purpose of developing the property in accordance with the city of Denton's standards. A petition for single family (SF-7) zoning has been submitted in conjunction with this annexation request. The site is not within a flood plain area. Edwards Road is an unimproved road that is subject to perimeter street paving standards (17 feet of curb and gutter and improvements to city of Denton specifications along the entire frontage of the property to be developed) regardless of whether the tract is annexed or not if development occurs. An existing 12" water line at the Mayhill Road and Edwards Road intersection mast be extended 4,100 feet east to serve this parcel. City of Den= and TP&L electrical oervice is available. The Parks and Recreation Department and Fire Department have no objections to the proposed annexation. BACKGROUND: A 60.8 acre tract of land adjoining this parcel to the west was annexed and zoned planned development (PD) for mixed residential land use in January, 1986. The Tommy Corporation requested annexation and zoning for the adjoining tract. 5.. i R v. 1. ...v.: -.::i r City Council Aeport (A-41) August 19, 1986 Page 2 P M RA S, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDt There are no dwelling units, businesses, or population existing within the area of proposed annexation. The Petitioners have indicated that a water supply district lies within the boundaries of the area proposed for annexation. FIJCAL IMPACT: Undetermined. Res ctfull submitted: it Lloyd Ha ell Prepared by;City Manager David Ellison Senior Planner App ve Jeff Me Director of Planning and Development 1627a 1506L NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION' NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT: The City of Denton, Texas, proposes to institute annexation proceedings to alter the boundary limits of said City to add the territory described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, to the corporate limits of the City of Denton, A Public Hearing will be hold by an before the City Co ncil of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 19860 at 7:00 o'clock P. M, in the C y ouncil C~ rs o t e Municipal Building of the City of Denton, Texas, for all persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard. Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. A Public Hearing will be held by and efore the Cit C u cil of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 4 -11, 1986, at 7:00 o'clock P. M. In the C ty council C e r s of the Municipal Building of the City of Denton, Texas, for all persons interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persons shall have the right to appear and be heard, Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. ~ 0 O i% CITY 0 DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: M=OTTE ALLEN. CITY SECIETRY EXHIBIT "A" All that certain tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton, State of Texas, and being part of the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the present city limits, said point being the Northeast corner of the tract described in Ordinance No. 86-15, and the Northwest corner of a tract conveyed to Real Estate International by Deed Recorded in Volume 1830, page 950 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; THENCE South 860 59' 59" East along the North boundary line of said tract a distance of 627.98 feet to the Northeast corner of said tract; THENCE South 0S° 35' 29" West along the Easterly East boundary line of said tract a distance of 366.0 feet to the Easterly Southeast corner of said tract; THENCE North 890 47' 12" West along the Northerly South boundary line of said tract a distance of 40.21 feet to the Southerly Northeast corner of said tract; THENCE South 040 19' 30" West along the Westerly East boundary line of said tract a distance of 1,507.29 feet to the Southeast corner of said tract, said point lying in the center line of said Edwards Road; THENCE Westerly along the South boundary line of said tract and the center line of said road the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) North 85° 20' West, 123.60 feet; (2) North 791 35' 40" West, 296.87 feet; (3) South 88° 04' 05" West, to the Southwest corner of said tract; THENCE Northerly along the West boundary line of said tract, passing the Southeast corner of the tract described in Ordinance No. 86-1S, continuing along the present city limits and West boundary of said tract, (by Ordinance North 2° 14' West, 1,867 feet) the following three (3) courses and distances: (1) North 03° 56' 01" East, passing at 20,5 feet a concrete monument, continuing for a total distance of 1,047,55 feet; (2) North 02° 04' 31" East, 583.84 feet; (3) North 000 15' 53" Fast 211.70 feet to the place of beginning and containing 23.6420 acres of land, more or less, PLAN OF SERVICE FOR ANNEXED AREA, CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS WHEREAS, Article 970a as amended requires that a plan of service be adopted by the governing body of a city prior to passage of an ordinance annexing an area; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton is contemplating annexation of an area which is bounded as shown on a map of the proposed annexation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS: Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 970a as amended, Texas Code Annotated, there is hereby adopted for the proposed annexation area the following plan of service: I. Basic Service Plan A. Police (1) Patrolling, radio responses to calls, and other routine police services, using present personnel and equipment, will be provided on the effective date of annexation; (2) Traffic signals, traffic signs, street markings, and other traffic control devices will be installed as the need therefore is established by appropriate study and traffic standards. B. Fire (1) Fire protection by the present personnel and equip- ment of the fire fighting force, will be provided on the effective date of annexation. C. Water (1) Water for domestic;, commercial and industrial use will be provided at city rates, from existing city lines on the effective date of annexation, and thereafter from new lines as extended in accordance with article 4.09 of appendix A of the code of the City of Denton, Texas. D. Sewer (1) Properties in the annexed areas will be connected to sewer lines in accordance with article 4,09 of appendix A of the code of the City of Denton, 'texas. E. Refuse Collection (1) The same regular refuse collection service now pro- vided within the city will be extended to the annexed area within one month after the effective date of annexation. Service Plan Annexed Areas Page two F. Streets (1) Emergency maintenance of streets (repair of hazardous chuckholes, measures necessary for traffic flow, etc,) will begin on the effective date of annexation. (2) Routine maintenance on the same basis as in the present city, will begin in the annexed area on the effective date of annexation, (3) Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installa- tion of storm drainage facilities, construction of turbo; and gutters, and other such major improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the governing body, will be accomplished under the established policies of the city. G. Inspection Services (1) Any inspection services now provided by the city (building, electrical, plumbing, gas, housing, sanitation, etc,) will begin in the annexation area on the effective date of annexation. H. Planning and Zoning (1) The Planning and Zoning jurisdiction of the city will extend to the annexed area on the effective date of annexation. City planning will thereafter encompass the annexed area. 1. Street Lighting (1) Street lighting will be installed in the substan- tially developed areas in accordance with the established policies of the city. J. Recreation (1) Residents of the annexed area may use all existing recreational facilities, parks, etc., on the effec- tive date of annexation. The same standards and policies now used in the present city will be fol- lowed in expanding the recreational program and facilities in the enlarged city. K. Electric Distribution (1) The city recommends the use of City of Denton for electric power. Service Plan Annexed Areas Page three L, Miscellaneous (1) Street name signs where needed will be installed within approximately 6 months after the effective date of annexation. II. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) The CIP of the City consists of a five year plan that is up- dated yearly. The Plan is prioritized by such policy guide- lines as: (1) Demand for services as compared to other areas based partly on density of population, magnitude of problems compared t- other areas, established technical standards and professional studies, and natural or technical restraints or opportunities. (2) Impact on the balanced growth policy of the city. (3) Impact on overall city economics. The annexed area. will be considered for CIP planning in the upcoming CIP plan, which will be no longer than one year from the date of annexation. In this new CIP planning year the annexation area will be judged accordingly to the same established criteria as all other areas of the city. 1 f 1 i 1 i I Ir \ h I I A 1E 41 I I 1 ~L./ v( ~ C~~r•l . ``1 4 1 r 1 ~ ~ • r~~ ter' ~r ~t I I • I 11 , s.` .1... -''ii,.l ~ j V .p 1 + ~r 1, f1 ~ ' I ' II M 4 ~ ~Vi 1II I I•' i , f~'}•' I IO ~~•'Y .r', `II I~~/ 'l~/ • 1•~~1 it +''I. t " P (~~1,` P ')Lf~~`Ir11. CFO Qtl Ifl 1ti1~{1 i Ifl :00 1 .b.2,' lifl Io)i;J to I . y ~~~L ~ ~ I ~ ICI ~ fl ~~~1 ~ ~.,~1, /~;~J,~(1C «r~'~ tZ.L ' ~ ~ I ;'~.+,I ; \ j. `\~1~1~. 1~~I Ili'``'`,' 1 ~ ~,'+"~1;1i11~•~'~_i} , I r ~I 11 'I ~ ~ 1"er q~~.R~'~ I~ ` 1~~~`1~`~1~a,~~;'11~~' ' t II~~ ri ...,.1'1. i• 1~`~i' 'f' I , f' V;;4~' 'I 1'f'Q)' I ` `I, 1 ►`~1••~:.,, y~ /I I~ I , ~ i 1~~, ',r ~j..._,-F--r. ~ I I 1 ~ ! ~ •~l' 11 li `1~ r'I 11 4,' i' p:j1. - .1.711' ' , `'~\\~~\~lk Ji j.E . i ' ~ i 1,11:.../,. , .I.~ i I t i },•k ~ ~\l1 `I~'~~1~//~/~ ' fl' I ~ •^r ill' ' i1',1''I Ill rl•~,I~ .rL .~.I ~ ,111111 'l`~!ii i1~, li, ~I`~ I / \j. ~//l II I;II 11lllhr"1I lid ,.q n I _ I!I I I'''r~ ♦ I 't'I/(+'/ .i i'. ~ ~~A I ' ~lf. I fpr~, I ~ `i ~ rl ~ 11--11.u,~ l + d~f~ „ 1 ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~rl~,l~/~ ~~r:, , ~I'i1i ; r ~I1V I I ~ , ~ 7i•1 ~ I s...~,` ~ l~ ~ l 1'11 I 1 w J } r J i , • ~.:I. d.. l t , \ I 11 Y n'..h. SIr,`?'!:\'•. ;r'I~..'';'i•~I\I;11~~.rit\...1-'; ti.....fi'-~ ll 11E,(6'. l "S'47' 623 ' .i adw,aaap a , j L.OCA71ON MAP ~ BITE POR AM MIKAT'ION TOMMY CORD MNTAOPL M Si.1~ CORPORATION nn lallr ■eln+l w,e aw+al Ip•Ny IR~IIRHMMN A-41 AMXATION SCHEDULE July 28, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item ✓ July 30, 1986. Submit agenda back-up * &.-August 5, 1986 City Council sets date, time and place for public hearing August 6. 1986 Notice to Denton Record Chronicle ✓August 8. 1986 Publish notice and mailout 4✓August 110 1986 Submit City Council agenda item ..August 13, 1986 Submit agenda bask-up for City Council * August 190 1986 City Council holds first public hearing at regular meeting August 201 1986 ;Notice to Denton Reooz:d Chronicle August 22, 1986 Publish notice and mahout August 25. 1986 Submit City Council agenda August 27, 1986 Submit agenda back-up * September 2, 1986 City Council holds second public hearing at regular meeting September 15, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item September 17, 1986 Submit agenda back-up * September 23, 1986 City Counc 1 institutes annexation proceedings at special called meeting September 25, 1986 Ordinance to Denton Record Chronicle September 28, 1986 Publish ordinance October 27, 1986 Submit City Council agenda item October 29, 1986 Submit City Council agenda back-up * November 4, 1986 Final actica by City Council at regular meeting * Denotes action by the City Council 09648 DATE: August 19, 1986 41 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Z-1815 RECUMMENUATIUN: The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this item at its June 25, 1986 meeting and made no recommendation. The City Council held a public hearing and requested that the staff analyze the pro- posal submitted at the Council meeting and prepare an ordinance. SUMMARY: A 412.12 acre tract located on the west side of FM 2164 approxi- mately 1,850 feet north of Hercules Lane. The request is located in a moderate and low intensity area according to City policies. The planned development includes townhouses, single family, multi- family, neighborhood service, office, retail and open space. The August 6, 1986 proposal includes several changes the staff had requested prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The following changes have been proposed by the petitioner since the Commission public hearing on June 25, 1986: 1. Northern collector terminated. The collector would cause a serious traffic problem if connected to FM 2164. A one-third mile separation is necessary for signalization and the collector would not meet this requirement if connected to FM 2164. 2. Multi-family density in moderate area. The area was reduced from 2U units to 18 units per acre or from 618 to 556 total units. The maximum number of units in a moderate area is 75U units. The reduction does not significantly reduce the intensity p,•oblem but allows the adjacent property owners flexibility since the concentration of multi-family units is not being exceeded. J. Multi-family on western boundary. The total units was reduced to 20U which does not violate any policies. 4. Reduction in townhouse density. While the concentration of one use exists the reduction in density does provide additional diversity. The proposal considered by the Commission contained 573 units in this area and this proposal includes 446 units or a reduction of 121 units. Again this does not significantly reduce the intensity but does provide additional diversity. If this request is approved, the intensity in the low and moderate area will be at capacity. City Council Report Format August 190 1986 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The proposal submitted to staff on August 6, 1986 includes most of the changes requested by staff during the review process. The staff report for the June 26, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting included a number of these items that had not been addressed by the petitioner. Several items were addressed verbally at the Commission meeting on June 26, 1986 but the Commission made no recommendation by a 2 to 2 vote. A proposal was submitted July 3, 1986 that showed a reduction in the multi-family on the western boundary to 200 units, a reduction in the total units in the multi-family in the moderate area from 20 units to 18 units per acre and the northern collector cul-de-laced but with an access to the office tract. Since the Commission had not considered the July 3, 1986 concept plan, the proposal submitted to the Commission was used for advertising and notification of property owners prior to the Council meeting. However, both plans were included in the City Council back-up. Following the June 26, 1986 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Mr. Tripp, an ad~scent land owner, expressed his concern about all the intensity being used and stated that he would not be in favor if he could not zone his property single family-7. The petitioner requested a meeting between the staff and adjacent property owners on July W, 1986. The topic of discussion was the use of intensity in the area. After presenting the facts about the area W. Lacquement requested that the staff leave so that Mr. Roberds, Mr. Burke and Mr. Tripp could discuss the situation. Staff requested that if any changes were made that the staff needed to review the proposal before the City Council public hearing. Staff had several discussions with individuals involved with the project; however, staff was not informed about any of the changes prior to the presentation by the petitioner at the City Council. PROGRAMS, UEPARTMENTS OR GRUUPS AFFECTED: Four property owners within 2UU feet were notified. All depart- ments involved in the development process will Ue affected. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact can be oeterhmined at this time. Res ctful submitted: Ad City Manager Prepared by: c e arsorF"`"' Urban Planner Ap ov Je Director of Planning and Development PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL To: Denton City Council Case No.: Z-1815 Meeting Date: August 1$,1986 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Mel Lacquement 2007 E. Lamar Arlington, TX 76006 Status of Applicant: Consultant and Agent Requested Action: A change in zoning from the agricultural (A) to the planned development (PD) classification. If approved the planned development will permit the following land uses: Tract I - Townhouses - 21.50 acres, 172 total units, with a density of units per acre Townhouses, 14.71 acres, 147 total units, with a density of 10 units per acre Townhouses - 21.17 acres, 127 total units, with a density of 6. units per acre Neighborhood Service - 2.77 acres Tract II - Single Family (zero lot line) - 33.64 acres, 166 total lots, with a density of 5 units per acre office - 19.01 acres Tract III - General Retail - 20.74 acres Multi-Family - 30.94 acres, total units, with a density of 10; units per acre Townhouses - 12.96 acres, 129 total units, with a density of 10 units per acre (Case Z-1815) Page Two GENERAL INFORMATION (continued) Tract IV - Townhouses - 22.48 acres, 179 total units, with a density of 8 units per acre General Retail - 7.88 acres Tract V - Multi-Family - 18.26 acres, 20'Q> total units, with a density of ljl units per acre Single Family (zero lot line) - 43.88 acres 219 total lots, with a density of 5 units per acre Single Family (7,500 square foot lots) - 68.16 acres, 259 total lots, with a density of 3.8 units per acre Single Family (iU,000 square foot lots) - 29.51 acres, 88 total lots, with a density of 3 units per acre Neighborhood Service - 3.01 acres Open Space (detention) - 13.31 acres Location and Size: Approximately 412,12 acres in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract 1288 located on the west side of FM 2164 approximately 11850 fee'.: north of Hercules Lane. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Agricultural; outside C.ty limits South - Single family, multi-family (SF-16, MF-11 PD-81 PD-63) East - Agricultural; residential (PD-72, SF-10); retail West - Agricultural; light industrial Denton Development Guide: Low intensity with a moderate intensity node at FM 2164 and proposed Loop 288 intersection. (Case 2-1815) Page Three SPECIAL INFORMATION Transportation: Loop 286 is a primary major arterial. As part of the overall thoroughfare planning in the area staff has proposed a collector along the eastern boundary of the light industrial zoning; however, a secondary major arterial may be necessary because of uses proposed in this request, The City will not participate in any interior collectors and arterials. A traffic study was provided at the commission meeting and conditions have been added concerning traffic. All roads connecting to the arterials should have 1/3 mile spacings. The north road should be realigned to meet this requirement and the realignment could alter the design of the site plan. The traffic consultant for the project and the planner were notified about the changes prior to the Commission meeting but the revised plan was submitted rafter the meeting. The State Highway Department has not accepted the proposal for an interchange or overpass along the western bou:soary of this project or at the internal collector. Utilities: Gas, electricity, and phone service is available. A 16' water line is located in Riney Road and a 12" water line is located on FM 2164. According to the Master Plan for the City of Denton a 16" water line should be installed on the four extension sides of this proposal. A 20" water line must be extended from the 12" line to the north propf.cty line including encasement under Loop 288 and a line must be extended along Loop 286 from FM 2164 to tte western boundary of the project. Sanitary sewer lines are inadequate. An 18" line must be extended approximately 61000 feet east to the existing Cooper Creek relief line. Drainage: Detention may be necessary and improvements to existing channels, (Case L-1815)` Page Four HISTORY A 19.6 acre piece of this property was annexed by the City of Denton on January 7, 1986. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of a request on this property at its January 22, 1986 meeting. The following land uses were proposed: Light Industrial 188 Nonresidential 488 Commercial 108 Single family 218 General Retail 118 Multi-family 198 Neighborhood Service 18 Open Space 38 Office 88 Right of Way 98 Multi-family 12% Multi-family (MF-2) 7% Single Family (7500) 218 open Space 38 Right of Way 98 1U08 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of another request on this property at its March 26, 1986 meeting. The following lard uses were proposed: Light Industrial 148 Nonresidential 478 Commercial 138 Single family 308 General Retail 118 Multi-family 118 Neighborhood Service 18 Open Space 28 Office 88 Right of Way 108 Multi-family 3$ 108 Multi-fancily (MF-1) 88 Single family (6,UU0) 9% Single Family (7,500) 218 Open Space 2% Right of way i0% 1008 (case 2-1815) Page Five HISTORY (continued) The Planning and zoning commission made no recommendation on the request on June 25, 1966. The following land uses were proposed: General Retail .78 Nonresidential 138 Neighborhood Service 18 Single family 418 Office 548 Multi-family 128 Multi-family 128 Townhouses 248 Townhouses 248 Open Space 38 Single family(zero lot 188 Right-of-way 78 lines single family (7,500) 168 Single family (10,000) 78 Open space 38 Right-of-Way 78 ANALYSIS Planned developments allow for flexibility in planning for the owners of the property as well as for the City. A planned development offers the benefit of land uses and designs not permitted under existing ordinances but should also provide amenities, open space and other planning items to create a unit. The following Development Guide policies and planning considerations were used in analyzing the request submitted to staff on August 61 1966. 1. Intensity - This property is located in a low intensity area as designated by the Denton Development Guide, and in a moaerate node lo(;ated at the intersection of Loop 288 and FM 2164. A. Moderate Intensity Area - The purpose of a moderate area, according to the DeVelopment Guide; is to encourage balanced City-wide growth and to insure the long range land use balance indicated by the City's plan. These areas are limited in size to 30 acres; however, if diversified land uses are proposed the area may be expanded to 250 acres. The Guide states that when these centers are specialized they should be limited to the 30 acre size. The proposed site plan shows approximately 20.74 acres of general retail and 19.01 acres of office on the west side of the intersection. While this center is extremely concentrated at the intersection, two additional sections adjacent to the office and general retail do r: V i' age Y a H1VHL X`Jl:i ~ l.0l11 1,l~Ueu J provide diversity to the moderate area, A 33.64 acre zero lot line area and a 30,94 acre multi-family area (total units 556) provides diversity necessary to expand a moderate area. The moderate area would be expanded to 119.33 acres if this proposal is approved and would include 14.16 acres of agricultural zoning and a .84 general retail tract approved in 1984. The area would be 4% under the standard and even if expanded to 250 acres the remainder must be predominately residential not to violate the standard. S. Low Intensit Area - Most of this property is located Tn a ow ntenslty area that includes a variety of land uses including single family (SF-16 and SF-7), duplexes, multi-family and small amount of commercial and general retail zoning. The primary purpose of these low intensity areas is to insure the overall area land use balance by controlling the overall density and intensity in an area. Therefore, these areas should emphasize residential use and represent our primary housing areas. The low intensity area is approximately 641.97 acres and has a trip generation standard of 48,147.75 trips per day. The low intensity area includes 60.15 acres north of the loop at this time. The City limits is the north bounda►y of this property; therefore this property was included in the low intensity area. The part of this proposal in the low intensity area would generate 24,511.88 trips. In combination with existing land use and zoning in the area, most of the intensity standard for the area would be used. While this proposal would not violate the standard it is an example of first come, first serve zoning that uses all the intensity in an area. The remaining area zoned agricultural must be zoned SF-10 or higher, and the area will be targeted because of intensity. Any other zoning request in this area on the agricultural zoned property will violate the standard and specific land use planning must occur to insure a balance in the area. 11. Apartment Concentration The apartment concentration policy of the Development Guide states that in low intensity areas the number of units is limited to 200 and must be separated from other high density housing by 1/2 mile. In a moderate area the limit is 75U units separated by 1/2 mile from another concentration. (Case Z-1815) Page Seven ANALYSIS (continued) This proposal includes 556 units in the moderate intensity area which does not violate policy. No violation of the concentration exists in the low intensity area. The proposal does not violate the separation requirements. 1I1. Retail, Commercial, Office, and Industrial Concentration The concentration policy of the Development Guide concerning retail, commercial, office, and industrial concentration in low intensity areas states that the size is limited to 4 acres and must be separated by i/2 mile. This proposal includes a 7.88 acre parcel for retail along the western boundary. While this area in acreage violates the policy. because of the utility easement the buildable area is slightly over 4 acres. The area would violate the separation policy, but this does appear to be an acceptable land use for this parcel. IV. Housing Diversity Diversified housing patterns should be well planned to insure that neighborhood integrity is established and maintained. No one type of housing should be overly concentrated in one area and good site design transition between housing types and density should be provided through buffering and gradation. Considering the size of the project, the location in a low intensity area and the adjacent land use and zoning, additional diversified land use coi►ld be provided in this project. The proposal includes 93 acres of townhouses which does not violate concentration policies because the density is approximately • 10 units per acre. However, it is an excessive amount of this one type of housing unit. The reduction of density in two of the areas north of Loop 288 does improve the overall plan. A condition of the request will include the determination on the detailed plan if the uses are detached or attached. V. Open Space This proposal includes 13.31 acres of open space along a drainage easement in the southern section of the proposal. Based on the percentage of one acre for each 100 dwelling units, 13.93 acres of open space would be necessary. A part of this park area will be used for detention. The Parks and Recreation Department has also expressed concern about receiving adequate and valid information about the park area, because the Parks and Recreation Department is concerned about detention located in the park area. (Case 2-1815) Page Eight CONCLUSION The petition includes several good areas especially the zero lot line housing on Loop 288 and the single family 7,500, 10,000 and zero lot line housing in the southern section. Except for the violation in retail concentration, the section of the low intensity area south of Loop 288 is well planned. The main problem area was the concentration of townhouses at 10 units per acre. One of the requests had included a moderate area along the western boundary that included approximately 700 apartments, 10 acres of office, and 8 acres of retail. Because the property is adjacent to an established high intensity area established in the Development Guide, the staff informed the petitioner that the staff would not support a moderate intensity area at this location. The petitioner was informed that the Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend a change in roolicy and the Council could adopt a change in policy at this location but that this process might take six to eight weeks to complete. The plan was revised to its current status to eliminate the moderate area and not violate additional low intensity policies. The change in two of the townhouse areas to six and eight units per acre rather than 10 units per acre does provide better planning, transition, and buffering. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission made no recommendation on the case. If it is the City Council's decision to approve this reque,at, the staff suggests that the following conditions be added Co the revised concept plan: 1. Land uses in general retail areas shall be all uses per- mitted in the general retail district in Article 7, Section H - Retail Service Type Uses, and the foJ,lowing additional uses: amusement, commercial (indoor), theater - other than drive-in type, gasoline service station, new auto parts sales stores, roller and ice skating rink, and auto laundry. 2. The areas designated as townhouse must be identified and approved as attached or detached units with the detailed plan, 3. All screening and fences must be shown and approved on the detailed plans. non., s (Case Z-1815) Rage Nine RECOMMENDATION (continued) 4. The following transportation improvements are required. The plans for the improvements must be submitted with the first plat for any part of the phase. Improvements required to be completed with Phase I: A. Construction of U.S. Highway 77 as a four lane divided arterial from west arterial to Orr Street. H. Construction of west arterial as a four lane divided arterial from U,S. Highway 77 to Loop 288. C. Construction of left-turn lanes and right turn lanes at west collector and U.S. Highway 77. (Exhibit 1) D. Provide for installation of traffic signalization on west arterial at Highway 77 and at the southern entrance to the project. Improvements required to be completed with Phase II: A. Construction of FM 2164 as a four lane divided arterial from the Loop 288 to Orr Street. B. Construction of U.S. Highway 77 and FM 2164 intersection at Orr Street. (Exhibit IT,) C. Construction of left turn and right turn lanes at FM 216 and Loop 288 on south side. (Exhibit III) D. Construction of diamond interchange to provide four-phase operation at FM 2164 and Loop 288 and provide for trnffi signalization at intersection and dual left turn lanes. E. Construction of right turn and left turn lanes at FM 2164 and internal collector and provide for signalization. (Exhibit IV) Improvements required to be completed with Phase III; A. Construction of west arterial as a four lane divided arterial from Loop 288 to the northern boundary line of this project. B. Construction of overpass at Loop 180 and west arterial. C. Construction of FM 2164 as a four lane divided arterial from Loop 288 to the northern boundary of this project, (Case Z-1815) Page Ten RECOMMENUATIUN (Continued) U. Construction of overpass at Loop 288 for internal collector. ATTACHMENTS I 1. Location Map 2. Revised Concept Plan received on August 6, 1986 3. Revised Concept Plan received on July 3, 1986 4. Concept Plan as considered by Planning and Zoning Commission on June 25, 1986 S. Reply Norm Totals 6. Property owner List 7. Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of June 25, 196 0117e EXHIBIT I e , ,Jj e . U.S. 77/West Arterial EXHiBIT II i ,NO IGALA 1 ~ 1 I 1 ~ 1 I 1` ~ J tit 11 j ~ _ ~i 1 I ~ ~ I ! I 1 I ! I ~ I ll II I JI w I ~ ~ J ~ II I • FM 1164/U.3. 77 Intersection 1 EXHIBIT III list . r R.M. 2164 sow NO •*ALI FM 2164/Loop 289 Asa EXHIBIT IV i sett couaaroee ---f ~ Site Collector/FM 2164 e 1 C ~I r PD•.r2 7 ` . ~ VCS b 6 I ,u ul IEM ~Iism t9 T, LINQEND MAL Y l WJ.fIIA W A ~ ~ iowwauN 1 L7 ~ /AMILY V ~ w am"" K" IOorowr W» BY Ttl i raw N .OMM 1MPSOMWOM M A r~orowo 1 ♦ • 7. . PLANNED DEVELO. IE V i GENMU DavaArm"T ww ( NORTH POINTE OLU ACM SWINNEY/ TEW INTERESTS 4. Okada oft MAN ~v I w 441140 W. VAAL am" W. 1 1, ' yrI oft do W& saw 1 I bpd r / , ~..1 NI VA L I % M rMN Illrr .alt 0,14 m •.l 40" 001 ON. fJ/ MM~yy~►rr~. I r': M.. ~L. • f I A1~ M. f 4 i \t\ IM1" Y/I~fUMrMNq ( \ IM YNYFI 1 }MI IWI 1 a", WM M' u II \\1~`~ ` WL UIN f ~,"••"Y\~Yy~ " 11 ' 1. NMY.. M YW. NM NN 1Y. Y WN•1 rl'1~ I• N 'i,J if Iry, ~ ~'e;~.. YrYY4MIrlr1~ " I~ ~ I . 4 w nr Y Y+I . iL Y IY.NYy 1 N rYr 4 i~ ~ 1 Y ~wMM 1I IW,1ay.rYW MI IiM. .IY •MMYr » ~IMM. L W.rt• _ ~ Ny 1 yy ,`HI , ~ ' , 1 1 L Yy 1Mi M~WMO NM 1NIYYN~Y' \ F M rY MIi.Mral M nr. ~ ~ MlrapYll~' L aNYn - wn.. •1 • / ~ , • Mhtlr. IY ~YYMIna YIIYY IM11Yi. \ r. ~YYMY. M M1. M nWlllNw 1M l ~ _ _ ~Ylq rY~ WAl l~r M YMYI• "I , I' I 1. rW w..Vrt. Y InWj1.M •nYw NMN M nY. • ,\i f M. rM nYY rn Y NI MY ynn MMIr~ 1 VY I 'I• M.r IrW M 11 IF IY \w, 1. rY wn wnrw .L¢~•taMClt, { •~'Ylr.~i wwwrS: :w. ~ I IL rYWirt N aY .YN..YIII w YN Ilr ' r i ••w'•'•••••••. IM YrNrrI YY..n YWWYrI`YYaY NWY YNIIW "'mow . YY.wi ~ • AMCI~TVrJ/ ~ ~ ~ h 1~ i r Mr111 .1•.r r. M • i IIYt nw/ ~y~y[•'~~~~i'''.l•Iw _ 'li wr'M11/' rl" / • ~II. ~««~~'Sr~ •R~. ~ ~~r • ~ YII ♦1•n~ } I 140110 08on ry M/. Irr1 M OWN Nom/ MN.INN J M, MMMr 1.0111 S 04R INM MM MIN 'w~ra•.Y..l ~ Iij r►a Y w •wMrr I PL/ MED DE•EU"E f, CoNew MAN Pr AWOM MX" i11f~Y 1 ~ • : / MU ACIMM f n, r smmNEY/ TEBO iurERESTS .....11.1.1 . L L.~.I cY..a... , S sr mcatom r r . OWN" i MON" r, a rw. Kr. i ~ of ft sr w , w. . WATERS SEWER 41! ACUS glNTON. MA= It. ~rN $Wfee,$ SWINNEY/TEBO INTERESTS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Statement of Intend: It is the intent of Swinney Tebo Interests, Inc. to market this property to developers. 2. Comprehensive Plan: This plan proposes a change in the Development Guide by increasing the moderate node Ott Loop 288 and 2164. The change is due to the properties location, existing constraints, configuration of development tracts, and transition from surrounding uses. 3. Acreage: The total acreage is 412.12 including Loop 288, divided into five tracts. 4. Land Uses: See plan. 5. off-Site Information See plan. 6. Traffic: 28,353.19 td/ac in moderate area. 24,511.88 td/ac in low area. (staff provided figures.) 7. Buildings: See plan for general development plan . for building locations. 8. Residential: See plan for restrictions; see general development plan for layout. 9. Water and Drainage: See plan. Detention required. lU. Utilities: Will be per City requirements pending final design. See attached plan. 11. Trees: None. 12. Open Space: 13.721 acres dedicated park. Nine acres allocated open space easement. 13. Screening: Per city requirements at site plan submittal. Planned Development Page 2 . 14. Development Schedule: Proposed schedule pending marketing and economics: PHASE 1: 1986 - 1990 Tract V Detail Plan JLY - 89 PHASE 2: 1987 - 1990 Tract III Tract IV Detail Plan JLY - 89 PHASE 3: 1989 - 1992 Tract II Detail Plan JLY - 91 PHASE 4: 1991 - 1994 Tract I Detail Plan JLY - 93 0344e -I Y~ _ h: ~ ~ fem. . 1 Ill 1 MYI . t I1 LEGEND _ b cfml v ` 1 l - r MULn FAMRY o I xawu►ause a SNOM8 fAWLY I ~ ~ N' ~y~N ppMCt►} IIMI MDIOMD f01wIA /W L&MV tw MA/ P Y K YI.NIII.MO w II/kNCROM two MA A OMlNO IIpI1phRAf10A A A rAOroKO saw". v PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CM CEPT PLAN GENERAL OEVELOPMEN'r v NORTH POINTS YY 4IL12 ALCM mom W" n SWiNNEY/ TEBC OTERESTS r 1 c"I um uw r»s1 ...J.~. F I f wI', fllr a ,rlrlNlrl. i I 0 % iii FAA' /t1I• w. wN Ilfl. YI., N M. I INV. W. IMi., INi;~ 1 `I 1"I/IWWIII. L L WIt 1 I I ~T''~~ Ir: !I J •1 ~ I ~ i } ~ J.I. - , ~11r1YyI 1 i 1 ! ; WINO , . 1 1 , N '1 f mm i• ~ I! ~ ~ ONIfO~` M t ~1~•' ~1 •.r,.~.. `I«II III MME 6M M W if u w~.li i.rarw, ) I Irr ..4~~ "M rww N pp11 l ~ .II1M1i.... I } ~ Milk r. ~wrrf I NlYtll/ / •INN " `V I •IM IMN M►fwIMMI wI \ 1M,• 4,YO111wN II` IMI 'rules! ' r~•1.~....w1M~Illaw 0" "we } I f 140 n.II1 r..w -=rte ~~~-i 1 I W ..I u..rNr . 1. Nulrll N Iona 111 u res. lu. W ~ 1•, NI ` ~I 'IV . ~ 1.1»NII W I NI NiI ' WTI I~••.... 'Sil l.ri 1. IWhWI•I.1 ».«II~ N LL ! ~ ~O, `F''""«`+~'~ li••~ I ~YM rill I Oa^- 1 M 1N Y N 1 NIIM Wh 1 Y. yryrl ' 1 «r-.. I IN NW' WYIMMN'Ih { NI. N. Nr r «lrl'w«I «.n11 ~-,T(y- IM»Y• ~ YIII { .,0~ CHINO Y«I«w«M«Y•y W. ~.~II{` ` IN M 1'r I L NyM~ W NMII II« ~I IILO I«IIYN ~FFM .1 WL W,1 i 11 4NN IIN N1 MNII. '~A ;.l 1. IW MN WXr. w ( ` ` • 1. XI 1111 NrNlllrr Y1 MY. \ ` Iu nr. I I. YIIIN,. W11N ywr~~ NWIIIr (1)I 1« wl«N N11«y IYN1Y1. 1 f' I bIMNN1 YI M1« Nr h14NVw1 W •'I If •1 1 ~ i ~ YIIIM NwIrINI NM rw N««I. L .I , 11 ~«Y1 r Y. ` 1. wIN W Yl1,lY1 III NI IIryIII INN INNI W N«~ II. wN1nN1 t'W YMy{q~M NI«NI XNN ' "v-ti I 11, YN YNN N.W ~rnIW ~1N IW1 1 IYi1XiN«X. ~I JlY $.Ij-~YF1~K~~~'~tJIJ ~~J~:M1. i 11. W Wlhl MIII N ~VYS.N N NN 11« ~Y I .I~YIY ; " 1 , 11. 11rIlYW1 YMI.III I.M.»MII ««•M YNIIY I Y I . ~ I III X«N• 1 i1~M1Ir'~ }1 \ I I I«M 11 1I IyYyyl 11N Y1u1 qN I1J• 1 ~a~~r..~+ •~'T~~~ y` ' A~y,4~ ~ ~ 14. 1i wri I~~~III YMM ».IIM NMy. WMIWIII« ` f,:I/IN~Ir•NYr r IfIR►I~r,rrlr , ~ ~ .r. .1 LIN,311 ~».1~r MI ItN•, NMI NM NMI WI, Yr// Yr. YIYff 1' IYN. Y11Yff 1 I. '.M. iNfulr~ y► H,IIIII w•I 11P, m" I• I wM TII,I 1 ttlrfr [iM► E' IlOMb y 1 r rl:t}If M l -V w r IOM" too" Nw1I \,~i/Il OI1 M r IF sow MwlM, r1I11NWA I W. WOMAN" I''I~f1 MiM61Yr•fl 1 1 III IuiII iM/ Wr We of ,M. OJ I" AN w.=W.«:~,• N ; Nt.lO,I ( PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 01 CONCEPT ~ I , I PROPOSED TONN(i NORTH POINTE ~MOlaewn wrw~ OF 41M2 ACRES ~ cENTON, ,~ExAS 1 SWINNEY/ TE NYM~ 0 ' iyM Ate. IIr~I~Nr PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 1. Statement of Intents It is the intent of 8winney Tebo Interests, Inc. to market this property to developers. 2. Comprehenslve Plans This plan proposes a change in the Development Guide by increasing the moderate node at Loop 298 and 2164 and crepte a moderate node at Loop 288 on the West side. These changes are due to the properties location# existing constraints, configuration of development traitsg and transition from surrounding uses. 31 Acreages The total acreage Is 412.12 including Loop 2889 divided Into six tracts. 4. Land Usess See Plan. S. Off Site Informations See Plan. 60 Traffics See PIPAms 7.. Buildingsi See Plan for general development plan for approximate building locations. 8. Residential s See Plan for restrictions see general development plan for approxi- mate layout. 9. Water and Drainages No 100 year flood plains See Plan. 104 Utilitlesb Will be per City requirements pending final design. See Attached Pfan 11. Truss None. 12. Open Spaces 13.721 acres dedicated park. Nine acres allocated open space easement. 13. Screenings Per City requirements at site plan submittal. 14. Development Schedule.s Proposed schedule pending marketing and economics PHASE Is 1986 -19l~•petai1 Plan Tract JLY - " PHASE 21 1987 - 1990FOe!aIT" Pro Tract III JLY - N . Tract 1V PFiABE 3t 1969 1992~-De t a 41 ►l an Tract II JLY - !1 PHASE 41 1991-1994 }-Oetall 01&e Tract I ; JLY - !3 ,r r Development Standards - July 3, 1986 L ~~•-~r-----~ ~---.may i .b 0 b 0 d ~ O O O I Igo 1 If • \ M. LEam W4 INUIL Y ~ n 0~/kt ® M10.T rwar A 1 ~ T01M~IG1~ •i ,r ~IDD Y V D ~wou 1PAWY rra re oa r+ wa O.I/Or0 arw w► IM..r rr,.r..n nrrpr w~. Y Y PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Ca11Ca" PLm c4 aamumL anrla wT "MTN POINTE 41LU ACOWS n. DEMOK Tom biimT SWINNEY/ TESO INT .0 4"*/ REVl,',',;3.ED 1 ~i. 1 \ rr. rrrriw 0 ~ NINA M L soon ON" ;0000 % NHW No. Lot ~ ~ 11 r1 r rn1 no 000 1 1 1 haw ppow, 04. 1 1 1 • I fi .r IPII • t M r/1 U 46001000 4/~ 1 ..MA 1 p 1815 w i rnrrr ! to i oitm I w% rrl.rrrrw } Ilt l tw rrrl~ 4 ..IM~w I I I M I...r r..w. r. WI MINt~'~~` I wlrl Y w.l.l' i~~ •'~I...1 Y"Y t 1►rl 1 M ~IIJrIr1 1 I~i.Y+p i't"Y «•.T Ir:' 11 YM ' Ylr/r _ r N NINYw1 ~ ' ; r' 4 ~YY 4MM ` I I . rrY~Mi YF»4 ~.wNN✓ I' 141. ^LI~nIWMM. ~ . _ ~ _ ~ » rte, . r r.Y r.rw. r►.1 11 ~ MIS YYIYI., M• y I II ' I M r1 Y.1• 11f r11 M11.I Wr tI Iu-. M r11 M ~..Y, Y I r1Y111 Y y~Il.~y. • r Il~1 "Jkt. rr1 / t. I'r1 YL ~N YrL ~I~rt '1 , out. r rt rlr .'~rii 1 ON WA Yw r•r~ 1 i Ir ~M.M `I r Y V,,,.....r. r . ...1...rtr r.'.. wlv~ r I rwr •I 14,10 l+. 000 rrw to .a wwr PLANNED DEVELOPMENT se Wl CONCEIT KM t II /110IO b WNW NORTH POINTE 4tLU ACM amm TV" SWINNEY/ TSSO I ®r~ir = rrr~wrrr PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 11 Statement of Intents It is the Intent of Swinney Tebo Interests, Inc. to market this • property to developers. 21 Comprehensive Plans This plan proposes a change in the Development Guide by Increasing the moderate node at Loop 288 and 2164 and cre#te a moderate node at Loop 288 on the West side. These changes are due to the properties location, existing constraints, configuration of development traits, and transition from surrounding uses. 3. Acreages The total acreage is 412.12 including Loop 288, divided into six tracts. 4. Land Usest See Plan. 5. Off Site Informatlont See Plan. 6. Traffics See Plan. 7. Buildings See Plan for general development plan for approximate building locations. 8. Residentlals See Plan for restrictions) ,cee . general development plan for approxi- mate layout. 9. Water and Drainages No 100 year flood plains See Plan. 10. Utilities; Will be per City requirements pending final design. See Attached Plar It. Treest None. 12. Open Spaces 13.721 acres dedicated park. Nine acres allocated open space easement. 13. Screenings Per City requirements at site plan submittal. 14. Development Schedules Proposed schedule pending marketing and economics; PHASE Is 1966 - 1966-Detail Pi an Tract V JLY - 93 PHASE 21 1987 - 1990-Detai I Plan Tract III JLY - 88 Tract IV PHASE 31 1989 - 1592-Detail Plan Tract II JLI - 69 PHASE 41 1991-15'54 -Detail Plan Tract I JLY - 91 Development Standards - June 25, 1986 k~.:,9{1, 4 IS I a lilt ~efal♦ f ~.,E/I•I 1~ / y'j'K•i WO ~~~~;r+'~.f~' 1'~~~ F{"~'.~ lif rp~}~~t~a•~; A~~; I r ~a .t . •~j~, t, A 1 -lit }fii"t ~rt a ,t~rf,I i_~., q~ ~t Y.. t.~i~ •i~ 'YMI F'6l~Z;,t1 :,tS){.# i1 {Ri~if rfCSllfl l,. ~s(~Ir'(~•'I .sj,'~~ . r,*d~k'r; U~NDErlibr~i* K L i. None Pi . It73rti+ ,r I',!>t,l fv ;F 1 -Zjpj,1 4/1- All I rC Lorio< I ALI ! f 12 Ar gdft~ f FTAL AlAYLABY E, y S P 4 Z Minutes June 25, 1986 Page 15 Mr. Claiborne moved to recommend approval of Z-1814 • subject to the following conditions: 1. Land uses permitted in the planned development shall be the following uses permitted in the Office Distric' of the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix 8, of the Code of Ordinances. Office pprofessional and administrative. 2. A detailed plan shall ba submitted consistent with the concept plan, development schedule, and development standards. 3. The six-foot solid screening fence on the northern boundary of the property must be erected prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. 4. The detailed site plan submittal must include architectural elevations to ensure that the proposed office buildings are physically compatible with the single family dwellings adjacent and north of the project. 5. General Development Plan as outlined in the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations must be submitted with the first detailed plan, Motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Holt stated that his objection ~o the proposal would be less with fewer buildings. Mr. Hscue moved to recommend denial of Z-1814. Seconded by Mr. Holt. Mr. Sscue stated that he sympathized with the neighborhood . but that this is too gross a violation of the policy. Vote was called and motion carried (3-1). Mr. Claiborne voted no, G. Z-1815. Petition of Mel R, Lacqueaent requesting a change in zoning from the agricultural (A) district to the planned development (PD) classification on a 412,12 acre tract in the Thomas Toby Survey, Abstract 1188. The property is located on the west side of FM 2164 approximately 1,85U feet -iorth of Hercules Lane. If approved, the planned development will permit the following land uses: Tract 1 - Townhouses - 21.50 acres, Z1S total units, with a density of 10 u,iits per acre 't'ownhouses - 14.71 acres, 147 total units, with a density of 10 units per acre 't'ownhouses - 21.17 acres, 211 total units, with a density of 10 units per acre Neighborhood Service - 2.77 acres Tract lI - Single Family (zero loo line) - 33.64 acres, 168 total lots, with a density of S units per acre office - 19.U1 acres Tract 1.11 - General Retail - 20.74 acres Multi-Family - 30.94 acres, a18 total units, with a density of 20 units per acre Townhouses - 12.96 acres, 129 total units, with a density of lU units per acre Tract iV - Townhouses - 22.48 acres 179 total units, with a density of 8 units per acre General Retail - 7.88 acres Tract V - Multi-Family - 18.26 acres, 292 total units, with a density of 16 units per acre single Family (zero lot line) - 43,98 acres 219 total lots, with P density of 5 units per acre .J P Z Minutes June 25, 1986 Page 16 Single Family (7,SU0 square foot lots) 68.16 acres, 259 total lots, with a density of 3,8 units per acre Single Family (10,000 square foot lots) - 29.51 acres, 88 total lots, with a density of 3 units per acre Neighborhood Service - 3.01 acres Upon Space (detention) - 13,31 acres Four notices were mailed to property owners within 20U feet; no reply forms w.re received in favor or opposition. PETITIONER: Mel Lacquement, representing Swinney/Tebo Interests stated that they have worked with staff for many months on this proposal. He said that 151 of the property is allocated to easements for the Loop, electric lines and open space. He said that the staff concern about the collector street on the north is valid In that it is not separated by one-third of a mile from a major intersection. He said that his concern is for the safety of the neighborhood. He said that the project is under the intensity and would create 89 trips per day. He said that they have 7.88 acres of general retail but that only 4.02 acres are developable. He said that the multi-family nab: the T1 property has been reduced to 16 units per acre. He said that they could incorporate townhouses in this area but that they feel it is not a good transition. He said that staff has recommended expanding the moderate node to approximately 120 acres. He said that their project has used up approximately IUS acres. He said that they have worked long and hard with the city and believe this project is viable and economically feasible. Mr. Hult asked for the units per acre in the low intensity area. Mr. Lacquement said that it is 5.79 units per acre. IN FAVOR: Bob Tripp, owner of 59 acres to the east, star tea that he had no financial interest In the property being requested for zoning. He said that this area is important to the orderly development of the city. He said the developer can provide the needed utilities and streets and assure orderly development in north Denton, tie said if denied, it would retard development in this area, Floyd Gastcn, who resides at 28UO Bolivar and is pastor of North Ulm Baptist church, stated that he is Interested in the development of this area. He said that they are seri- ously considering building a new church in this area. He said that it is 'the consensus of the church that this is a good plan, He said that this area needs to be developed and there is a chance for good quality homes, UPFUSHD: None present. S'rAFF RBFURrf: Ms. Carson stated that this property is lo- cated in a low intensity area as designated by the Denton Development Guide and in a moderate node located at the intersection of Loop 288 and FM 2164, She said that the moderate area would be expanded to 119,33 acres if this proposal is approved and would include 14.16 acres of . agricultural zoning and a ,84 general retail tract ap- proved in 1984. She said that the area would be 31 under the standard. She said that the low intensity area is approximately 642 acres and that 371 of the area is zoned agricultural and would have to be zoned single-family on 10,000 square feet or larger lots not to violate the intensity standard. She said that this proposal includes 618 multi-family units in the moderate intensity area which does not violate the apartment concentration policy and 292 units which does violate the concentration in a p i Z Minutes June 25, 1986 Page 17 low intensity area. She said that this proposal includes a 7,88 acre parcel for retail along the western boundary. While this area in acreage violates the policy because of the utility easement the buildable area is slightly over the policy. She said that no one type of housing should be overly concentrated in one area and good site design transition between housing types and density should be provided through buffering and gradation. She said that this proposal includes 98,6 acres of townhouses, which because the density is approximately 10 units per acre, does not violate multi-family concentration policies; but is an excessive amount of this one type of housing. She said that the low intensity area south of Loop 288 Is well planned, She said that staff has a problem with the con- centration of townhouses at 10 units per acre. She said that the proposal technically violates the multi-family and retail concentration policies. She added that staff would not support a moderate intensity area at the Loop and the arterial on the western boundary and this was the reason why the area was proposed for townhouses. She said that staff is unable to recommend approval of Z-1815. Mr, Holt asked if this request is approved would the other property owners in the area be locked into developingg SM-10 or above. Ms. Carson said that as far as intensity is concerned, yes, Mr. Holt stated that development is first come, first serve. Ms. Carson said that the staff is forced to fight every other request in an area when zoning is approved on a first come, first serve basis. REBUTTAL: Mr, Lacquement stated that he recommended the ommissCon consider approval with his five conditions: 1) Collector street to the north can be terminated, 2) Retail be reduce to the 4,02 acres without the easement, 3 Multi-family be reduced to 200 units in the low area, 4 Townhome area can be changed and 5) Multi-family can be reduced to 18 units per acre in the moderate area. Mr. Claiborne asked if there would be a problem in terminating the collector street. Mr. Lacquement said that he would not have a problem with terminating the street. Chair declared the public hearing closed, UbCISIUN: Mr. Claiborne stated that the majority of the mo e intensity nods is taken up by this zoning re- quest. fie said that the request Merits consideration. He said that there are diversified land uses in this proposal. Mr. Juren stated that he had no problem with the general retail area. He said south of the general retail area he would like to see multi-family reduced to LOU units, tie said to let the future dictate the road and terminate it. He said that he hated to see first cone, first serve zoning, Mr. Claiborne asked about a reduction in the multi-fatuity to the east, Mr. Juren agreed. Mr. Claiborne moved to recommend approval of 4-1815 with the following conditions: i 1. Multi-family area In the moderate intensity node be restricted to 18 units per acre. 2. Multi-family concentration on west side be limited to 200 units. 3. Collector street along northern boundary of the property be terminated at the general retail site. P Z Minutes June 25, 1986 Page 18 Seconded by Mr. Juren. Vote was called: Aye - Claiborne Juren Nay - Escue, Hopi Motion felled H0(2-2)- Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval with the conditions as outlined in the last motion and an additional condition that the area outside the moderate node be reduced to a density not to exceed 4.7 units per acre. Motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Claiborne stated that Z-1815 would be forwarded to the city Council with no recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, H. S-165. Petition of Harold Holigan requesting an amendment to Tpecific Use Permit No. 165. The property is a 39.3 acre tract in the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and located at the southeast corner of Mayhill Road and Edwards Road. The current zoning permitted the development of an existing 215 unit mobile home park. If approved, the amendment will permit the development of an additional 25 mobile home lots. Four notices were mailed to property owners within 200 feet; no reply forms were received in favor or opposition. PETITIONER: Harold Holigan, owner of the property, stated i"iafi Cs'site was once used as a dump. He said that it took several weeks to clean. He said that they have im- proved Edwards Road with this subdivision and have also fenced the project. He said that there is a Brazos elec- tric easement across the property which is to be eliminated and that they are requesting to put mobile homes in this area. He said that staff is concerned with the increase of the mobile home sites, decreased open space and the location of mobile homes In a flood lain. He said that eight of the lots they want to put in will be In an area that FEMA has determined is no longer a floodplain area. He said that this is a very good project. IN FAVOR: None present. OPPOSED: None present. STAFF REPORT: Ms, Carson stated that on April 5, 1983, the ty ouncil approved a request for a specific use permit for a 225 unit mobile home park at the southeast corner of Mayhill and Edwards Roads. On December 18, 19840 the City Council approved an amended .ite plan for the specific use permit. The new site plan improved street alignment within the park and relocated storage and recreation areas to more desirable sites. There is scat- tered, primarily single family development to the north and west. The addition of twenty-five (25) lots would not violate the intensity policy for this low intensity area; however, the approval of additional lots will violate the concentration limit for mobile home units In low intensity areas. Denton Development Guide policies establish a con- centration limit of 20u units In one area. 'rho existing 0 park contains 225 units which exceeds the limit in itself without approval of additional lots, The specific use permit approved prior to the 200 unit policy being es- tablished. Several other mobile home parks and subdivi- sions are located in the area, She said that approval of additional units would clearly violate the mobile home concentration policy in a low intensity area. She said DATE: August 19, 1986 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FKOM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Preliminary and Final Replat of the Denton Square Shopping Center Addition Preliminary Plat of the Green and Moore Addition Preliminary Plat of the Holbert-Wyatt Addition Final Replat of the Kiowa Trail Estates Addition RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. SUMMARY : Development proposed in the order listed; Retail use Duplex (two family) development Automobile dealership Ten single family detached estate lots BACKGROUND: N/A PROGRAivISj DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Owners, City of Denton FISCAL IMPACT: Undetermined Res ctfu submitted: City Manager Prepared by: 14 or , av son Senior Planner Appr ede y Director of Planning and Development CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACK-UP SUMMARY $ BEET MEETING DATE: August 19, 1986 SUBJECT, Approval of the preliminary and final replat of the Denton Square Shopping Center Addition SUMMARY: This 0.828 acre parcel is located at the northeast corner of Teasley Lane and 1-35E. Commercial (C) zoning is in place and this is the remaining portion of a 9.5 acre commercial/ retail center. The purpose of the replat is to separate lots for retail pad sites and separate ownership. Adequate parking, utility, drainage, and transportation facilities are in place. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the preliminary and final replat. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning a►td Zoning Commission recommends approval. ALTERNATIVE: Approval of the preliminary and final replat ATTACHMENT: Reduced preliminary and final replat 6 ~-j -&e7, David Ellison Senior Planner 1310] lO 1 ~1. 9a.u ,I'1. +•~V t Li w 1 •;,.Id I. .:li. f~i~Lhk~W AxMiA lkf .J~ I \ ZONE C Frr C[N rAA. oMk 0lWLIMMM4/ W t•1 ~ rrissro•wv I 00 l~J 1.._. j. VICINITY MAP h 1 y , a~ 1 I j\ AM 5 / I 15 'ZONED : c / LOT !A BLCK A ZONE I C I 0.825 ACRE \ \ 1 1 \ f + 20' 1\\ ~ / 1 <rNfML /AAk OfV(fdMlVt Go. PRELIMINARY R EPL AT 1 i,4r f ~ Np { 4 I DENTON SQUARE ~ ~ wM.A,.,,~ I CENTRE 1 ADDITION ti J 'Ih eo~'S mkt , OWNER, CENTRAL PARK t DEVELOPMENT CO. • 1,11 11 I I. Ilia . R0CAt 9 INa ertr9ANO AS eeurtr OW f OR oaNwkrl tams II .I I',.1•. u,.. {-trK r:v. r-5:: -IL.. j BURKE ENGINEERNG IN BRIAN BURXE,PE. % CONSULTINO CIVIL ENGINEER D[NTON, ttNAi 18710M-iTM 0rIfa17•/s-011 V ;r, If 4111 l1 M 41.11 N TIM .-y w r f MAIF M N411► 1 take" 1'.1 Ot►Iel1 souYl J V 11 IJr .04..1.1 ♦II 1s1 nn ~ ` y1M tf I'll .,IUAtI M IW .1 r.1M N r t.rr Sllr ^.411 Wn«I LwM1 •I4. r jY V MM If f~+Ilh Ir ul .♦A YIY 11 ♦1 bM.w le . M Le• fef lk, tilt M H L4 1 r IY /bl 141..... . A 4. . I S. IMII+, r M. M IV 11. WrI r. I •tf , 1.101. fA. .1.11041 W H1•y1N r. 0411 IM .Mi♦r rl Ma114M IL IAlrlr 11.1.0.111 r-.IRlm fN 14 \rnlrrr., 1141 N IY Ilrl 414 do."AIA MIHp .1 M _ `,]J~-i,4(.~.M O 40' 100 100 300 Irr. IM .I 14 wrrl rMrl N 14 1.14 Ife". sko"LAa 11.)1)1 1.14 11.0 rM 441 I. 1- MIWIJ 11141•. •..I N IHH•Iltlr MHWp 111 •4.. 1'`~ M 14 I.V NII 111A1•Mawl .f TuJry IaNI ' lfl FFr 1 M.1 WIN N 4.1111. A,..". M V,w IMI . 114 I. IN4 IIM nl VI\• f l ORA PH IC SCALE N. t.w I.1•.4114.,14 IHr 1.04111. A, wrAkk.Inr nll IIM IN f/'L IA fl l f •4141 In IY Irll MIIK 1 IMII 4 I4M.11 IMfI • 1~'~/' "All 1. t tlelM011011 01UH1 Lw .1.1.111. all M W uM NII Lr 0114 IM Oyl HI! f1 p41•M •MI All NI 4161.- .1 111.5) IHI 1 rMN YML{ Sr11A m 1111 1 ,old II,HMh 111114b1.. K 111.11 IMI I In N 41.Iw1 r Nf H .1. IM rW N AN, uN IYMI wait MIN of 11.1111 11 41MH II 4rAwlr 4111 4.11-1. NIA .4 NII V I J N 111. •Afwn . 411tH N III." fro 1. N 1. W fA.N .1 11...IIwIt fH✓1 H IM NH IN'. 11441/1N IMIHI C I T Y NAP AO Wall Rrl 4N U. N IH1wl to "I41a N WM.N ,W AI. IM fl\I III, of IM 114 1111. VWV .411 AM. H t'• :.1 I-, n, . 1' I..A IL I•wr'rl.1 NA,• r'[ pQ~~ Iln 1.1.1 4011411 4.IIa W A v..r lu 41 Mtllle > . AAA !I •.t C Al gN H DO N 1 r 1 I OOr 1111.11 !IM1N .M w AMH It t.r.M1 ha 0.4 IM 1.1 Ilw of W 114 W.I. pk M l 1 AUfAM1 N IM.M IHI In At "I'll 1. 1•04IIIr II 4 -1.11.1 rHVr M 14 .414 WI. gwH1 TH'!I tA11M N N/VN Il 111wrH JI Yr MN IHI M.I• IM YH 114 II 14 rN4 MIM Yru1. MIY,IM. I.N. 1 01141104. H I%.1J INI H M Ir. TM LIt 101.01 11 IM "1 r..1Il Ill MthM.l (41.1 If IM ASIA W.,. M."'"fNp r•f r .l r [n111.1 ' K. •01'40. I5r1 IM'Irf O. M I.p.1Ike.... 11 .1)1)14 If fMM11 4+1 NM 111 Feet II- If all W STYf(7P(~~ ISAA 4 41n 1 %r .1+1 IrN . 1 .IN 11111 1 •Nlw M iew hrl U 'I L+ 1 104 ale 144.41 IA' 0.1 y \•1 11 IH I41 (.111 IW.1 Y ll. 4.114 .Itw4 M•Nl 114 AI IM S „ Wes` evil; ar "14•M•" a., uN 441.1'1l1l 1 "PIf.S1 S 1 1 1. 4 1 i I 11 a I Y'^ I rl )WWI .I1. 1" 0.11, 114 N tM "w 4.Ioe •1101411. tM 11. AN 14 J Y •.IN IIM nI 101)11411 Illfl.wr 141 I4 I.Il.H1 I N.wY1 Awl 1111.111 OENTON SOUARIC _ yM a WIN II LbMI AA Mlwu. of r.,.yH Mn 4 .1 W , $ 11^•04 PM ...14,4 rlrsl•1r+11 rwwrNl 1 }yE¢ I? )t ~1 SHOPPING C[NrLR 7F 6 w PIIN II ►prr\ M r1w AI If YN A'w.wr .1 J LL/LNN j~N t lM A VN IW 4 04.11 /nl lu 1. 4• Ii.AI P r Ylira y j4 rj1 1 ' 11 1"1.N to FIw4 N LIwAN 11 4aW\ FLI A41.1.1 n1 i1~11P'Il •11R Lra1 rB 1.01 W 1. b! . 11[•04 left IA M IN. w (~I yyy Y } w r T{1T/'ff•7~ `_J RCq• ~ .1 I~ .I W IM In 41 Lr4 At 41.1. N ..Mnl. 404 4 .nuw. a "Pill AN / Gt . ~y„ s w t. _ `(r• r / 1-1.11 t.rl IA At II. Iw )41.11 a•{.1 1.r ' I 41 I•n ILH n11H4 J5 41141 :4 Lr rM. 1+11 A 4Nt.w N 8i "All, N IIE 1411 Y..1 rMl«fy 1.511 101 . l . __111:ft.'SL'L.l•t.l l'. I 11411 WI 1 IM NXL N Nlr. I.MI =x I? At '•IiMihl\4•"IJtY!^ 4.1tf1~Lr~M1 H I } COf IR.O J r I i V41 rNM 1 -wI IS. At l 411 rT A.tt Nlan41 / / r.1 1!1 , SI r• -:,471 t!' `K• 0 L 0 C R .t 4 4.11 1 J Ir•• mi. etotl" few+t /.v All, WM..Iw let. nIw y • . r ♦ 1 1 IIpNIN W L•1. 1. / 1rflM11'11111 . IM IRl Yi 41 10•4. t1M. Ar y L 0 T !R •A t p4 NI!AT nl II1P11 4YMI 111}11►. 11•.11 N fY nN w r.,., 1.11. a.a. 44 TI.J\ W 01•.1 411. 1.111611 In 14 MLI11 Y. IMM.. IM 111411 1111,1\ul♦ L.rro. ` /1 • , 61 I . Y~ w W IY 1-.111 IILrMa .404 M 4y OtNION tOWRt all _ 1py !I• N' ' t 1}011[ If 5141 •1'11) w 1 E Of, [yltl' n..ty. . 111 'a► '1 ~':•Y• • 1'+ .NlY ( r tal'.Y/ N 111111 ► I ~~•`IIJI tv nl wt 4t. Iw w4rtioM 041.1 I••llt 4 lw fH •w 1114 of 1141, off R N "14:'•' .r' IMI _ IHI 44, Nrw.llr ANrNM _ Iw N 4 t1 N /4 +e u nve SR el~~~ iAt / .rt ► 1. MMN'AN II NNLHW IA talk 111111 IMIrwN NI N4M4i1MM 01.01 rMIIYIAI InM1 I4N• V . *"I Wool, 141-11 IN 1,I fee of r A lim, _ ~7 rO,N ~ 4 4111111 101 H 141.1.111. IWHo o 111411 tVb1.1..__~____I A.._.....J- L _ f -lei G`yN, LPN I.NI w rM /1014 N MIIf1 6x17 MT or H.. I..+10'00'O/y JO O'. _f /l or'- i ao o• r, roo _~~II 400.00 4Y e ' Ht if f' roar 1.).1 • ~J . C• ".'I Mike 14 IM JIAIA N to." i"•IM [Ib 1 up to►~ t Wo 100 I I 41 [r1a. [Morn Too • P 11401 0110 _.e 0 tiff ' REVISIED '0000 1001141'1 +M fee":; S. i.. !iJ!?AhfS SJJrtI~liY AIJ. GIG ~ REPIAT OF le sei»fe41 »oTJ_►;41, ? DENTON SQUARE SHOPPI? rl 1MIKe0Y1 MO' 1 N!0' 11 +/i w r t•0' I 11 q' StR1'11011 d.Allflrf!PCENTER It Ififiriii, liV&All. IRfpar TW.%tI'lrraaYSl S. C, HIRAMS SURVEY AS. A If b• 1/'10• 44.•' ~•N ft h ' JN'ii • }1111 Ir YSCIMft J. II AVI A111e1rfr,S I51A 111 trr[IrYn4r An Mr Mr rnfllfY tMl this CITY Of VE NTON 4 -11411-11" Ir ~1 ~ ll•wi: to+l DENTON COUNTY , TEXAS -1-..... " n I + ,7•t At NAyIN fraA w owl" .,NO x11)101)01 •urt^Y M IM ILM 01 1 10111 f Ar q t N'f1'Jr 100' J f M MMMtlt4 wrl Ilrf..1• Ilrlr loom 41 ItIM «.f..r....,..~ M hr I.. riy 4.1 or Np, Ai 5111 NM 1. ►0'•0'•P f••1 if top 4154 r1., +I ~1'1f~ fee A00N•aArt 01111A IM flYOltn0rp% of HI. t Ald IIwM1lY of McIMA T.ur. Hlt: P. !r' 114 ►[If Ofill E► Ar I, 1e:tf~Y••r N•'_"~ •+ri dd*t....,ta •••r.•1• 004 COt[MAM • Aa{Oi1al REC61VBD AUU U 6 13db , . Arl 1Yllv[r100 fit All 111111dift CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Bika-UP SMMWX SHEET MEETING DATE: August 19, 1.986 SUBJECT: Approval of the preliminary plat of the Green and Moore Addition 3UMMARY: A petition for a change in zoning from Agricultural (A) to Two-Family (2-F) classification for this 7.366 acre tract was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council in June-July of 1986. Thirty-six (36) two-family lots and seventy-two (72) dwelling units are proposed. The property is located adjacent and south of E. McKinney and adjacent and east of Mack Park. A 25' front yard, 6' side yard and 10' rear yard setback is required and proposed. Minimum lot size for two-family or duplex use is 60, x 1001. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the preliminary plat RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. ALTERNATIVES: Approval ATTACHMENT: Reduced plat David Ellison Senior Planner 1309] NM-r' ~t-L~~•.•' w~~r AML MrM n.YN z i7f.) r I ' ~ 7Y Z V i N I 10 ~ ,yt, .1 'I 0~1 I ® rYPKU Auer atrewenM , orra~- 1 1 r -a ~3i j 1 11 w ~ t + o l I . MAOO& ?MW 1. 11 ..V r4 I 1\1 } 01001i o91 X A ~T a4N✓G \ . Wa Alp ftltYA.Y?A4 4 LeNK'/ per# 'L I# rAY AJMtIcM/Ir LRIaMtfMLNY! IoA A -P so G 1 l iy yib VWIVP MO AV.* To Of Ag"My . 1.01 Y/ + 1 total, IP~Fa: 1.3W 4 }1+ PRCCrM~ RY FLAT 1 ~ 1 n/ ;l L 'y © 1 1 .r r< <yR.E~'JJ 4 MQOR.G A=. r S 1 ewe*e '~ti _ + ~ gD. 6Lrt:N 1! turrlG AredVtt' ~l;:u 5f i "1•5DAo.' ON •rN it cJ7••/ } C.oati•YY o~ i~II i ; I ~.J. t © + D11Nrr'DM , r x 7 F { I It N1i, LfoNLb AO r'4Aitulro"L. ~ ~ V K7 ~y fI 1 ` !CT3 F I I I O I w a ' f ~ ~l Pam j V --y lot Yo +.,r V14/mIry NAi 4 4 • 1 Z~ 7 N W ~t - r-C t II I J i toy- 01.1' /faDQ. M~1 •J. ~.~"'4 _.J M ♦YlieAa Lay. i.~ fdaf va L BURKE ENGINEERING BRIAN BU"Ejft., Z"Dr Poo? CDNSMTWO WV L DONM pcNroM,x>ttq tatfw-~ irvalput~ art, yr, i 4. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACK-UP SUMMARY SHEET MEETING DATE: August 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Prelimina:.y Plat of the Holbert-Wyatt Addition Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 SUMMARY: This 6.114 acre parcel is located adjacent and east of i-35E approximately 588 feet south of Paige Road and west of the MK&T Railroad. A request for commercial (C) zoning has been approved by the City Council. The owners are proposing an automobile dealership and are seeking plat approval for site preparation purposes. A 12" watermain extension is proposed across the property frontagep it will connect to an existing 8" watermain north of Paige Road, An existing 24" sanitary sewer line runs through the property and will provide adequate service. On-site detention will be required. A 100 foot Texas Municipal Power Agency easement and transmission line bisects the property. Trees and shrubs over 15 feet in height and structures over 20 feet in height are prohibited within 5U feet of center line of the transmission line. All other public facilities are in place or available for extension. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the preliminary plat RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. ALTERNATIVE: Approval of the preliminary plat ATTACHMENT: Reduced plat David Ellison Senior Planner 02400 taw \ d ~ Al for mm\ /WAAM;t. k. 44/6 10 « 40F AIl~ w. [rw W mum ""Mun [.[d. LOWtIOM tW \ \ F. vw[[ mows n b IE r[[rru V[ltOi Dom FPMb M AAA f101./Ekf-WA71 VOIKSM GDL VNC. ~ y- WATI I LM ~,lf~ Y~Ip r ~Mr11tV 7Wf fit. tI1W Am wom No is, IN moot! MO rmtttm am N' now tM M UIW Pfttt M W MM No M MM INK OF AMA M ISION LIM. IrTl~ifX dM COIPORATI011 M RAO" [ SIONI V 11P WALE DATE .d01 No. .rwn JNL lo/"' N!/M 000193 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BACK-UP SUMMARY SHEET MEETING DATE: August 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Approval of the final replat of the Kiowa Trail Estates Addition, Lots 1-10, Block A SUMMARY: This tract is 8.3 acres located 345 feet north of Brush Creek Road, east of U.S. Highway 377. This tract is shown in the James Severe Survey, Abstract 1164, Denton, Texas. The property is located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, and residential development is anticipated. Water service will be provided by the Argyle Water Supply Corporation and individual septic systems will serve each lot. The purpose of the preliminary replat is to add four additional lots to the proposed subdivision. The original plat of the Kiowa Trail Estates Addition, Lots 1-6, Block 1, was approved by the Planning and Zoning commission on October 23, 1985. ACTION REQUIRED: Approval of the final replat RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the final replat. ALTERNATIVE:: Approval of the final replat ATTACHMENT: Reduced final replat l~ David E11 son Senior Planner 1342g/2 ! 1 a PeofCSiON STATIC or TUAS I WV KENNETH N. McMANA 1 fOIINf! 01• B(NfON '70LVIII! LUNF 136, pAOE 198 NENNETN N. MCNAHAN PEOOY L. HANKINg 1 VOLUME 466, PAOE 228 :VOLUME 1213• PAOE 231 NNCREAS, rHK-haee Ielidorr ace tan eeara of a treat At laved situates to the deep, ~e,oro So.H1, A6sItKt 6N r t 11(4, OHt" Goodly, loan, Mid taut belts Sews 6r does to lwnl,ran1 rltacta as to 1I1~ a.J tnordN In Vplr (N7, 7n 4qaww77, of1nlrecor d hnpa f nrtGl AK Ord F.a, of S UdsDHtr) 12 0l C2oel leas a, and elY rely Nwn H flwe troll Lalstea Nrat the Dl et 'r<ordo, W0/as 11 261.61, Ij 1J7, 14, { - - Guntl, heel 1.I IS ACAES I Oallnnlol lot the awther• oot.9nK corner car 140 tract WlnS dsK rl M/ Woln of a louts It" PMI de, 6 'bti said Ifua PIN 11M Wind 14 sarawra aoi,Meet 4,141 of cold flow Tull Tat Q 00•4' ,695 Marco North 81 N6tede 50 SA"'A INN seconds V/OI, don' IM MothanWl 11" of old fta.e Troll ^ )I law: , a dlstaw l of 451.11 (acs to d 10444 Iron PIN ref the eastern sa thwwArt corner ar cold 1.343 ACAE9 1.398 ACAES Ileac !roll ratites, 7 L. 2' 5 \ 1G TwAte Nereh W degrees 07 .laid" 10 arrow. Cast, a Ilw4ace of 16.76 tow to s (wed Sew pa far L•60 00' L 0.00' • 44 IS 10 "r of the Wfna MKIIW4 trectr mid It" Din at" halal w ell cwwr of cote Ctnwa o r 4 39 O'i6'S(. ,t Q Trail GlstoOl 398.50' o. p~ y,6 TMaso North 69 4werwe 70,twtH 46 ewnds Shoat, ale the metMn Math 11M or said 61a.a 0i1AN E. NONAOE L•73, 3' R 5.7.87 KO 7 L•77.BS' 1.096 ACRfS W Troll Eats We, • disaasto of MLOS Not tea (sped 5tH me for the sows t newt of the b"010 1. 169 ACRES / 4 de KtIN1 tract- asll Irw dole coon Nln( eon MWth wthy" corner a( .410 1 C1low troll TacatHl n w B ~ " r ugVEY N TMhee NenA 06 race 73 iawa4s 42 Become Gat, slope eon awt Ile of said flood Trail Lelstde, N 1 I,a '4 'W ^ A dleune* of 6 Z.Sf fHt to A Isum Itan 014 for rho torthwaa corner of the 141aln de"rl We ♦ b Q~ troctl 414 I'm Ple also W104 the naethwK cor"t 01 cold flow Troll 4etolHt w Case./ {.0 IN y7 6 ISe te, North 89 deer HS 51 afaaHe M eKOWS Past, along the me" liar of cold [laws trail 1.173 i u ACAEfi Z I rueua, a dlalean 44 196.77 to" to a Cause It" Fie for an shS4 pasts of She hotel* MKHEu Q ^ rS o ^1 I. WO ACRES B trecU hold it" Bin alsa L41 lid a"thete wrthMSt corner of said Alaee full tastes, Am tee 2 O tSLv ~f'nr' QI t, a N 1 3 w "IthwK t""I of call rwM•7rask trattl ' G 7 d or ^ 1/Q OM IwpB 1 Illfll lv 49LX[NI $ o q 'Monte North e9 dHrwa 44 HKes& $5 ~Kw4 Gat, alw the wrth 11w of "Is fwatdr9M erect, •w, _^_,14 1-__ a JtKm<e of A00, IK t+ a [Km Irw pin (w the wetnaoat coraar of ton Mrgo Auwr11N - M' W~ - troctl "Id it" pa don 16184 l+e Nor t MAI ost (etMr 11 Mid Twat-prea6 tract! ♦.l RA M M I IRSWIf (Also tt- ~p~ES 1.1(18 ACME ry+ I~ m S. 448 ACRES TMSCo South 00 "BeoH 12 scree 5l WOMO Cast, Wme the feet It" of Mid fHat•frAM tracer a fO + ^ 2 8 P. p( distaste 01 461,12 (sac 14 a tram It" Pte (er r eylo put of the betook dowrlSN trail Mid w © jO if" PIN alw Wlq the arY1K e4rwr of Ltll Yews-trash tract, W ton Mothers Northeast Iy ♦ a curher of cell Ileac Trail Lot"] 4 O W thence Sath Op ere 02 sla4tH 16 socMle fast. Bl d ti sY IW saec of Mls 11olr trail GeetH. r N, B9 20',18-M. 446,05' 1 t ~ II~7 I. 1B?f ACME b~ :7 a dutcou o! 218.16 fret to 1w Id1N of Gl Ueln6 am cwenau6 W.616 weep of lam. 1 r N. 4.02' WE. Q ^ ^ Wed. rnr?ErME, IMOY AIA ltil IN Ts7sA nisENr1 1 76.75' I f IXAT, fsaw-FrMh Bell4es " MtN7 "Opt this Plot dw$AMt W( the hotels drrlhes propee-r as so _ Lots 1 - (0 of 91" trail CWns n s"Itlo. is ton CHatf of fMatas, fens and de Ad' r 1 N. 16 .0 0414. 451, 2 ' , - - dNlute to the Polls eon f"~ W strileto sad ebea s far ton w Worker Arco cowlMKlas to 0,N. OYSEEN dt UN 1 7~ I - nDrnwd bottom. VOLUME 1211, PAGE 540 I I 1 / 1 I ! I J 1 kOL9KI ADDITION 1 ~ w .`.raw was I I CABINET D. PARE 117 at it 57ATE OF TLIAS r - - - - - - - - - 1 f I BLOCA ONE 1 I it Bottom co f 1 1 , 1 1 / fafearlll rypecow 00 1 I ! Stem 1wKr trMwe to a r to to c Bread w ee .Dore W wWtrleel to tY $ lerryoly iwtesaaw awe 9`-•- I I 1 l 4 3 1 2 I I I Aj acaawledped ter that he HKww ton aid (at the WOO% am cwldlratlar tborrle eepumw f I r i 1 1 I ( 7{ am Is the capacity stow. t't I 1 I 1 ! I I Olna under " haw eau owl ac office IMO the _ del at , 4966, .r7 I I ( 1 1 1 Notary s It e 4 oeet 1 1 ( f II I I I I , fariaalas 244111 y~.Itad " _ - - - - - - - - -1 L _ - - -1 _ - - 1 S V A I I T III R 8 C 9 6 TI I C A T L ---8(R1941 - - 094119 INN All MVI BY TXESE FILSLVIS: • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ` - - - - - - - - - - ` _ • that Stanford N"D1assa, 9pe1"eres P0611a Sdrvarw, do hNNI ("tiff that this Plot of ry~ deectipties, unto prepres Irw w ,twl em "C"sto rareor wde w IN itoaad acd total the Inn p4( REPEAT pins shone eher(ea were placed W" of siperecetw IN Ktordrto with the Iw. KIOWA TRAIL- ESTATES LOTS 1 - 10. BLOCK A nl 1417 66 tali 12.698 ACRES IN THE p, 11 full ReNIMMorw adtae((c lav7 TAMES SEVERE SURVEY, ABSTRACT 1184 i 1•; SarHTw .1016" 7155 • OENTON COUNTY, TEXAS l TN19 T IABT IS NOT WITHIN AN AREA CESIONATEO AS A 1' ~i I~. L ILOOD IAIAA7 AREA ACCOAOINO 10 THE OEPAATXFIII OF HOUSINP AW URBAN DEVELOPMENT FLOOD HAZARD REPLAT BOUtDA, 1Y MAP rH-470-63, OATEO 27 MAY, 1977. CAN" cS M M6raAtlydT• KIOWA TRAIL ESTATU SANITSAY SEWED SERVICE 1D 8E PPOVIOED BY )f1 i II turned. 7thaddo III LOTS 1 - W. BLOCK A INDIVIDUAL SEPTIC TANKS, , w.,•k s1Kl•r'"-.H,t DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS ONNEq/OEVELOPEp RaI M"W" A6aBe ACMM YCUNT-FRANK BUILDERS M161IL! F~"~ BI 6NYINEERINY COi6•p1AT20lf P • O. 60k 2432 en11 r do . 6 n tl--Pr a 16w. s f 27 FDatNElpims I tK AMINO 0 SW k1'S~ DENTON, TDw'6DENTCN, TEXAS 76202 ewtwow• 6eult a I~M~f Cyr i Mo. 214 awl-141A T 'L . (2kt"IC SCALE A LOCAt10N MA/ RT OPAaer INN _ 5GALE DATE e M Joe AM Asa auJH cola" S-I00' 7-2-85 DATE : 8-19-86 CITY COUNCIL RBPq& FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: LlWd V. Darrell, City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPR7GAL OF A LEASE BLIWEEN THE CITY OF DENTCN AND DORIS M. SHIF12r FOR OFFICE SPACE AT 110 B W. OAK. RECOMMENDATION: Staff rec-cmw.nds approval' SUh1MAR Y: The CDBG Office of the Planning and Development Department needs to relocate their office. BACKGROUND: The office space at 110 B W. Oak is approximately 750 square feet at $.64 a foot, so the rent would be $480. plus utilities. PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: I NA FISCAL 114PACT: 'There will be no impact-on the General Fund. The rent will 'be paid from CDBG funds. Respectfully submitted: I Prepared by; Lloyd rell City Manager Eliz th Evans Cc mmity Development Manager Appr ve Jeff Mey Director of Planning & Canmunity Development CDOG Office 235 west Hickory Suite 101 Denton, Texas 76201 H MORANDLiM DATE: August 6, 1986 TO: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager FROM:reff Meyer, Director of Planning & Cca muzity Development SQPJELV: CDBG Office Relocation Itie present location of the Canmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) Office of the Planning Department has become intolerable to my staff. alie lack of maintenance to the building at 235 W. Hickory and more specifically the tuikempt nature of the common areas has caused a rodent problem to develop. After nine months and no resolution of the problem I feel it is time to move the office to a more desirable location. The need to be located in tt^ CDBG target area, the downtown area, as well as close to city hall resulted in a search for space that included Gary Juren's new building that has 1300 square feet for $1300 per month plus utilities, Victoria Square with 600 square for $600 per month plus electric, 223 N. Locust at $695 per month plus utilities for 1344 square feet and 110 B West Oak which is approximately 750 square feet at $480 per month plus utilities. Location, on the square, and price, $.64 per square foot, make the space at 110 B West Oak the best alternative for the CDBG Office. A parking lot will be available by the 15th of August for use by building tenants on the square, so this will provide more available parking. This relocation will have no impact on the General Fund and is an allowable CDBG program cost. With your approval I will place a one year lease agreement on the council agenda for August 19, 1986. l~t N' %Sz DENTON . .vn ..YV gyn..: 10 Otto of arnagt Kum , . 6o of. Denton AU an Utdo " 11th by W August , A. D.10 , b we DORIS no 89IPL1i'i' , lows huh as Lawlt City of Denton (Planning Community Development Sloop Grant) (The tact "Laver" 6" . "CaeM" bmm harsh to LZUZ L j 11101Y ?W010111 w w wan ban MeprttatWl be taannmitd M she Ago* N real amimolier to *f tahtea. WVMUSETIL That the mW Late loot y date Vrasaee Low apt Dest(a Sato tot add Leaa Me fesow(mie Iww(had remirwtr, ttatrht I a" boot 1ilaaNd k *4 Ganar r Denton , so" st Ten, sd ley a certain portion of an office build! known as the vexes soldings the street address of which is //0 * Oak Streets Dentons Texas" and .said portion of the . . which is to constitute the demised leased spaces is designated As hest half of 110 Vest Oak Doris M. shiflet Rent to be 0/0 shiflst tlatamelal Corporation paid tot 100 West Oak - fnite E mo, Denton, ?X 76201 (x toe twat rt twelve (i2) months hae(aalse der !tt 48I of , October, eA. D. it 86 apt ahq.e t1e Nth 448 of September, , 1987 thaarfor ter two *Wive thopsand seren hundred sixty # no/100 ($50760,00 P"im LLAXS. Pemba in twelve (12) equal Monthly payments of $+80.00 each. Mon thly daayy of each calendar month in the amount bdesigenattodrheroin during the tom of *'-.Ls lease until the total amount is paid, we tie me"l"ba sad enasau leCeav(arh amid 4;!m TTat Laa1 w111 well ,min/ fVNCTUALLY pay told mu he saw amid but u hanit Owl MaI1N, t1~ bh rer q a+l Newitu •c %4& of Me aylndaa el amdt Ira4 In u Mq loodWaa to tla we wart in what. ne `04 retaos"Is war "d tear iexgeti Stood. That the veld teeshsto than be std for business office. h all, br Th" so other prpow f a►.L t PWSM of rat°° wlatwettr, milthev the oweaat o(~i4W Lear. W1lIp NI O,r aim twit eNa t e0l' b ey raw0e. Thkt where to toy, As rat Is Weeaee, afer"" er M wttr wer e( tYe bntaAh et►e tjx I. vkuthet. of any K tAe lereteiaf aveatstt, the Gtea MY IaYn forkhod ~wt " ! ahd L ew of Litre setae at ateasey eke Uve tAe pwu to soma asd how, too, "d hanla`1fare Ine~, U Wwo the Wt. e( phase is « ' ba t.dn rrerlea Fifth. Lessee shale respon•n for repairs or damages to faoili- ties resulting from his or her negligence. Lessee shall be responsible for prs0sea to their on essor to return Lease Agreement, Said costs may be estimated by the Lessor and be nail s by Lessee upon termination,.o ih ,Ltep•• 6th. Lessee agrees to par litho x ility caste r used by ground floor of this building unless they 1 beeeme only tenant At which time the entire 4VIbY1gAl7011Mk utility bill is to be paid by these »leesreee ORYAM MSM, 7th. Lessor will be responsible fat 1148, faiatenanoe 0lIYOFOOft,1im ( heating, plumbing, air conditioning ro}airs, reef repairs. LryAA1 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, Tho prow to"tenereat Are hertrate eta Asir Is Ir Mate. ba da tad year sieve wthttee r y upon acceptance of this tears ; p lessee may begin moving in 9/15/86 then 10/1/86 and pay 1/2 of utilit as J, Chandler for September 1986. A diposit of LESSOR of move in, WEN is due at ounce R nt to start 10/-1-86 City or DMIgan LESSEE rr 5 rpm, A NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equip- ment, 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 Proposalsl' submitted therefor; and WHEREAS, the City Council has providod 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; and WHEREAS, Section 2.36 (f) of the Code of Ordinances requires that the City Council approve all expenditures of more than $10,000; and WHEREAS, Section 2.09 of the City Charter requires that every act of the Council providing for the expenditure of funds or for the contracting of indebtedness shall be by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals?' attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO. VENDOR AMOUNT 9640 ALL Tower Tech, Inc. $31,260,00 SECTION I1. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, aquipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION III. That should the City and parsons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a PAGE ONE formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications standards, quantities sad specified suss contained in the BiJ Proposal and related bid documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and apppproval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids the r y Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this 19 day of August 1985 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHARLOTTE ALLEN$ CITY SECRETUT CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY., PAGE TW DATE: August 190 1986 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council. FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: 8I0I 9640 - RLPAIR COOLING TOWERS RECOMOIDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the low bidder Tower Tech, Inc. of Chickasha, Oklahoma at $31,260.00. SUMMARY: This bid was sent to six prospective vendors of which we received five bids. We have had the manufacturer, Marley Cooling Tower Co. advisor of Welco Sales Co. do all of our prior repair work. We feel now that with several qualified tower repair companies in existence for this size cooling towers, that it was necessary to bid this job. We therefore recommend the qualified low bidder of Tower Tech, Inc. BACKGROUND: We have requested and received information qualifying this company for the repair work. Also see tabulation sheet. PROGRAMS, DEPARI74ENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: The repair of our present generating facilities for operation as required. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no additional impact on the General Fund. ACCTN 610-008-0251-8339-e314 Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: J n J. Marshall, C.P.M. ~t Ifftl-: Purchasing Agent Approved: n J. Marshall, C.P.M. ills: Purchasing Agent Fill ;r 40 iu~EF b!ikL, ILiNEh yIE.EN AIiSIiN [qil [ I[[ :[i'aIk L00,HL, l4tp_ iECN ~iiEUil++Il:f !ELM >AIt$1 f1:NEk EMS AE}C+.'Y Mb AM F'.M, 1 ~I,I_fl_I'+ih 40 094 i 1 lf10Ek 1 SEi+; II,ES . 1 1 0 Of, 1 HEN 6EMIMN VENDA ! Whop ANKI ~ VENFIA . VEN110k 1 1 1 IJP'bkhbF 4; G CCL1US '1126 UO 1 +14,740100 f 4>IiYEN I 511' ,00 I 3r,Y60,00 ~IOVGhi 1 ! ~ I ' 1 I d WEb NOE[.. SITE YES rES iES (ES iES I ! 1 I I ! 1 1 ! I , 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 ~ I I I I I I I 1 1 1 I , I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I i i I I I 1 I , 1 I 1 i 1 1 i 1 I ~ I I 1 ! I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I t19~'gL NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR. EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, state law and ordinance require that certain contracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $10,000 be by comps t t ve bids, except in the case of public calamity where it becomes necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens, or to preserve tits property of the city, or it is necessary to protect the ppublic health of the citizens of the cit or in case of unforeseen damage to public property, mac finery or equipment; and WHEREAS, Section 2.36 (f) of the Code of ordinances requires that the City Council approve all expenditures of more than $10,000; and WHEREAS, Section 2.09 of the city Charter requires, that every act of the council providing for the expenditure of funds or for the contracting of indebtedness anall be by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby determines that there is a public calamity that makes it necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens, or to preserve the property of the city, or to protect the public health of the citizens of the city, or to provide for unforseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment, and by reason thereof, the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchate Orders" attached hereto, are hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER VL,YDOR AMOUNT 74672 Robert Filter Coro. 114,,101.1n _ 74752 General Electric Company 132,5g6_nn SECTION II. That because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to bake payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchasee being in accordance with the provisiona of state law exempting such purchases by the City from the requirements of competitive bids. PAGE 009 SECTIUN Il. That because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in accordance with the pprovisions of state law exempting such purchases by the City frc, the requirements of competitive bids. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the hay of , 1985. RICHARD 0. STEWART, MAYUK CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CH)WTTE XLLENO CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: DATE: August 19, 1986 CITY COURCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Emergency Pruchase Order #74672 to Robert Filter Corp. RECOMB:ROATIOII: We recommend this emergency Purchase Order to Robert Filter Corp, in the amount of $14,101.10, be approved. SUMMARY: This purchase is to replace damaged spheres in the water filter system at the Water Production Plant. BACKGROUNp: Memorandum ; P.O. 74672 PROGRAMS, DEPARTI+Ei1TS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Water Production FISCAL IMPACT: 1985/86 Budget Account #623-008-0460-9113 Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: i.Jl Name: Denise Manning Title: Buyer Approved: ohn Marshall, C.P.M. it)*: Purchasing Agent ; s' CITY OFK TV" 901.6 TEXAS STREET PURCMIN ORDER DENTON, TX 76201 P. 0. NUMBER DATE /V%DOR N0. DOCUMENT TYPE 7aa7a as 1/at coda Rcsiloot VENDOR SHIP T0: iIDLt i•tT FIL'14F Cu•L~,NP* YATak PRUCUCTILN .)TH 6T• & CQLWMJIA CCNFIFMATICN ZNLY !JAiWY9 ON 11)02;3 GL NGT CUPLICATE L ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER UNITS NUMBER DESCRIPTION BID NO, LINE AMOUNT X11 62,3 ~Ud 04ou >I : J.2/4 Z!N FICiRC6LA1N SPHERca 5914U.10 02 62a 008 0460 911-3 13076 I 314" 13CALELAIN 5P1;I ;Y a 3.7 0.62 J'j 4~ s CU3 0'46U <I11:, 1 SHIPPING haT• ~ UJ.00 The City of Denton, Texas Is tax exempt - House Bill No. 20. T03AL Fi;k Po.:. 149101010 Reference P. O. Number on all B/L, Shipments and Invoices. Shipments are F. 0. B. City of Denton, or as indicated. By Send Invoices T0; Direct Inquiries T& City of Denton, Accounts Payable Juhn J. Marshall, C. P. M. Purchasing Agent 215 E. McKinney St., Denton, TX 76201 Tom D. Shaw, C. P, M. Asst. Purchasing Agent (or as Indicated on Purchase Order) 817/566.8311 D/FW Metro 267.0042 The City of Denton is an equal opportunity employer CITY OF DEMON r aYtLh7ss MEMORANDUM rrrrrrr rrrrrrrr r.~.rrr~.~r rr..r~w.~rrr~.......wrr.rrrrrrrrr~~..rr rw rrrrr....r~..~r TOr R, E. Nelson, Director of Utilities FRONT C. David Ham, Assistant Director of Utilities, Water/Wastewater Division DATES July 31, 1986 ^"A.TRCT: Replacement of Filter Balls at Water Plant Joe Kupniewski with Robert Filter Co. does not recommend reuse of 3" and 1 3/8" diameter spheres in the old Wheeler filter bottoms installed in 1956. They tried it at several plants in West Virginia, and it did not work. The balls failed, and they had to replace all filter media. Freese and Nichols said that Arlington reused their old balls, and Bob Pence did not specify new balls for this reason. The two filters we have down now have 152 each 3" damaged balls and 95 each 1 3/8" damaged balls that have to be replaced. The other filter balls show exterior cracks, and we broke several to see the extent of the cracking. Most cracks run inside for i considerable distance. Jerry and I believe these cracks are the result of thousands of backwashes. If you approve replacing balls in all four filters, the amounts and cost are as follows: 3" Balls 3,264 @ 1,57 ea. - $ 5,124.48 1 3/0 Balls 13,056 @ 75 ea. _ $ 8,747.52 Sub-Total $13,872.00 Estimated Freight $ 200.00 TOTAL $14,072.00 If we take a chance and reuse thr old filter balls and they fail in the future, a serious problem could result with stopped up filter blocks and/or stopped up sand/coal in distribution line to clearwell. Replacement of old balls at future date could exceed $14,072 for filter balls plus $30,785 for new filter sand/coal media totalling $44,857. Since these balls have to serve our treatment plant for another ,30 years, I highly recommend replacing the old bails on an emergency basis since the attached purchase requisition exceeds $10,000 and time is critical. CDH/bw DATE: August 19, 1986 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Emergency Purchase Order #74752 to General Electric Co. RECOMENDATION: We recommend this emergency Purchase Order to General Electric C). in the amount of $32,596.00 be approved. SUMMARY: This purchase is for the parts to repair a leakage in the tub of the Turbine Generator. This repair will insure the safe operation of the Generator. BACKGROUND: Service Report ; P.O. 74752 PRROGRAMS, DEPART14ENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Electric Production FISCAL FACT: 1985/86 Budget Account #610-008-0251-8339 Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: Name: Denise Manning Title: Buyer Approved: a Join Marshall, C.P.M. roc _ 901.8 TEXAS STREET IURCH"E 0AW DENTON, TX 76201 E P, 0, NUMBER DATE /VENDOR NO, DOCUMENT TYPI 7 47 06/07/88 ;i0 a wmx~ GZ:td7J5U0 VENDOR SHIP TO: t4l NLRAL ELECTNYG CGMPANY CITY LF 0cNTON9 J1J1 j7t tM>tU44:i FA,--L-WAY i:LEC7RIC tJWJJQCT1GN N. u. i3uX '~'darr:?1 1701-A :iOENC fA RjAO sALLAL: v TX 7' 5s<I WeN'TUN♦ 7X 161:05 ITEM ACCOUNT NUMBER UNITS NUMBER DESCRIPTION BID NO. LINE AMOUNT 01 ulu i.OJ U 31 .1'4j~ ~5.3i 4 94d.5USO-001 VALVE ST~z 04 12 daC/00 0.? Q1 4) Uoa 0::`31 tiJ3~ L5J,j 6 4604657-104 PIN Iyi;•00 Us u1U OJB 051 0349 1 j.3' 1 9499929-00:; VALVE J%Ar 3" 10')L2*U0 04 .:i1 ti vJr, 0251 ):3:; c0 jV 9499929-002 VALVE ,iLA7 U5 ;iI o JUu 0 ~:31 %933') J;V :i <J4y993!9-OU1 VALVE :iL-'A7 2" i0 7_..00 Oli sl(► OU6 U 2t51 03 L9 EJJ9 1 9449917-007 VALVE u14C Z" 6,22 07 010 %;0'j 0 ,2:i1 -)3:39 19441391'1-00d VALVE DISC 2 1/2M 1.644.00 08 r33U OOj 0,251 63::a E539 3 9440917-409 VALVE J15C 2" 2s:-14 .00 09 :910 UP3 0;-")l ::3:99 L539 u "659222-001 GUIDE RUSHING 10116000 10 610 ou0 J'' ) I Jd -';i:3> 6 94dU0.93-002 wu1Ot:s ;:0070.00 The City of Denton, Texas is tax exempt - House 8111 No, 20. Tr" IAL it; R P.00 3,:0 5y, •u0 Reference P. 0, Number on all 8 / L, Shipments and Invoices. Shipments are F, 0, B. City of Denton, or as indicated, By I Send Invoices TO: Direct Inquiries T0; City of Denton, Accounts Payable John J. Marshall, C, P. M. Purchasing Agent 215 E, McKinney St,, Denton, TX 76201 Tom D, Shaw, C. P. M. Asst, Purchasing Agent (or as indicated on Purchase Order) 817/566.8311 D/FW Metro 267.0042 The City of Denton Is an equal opportunity employer -001 ilL FIELD DEPORT C R ♦ aiw1kO_R-E_,A_C,H_ ri►torweroRS _ OPTIONAR. ' ,rnmemN" aw . .thN.'•i~R1~R'N~~YO~++~tMt~MM'M'~Y K'r NO,T iWD AFTER OPVMG REPORT; USE FORMAT M02 TO MOO T . ISYrO F E w.a«.w ao sww.~n ~ ~ 91L1Irt8' :1•I MARAM J r yaw t ongMno~ (I A pa rr ft"m r •~-~S±h t... sr wMtll win '`4r ~.bt 7, 'C<t~ta, :~c~;"'a.~4~'.;~~r~"~;i,~, : ,~3-.Ktk:•sR,...~,~<...,, .~.4~ • y .,~~F~ , rF YY ~r)~~~1 t. ~F.l,rlfll}. ~ryj~1 r , 1` tr r e 4~ 6r~ f ~ ,w~ «i 1 4t ~ h•f. ; } 7S 1 l WORK REPORT DATE F ^FWfff, EFRBNAME8 I DAY YR ST OT OT MO . i , ~ .i ~1- ; i.y ~ . t2 yr-:.::a r ~ 1 Q~ may' 1 ! ♦.1. l.~,f• 1 ~t ~r 1 y{ ~ti j ''~.{-r rrf } ~Yl ~~jl 1•~.Y~ 1 r'l;, ,r ,J~ .✓'P wi ,f vl ,'fly; r~`~'t r~yt4 r.rf.LLR 1,{~.. r.; ♦ ~ ?r1`i.'~;A .r ~rti' M~a l.• '~~,I .1 .1: , y L (r -1 ~l.- yµ Yd 11'V. ,i i cn~ 'r n,. aji 1 `IJ/♦ r. 1, rep:. t ♦ 't h r. r Cir-,? !t r Fr yr+=_ f~• : wnw r,l ter.,-R. t,rr w f, .e'.r ,.•(rI,•+✓ .•w i~~.~r:: A4r ..i. r '.IM', r.. •^""Ii ri' •R iil 'p 1l i;r• o'ki; ,r ..!r.'. . ♦t t••. L1 rny+. rl 4L' I r.Y. 1 f r. y,,. .F r t A I') . : t.i'r rl...:" ;,mot 1, ..a. T 1.1 rf n:,.' L... 11 .r •Jr'~ ~ _ /r,n Y i 1. r•a'J 'u,I•? tJ _ ~ .4 re.F i:. 'w r.♦• r .a . i s t Ih:. aS .K ast , ~ s.c r.. !4 F.♦ n .•4~r ,i,: aeil t. l a r t^ r , t ~ r{'!s r w IL♦ + { • '.f , i`P Tl♦t l+ 7 ~ r Yr rII• ',^y R ~ •ri'y~i r - '~}~r_. ,yr~tr'}-•t"I•..s~t ~:w Y,,~ii.~n »!'3.•:.Y-V../r .fin 3.i Fr• r„'a t;""~. Y"'%' ~!(1..'lt ^r' M RMICE ADDED MESSAGE: ' <<,' , ~ ~ ' "'1: ! r+ o- ~ 'Y•1, : + Gr r~ ~3 r: V, I ' fn r..~ ~ ;,~..r~♦ :.~[~,f t~'14 .a-SltG~4 `..Q'e'1~Tb.L-~+-;,-VS T1 GtS'1~'~tSS a•.'~'t.ew., C I k,t: rd• ti'!+'.~.`'~C. r~1j . yF.~r~~~t~•~ ir~n~,L.y~ly(~ Grp. .a yJ• ,y'r fi~<r~y~! r 7.r4,',", ~~~,j,~fh; ~!rfn.~~':1 t,,~. i~~~f)Ryy~~~ ` y,_ J•K~tt4:~•°~l"^.!~nT'~il,:~iI,;J Cit~yh•j.'1•• ;.r••'♦...,~. ,.i.;`,.e~~r'{^~,.~/a'R'. tr1:'~.. 1~ Aga, A UNE ~fl}y~flL w~ttrrgw h,"7 lA~S. + w i * rf r~ it ' ti' ~~y 'fry( I, Y "*'Rr ~1:b j r' ,f .t.rY'.:j"" ri iv,.~y N,• u s. r r~ r~:.., :r~r.'.~P.fK. ' j +rj 1~,(.1'~?R „ rJt w'. (>f wP{..•: n.V`~'+r-.♦ iT.ll•♦ t..4S "C.7"/ti µ•A"FRY~;•1~S/= ~r ~44.1~~,~ *y ' :iY; 1. ~,~~~tiw +~.R ~r L'q'~"le~~'r~V:J'~'.•.. ~'+'~'Kv.l.,rJr'W,~i?~r ~ir~NAaylY~7T~5>~~. '~'~J''~rc" . DA 8 SIONATtJ11E 81"TUM kANODA xs~" -.!~MIWY~ ~ J•'~ E80~~`r'~~~~ ' - ' 1 rarl: • ; r V W' AMIA CAN 0 MOC/ OILY w , p~~ 7 . iy nt = ( Y mmwlr me PM *An cm ytl.s.~~.' ~'°r'. 7r Ta'~ t/~~' • • •r r ~ .r( i9! .~'.ws~~li..: T. ice; ,•i~' '+/,F ~i.` •t tr trfJG 41988 ('ti'i IYi r CITY OF DMMN MEMORANDUM TOs Rick Svehia, Assistant City Manager FROM: Hugh Lynch, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Classification ordinance DATEi August 13, 1986 As a result of the approval of four additional police officers and two police sergeants effective April 1 and July 1, 1986, the City Council must approve the attached ordinance. This is necessary in order to comply with Article 1269m, Section BA. gh nch Chief of Police _ 'J I E I NO. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO BE EMPLOYED IN BACH CLASSIFIED POSITION IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THE CITY OF DBNTON, TEXAS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HERBNITH, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That until otherwise determined by the City Council, the following number of persons shall be authorized to be employed in each classified position in the Police Department: 1 CHIEF OF POLICE 3 DIVISION COMMANDERS 6 LIEUTENANTS B SERGEANTS I 67 POLICE OFFICERS. SECTION II. That all ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of such conflict. i SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of _ _ 1986, R , CITY OF DENTON$ TEXAS ATTEST: CITY OF DENTON,,TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TBXAS BY: AI f I 1 M AND VUA AGM Pie a r~►w T"M AND VIU AGM Ar#, y t; play DNA Fin and removed except for cause in aeeesdames with ~ action or demotioe apww by lids Act PFOOW U for diadoinary by MW Xxogw 6) icy 1 earned by eonpetiyw~o tloa~~ demuto b~b his h ) ~baat rank ana ileetive And ft bD'part A "reon "y ruaow bjm" &M eondderatbe for appdntn"t to a a be eonflrmmee section, aid in 8nbdfvieiou (1) or M of !lebeectia {n of this (7) A person appointed under SubdlvWon (1) or pt) of %beaction (f) of this ' educational iaoeative, section Me take ady promotional tba for which the each cbssilbs. been eligible udder t3 promotional 14 of this Act Ponca would have effefted (8) A parson modar 6, P11610" of SubOrWon ard a~yor body of~ the f iectbe o $ban be subJW to oodfis,a~ or (2) of law governing d eolisgeor tugvvm Bee, a m *WW by Ado 1078, Ord I,~ , P. 400, eh. 140, 1e1, KL w veraky Wersdked by a Leg., IV, CL O,1 1, eff• Ape~>f6, ltYl0; Aefs 1070 oft r n, 1078; Aeb 1070, ward of eduction in 1!T!; Aeb 116 t81L , a =947. eb d!0, I"I" A 788,1 8, , ameadea by Asa 1ei Wh sent 1, 190; Bee a ow or by Aeta 1Nd, Mfh Ln, P. Su" 1 1, Avg, a, Sig 1,11B6r Bee fib) awadw Poo- protse. aa«~ a.d ey see oa no P kk low atfoeftsnsej, ~ L_ a► dy 1r a es' Mrs w ' Wont edoosdoe as lftdse+al ~p =W M Poe by M* 661021100 ft 00 g to so mat b* rbap ~M tw =af< 'f ;i viol persoee to bolo that b) aoa~ bye M Punted by thin aeetbn, a classification now in eexie f,.~~,,,,,l~~, y hereafter treated, may not be titled except by "U iwtbd MW in 9 of Assistant Chief accordance with this Act It the city council or goverabsg of the city "t five ad&twW ) years uif+ed in approves t resolution Weh or the chief or head of a n po rrq department is whkh a at feast four elaseifiatiotu, exbt below the rJaaillatiod of "W by tW PoUoe a iet or head dray appoint each person occupying authori:b agqw~f gpnaed~t bnmediately below that of chief or deparment bead idedin the ria this section, As prov by ldivbion. (e) The total number of persons appointed to the tlarsifiatlod immediately of Assistant Chief below that of the police chief in the police tod toJ he may sot exceed the total at five (b) years d of the polk number li persons, plus one, serving in the elauifiation immediately below that a chief or head of the dWePartment in that city on January 1, d byi the Fire Chie{ 1~• r lift dty having fewer than 800 certified comt and voting, imm n the t ma appoint not more than cede for"n ' to the or clchief s bead of ificstio. y ppeeriod r ce &,d "YbK criteria have fire Y below that of calef or head. In a city having 800 or more certified od. fighters but act more than 8000 the chief or head of the fire pointed under this int two persons, in a city having more than 800 certified fire at may fighters, the cause, chief or head of the de nt may int three Ira MRS. This d by does not apply to a city that has adopted The Fire and liq n Y abt°~" cum is temporsr). Act (Article 61We-1, Verdon'a Texas Civil statutes) unless the efty beection apecifka iftion, the leciplbury action adopt the aplwitttment procedure prescribed by ibis su collective bargaining process, through the i cause, the person • ' (d) All persons in each ekssiflatka shall bees e by competitive eadded; thereto paid any of the foliowing Pawofthe same u~' and in typ pay to which they may be cm is went Pay; educational ideemtfve pay; bad ) en of the sign pay; and (4) certification pay, 6611 not prevent the Vision (1) or (2) of de+deat from desigm in higher du some person from the next lower ebssifiation to Won may not be the heap dof the department le "On t*mPraft but any person deslgated by paid the base akry of the higher position 267 I w,:S-jv: F,.; ..s. s.:raF+r ~s`*°a: f`;"T'^~'{k"T ~c• z August S, 1986 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT Consider Ordinance for Proposed Oversize Agreement with Greenfield-Woods Addition, Owner Teasley Road Associates- Denton, Texas, and/or their Assigns for a New Sanitary Sewer Line RECOMMENDATION The Public Utilities Board, at their meeting of June 10, 19861 recommended to the City Council approval of this oversize agreement due to sanitary sewer demands imposed by this and other proposed developments in this area in the near future. SUMMARY In order to serve the area containing this development and future developments in a natural drainage area, will require an 18" sanitary sewer to provide capacity. According to a recent study by Freese and Nichols, it is necessary to contruct this sanitary sewer line. Since the proposed development only requires a 10" sanitary sewer line, an oversize agreement from 10" to 18" is recommended. BACKGROUND The proposed 18" sanitary sewer line extends from an existing 27" sanitary sewer line near Windsor Drive, then is extended north to and along Old North Road, crossing the proposed Loop 288 to and across Greenfield-Woods Addition. At present, there is no sanitary sewer service in this general area. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED Denton Municipal Utilities, present/future Develcpers, Legal Department and Purchasing, 43S7U:9 v ' t FISCAL IMPACT Estimated costs for a 10" to an 18" oversize sectit,% t-, be paid for by the City of Denton are as follows: Total cost of an 18" sanitary sewer line from existing 27" sanitary sewer to and through project site (approx. 4730 L.F. x $37.00/L.F.) $1750010 300 !-.F. 27" steel casing x $32.00/L.F. crossing proposed Loop 288 (not yet constructed) 9 600 T1841610 Total cost, of a 10" sanitary sewer line from existing;:;4io sanitary sewer line to and throu h project site (approx. 4730 L.F. x $21.00/L.F.l 99,330) 300 L.F. steel casing x $20.00/L.F4 crossing proposed Loop 288 (not yet constructed) ( 61000) T-105t330 Cost of this project to the City of Denton, (difference between a 10" se-iitary sewer line and an 18" sanitary sewer line) $ 790280 Prepared by: Res ectf ly submitted: o arre •y anager David Ham, Asst. Director Water/Wastewater Divisions Approved by: - • , may` 'Y. ~eIson Director of Utilities Attachments: I- Ordinance II.- Sewer Main Oversize Participation Agreement with Exhibits III- Minutes PUB Meeting of 6/10/86 43570:10 N0. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN • T09 COST OF INSTALLING AN OVERSIZED SEWER MAIN; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to enter into an agree- ment to participate in the cost of providing an oversized sewer rain; and WHEREAS, the Code of ordinances requires that the City Louncil approve all expenditures $10,000 or more; and WHEREAS, Section 2.09 of the City Charter requires every act of the Council providing for the expenditure of funds or for the contracting of indebtedness shall be by ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby approves the Sewer Main j` Participation Agreement, attached hereto, between the City and Teasloy Read Associates Three, to provide for the City's participation in the cost of providing an oversized sever main in accordance with sold agreement and the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. SECTION II. That the City Council authorizes the expenditure of funds In the manner and amount as specified in the agreement. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1986. RAY STSPRMT9-,-RM CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CITY OF DENTON,wTEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: .L ~.1._ 1427L COPY THE STATE OF TEXAS S SEWER MAIN PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OFDENTON AND COUNTY OF DENTON I TEASLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES THREE WHEREAS, Teasley Road Associates Three, hereafter referred to as "Developer," whether one or more, whose business address is P. 0. Box 117, Denton, Texas 76202, wishes to develop and improve certain real property, including, but not limited to that shown in Exhibit 11201, located in the City of Denton, Texas or its extraterritorial jurisdiction and is requir<,d to provide such property with adequate sewer by designing, constructing and installing a sewer main of a minimum inside diameter of ten inches (10"), hereafter referred to as "required facilities"; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation located at 21S E. McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201, hereafter referred to as "City," in accordance with its ordinances, wishes to participate in the cost of the construction and installation of said sewer main to provide for an "oversized" sewer main to exppand its utility system and insure adequate utility service to other customers; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, Developer and City agree as follows: 1. Developer shall design, install and construct an eighteen inch (1811) sewer main and all necessary appurtenances thereto, hereafter referred to as "oversized facilities," extending a total distance of approximately four thousand seven hundred and th'rty feet (4,7301), located as shown on Exhibit 111," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Prior to beginning construction of the oversized facil- ities, Developer shall enter into a Development Contract, as required by Appendix A of the Coda of Ordinances of City. This agreement shall be subject to and governed by such Development Contract, which is incorporated herein by reference, and any other applicable ordinances of City. 3. Prior to beginning construction of the oversized facia,- ities, Developer shall obtain, at Developer's sole cost and expense, all necessary permits, licenses and easements. If easements are needed, the deeds therefore obtained by Developer shall be reviewed and approved as to form and substance by City prior to the beginning of construction. If Develuper is unable to acquire needed easements, Developer shall provide City with any requested documentation of efforts to obtain such easements, including evidence of negotiations and reasonable offers made to the effected property owners. Any easements for the oversized facilities obtained by the Developer shall be assigned to City, ~/j'~'AGMI~t~M' S if not taken in City's nave, prior to acceptance of the over- sized facilities, and Developer warrants clear title to such easements and will defend City against any adverse claim made against such title. 4. :he City's share in the cost of the oversized facilities, based upon the difference in the cost of installing required facilities, as determined by City by public bids on the same or similar projects on a per linear foot basis, and the cost of the oversized facilities, as determined by the City, based upon the amount of a bid from the lowest responsible bidder on the same or similar oversized facilities, shall be in an amount not to exceed Seventy-nine Thousand Two Hundred Eighty and No/100 Dollars ($79,280.00), and City shall not, in any case, be liable for any additional cost because of delays in beginning, continuing or completing construction; changes in the price or cost of materials, supplies, or labor; unforeseen or unantici- pated cost because of topography, soil, subsurface, or other site conditions; differences in the calculated and actual per linear feet of pipe or materials needed for the oversized facilities; Developer's decision as to the contractors or sub- contractors used to perform the work; or any other reason or cause, specified or unspecified, relating to the construction of the oversized facilities. 5. Within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of the facilities by the City, Developer shall submit to the City's Director of Utilities the actual cost of the oversized facilities. Should the actual cost of the oversized facilities be less than the cost on which she City's share was determined, the City's share of the cost shall be reduced proportionally, on a per linear foot basis, based upon the difference of the actual cost of the oversized facilities and the determined cost for required facilities. To determVe the actual cost of the over- sized facilities, City shall have the right to inspect my end all records of Developer, his agents, employees, contractors ur subcontractors and shall have the right to require De vetoper ±o submit any necessary information, documents, invoices, receii)ts or other records to verify the actual cost of the oversized facilities. 6. Within thirty (30) days of the date the Developer iras submitted satisfactory documentation of the actual cost of !.he oversized facilities, as determined by City, City shall pay to Developer its share of the cost thereof. 7. All notices, payments or communications to be given :,r made pursuant to this agreement by the parties 'iereto, shall sent to Developer at the business address given above and t.o '.Ile Director of Utilities for the City at the address given above, I SEWER MAIN PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT Bl TWEEN THE C ITY r? AND TEASLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES THREE/PAGE 2 8. Developer shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all claims, damages, loss or liability of any kind whatso. ever, by reason of injury to property or persons occasioned by any act or omission, neglect or wrongdoing of Developer, its officers, agents, employees, inviteess contractors or other persons with regard to they performance of this agreement, and Developer will, a its own cost and expense, defend and protect City against any and all such claims and demands. 9. If Developer does not begin substantial construction of the oversized facilities within twelve (12) months of the effective dato of this agreement, this agreement shall terminate. 10. This instrument embodies the whole agreement of the parties hereto and there are no promises, terms, conditions or obligations other than those contained herein. This agreement shall supercede all previous communications, representations or agreements, either verbal or written, between the parties hereto. 11. This agreement shall not be assigned by Developer without the express written consent of City. 12. Any and all suits for any breach of this contract, or any other suit pertaining to or arising out of this contract, shall be brought and maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction in Denton County, Texas. Executed this the day of , 1986, TEASLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES THREE ATTEST: ✓ r,.,. ;;'Y ATTEST: OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: CHARLOTTE ALLEN, CITY b R 5 , MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: SEWER MAIN PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND TEASLEY ROAD ASSOCIATES THREE/PAGE 3 ,wit ~ r . ■ I f :14' J to 1 ~ r7 t ~ r _ 1 4.. • jf i .t J v'.. it ~ l M~~ OVERSIZE SEWER ;...fir F x~ i a r . r 4 14 1 ' ll ' .i . tt ~ ~ Yom. t d~ ^Ilk V e l i ALA 4 t~ ,EXHIBI"T" 2 >n Mlfl~ ; WIRM O IRIfIN 11r01!lIOENf dm mA1, ngnitT ig tut V4ft'w ati that,aart.tw' team e~ 1W elttete0 V W laMa Oatt.te4 ~gxttttset el tell ors tots rd king a Pon at the ealw.i0.N73 Se tta t 40. . tarihd is t210 Dted frost wen I" Naas to rideaip Usaeistes rooorded De Valtnm 1243 ego 16i of the Dead Negev of bastes Catetty, laws, as Co. "S"o" sad aeon0ied ON the itiwssdt the sub)**& tract httsig so" i►onle" larly Mwrihtd u fallewst BUT" far the Northeast Carney of the tract tialat dosetibefl herols, at as tees tMed got to the siddl% of ramie heads hind; in the tact line of the 661st $Wye? sow Noes 3oot>! a dl•cdnea of 50.0 feet ft'as ttse ta•t- llertb-cast Coeur of the said 40.#!72 sere troctf a TM KC Meth with the East lied, of the said 40,##75 more tract and aoeer• ally with the middle of the said road a dlstasas of 06.10 feet to as iron red set at the reaeelnisd Northeast Corner of a I." Sere tract doertib" is alto llted from more Lod Iiee•• to items S. Nilsen record" is •elewe JU2 tago 32 of the said Deed Records, T MEMCL North 88 Degrees 57 Kiautds 41 Seconds watt with the recognised Iforth lewd lenthefikt said et lire ei(,1jK Tract sand ~oatinuing irfth theonsaid course Ottss'nst at 27#,95 fo`et an ir*n rod found at tha Merthwast Corner of the $aid Wilson Tract and continuing with tbo said course , in 411, a total distant@ of 704.47 foot to an iron rod •d,ti the said rod beans in A curve to the lof! having i radius of 270.00 feete THENCE in a Northeasterly direction along the said curve a distance of 152,91 feet ( chord bearing North 15 Dorrtsa 4) Minutes SO Seconds East a distance of 110.87 foot ) to an iron rod yet at the end of the said curve$ THEXt North 00 Deurgss 29 Mlnrites 36 seconds Nest a distance of 140,00 .ld,et to do iron rod set at tho beginning of a curve to the rioht havinlt a radius of 300.00 faett THENCE in a Nottheasterly direction aiunn the said evrva a dis a nce of 471.24 feet ( chord bearLnm North 4? Deptrees 30 ,Minutes 14 Seconds East a distance of 424,26 foot ) to an irun rod let at the end of the said eurvst THENCE north e9 Dearee, 10 ~;+i„,tr , Seconds Las; at 429. IS feet pass an trot rod set in the West li.ta of the abovementloned road and contin-n1 uing witb the said course a tot,rl distance of 4.9.66 feet to the PLACE Of AMINNIND and enclosing 9.963 acres of land. NON, TIIGEFORF, [MiN ALL ML\ 61' VlrC,f; E Af..SI:KT51 THAT, , acting, for the ucnton Indeoendr-.t School District does herebr adoet this DI A desienating the %eretn •Ic- D•ntomdCeuntretTexas Dandsdoes hrrr b%,dodicate to lthe nublie 15etforcr•'t the stredt rights-ofway and puUtic eascmet,es Nhmt hereon. het he fur tin Ilrh'.L rrJ ! , of ors Tact - i l EXCERPT FROM PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MINUTES JUNE 10, 1986 9. CONSIDER PROPOSED OVERSIZE AGREEMENT WITH GAMFIKLD-WOOVS ADDITION OWhU TFIISIM ROAD ASSOCIATES D 0 THEIR AS IGNS According to Han, the Utilities Staff recommends to the Public Utilities board approval of this oversize agreement due to sanitary sewer demands imposed by this and other proposed developments in this area in the near future. In order to serve the area containing this development and future developments in a natural drainage area, will require an 18" sanitary sewer to provide capacity. According to a recent study by Freese and Nichols, it is necessary to contruct this sanitary sewer line. Since the proposed development only requires a 10 sanitary sewer line, an oversize agreement from 10" to 18" is recommended. The proposed 18" sanitary sewer line extends from an existing 27" sanitary sewer line near Windsor Drive, then is extended north to and along Old North Road, crossing the proposed Loop 288 to and across Greenfield-Woods Addition. At present, there is no sanitary sewer service in this general area. Ham explained the fiscal impact as follows: 'Dotal coat of an 18" sanitary sewer line from existing 27" sanitary sewer to and through project site (approx. 4730 L.F. x $37.00/L.F.) $175,U10 300 L.F. 27" steel casing x $32.00/L.F. crossing proposed Loop 268 (not yet constructed) 9 600 1b4,610 Total cost of a 1U" sanitary sewer line from existing sanitary sewer line to and through project site (approx. 4730 L.N. x $11.OU/L.F.) 990330) 3UU L.N. steel casing x $2U.UU/L.F. crossing proposed :mop 288 (not yet constructed) ( 6 ON) 1 105,330 Cost of this project to the City of Denton, (difference between a 10" sanitary sewer line and an 18" sanitary sewer line) $ 19,280 Frady motion to approve the proposed oversize agreement. ! Coomes second. All ayes, no nays, totion carried unanimously. A0 r4r-M 80Yr ZT m -.,a '1!t"+ er4.s e..c ra •o .tea. ° ;r r-e-- 3a, S rt:'".:.,r ° 771 a a S 0 L T ON WK01 4, additional 0" raescy radio frequencies are ur estlry needed for City public safety use in order to promote the beaith sad safety of the public; au VHFREAB, the City Council has been advised that the City of Mesquite has requested that the Federal Communications Commis- sion allocate MHz bands 421-42S and 166-470 for public safety use NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXASs SECTION I. That the City Council of the City of Denton urges the Federal Communications Commission to expedite its hearing process to the allocation of MHz bands 121-125 and 466-470 in order to meet urgent needs of public safety units. SECTION 11. That the City Council of tht- City of Denton urges that in the Commission's determination, effect be given to the Congressional Intent of Public Law 94-214 and that MHz bands 121.425 and 166-470 be allocated to public safety use, SECTION 111, That-the City Secretary is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Honorable Mark S. Fouler, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission and to Brunhilde Nystrom, Mayor of the City of Mesquite, Tex%s, SECTION IV, That this resolution take effect immedisto)ly from and after its passage as the law in such cases provides. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1986. Kxy NXTOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST, CFWLOTTR ALLEN CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON,jTBXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORA: DEBRA ADANI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I BY., August 19, 1986 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MbMBER S OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT Consider Resolution in Support of Denton Filing an Application for a Grant from the Texas Water Development board to Study Regional Water Needs for Communities and Non-Incorporated Areas in Denton County and Supporting Denton Serving as the b.dministrator for such a Grant on Behelf of the "Water for the Future Committee for Denton County." RECOMMENDATION The Utilities Staff recommends approval of subject resolution. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND The Water for .he Future Committee for Denton County has been exploring water supply issues, and devices for funding such, for cities and non-incorporated areas of Denton Co. This resolution will constitute an application and request by the City of Denton for grant funds to support the efforts of the Water for the Future Committee. It is anticipated that these funds would be dedicated to the Committee for their use, and may then reduce Denton's previous commitment of $13,000. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED Denton Municipal Utilities, Water for the Future Committee for Denton County, Denton County, Citizens of City and County. 0209n:3 1-11 .17, FISCAL IMPACT Not determined at this time. Prepared by: Re ectfu sub mitt d: ~X, I A9246" C. David Ham oy a re Asst. Director of Utilities City Manager Wtr./WW Division Appxov d bx : 1-Ae son Director of Utilities Exhibit I Resolution 0209n:4 a R B S 0 L U T I 0 N W"VREAS, the Texas Water Development Board has funds svail- able for grants for studying regional water supply issues; and ' WHEREAS, the Water for the Future Committee of Denton County has been exploring water supply issues for cities and non-incorporated areas of Denton Count/ and desires to acquire such funding; and Court MhaveSpro ideditheeadministrative tser ices County Commissioners these study efforts and in receiving engineering proposals for conduct- ing such study; and WHEREAS, the Water Development Board funds are only avail- able to existing water utility entities; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton is empowered and authorized to operate a water system pursuant to Article 1108, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat, and oth(r applicable laws; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON: SECTION I. That the City of Denton, on behalf of the Water for the Future Committee of Denton County, desires to submit an application for funding assistance for a study to investigate alternatives for providing water supplies to cities and unincorporated areas of Denton County. SECTION I.I. That the ^.ity Manager of Denton is hereby authorized and directed to maxe application for such funds. SECTION III. That the City of Denton desires to serve as administrator of said grant on behalf of Water for the Future Committee of Denton County, provided that the administration costs be proportionately shared by members of the committoa. S That ECTION IV. ii be suppliednfromopledgedrfundshcollectedtfromfinember(s)torthe subject committee. SECTION V. That a certified copy of this Resolution shall constitute an application and request on behalf of the City of Denton to the Texas Water Development Board pursuant to 53SS.106 Texas Administrative Code, for approval of the funding descrlbed in Section 1 of this Resolution. SECTION VI. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. .1 v. 'r. PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of August, 1986. MA OR CITY OF DBNTON, TEXAS ATTEST: CHARLOTTE ALLUNo CITY SEWTUY CITY OF DENTON) TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LBGAL FORM DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCy, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DBNTON, TBXA: BY: PAGE 2 1544L R E S O L U T I O N WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton has hereto- fore determined the necessity for and ordered the acquisition by thi City of Denton of the hereinafter described right, title and interest in the land hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been unable to agree and cannot a roe with the owner upon the value of the hereinafter describe right, title and interest in the hereinafter described land situated in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, THAT: SECTION I. The City Council hereby finds and determines that it is necessary to acquire the hereinafter described rights, title and interest in the hereinafter described land, and that it is necessary that it authorize proceeding in eminent domain to acquire the right, title and interest in the hereinafter described property. SECTION 11. The City Attorney of the City of Denton, Texas, is hereby authorized and directe,i to bring condemnation proceeding to obtain the fen simple title, includinb all improvements thereof, to the following tract of land situated In Denton County, Texas; ALL that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the City and County of Denton, State of Texas, and being part of the S. McCracken Survey, Abst. No. 817, and also being part of a tract of land as conveyed from Denton 185, LTD to Joseph J. Tallal, Jr, Trustee by deed January 18, 1985 recorded in Volume 1718, Page 219 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest corner of the south tract, said point lying in center of Stuart LAne; THENCE north 00 09' east along the west boundary line of said tract and in Stuart Lane, a distance of 705.0 feet to a point for a corner; THENCE east a distance of 13.0 feet to a point for a corner; THENCE South 50 43' east a distance of 205,43 feet to a point for a corner; THENCE south 00 09' west, 34 feet east of and parallel to the west boundary line of raid tract, a distance of 501.0 feet to a point for a corner, said point lying in t)e south boundary line of said tract; THENCE north 890 18' 10" west, along the south boundary line of said tract, a distance of 34.0 feet to the pl,.ce of be inning and containing 0.5011 acres of land, more or less, ofg which 0.1780 acres lies within Stuart Road for a not of. 0.3231 acres. for street and utility purposes; with he title thereto vesting in the City of Denton; however, there is excluded from said r,~•T ` ..-vsp..~.-,.. .,n :..w...a gYg,',~f"~. `R.'~$!mF~,~•femnrvv. .e.;n `IS" ";irt 1` ~I pproperty to be condemned all the oil, gas and sulphur which can be r,am-:,ved from beneath said land without any right whatc,ver remaininil to the owner of said oil, gas and sulphur of ingress and egress to or from the surface of said land for the purpose of exploring, developing, drilling or mining the same. SECTION III, This Resolution shall become effective from and after its date of passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of August, 1986, RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON ATTEST; CHARLOTTE ALLEN~ CITY SKRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY A,TORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: PAGE 2 a AAM crrr o1 ot~rrow DaNrOW, rrvus 70201 MEMORANDUM DATE: August 12, 1986 TO: Rick Svehxa, Assistant City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, City Engineer SUBJECT: Right-of-Way Dedication - East side of Stuart Roger Wilkinson originally sent a letter to Joseph Tallal on May 7, 1986, requesting that the right-of-way for Stuart Road be dedicated since the City of Denton was installing the street and drainage improvements. The first 500 feet from the south would be completely improved. There would be a 200' asphalt transition and then 160' of Mr. Tallal's property that would not get any improvements. Total cost to the City of Denton for these improvements would be $10,621.00. Mr. Tallal told Roger to speak with Steven Do Jardan of James M, Brown Company. The Brown Company was to get with Roger Barrett of Metro-plex Engineering to get their opinion. Metro-plex recommended they give up the right-of-way. He also stated that syndication of the property would hold up any answer. We repeatedly contacted James M. Brown and Mr. Tallal's office to ask if they planned to dedicate the right-of-way as we needed an answer to get our Stuart Road project under way, His attorney stated they would dedicate the right-of-way if they liked the City of Denton's responses to their zoning cases. I told them we would make our evaluation totally separate from the right-of-way issue and it would be available at the August 121 1986, Development Review Committee meeting. I asked again that they dedicate the ri ht-of-way to us to allow the completion of the Stuart Road pro ect. His attorney refused saying they would look at our response to their zoning case. I called Roger Barrett who stated he would again recommend they dedicate the right-of-way. We met at 2:00 p.m, and went over the Engineering/Traffic comments on roads, right-of-ways, drainage, and access. page 2 of 2 pages We made an offer to them on august 12, with, a 5 day grace period based on comparable values obtained from a local appraiser. 'I'o date, they have not accepted our offer. We therefore recommend City Council initiate condemnation of the right-of-way to allow the project to progress. Jerr t 1 bn P, 13. t; i t ng r 1s 041013 rkyn CM Of DSNTCN D/'►Jr*N, MAS ss:o! August 12, 1986 Joseph J. Tallal, Jr., Trustee 5611 Walnut Hill Lane Dallas, Tx. 75229 Dear Mr. Tallal: In the past few months efforts have been made to obtain necessary right-of-way for Stuart road adjacent to the property you are trustee. Since you have not yet decided to grant this right-o£-way the City of Denton will offer, what we feel is a fair price of seven-thousand-forty dollars and no cents ($7,040.00) for this right,-of-way and working area (to properly slope ground adjacent to street.) The improvements in the Stuart Road project are valued at approximately $40,621, which greatly increases your ability to develop your land or sell to someone who does development work. We would appreciate you granting us this right-of-way, so we may use this money for streeT improvements, if you do not respond to this offer within five (5)days from the date of this letter, it will be considered rejected and eminent domain proceeding will be initiated, Sincerely, p,p, rk, Cityylingier ne attach: legal description and plat 0410E STUART ROAD STA 12+00 to 17+00 Right-of-way Prep (111) $ S1000,00 S00.00 Unclassified Bxcav (111) 28$44,00 3,140.00 Fill (111) 10657,50 182.00 Lime 9 TON 80.00 720,00 Lime Treatment 1000 SY 1110 1,100.00 4 1/2" ASPN 835 SY 7,84 61546,40 1 1/2" ASFN 835 SY 2,80 20338.00 Adjust MH 1 EA 300.0o 300,00 Curb 4 Gutter 500 LF 5,50 29750,00 Adjust V.B. 1 HA 150.00 150,00 8' Inlet (Type 1) 2 6A 3,500,00 7,000.00 30" RCP 55 LF 34.50 1,897.50 36" RCP 311 LF 42.50 130217,50 Inlet Frame Cover 2 BA 365.00 730.00 $40,621,00 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM.: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposal to allow the Mayor and the City Manager of the City of Denton to sign and approve the promulgation statement and the City of Denton Emergency Management Plan in accordance with the Texas Disaster Act of 1975 and City Ot.linance Number 65-48, Civil Defense (Chapter 7). This would also include a letter stating agreement for joint operations with Denton County but with separate emergency management plans. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the above proposal, SUrI1ARY: The present joint Emergency Management Plan is too cumbersome to administrate since the plan involves joint city and county equipment as well as personnel. Also, there have been significant changes by both parties in government as well as multi-jurisdictional growth to effectively change the ;joint plan, The "old" plan is also to be reviewed this year. BACKGROUND: A state approved plan is required under the new Disaster Relief Act as amended in order to receive any funds for recovery after a disaster. The State of. Texas has appointed the Division of Emergency Management as the administrator of the plans according tn MW-12 and the Texas Disaster Act of 1975, as amended. The new plan incorporates not only the required aspects of state planning and guidelines, but also an effective way to incorporate changes in the future. This alleviates this problem of adminis- trative restructuring the entire plan from recurring. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: The following groups are responsible for and have submitted their own standard operating procedures outlined in this plan as was required before: The City Manager's Office Fire Department RSVP Office of the Mayor City Health Authority Civil Air Patrol Emergency Management Finance Deparment Boy Scouts of America *American Red Cross Public Works DISD Police Department Utilities Sammon Cable Municipal Water Lab City Attorney SPAN Emergency Medical Services *Amateur Radio Groups Lone Star Gas General Telephone *The new plan does not change department procedures except for those with asterisk. FISCAL IMPACT: By adopting this plan, the City of Denton will have the most time-consuming requirement for Disaster Relief Assistance completed. This plan, if followed, could provide some reductions in risk insurance for the city, R//e///////Aectful y submitted; JL/~ r ~ 5 Lloy V. Harrel ~ Pre d byCity Manager ws~~' f y' margency nagement Coordinator Appr ed:` t Di eG o 0 C i OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable "ayor $ Members of the City Council FROM: Debra A. Drayovitch, City Attorney SUBJECT: V-30 DATE: August 15, 1986 Mr. Bryant's Attorney, Richard H. Kelsey, met with Joe Morris and I last Friday to hear Mr. Kelsey's arguments as to why our subdi- vision ordinances are unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Bryant's land. Mr. Kelsey is of the opinion that the City's ordinance providing for deferred perimeter street improvements should only apply if the landowner is constructing internal streets or utilities. Attached is a copy of the Attorney General's opinion of December 30, 1983 in which it is clearly stated that the City's subdivision regulations must be uniformly applied inside the City limits and within its extraterritorial jurisdiction. In July, Joe Morris prepared the attached contract to be executed pursuant to Article III, Section 4.03. (H)(,2) of Appendix A of the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Kelsey is going to rewrite the con- tract and submit it for our review. However, it appears doubtful that we will be able to work out a contract which will meet the approval of all the parties. Mr. Kelsey has indicated that, should the City Council deny Bryant's request for a variance, he may go ahead and commence construction without the City and County's approval. At that point, the City wcald be forced to file for an injunction in district court to prevent construction. While we are sympathetic to dlr. Kelsey's arguments, we do not believe the facts indicate a clear cut case one way or the other. Attached is an excerpt from my status report of August 1, concern- ing this matter. Should vou have any questions, please advise. Respectfully submitted, ~ ud"t DEBRA ADAMI h, DAD:js xc: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager Jeff Meyer, Director, Planning/Community Development Attachments ow The Attorney General of Texas JIM M ATTOX December 30, 1983 Attorney General supreme Court Building Honorable Robert D. Miller Opinion No. JM-121 P. 0. Box 12648 Howard County Attorney Austin, TX, 18111. 2648 Room 205 Courthouse Bi se Re: Approval of maps or plats Telex 0101874.1367 g Spring, Texas 79120 by city council or cis Telecopler 512/476.0261 /l Y planning commission under article 974x, v,T.C.S, 114 Jackson, suite 700 Dear Mr. Miller: Dallas, TX. 78202.4606 2141142.8944 'You have requested our opinion on several questions concerning a city's authority to extend its subdivision ordinance into approved 4824 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 subdivision plats within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction El Paio, TX. 19906.2793 [hereinafter ETJ . You have asked what standards a city may or is 916/8333484 required to adopt in its approval process ETJ. You have also asked whether acity may adopt vasdifferent mettof 1001 Texas, suite 100 standards for subdivisions located within the ETJ as opposed to those louston, Tx, 71002.311t located within the city limi4s and whether the city may adopt 113/223-5866 different standards within the ETJ itself for subdivisions depending upon the proximity of a subdivision to the corporate limits of the 808 Broadway, suite 312 city. In your final question you ask whether a city may require a Lubbock, Tx, 79401-3479 subdivision to be brought up to city standards as a condition for 606/747.5238 annexation or furnishing services to the area. 4309 N, Tenth, Suite B Many of your questions may be answered by article 6626., McAllen, TX. 78501.1685 V.T,C,S., as amended during the most recent legislative session. Acts 6121682.4647 1983, 68th Leg., ch. x321, at 011. This statute, formerly applicable only to counties under 1909000 population, controls the plat approval Zoo Main Plaza, suite 400 process and the ETJ for all counties with an exception not pertinent San Antonio, Tx. 782*2797 to your inquiry. We note that the former version of article 6626a was 512/22&4191 placed in the county road and bridge act without amendments. Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 288, 12,402, at 1459. • However, since chapter 327 is a later enactment of the same legislative session, we believe An Equal Opportunity/ that it controls over the subdivision regulation provisions, sections Affirmative Action Employer 2.401 and 2.402, of the county Road and Bridge Act. Article 6626a now provides in part as follows: Sec. 1, (a) (applies to all counties) without the (b) The owner of sny tract of land situated State of Texas, who may hereafter divide the same in two (2) or more parts for the purpose of laying p. 510 Honorable Robert D. Miller - Page 2 (.IM-1111) out any subdivision of any tract of land, or an addition without the corporate limits of any town or city, or for laying out suburban lots or building lots, and for the purpose of laying out streets, alleys, or parka, or other portions intended for public use, or th9 use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting eraon or adjacent thereto, shall cause a plat to be made thereof, which shall accurately describe all of said subdivision or . . . giving the dimensions thereof of said subdivision or addition and the dimensions of all lots, streets, alleys, packs, or other portions of same, intended to be dedicated to public use or for the use of purchasers or owners of lots fronting thereon or adjacent thereto, provided, however, that no plat of any subdivision of any tract of land or any addition shall be recorded unless the name shall accurately describe all of said subdivision , . . Section 3 of article 6626a grants to the commissioners court the authority to adopt requirements for the streets right-of-way in subdivisions in addition to the shoulder-to-shoulder" width. Section 3(e) grants the commissioners court the authority to adopt "reasonable specifications" for "road construction within the subdivision" and section 3(f) gives the county authority to adopt road drainage regulations, The subdivider may also be required to post a bond with a county in an amount not to exceed the estimated coat of road construction. NO ;S(S), The commissioners court may refuse to approve a subdivision plat unless it meets with the county's subdivision road standards. Id. 14. Section 4A(a) is a new provision and specifically authorizes the county to sue for injunction and damages in the event that the county's road specification are violated. It also declares a violation of the regulations adopted by the commissioners court to be a class "B" misdemeanor, Article 6626aa, V,T.C,S,, is a new statute adopted this year. Acts 1983, 68th Leg,, ch, 327, 62, at 1720. It provides in part in section 2 as follows: In areas under a city's extraterritorial jurisdiction as defined by (article 970a] no plat shall be filed with the county clerk without the authorization of both the city and the county. Inside said extraterritorial jurisdiction, the city shall have independent authority to regulate subdivisions under (article 970a] and (974a] and other statutes applicable to cities= and the county shall have independent authority to p. 511 Honorable Robert D. Miller - Page 3 UM-121) regulate subdivisions under (article 6626a) and other statutes applicable to counties. Inside said extraterritorial Jurisdiction whenever such city regulations conflict with such county regulations, the more stringent provisions of such regulations shall govern; and in unincorporated a city shall reas outside said extraterritorial Jurisdiction have no authority regulate subdivisions or to authorize the filing of plate, except as provided by The Interlocal Corporation Act (articl,~ 4413 (3201, This new statute states that a city has authority to regulate subdivisions pursuant to articles 970a and 974a but that the city has no authority to regulate subdivisions outside of the city's ETJ. Article 970a, V.T.C,S „ the Municipal Annexation Act, establishes the ETJ of the city of Big Spring at one mile. Id, 13(A)(2), Section 4 of the Municipal Annexation Act permits city to extend its subdivision ordinance into its ETJ: The governing body of any city may extend by ordinance to all of the area under its extraterritorial jurisdiction the application of such city's ordinance establishing rules and regulations governing plats and the subdivision of land; provided, that any violation of any provision of any such ordinance outside the corporate limits of the city, but within such city's extraterritorial jurisdiction, shall not constitute a misdemeanor under such ordinance nor shall any fine provided for in such ordinance be applicable to a violation within such extra- territorial jurisdiction, However, any city which extends the application of its ordinance establishing rules and regulations governing plats and the subdivision of land to the area under its extraterritorial Jurisdiction shall have the right to institute an action in the district court to enjoin the violation 'of any provision of such ordinance in such extraterritorial jurisdiction, and the district court shall have the power to grant any or all types of injunctive relief in such cases. Article 974s, V.T.C.S., on the other hand, provides for city plat approval of subdivisions within five miles Section 1 of article 974a requires developers off subthe city ts. divisionslwithin five miles of a city's corporate limits to prepare a plat for city Section 4 approvel,a subdivision of the statute five provides s if that subcity must the the division p. 512 ;.y Honorable Robert D, Miller - Page 4 OM-121) conforms ti, the city's general growth plan, The ;action provides in full as followes If such plan or plat, or replat shall conform to the general plan of said city and its streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public utility facilities, including those which have been or may be laid out., and to the general plan for the extension of uch city and of its roads, streets, and public highways within said city and within five miles of the corporate limits thereof, regard being had for access to and extension of sewer and water mains and the instrumentalities of public utilities, and if same shall conform to such general rules and regulations, if any, governing plate and subdivisions of land falling within its jurisdiction as the governing body of such city may adopt and promulgate to promote the health, safety, morals or general welfar% of the community, and the safe, orderly and healthful development of said community (which general rules and regulations for said purposes such cities are hereby authorized to adopt and promulgate after public hearing held thereon), then it shall be the duty of said City Planning Commission or the governing bod±I of such city, as the case may be, to endorse opproval upon the plat, plat or replat submitted to it. Section 4, to simply paraphrase, requires the city to approve a subdivision plat if it is in harmony with the city's subdivision ordinance. Article 6626 also provides for municipal approval of subdivision plats within five miles of the corporate limits of any municipality, The five mile range for city approval of subdivision plats contained in articles 6626 and 974& is not explicitly repealed by the new statute, article 6626&&. However, we believe that the five mile range is impliedly repealed and a city may not exercise any plat approval authority outside of its extraterritorial ,jurisdiction which :or some cities may be less than five miles. Article 6626aa explicitly states that outside of the ETJ a city has no authority to regulate subdivisions or to approve plate, We believe that a city is not authorized to adopt a lessen set of standards for the approval of subdivisions within the city's ETJ. Article 970a provides for the extension of the city's subdivision ordinance. Ujardleas of whether a city has extended its subdivision ordinance or not into its ETJ, article 974# requires a city to approve any subdivision plat therein if it conforms to the city's "general plan" for streets, parks, utilities, and the like, and also if the subdivision plat conforms to the p. 513 Honorable Robert D. Miller - Page 5 (JM-121) general rules and regulations, if any, governing plate and subdivisions of land falling within its jurisdiction as the governing body of such city may adopt and promulgate. Id. Any rules that a city adopts concerning the approval of su division plate must relate to the promotion of the "health, safety, morals or general welfare of the commority► and the safe, orderly and healthful development of said community." Id. Obviously, this is a broad grant of authority, Our determination that a city may not adopt different standards for subdivision plat approval in the FTJ makes it unnecessary to answer your inquiry concerning the authority of a t.;:y to require the subdivision to be brought up to standards before annexation. S U M M A R Y A city may approve or disapprove subdivision plats within that city's extraterritorial jurisdiction established under article 970a if the plats conform to the city's subdivision ordinance. Very truly yours, tI J I M M A T T 0 X Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN First Assistant Attorney General DAVID R, RICHARDS Executive Assistant Attorney General Prepared by David Brooks Assistant Attorney General APPFAVEDt OPINION COMMITTEE Rick Gilpin, Chairman Davin Brooks Cn1fn Carl Susan Garrison Jim Moellinger Nancy Sutton p 514 , I • 1Y 1 S O'3 L THE STATE OF TEXAS i AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR COUNTY OF DENTON I DEFERRED STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, ("Owner"), has sought approvTto su v e or develop property within the City of Denton, Texas, ("City"), or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, said property being described or shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Owner, pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, is required to make improvements to unimproved perimeter streets adjacent to said property; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of City has, upon the request of Owner and pursuant to City's development ordinance, b4sed upon a finding that said street improvements are not feasible or desirable at the time of approval of development, postponed the required street improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to City's ordinance, Owner has elected to enter into this agreement to insure completion of the deferred street improvements if later required by City in accordance with City's ordinance; NOW, THEkBFORE, Owner and City, in consideration of the City's deferral of said street improvements and approval of said subdivi- sion or development, agree as follows: 1. Owner shall be obligated to make street improvements to the unimproved existing perimeter streets adjoining the property described herein and as shown on the plat approved therefore, if required by City within ten (10) years of the tiate of this agree- ment; said streets, or portions thereof, required to be improved being described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The determination of whether said street Improve- ments shall be made within the required time shall be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission, after public hearing, upon the recommendation of the City Engineer, said determination to be made within nine (9) years of the date of this agreement. If no deter- mination is made by the Planning and Zoning Commission of City within the required time, Owner shall have no obligation to make said street improvements and this agreement shall terminate, 2. In order to insure the completion of the street improvements in accordance with this agreement. Owner shall, prior to any deve- lopment of the property, post a performance bond with City in an amount not less than one and one-half times the amount necessary to complete the required street improvements, as determined by the City Engineer, guaranteeing the full and faithful completion of the required street improvements meeting City's specifications; said bonds shall be in favor of City and shall be executed by an approved surety company authorized to do business in the State of Texas, Said bond shall be renewed successively, as required, prior to its expiration' date, so that there will be a valid, unexpired performance bond providing for the construction of said street improvements during the time for which the street improvements may be required under this agreement, 3. If the street improvements provided for herein are requested to be made in accordance with this agreement within the required time, Owner shall enter into a development contract, as required by City's development ordinance, and complete the required street improvements with reasonable diligence. Owner agrees that upon the Owner's failure to complete the required street improvements upon request as provided for herein, Owner shall pay City as liquidated damages the amount of t He amount o 't 'ie being performance on requ red ere n. 4. The parties herein agree that this contract shall be enforceable in Denton County, Texas, and if legal action is necessary in connection therewith, exclusive venue shall lie in Denton County, Texas Executed this day of lg OWNER CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: BY: CITY ATTEST: CITY OF DENTON,$TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: PAGE TWO rather than one. Her primary tasks now are to assist in send- ing out warrant letters on parking tickets and to assist in processing requests for copies of birth and death certifi- cates. As July and August are the busiest months of the year for receiving requests for copies of birth certificates, this additional help has been a lifesaver, especially with the vacancy in the clerk's office, Although Colette's service will end with the advent of the fall semester, I am hopeful we can utilize her services on a part-time, temporary basis during the switchover to the computer system, D. Letter to the Editor from Ralph bi,,rd. Last week's Denton - o Record Chronicle contained a letter the editor authored by Ralph Mord regarding his dissatisfaction with the Municipal Court Judge, prosecutor and Denton police officers. If you read the letter, you know it was very difficult to ascertain the precise nature of Hord's complaints (other than a female ju,'ge end a prosecutor with BRA sympathies). I called Mr. Mord and advised that I would be happy to meet with him to offer any assistance in resolving his problems. He advised he had paid his ticket for failure to yield right-of-way and just wanted his feelings kn%.wn, lie seemed appreciative that I called and stated he would stop in and visit when he obtained transportation and a job. VI. PERSONNEL As you know, Bob is leaving us the 8th of August and we have initiated procedures for hiring a replacement, I am looking forward to meeting with you on the 19ch to discuss priorities you feel are vital to the City Attorney's office so that I may best carry out your goals. i VII. AGENDA ITEMS A, 30 - Request of Don Bryant for Variance to Subdivision Ordinance Requirements. As you race , at the July 15 , meeting, Richard Kelsey appeared on behalf of Don Bryant, and argued that the City's subdivision regulations were unconstitutional as applied to his client, insofar as Mr. Bryant is required to provide perimeter street improve- ments in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Mr. Kelsey requested the Council wait to vote on this item until he had shared his research with this office, Mr. Kelsey has been in Colorado for two weeks and when he called yesterday to set up a meeting I asked if we could, at this late date, meet with the thought of having an answer ready for the 19th agenda. He agreed and we are scheduled to meet and share our research on August 7. PAGE 4 I would offer the comment that, legalities aside, I believe that in view of the distance of Mr. Bryant's property from the City limits, I certainly think it would be a reasonable decision for the City Council to grant the variance. I might add that upon review of the conditions set forth in the Ltakuelaaatioo gulations that must be met to warrant a variance, it is my inion that they are overly strict. I have requested Joe to god look at these cr iteria in his revisions of the ns and to draft some revisions to this particular tion. VIII. CLAIMS AND HOT CHECK COLLECTIONS Attached is a summary of collections this office realized during the "it, quarter. I cannot overemphasize the improvement have made in this area. We have already collected more in six months than during the entire last year. Senior Secretary Julie Watson has also done an outstanding job in collecting hot checks to the City, as is r illustrated in the attached report. Respectfully Submitted, zvx~, J DEBRA ADAM-1 DRAYO DAD;js xc; Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager Attachmonts k i` } 1 PAGE S