Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-04-1996 . F D Apanda #o...._ Agenda le AGENDA Date CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL June 4, 1996 Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 41 1996 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered: ' NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO CLOSED MEETING AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM FOR WHICH IT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. 1. Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Consider acceptance oZ a possible assignment on behalf of a 4B non-profit economic development corporation to be formed by the City from Bill Methenitis, Trustee; the possible lease of the assigned property and deaccession with City Attorney regarding terms of the lease relative to the vacant Texai. Instruments facility. 2. Deliberate and Consider the appointments to and possible litigation to resolve conflict of interest questions with regacd to the Board of Directors of the Economic Deve>>pment Corporation of Denton, Inc. B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Consider acceptance of a possible assignment on behalf of a 4B non-profit economic development corporation to be formed by the City from Bill Methenitis, Trustee; the possible lease of the assigned property and deaccession with city Attorney regarding terms of the lease relative to the vacant Texas Instruments facility. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Deliberate and consider the appointments to and possible litigation to resolve conflict of interest questions with regard to the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 4, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: k F Y',e Agenda No.lz~.~k-- Agenda tem77~~ Dale City of Denton City Council Agenda June 4, 1996 Page 2 1. Pledge of Allegiance A. U.S. Flag B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." 2. Consider approval of the minutes of May 7 and 14, 1996. 3. Citizen Reports - A. Receive a citizen report from Bertha Odnoposoff regarding a City subcontractor destroying her bushes on Longridge Drive. B. Receive a citizen report from Nell Lights regarding various issues with the City. C. Receive a citizen report from Heidi Robinson regarding illegal workers standing on the corner at Tipping Cleaners. 4. Citizen Requests A. Consider a request from Robin Selman for an exception to the noise ordinance for a bikini contest on Sunday, June 301 1996 from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. at 112 Eagle Drive. 5. Public Hearings A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 1.32 acres to the Multi-Family-1 (MF- 1) zoning district, from the General Retail (GR) district. The site is located on the south side of Hercules Road, approximately 180 feet west of Stuart Road. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval 4-2.) B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 34, Subdivision and Land Development, amending the definition of subdivision such that lease of land does not require platting, and providing for expiration periods for preliminary and final plats. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) i F .genla Agenda Item Date 9 City of Denton City Council Agenda June 4. 1996 Page 3 6. variances A. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(5) requiring perimeter street paving for the Alyssa and David Addition. The subject property is in the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district and is located on the north side of Willowwood Drive between McCormick and Kendolph. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-0.) B. Consider an exaction variance of section 34-116(e) requiring adequate water capacity for fire protection for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164) approximately a mile north of Loop 288. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-0.) C. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design standards for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164) approximately a mile north of Loop 288. (The Planning and zoning commission recommends approval 4-0.) D. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114 (17) concerning sidewalks for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164) approximately a mile north of Loop 288. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-0.) E. Consider an exaction variance of section 34-114(3) concerning street paving standards for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164) approximately a mile north of Loop 288. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-0.) 7. 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 thn City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. F G Agenda Ha CIL ^ v, J~ Apanda Item City of Denton City Council Agenda June 4, 1996 Page 4 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 8.A, 8.B). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. A citizen may not speak or fill out a "request to speak" form on an item on the Consent Agenda unless the item is removed from the Consent Agenda. The speaker shall be allowed to speak and the item shall then be considered before approval of the Consent Agenda. A. Bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Bid 01891 - Moncayo and Stuart 15" Sanitary sewer 21 Check Requisition - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission B. Tax Refunds 1. Elizabeth Olufsen - $912.61 8. Consent Agenda Ordinances A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. (7.A.2.- Bid 11891) B, consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the expenditure of funds for the purpose of payment by the City for administrative fees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). (7.A.2,) 9. Ordinances A. Consider adoption of an ordinance confirming the action taken by Lone Star Gas company in accordance with the Gas Utility Regulatory Act to modify the main line extension rate and implement a weather normalization adjustment clause in the City of Denton. B. Consider adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 18, Section 18-109, to provide for an additional disabled parking space on the west side of Cedar Street at its intersection with West Hickory Street; and amending Section 18-109(a) to correctly cite the new Texas Transportation Code. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommends approval.) f 'y I I Agenda No. Agend Item ate City of Denton City Council Agenda Date' June 4, 1996 Page 5 10. Consider nominations/appointments to the Keep Denton Beautiful Board, the Development Policy Committee, and the Data Processing Advisory Board. 11. Consider an appointment of a North Central Texas Council of Governments voting representative. 12. Miscellaneous matters from tt.r, City Manager. 13. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items: A. Legal Matters B. Real Estate C. Personnel D. Board Appointments 14. New Business This item provides a section for council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 15. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 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 day of 1996 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. ACCO0311 .,a F Agenda N9. f CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agenda Item May 7, 1996 Data The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room Of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council discussed the following in a Closed Meeting; A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Discussed possible acquisition of offsite drainage easement at the intersection of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. 2. Discussed the acquisition of property for expansion of the City's landfill. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 1996 at 7:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members Brock, Cott, Miller and Young. ABSENT: Council Member Krueger 1. Pledges of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags. Mayor Castleberry presented the following Yard of the Month awards: Texas Bank David and Vicki Scott Earl Vian and Carol Evelsizer Jim and Judy Melton Peggy Cutsinger Carol's Custom Draperies Mayor Castleberry presented the following proclamations: Denton Tourism Week Arson Awareness Week 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of February 6, 13, 20, and 27 and March 5, 19, 26, 27, and 29, 1996. i t r City of Denton City Council Minutes ~1 May T, 1996 AgEraua No. C Page 2 Agenda Its Date L Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young Ilayelf, Cott "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Krueger joined the meeting. 3. Citizens Reports A. The Council received a citizen report from Dessie Goodson regarding general issues in the City of Denton. Ms. Goodson presented pictures on how well the city crews cleaned blowing theiragrassn Amarillo and sidewalks Greg. People needed to stop the sidewalks. Animal Control could contact her so that she could help them locate two skunks in the area of her home. She was tired of being stranded by the SPAN trolls run either early or late. Al Murdock 18wrtrol otel a sletternuwhich indicated that if an individual was stranded, there would be a vehicle to come out and pick him up or a complimentary pass would berer vsill ided dirty for dtnever riders. happened or ter her. The SPAN vehicles drivers of the trolleys leaving the vehicles runnproblems with ing while outtof the trolleys. Her plumber had not been contacted from the City regarding the problem at her home. B. The Council received a citizen report from Susan Sims regarding the killing of animals in residential areas. No. Sims was not present at the meeting. C. The council received a citizen report from Frances Cannon regarding drainage on Spencer Road. Mrs. Cannon stated that she had a drainage at e. She was going to trust that the council ould bdo what hwashright with the problem. Everyone had been very kind that she had worked with on this problem. Council Member Cott stated that Ms. Cannon lived on the corner of Spencer and Bridges. Water was coming back into her home with the recent development in the area. The City would work to correct the problems as best as possible. D. The Council received a citizen report from Claude Cannon regarding drainage on Spencer Road. Mr. Cannon stated that they needed more help with a flooding problem. Water was running 24 hours a day and would be a problem for a long time unless it was corrected. He and his wife would City of Denton City Council Minutes May 7, 1996 Page 3 Agenda No. i Agenda Item Dated' l appreciate any consideration they could receive. Mayor Castleberry stated that staff working with the Cannons regarding the problem. 4. Citizen Requests A. The Council considered a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for a wedding reception at the North Texas State Fairgrounds on July 27, 1996 until 12:00 a.m. V request for eronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that this was a Council could a grant such reception an g exemption s when Saturday, would s26, erve 9the public interest. Krueger motioned, Young seconded to approve the request. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 5. The Council received and opened bids regarding City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 and City of Denton Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1996A. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that there were four bond issues to be considered at this meeting. Two were utility system revenue bonds. one was a new money issue and one was a refunding. There was also one general obligation bond issue and one certificate of obligation. There were a total of eleven bids for the four issues. He would open all of the bids for Council and then retire to check the rates for accuracy. The following was an opening of the bids with effective interest rates: Utility System Revenue Bonds S2 7an inn Smith Barney - 5.9741 First Southwest Company - 5.93521. undina Bonds S36 mi77iQD Merrill Lynch - 6.16941 Smith Barney - 6.12371 Dain Bosworth - 6.08451 First Southwest Company - 6.08111 Council Member Cott questioned why there were so few bidders. Y a 2 City of Denton City Council Minutes `n~ r May 7, 1996 Agenda No. ` ` Page 4 r Agenda Item Date Medanich replied that it was probably due to the size of the issue. The larger the issue, the smaller the number of bids. There were also four different bonds being issued at the same time. One or two bidders bid on all of the issues s:hile some only bid on one or two. 6. The Council received and opened bids regarding City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, series 1996. David Medanich opened the following bids with effective interest rates: Smith Barney - 5.825% First Southwest Company - 5.822087% Southwest Securities - 5.82229691 7. The Council received and opened bids regarding City of Denton General Obligation Bonds, Series 1996. David Medanich opened the following bids with effective interest rates: First Southwest Company - 5.9286% Smith Barney - 5.9852V Medanich stated that all of the City's ratings had been confirmed. On the utility system side the rating was an Al for Moody's and an A+ for Standard and Poore. On the general obligation side, the rating was Al for Moody's and an AA- for Standards and Poore. The Standard and Poors report indicated that given recent progress, further taxable property base, rowth in diversification coupled with maintenance of healthyh reserves,mia rating upgrade was possible. He would retire to check the bids and return with recommendations for the Council. 8. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance to rezone 5.0 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the commercial Conditioned (C[c)) zoning district. The subject property was located on the west side of I- 35, approximately 200 feet north of Rector Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a contested zoning case as there was opposition from the neighbors for the proposal. The Planning and zoning commission had been evaluating the proposal in terms of a zoning case since November of 1995 when they denied a commercial conditioned district. This proposal was a different zoning case from the case in November in that it represented a commercial conditioned } City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No May 7, 1996 r Page 5 Ayend liem Date district for the area. Conditions from the Planning and Zoning Commission included a restricted list of permitted uses, the floor to area ratio was limited, loading docks and dumpsters would have to be screened, metal buildings could not be visible from 135, tree maintenance was required between the properties, no off-premise signage would be allowed, a no direct off-site lighting provision was included and a bufferyard would have to be built on the southern portion of site. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Greg Denbo stated that he had purchased property west of this site. He had been told that the neighbors had asked the City to annex the property and zone it agricultural in order not to have commercial property there. The people with the adjoining property of the proposed site were told that the property was zoned agricultural to keep the area a rural setting. They had the understanding that the property was annexed by Denton so that it could be zoned agricultural in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. He could not understand why the Council would consider rezoning the property if the purpose of the annexation was to keep the area agricultural. Dwight Crawford stated that he had lived west of the proposed property for approximately 12 years. He did not understand the 6-0 approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Fire safety was a concern of the area. Bolivar water did not allow fire hydrants on their system and there was an existing gas storage facility on the property. The closest fire station was North Bonnie Brae which was approximately five miles away. He had police concerns in that there was very little police protection in the area. He suggested increasing the patrols in the area so as to keep the vandals out of the area. Elspeth Crawford stated that the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission asked if individuals had researched the property before buying the adjacent property. The Chair made a statement that she did not see why anyone would want to live near 135. Crawford could not see how someone could make a permanent decision on her own personal likes and dislikes and felt that the basic guidelines for a decision should be honor and integrity under the guidelines of suitability of the location, possible tax base to be generated by the area, future use of the surrounding area and integrity of the neighborhood. There were three small businesses in the area already. In two of those the owners lived on site and the third was a swimming pool company. A small business did not generate as much business as this proposal would. There were homes in the area except for these small areas. The only kind of businesses which would be adequate in the area would be something large and self- supporting which would be an eye sore to the neighborhood or it s } i i City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No. May 7, 1996 A,end Item Page 6 Date L would have to be a small business like a convenience store. This proposal was denied at the first Planning and zoning meeting. Two of the members of the Commission agreed that this would be an adverse impact on the site. Council Member Brock stated that the neighbors had researched the zoning and had asked questions of neighbors. Had the City been asked about the zoning and questioned where the information came from regarding the reason for the annexation. Crawford stated that her husband had done all of the research. They met with many of the neighbors and many assured them that they were families who planned to stay in the area. Alicia Denbo stated that she was opposed to the commercial zoning of the property. At this meeting, the City handed out awards for Keep Denton Beautiful and she questioned what this proposal would do to Denton. Why would the Council want to put commercial zoning in the area so that something unattractive would build in the area. Their property was bought in June of last year and they started building their home in July. The purpose of moving to the area was the beauty of the area. It was noted at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that 135 was a major highway from Mexico to Canada. She asked the Council to not make every corner of the highway a convenience store intersection. She urged the Council to keep the natural beauty of the area and not have every single intersection commercialized. Frank Ballard stated that his business was in Carrollton and he expressed his concern about the zoning along 135 in the area. Carrollton was trying to dress up 135 to make it attractive to move in. The first intersection from Rector Road had a junk yard, after that there was a truck stop, Smith Brothers Roping, another truck stop, a junk yard and then the Outlet Mall. He did not want every exit to Denton to be a commercial exit. The City was suppose to be looking at planning and he requested that the Council deny the zoning. Rob Rayner stated that he was in favor of the zoning. On March 26th they had had a neighborhood meeting with seven families represented. Major concerns of the neighbors included police and fire protection and security lights in the area. Many of the zoning uses allowed in commercial zoning had been eliminated. They met those concerns of the neighborhood and at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the general development plan and the preliminary plat were approved. The property was in the City limits of Denton and he felt that the property needed to have the commercial conditioned zoning because of what was currently happening in the market. The conditioned zoning allowed the developers to tailor the broad commercial use and meet not only the needs of the land owner but also the neighbors so that they knew _ F Y ~t r'1 City of Denton City Council Minutes AgeidaNo.C May 7, 1996 Page 7 A9end Item C Date ~i' what could be built in the area. 135 had a great importance to Denton and to the United States due to NAFTA. It was prudent to have the land zoned to meet a broad need for the market which was coming. The land owners asked that the zoning be approved. Council Member Brock stated that in the list of allowed uses, a truck parking lot would be allowed. Would a truck stop be allowed under the conditions. Robbins stated that that use should be taken out. Rayner asked if the petitioner had a five minute rebuttal. Mayor Castleberry replied yes. Richard Murier stated that he lived west of the proposed site. The area continued to be rural and residential. The proposal was to change the zoning to commercial which he felt was not compatible in the area. A petition opposing the commercial use in the area had been circulated to the neighbors in the area. He asked that the Council evaluate the proposal as though it would be next to their homes. He felt that the sole basis for the change in zoning was that it was land adjoining the interstate. That was no reason to change the makeup of the neighborhood. He was asking Council to go against the ruling of the Planning and zoning commission. If Council decided to consider the request, he asked Council to look very hard at the list of prohibited uses. There was still a large number of permitted uses which were very onerous to the neighborhood. If the request had to be considered, he requested that the Council strike a number uses on the list. Bill Coleman stated that he was assisting the owners to plat the property. One reason for the original annexation was to help regulate development under the City's codes and ordinances. The preliminary plat and general development plans approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission met all requirements for City regulations. The use which was being asked for fell below the intensity use for a commercial area. Zoning this area commercial followed the Denton Development Guide as most of the high intensity nodes were at major intersectiono with Rector Road being designated as a major arterial. The use which was requested with the building to land area ratio was below the low intensity use for commercial area. of the prohibited uses, some already existed in the area such as a junk yard and a truck stop. Council Member Krueger asked who designated Rector Road as a major arterial. Coleman stated that the staff report indicated that the county's Thoroughfare Plan designated Rector Road as a rural arterial. y~ f III ~ ,1 City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No. May 7, 1996 Agenda Item Page 8 Date C ' C Council Member Krueger asked if the designation was by the County or the City. Coleman stated that it was designated by the County. Council Member Krueger asked if this was the entire 26 acres owned by the Rectors. Coleman replied no that the 26 acres was part of a 78 acre tract. Council Member Krueger asked if that property was along 135 and adjacent to Rector Road. Coleman replied correct. Council Member Krueger stated that because the Rectors owned all of the property around the proposal, there was really only one person within 200 feet so no super majority vote of Council was needed. Robbins replied correct. Council Member Krueger asked what happened when the Rectors wanted to do the next five acres and then the next five and so on. They could not do the whole 26 acres as it might fall under the super majority rule. Robbins stated that that might have been a reason for that configuration. Council Member Krueger stated that if the Rectors stayed within 200 feet of their property line, they could rezone to commercial almost all of the entire 26 acres. Robbins replied correct and avoid the 20% rule as there would be no one else who could oppose it. Council Member Krueger asked if the site of the former Dunnick Brothers batch plant was already zoned commercial. Robbins replied no that the site was in an agricultural zoning district. Council Member Krueger stated that approximately three times the size of the proposal could be commercialized without the 20% rule. If this proposal was passed would there be a stipulation on the rest of the land that it could not go commercial. Robbins stated that the property would go through the zoning process and there could be the potential, depending on the configuration, that the 20% rule could be avoided. f City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No, May 7, 1996 Agenda Item Page 9 NO C' Council Member Krueger asked why the property was in the city limits of Denton. Robbins stated that there was a concern when the Dunnick Brothers began to build their facility on the property. There was a great deal of concern about that facility and the Council decided to annex the area to gain zoning control of the property. Council Member Krueger stated that at the time when the property was annexed, it was all agricultural. Robbins replied correct and then almost simultaneously the City reviewed the specific use permit for the temporary batch plant of the Dunnick Brothers. The property was currently zoned agricultural. Council Member Cott stated that because it was a highway, was there a combination of the Lindsey Street issue which was the highest and best use of the hotel and the Dallas Tinsel Town issue. Robbins stated that the highest and best use was not one of the criteria usually used to evaluate. It was not related to Tinsel Town as they had an existing planned development situation on the property. There was no pre-existing zoning. Ron Schertz stated that he was closest neighbor to H to see more restrictions on e obj cted to the proposal but if it went commercial he the wouldelike t scler sis and knew of the effect on his health of certain typespof development. Buck Schertz stated that he was concerned about the water situation in the area. His well went dry when the Dunnick Brothers went into the area. He was concerned about the future of his water supply. Chris Gillum stated that his property was across the street from the proposal. The Sanger School District owned property north of this area. Mr. Rosenberg of the Sanger School District stated that he was opposed to the commercial zoning and would appreciate it if the zoning remained agricultural. In the future the Sanger School District would be building a school on the site. He felt the area was a prime location for residential zoning. The proposal was a way to get to the back acres of the Rector property for commercial zoning. The beat usage of the land was for residential purposes. Sharon Gillum stated that she had been told that her comments would not be considered as she did not live in the City limits. This item had been on the Planning and Zoning commission agenda four times. The neighbors had invested much time and energy to oppose this proposal. The list of permitted uses was very generous. If the request was approved, a planned development detail would not be City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No. May 7, 1996 Page to Agenda Item Date ' #rtc, required as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The current zoning required specific use permits for most of the less desirable uses. The property was closer to Sanger than Denton and was outside Denton's planned development area. She presented a petition to the Council of those who were opposed to the proposal. If the proposal was approved, she requested that the list of permitted uses be changed to delete a hauling and storage company, a gas service station or convenience store, a paint shop, a commercial parking lot, fairgrounds, a public playfield, a water treatment plant, an airport landing field, a temporary field or construction office, and a home for the care of alcoholic/narcotics/psychiatric patients. The property might be on 135 but it was a neighborhood on all sides. Not every piece of property on 135 needed to be commercial. The proposal started with the entire 26 acres but was reduced due to the potential of the 20% rule. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Miller asked what the metal building on the property was being used for and how did the agricultural zoning impact that. Robbins replied that it could be used for a barn for a ranch but could not be used for any of the commercial or retail purposes which might be approved with the proposed zoning. Mayor Castleberry stated that he overlooked giving the petitioner a five minute rebuttal. He reopened the public hearing for that rebuttal. Rayner stated that the existing eyesores mentioned were eliminated on the permitted uses list. The owners of the land wanted to talk with the neighbors and comply with City requirements. At the November meeting, platting was not an issue. There were questions from the Planning and zoning commission which could not be answered at that meeting such as fire protection, police protection. That was the reason why, at this particular Planning and Zoning meeting, a plat was presented so that those questions could be answered. Once they answered and satisfied the Commissioners questions and concerns of the November meeting, the proposal was approved. Specific use permits were allowed but would have to go through the same process as other uses. The owners of the land wanted to use the land in an effective way for the market as the market was coming. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that on the list of uses, those items crossed off were eliminated and were the ones eliminated by the Planning and Zoning Commission. c ,a 3 F J City of Denton City Council Minutes Advndo No,` Ch-S May 7, 1996 Agenda Item Page li Date' Rayner replied correct that the owners started with the City staff to delete uses and then went to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked what was between Rector Road and the proposal. Rayner replied a field. Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the water issue had been addressed. There had been discussion of well water dropping, a problem with hydrants and accessibility of water. Rayner stated that that had been addressed at the Development Review committee meetings. If not, the proposal would not have gone this far. Mayor Castleberry stated that this case was not similar to the Lindsey Street property as this property was in the center of residential property on three sides. The proposal was in the center of an area which was actually rural residential. There were no businesses close to the proposal. This was a rural residential area. Council Member Cott asked if the owners would sell the property to the neighbors. Rayner stated that if an offer was presented, he would present it to the Rectors. Miller motioned, Krueger seconded to deny the request. Council Member Miller stated that not all property along an interstate was necessarily commercial property. He was convinced that this was a rural area. The infrastructure did not support commercial use at this point. It would stretch the police and fire protection to the point that the City was not prepared to handle at this point in time. At this point in time, it was not the appropriate use to rezone this as commercial. Council Member Krueger stated that the highway overpass was almost ground level. He did not know why the property was in the City limits of Denton and felt that the City limits should go not out that far. He suggested looking at something to delete this from the City limits. Council Member Young agreed with the denial. When neighbors objected, he would be voting with the people. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. City of Denton City Council Minutes j May 7, 1996 AQendA P.o, Page 12 AQend Item Date Mayor Castleberry stated that the bond company was ready to verify the bids on the bonds. David Medanich, First Southwest Company, stated that all of the bids had been checked. The bid of 5.9352% for the Utility System Revenue Bonds by First Southwest Company was correct. The bid of 6.0811$ for the Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds by First Southwest Company was correct. The bid of 5.822D87% frjr the Certificates of Obligation by First Southwest Company was correct and the bid of 5.9286% for the General Obligation Bonds by First Southwest Company was correct. All of the bidding parameters were done correctly. Council Member Cott again questioned the number of bidders for the bonds and requested a report as to why the number was so low. Medanich stated that he would research the issue but there were four issues selling at the same time. One was a fairly large issue with the City overall receiving eleven bids which was a large number of bids. Some firms were selective on what they wanted to bid on and sometimes the larger issues were easier to market. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance approving a detailed plan of 10.0 acres within Planned Development No. 42. The site was located approximately 1,800 feet north of Treatment Plant Road, near the east side of Mayhill Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this detailed plan was for an antenna tower and a light industrial planned development. That was the only use which would be allowed for the property. The antenna would not interfere with cable television in the area. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered. NO. 96-101 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE 85-59 BY APPROVING A DETAIL PLAN FOR A 10.00 ACRE TRACT OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 42 (PD42) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION, LOCATED NEAR THE EAST SIDE OF MAYHILL ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 11800 FEET NORTH OF TREATMENT PLANT ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF v Y City of Denton city council minutes Ag6nAlem-- May 7, 1996 Dat ti Page 13 Agen$2,000 FO R VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 9. Variances A. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17) (sidewalks) of the code of ordinances and a variance to Section 34- 116 (e) (fire flow] for the proposed Wier Acres Addition, located on the north side of Jim Christal Road, east of Masch Branch Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that these were two variances for two 1.88 acres lots on Jim Christal Road. The standards which would have to be met without the variances were excessive for the size of the lots outside the City limits. Brock motioned, Young seconded to approve the variances. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 10. Consent Agenda Brock motioned, Biles seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. on roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 1 A. Bids and Purchase orders: 1. Bid (1886 - Pressure Washer/vacuum Truck 2. Bid 01894 - Triple-Gang Flail Mower 3. Bid 01890 - Willowwood Street Sidewalk 4. Check Requisition - Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission B. Tax Refunds 1. Prudential Home Mortgage company - $1,599.05 11. Consent Agenda Ordinances Biles motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda ordinances i3A-11C. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Y :J{ r City of Denton City Council Minutes May 7, 1996 Agenda No. Page 14 Apertd Ite Date Tt Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. A. NO. 96-104 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (7.A.1. - Bid 018860 7.A.2. - Bid 11894) B. NO. 96-105 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (7.A.3. - Bid 11890) C. NO. 96-106 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY FOR PERMIT FEES TO TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION COMMISSION (TNRCC) ; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (7.A.4.) 12. Ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Utility System Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 and City of Denton Utility System Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1996A, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. The following ordinance was considered: j NO. 96-107 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1996 AND CITY OF DENTON UTILITY SYSTEM REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1996A AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Krueger questioned whether the Utility System Revenue Refunding bonds were voted on by the citizens of Denton. Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated no that those bonds were to refinance Corps of Engineer debt on Lake Ray Roberts. This was refinancing debt which had already been agreed on with the Corps of Engineers. a F i r, Agenda tlo. City of Denton City Council Minutes Agend~ ite ` May 7, 1996 Datl.`S? Page 15 On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton General Obligation Bands, Series 1996, levying the tax to pay same, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-106 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SERIES 19961 LEVYING THE TAX TO PAY SAME, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Krueger stated that these bonds were approved by the voters of Denton. Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the general obligation bonds were the first year of the five year CIP plan which went to the voters in February and were approved. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 1996, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-109 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, IND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1996, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE W E. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. Council Member Krueger stated that these certificates of obligation were not approved by the voters. E - Agen411e City of Denton City Council Minutes AgenMay 7, 199 6 Date Page 16 Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that these certificates of obligation were not approved by the voters. The $190,000 represented was recommended by the CIP Committee. The $5 million was for the sanitation fund for landfill improvements. That had pledged the revenues of that fund with a cross pledge of the tax dollars. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract between the City of Denton and Jack A. Dobbs and Janice M. Dobbs for the purchase of real property in accordance with the Capital Improvements Program for drainage. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Dobbs' had agreed to sell their home at the corner of Panhandle and Alice as it was in the floodway. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-110 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND JACK A. DOBBS AND JANICE M. DOBBS FOR THE PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR DRAINAGE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinances 94-37A and 96-059 by approving a corrected legal description applicable to both. Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this ordinance would correct a legal description which was in error. The property was zoned but the legal description which came from a previous legal description in a previous zoning case was in error. When the property was platted and surveyed, the error was discovered. The following ordinance was considered: t Agenda Na.~ City of Denton City Council Minutes Agend Item May 7, 1996 Date Page 17 NO. 96-111 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCES 94-037A AND 96-059, BY APPROVING A CORRECTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPLICABLE TO BOTH; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the North Texas Education and Training Co-op., Inc. to provide a Summer Youth Program. Tom Klinck, Director for Human Resources, stated that at the Council's February 24th meeting, the summer youth program was discussed which the City had participated in for many years. At that time it was anticipated that JTPA funding would not be approved in the Federal budget. Staff researched funding to accommodate that in the current year budget and to use the current contractor, the North Texas Education and Training Co-op to administer the program for the City and provide the same program as last summer. That program would include 40 youth at 80 hours per week for 10 weeks. The estimated cost was $94,760. Subsequent to working out that agreement with the co-op, the approved Federal budget included approximately 70% funding. Staff was recommending that the Council authorize the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Co-op which would include a provision that the city would only fund the difference between the full 10 week program and those funds which were included in the Federal budget. The estimated cost at this point in time would be $28,428 of which half would be paid from the utility funds and half from the general fund. 1 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-112 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH NORTH TEXAS EDUCATION & TRAINING CO-OP, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $94,760; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending y { 'f Y Agenda No. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 7, 1996 Agend item Page 18 Date the schedules of electric rates contained in ordinance Number 95- 178 by repealing the Thermal storage Incentive (Schedule TS). (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval.) Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that for several years the City had a rate known as the thermal storage rate which was a rate to give incentives to large industrial customers to shift some of their electrical load from the peak loads to off- peak loads. That rate was no longer economical due to the rate structure from the wholesale supplier. The Public Utilities Board recommended to discontinue the rate. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-113 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SCHEDULES OF ELECTRIC RATES CONTAINED IN ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-178 BY REPEALING THE THERMAL STORAGE INCENTIVE (SCHEDULE TS) ; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERASILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. on roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Silos "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for contribution of funds toward the replacement of the bridge on North Hickory creek at Jim Christal Road; and authorizing the expenditure of funds. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that these two ordinances were contracts with the Texas Department of Transportation to do bridge design on two bridges on Jim Christal Road. By having the Department of Transportation do this work, the city would spend less money. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-114 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TOWARD THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE ON NORTH HICKORY CREEK AT JIM CHRISTAL ROAD; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock V r AgenEM city of Denton City Council Minutes AgenMay 7, 1996 t)a!e Page 19 "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation for contribution of funds toward the replacement of the bridge on Dry Fork Creek at Jim Christal Road; and authorizing the expenditure of funds. The fallowing ordinance was considered: NO. 96-115 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR CONTRIBUTION OF FUNDS TOWARD THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE ON DRY FORK CREEK AT JIM CHRISTAL ROAD; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 13. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to amend City policies to provide for a model of employment at will with respect to all employees, other than those governed by Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code; authorizing the City Manager to offer severance packages to new hires and incumbents in key positions at the director level and above, and to expend funds as necessary in support of same; and approving redrafts of Policies 1.00 and 104.02. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that this was the same resolution with changes per the outside consultant. The resolution directed the city Manager, within the next six months, to modify the personnel policies to implement a model of employment at-will. The at-will would take effect immediately for all new hires and would take effect in six months for all current employees with the exception of Civil Service employees. Within the six month period, the City Manager could offer any employee whom the City Manager would decide to remove without cause, the option to stay for an additional six months or accept a severance package not to exceed 180 days pay. It had been suggested to change that to only apply to employees at the director level or above. From a legal standpoint it would be a better position to apply that policy to all employees. The employee who was offered the severance package or the option to stay would then have to sign a release waiving any claims that the employee might have as a result of the termination. v { i City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No. Agend May 7, 1996 Page 20 Date Item Pate The other provision discussed was one which was a recruitment tool to allow the City Manager to offer to current employees, at the director level and above, the option of an employment agreement which would include a severance package similar to one the Council had with those employees it directly hired. That would be available for both current employees and as a recruitment tool for new employees. The only other change was to delete the expenditure of funds provision as a resolution did not usually authorize the expenditure of funds. In the event that a termination occurred without cause, there was authorization through the City Manger, under the City code, to expend budgeted funds up to $15,000. If that was not enough to cover the difference for a terminated employee or as a recruitment tool, a separate ordinance could be enacted additional eitheaersaon forgeneral basis or as termination needed as dadded mwhlich was the sexual harassment policy. It was not intended to administer this policy any different from the current policy. There was no anticipation that there would be a change as the City had had good success with the previous personnel policy. The following resolution was considered: NO. R96-022 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND CITY POLICIES TO PROVIDE FOR A MODEL OF EMPLOYMENT AT WILL WITH RESPECT TO ALL EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN THOSE GOVERNED BY CHAPTER 143 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO OFFER SEVERANCE PACKAGES TO NEW HIRES AND INCUMBENTS IN KEY POSITIONS AT THE DIRECTOR LEVEL AND ABOVE AND TO EXPEND FUNDS AS NECESSARY IN SUPPORT OF SAME; APPROVING REDRAFTS OF POLICIES 1.00 AND 104.02; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. Miller motioned, Cott seconded to amend the motion. Council Member Miller stated that he agreed with the policy but did not agree with Section 3 which provided for employment agreements at any level. To single out directors and above was unnecessary. If for-cause termination was done, the City Manager and his subordinates had the authority to make arrangements which were fair at the time. He motioned to strike Section 3 from the resolution and caption. On roll vote for the amendment, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger r'"nay"I Brock itaye'f, eiles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 3-4 vote. On roll vote on original motion to approve, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye","aye". Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry Motion carried unanimously. 4 v 1. City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda No. U1 C/ May 7, 1996 4 Page 21 Agend Item Date ` 14. The Council considered nomination/appointment to the Development Policy Committee and the Keep Denton Beautiful Board. Mayor Castleberry indicated that he did not have an appointment to the Development Policy Committee. Council Member Brock nominated Gayla Robles to the Keep Denton Beautiful Board. 15. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance canvassing the returns and declaring the results of the regular municipal election held in the City of Denton on May 4, 1996. City Secretary Jennifer Walters read the results of the election. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 96-116 AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AN) DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON MAY 4, 1996; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to adopt tht ordinance. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brick "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 16. Oath of office administered to newly elected Council Members. City Secretary Jennifer Walters administered the oath of office to Roni Beasley, Place 5; Euline Brock, Place 6; and Jack Miller, Place 7. Council considered Item 118. 18. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Bob Castleberry. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR BOB CASTLEBERRY On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles 10aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Council returned to the regular agenda order. 17. Election of a Mayor Pro Tempore. , v T, Agenda ho. City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda tem May 7, 1996 Page 22 Date _ L Council Member Cott nominated Euline Brock. Council Member Young nominated David Biles. On roll vote for Brock, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Young "nay", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. On roll vote for Biles, Beasley "nay", Brock "nay", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion carried failed with a 2-5 vote. 19. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. A. The Council received a report concerning latest honorees added to the Wall of Honor. Ted Benavides, City Manager, indicated that the latest additions to the Wall of Honor were now posted. 20. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items discussed in the earlier Closed Meeting. 21. New Business The following items were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Young expressed a concern about the railroad tracks on Prairie Street as they were very difficult to cross. 22. The Council did not meet in a continuation of the Closed Meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACC0030A r• Agenda No.' Agenda fe CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Date a May 14, 1996 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 6:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Considered acceptance of a possible assignment on behalf of a 4B non-profit economic development corporation to be formed by the City from Bill Methenitis, Trustee, relative to the vacant Texas instruments facility. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, May 14, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Cott, Krueger, and Young. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Member Biies 1. The council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction concerning impact fees. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the council had received a report from the consultant regarding the impact fee issue. At this point it was felt that this was not the time to institute impact fees. Reasons for this decision were the latest bond issue, Department of Transportation funding on highways, and the possibility of reinstituting pro rata for utility lines. Council Member Krueger stated that because of the City's current abilities and current strategies, impact fees were not needed. He questioned how that intermixed with the economic development k cent sales tax. Svehla replied that there were a number of cities which had impact fees. Impact fees were viewed as an impediment to growth and development. Council Member Biles joined the meeting. e Agenda No. _ Agenda fte Date_Z-( L _ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 2 Council Member Krueger stated that if the City had the h cent sales tax for economic development, the impact fee issues would not be discussed. Svehla replied that it would depend on how and on what the Economic Development Committee was using those funds. If the City had the h cent it could look at ways to help eliminate those effects that a development might have by the use of the sales tax or other kinds of incentives or uses of the money. Consensus of the Council was to not %onsider the impact fees at this point in time. Council Member Biles stated that one area from the economic development sales t discussicn the dedicating of alarge t hareeofe the sales otaxd to consideration development of infrastructure. That was a must and was an effective tool to bring the right kinds of business to the City. He suggested forwarding to the Economic Development Board of Directors the impact fees and notes on the direction taken by Council. This needed to be in the equation in sales tax discussion and debate. Mayor Miller stated that the impact fee would not be for industrial development but would be for residential development. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the Human Services Committee recommendations for use of 1996 human services funds. Recommendations include both CDBG and general fund dollars. The Human Services Committee recommended approval of the 1996 Community Development Action Plan and approval of the general fund recommendations. Barbara Ross, Community Development Coordinator, stated that the City had not estimated correctly the amount of CDBG and HOME funds it would be receiving from the Federal government, The City had received notice that it would be receiving $95,000 more than anticipated. That was about $20,000 more in combined HOME and CDBG funds than received last year which equated to an increase in Federal funding. The agenda packet contained the current action plan which included the estimated funds which the Committees considered and allocated. With Council's approval, the Committees would ask the Council at the next meeting to approve that estimated amount of funding and the way it was set up in the action plan. The additional funds received would be set up as unprogrammed funds. The Committees would then deliberate on how to distribute the additional funding. Along with the increase there was T 33 V :t S Y r Agenda No. Agenda Ite City of Denton City Council Minutes Date May 14, 1996 Pago 3 additional increases in set asides including an increase in the administration set aside, an increase in the set aside for the community housing development organizations and an increase in the human vservices set aside of 15%. With the additional human services dollars, he Committees ibwould be requested to consider possibly shifting some of those funds from CDBG to the general fund to those activities which were previously funded with general fund dollars, The request for Council approval next week did not include the general fund human services dollars. Sandy Kristoferson, Chair-Human Services Advisory Committee, reviewed the recommendations from the Committee as noted in the agenda back-up materials. Council Member Young asked why the proposal from "Starting Over" was not considered. Kristoferson stated that several years ago when the organization first made application, it did not have a non-profit status. This not time.itHistori ally,ethefacility Committee had operate funded In at this agencies point which were not operational to take care of clients. The organization also had significant funding from other agencies, council Member Interfaith Ministries gwas asked the h question about aclients whoiwere United States citizens who received the assistance. Ms. Ross Indicated that there was no policy stated and could not be asked with CDBG funds. Kristoferson stated that regarding CDBG funds, the only criteria was low to moderate income and did not have anything to do with nationality. Council Member Parentho d. The back-up materials indicated that asked about the funding for public funds for an organization that did abortions, Federal grants and Title 10 and 20 had to have an assurance that no tax dollars were being spent on abortions. Lid the dollars which the City was going to give Planned Parenthood fall under Federal grants. Kristoferson stated that Planned Parenthood was not receiving any dollars from the City. The money asked for was for equipment but It was not recommended for funding. Council Member Young asked if the Adult Day Care was receiving funds. Fi Agenda No. / Apend Ite Date~F- City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 4 Kristoferson replied yes that they were receiving $12,000. Council Membe• Young asked if the agency was helping minorities. Kristoferson stated that that question was addressed to the presenters. 1ihey were trying to gather clients from the community as a whole. The African-American and Hispanic communities tended to have larger extended families which cared for their elderly and at this time there seemed to be no way to encourage those people to bring their adults to the Center. Cott motioned, Biles seconded to proceed with the staff recommendations. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock. "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. i Mayor Miller requested that the project Proyecto Amistad at the MLK Center be considered for funding under the budget process. There was a need for a person in the form of a social worker to help the Hispanic community. Council Member Beasley also suggested that staff investigate how this program could be implemented. There was a great deal of need for this in the Hispanic population. She asked staff to see how this could be funded in the regular budget process. Council Member Young requested staff to look at funding for Starting over as there was a need for this type of agency. Council Member Cott suggested that staff look at all related services and see how to begin the long process of consolidating services. Kristoferson stated that the agencies were currently in the process of beginning such a consolidation. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the Community Development Advisory Committee's recommendations for use of 1996 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME funds. The Community Development Advisory Committee recommended adoption of the 1996 Community Development Action Plan. Lisa Polack, Community Development Advisory Committee, presented the 1996 Action Plan for use of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME funds. The Action Plan was based on funding of $1, 646,747. The funding was broken down into four major categories of affordable housing, human services, public facilities and {F{ N :ry F Agenda N0. 11 Agenda item City of Denton City Council Minutes Date_ May 14, 1996 Page 5 improvements and economic development. The major goal was to provide money for projects that benefited moderate to low income households. In terns of affordable housing, funding totaled 68% of the total budget, human services totalled 13$ of the funds, public facilities and improvements totalled 16.5% of the funds and economic development totalled 2% of the funds. Council Member Young felt that the speed bumps on Ruddell should be removed from the budget. The people in the community did not want the speed bumps as they aggravated traffic and the Fire Chief had indicated that they put a strain on the fire trucks. They appeared to be more of a problem rather than a help. He suggested lowering the speed limit rather than putting in the speed bumps. The people in the community wanted an activity stage which was not considered for funding. He requested that the activity stage be included in the funding. Young motioned, Cott seconded to remove the speed bumps on Ruddell and add the activity stage for Fred Moore Park for funding. Council Member Biles stated that he understood that the speed bumps did not have a broad level of support in the area and that they were not necessarily the answer to the problem in the area. Ross replied that this proposal came to the Engineering Department from the neighborhood. Council Member Biles felt that the geographical layout of the streets would not achieve the desired situation. There would be some future drainage improvements in the area and he hoped the speed bumps would not be added before completing that work. For at least a year a performance stage at Fred Moore Park had been requested. The funding for the stage was estimated at $45,000. He was not sure that amount of money needed to be spent on a performance stage but given the amount of activities which went on in that park and the emphasis on the need to further positive relations in the area, he supported the idea of moving ahead with the stage. $45,000 might not be the level which was needed. Perhaps progressive additions to the stage could be added through the years. He agreed with taking out the speed bumps and patting it towards the stage. Mayor Miller asked if there were funds available for this request. Ross replied that there was $34,000 in CDBG funds and $22,000 in HOME funds to be allocated. F Agenda / J Agenda ite ~3ate. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 6 Mayor Miller stated that depending on the cost and if the speed bumps were removed, there would be funding for all the other recommended areas. Council Member Biles stated that the $45,000 Haight be the minimum funding needed. He would like to know other alternatives for funding for the stage. Ross stated that the $45,000 was based on a band shell similar to the one at the Civic Center Park. Something could be done with less funds if needed. Council Member Beasley stated that the speed bumps were from the CIP and was an issue raised at a community meeting at MLK. Having driven those streets, there might not be a need for the speed bumps but rather a lower speed limit. She supported the idea of an activity stage but supported the idea of having a sound back on the stage so that it was done correctly from the start rather than done half way. Mayor Miller stated that if the motion was approved, the direction to staff would be to erect a stage which would be appropriate for the use of the park. He felt that the band shell with a back was needed. The motion was to approve the recommendations from the CDBG Committee to have the staff bring back the recommendations at the next meeting for Council approval, taking out the speed bumps ar.d putting in an amount for the activity stage at Fred Moore park. Ross stated that an application had to be submitted by June 15. I Would the council allow the $7500 to be unprogrammed and give the Committee time to reconsider the activity stage with the new funding. The $7500 and the speed bumps would be pulled and consider that as unprogrammed in this application to HUD with a letter to HUD that that money would be programmed very quickly and the additional application amounts sent to them. Council Member Biles stated that the $7500 would be specifically diverted to the activity stage. Ross replied that that could be done or the Committee could review the request. Mayor Miller stated that next week the Council would see an application with the $7500 removed and then a supplemental application would be done in the future for a stage in Fred Moore Park. M 4 r Agenda Ho. Agenda item Date. ~1 _ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Pag,a 7 City Manager Benavides stated that the motion could designate the $7500 would be for the activity stage. Young and Biles agreed to the change in the motion and second to designate the $7,500 for an activity stage. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council received a presentation of six month financial statements for the general, utility and internal service funds. Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the ad valorem taxes were due in October and became delinquent in February. Currently they were at 47% collection for both current and delinquent taxes. At the end of March, the City was at 50% of the budget but was at $122,000 under the year to date budget for the sales tax. since that time, the City had had another month where the sales tax had fallen below budget and was now $185,000 under the current year to date estimate. Mayor Miller asked if that was heavy loaded on the front end due to the Christmas sales. DuBose replied yes as well as the fact that the increase in sales tax to reduce property taxes became effective in October of 1994 and the City saw the receipts of that increase in January of 1995. Council Member Biles stated that the City was still behind in sales tax. DuBose stated that the City was $185,000 behind the year to date estimate in sales tax. Council Member Cott stated that part of that might be the fact that Wal-Mart was moving. There were also many empty stores at the Golden Triangle Mall. DuBose stated that many of the metroplex cities around the State had all shown a decrease in the sales tax for the same period. She detailed the financial comparisons of the various categories as presented in the agenda back-up materials. Council Member Krueger felt that it was not true that the sales tax revenue was front end loaded. He felt that in a six month projection, there was not much difference between the first six months and the last six months. i M F Agenda No. r. 7 Apend Item Date ~ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 8 DuBose stated that there was because the Christmas season was the highest quarter receipts. There were monthly taxpayers and there were quarterly taxpayers so once every three months, the City had a large payment. The quarter which reflected the sales for Christmas was a large receipt. Council Member Krueger stated that September-October's receipts were lower so that there was not a great deal difference between the two six month quarters. DuBose stated that a regression analysis was done to look over the trends and took into consideration new facilities on line, etc. Council Member Krueger asked what would happen if the trend continued and the overall budget was it over projection in revenues but the sales tax maintained its trend. Last year during the budget process a negative amount was needed to make up before the process could start. Even though the sales tax projections might be weak, if the budget came in over projections, why did the process start with a negative amount when working on the budget. DuBose replied that the Council had set a standard to retain approximately lot of the fund balance for lot of the expenditures. When there was a year where there was over lot, one overage was incorporated into one time expenditures. Last year it was That allowed $1.7 Oas vehicle replacement. I Council Member Krueger stated that when the budget preparations were started, there was a shortfall of approximately $120,000 due to the sales tax revenues being off. He was asking why, if the final figures were over budget, the process had to start with a negative figure. DuBose replied that between June and the time the final sales tax numbers were received, lost sales tax was realized. Council Member Krueger stated that it was confusing that at the end of the budget process a revenue surplus was shown as compared to a expenditure deficit, when in fact there was no deficit. City Manager Benavides stated that even if more money was made than budgeted, some of that money was one time and not reoccurring. There was a need to go back to the base and determine what would be reoccurring income to support reoccurring costs. J tt t i C' . Agenda No. - ' , Agenda item Date City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 9 Council Member Biles stated that the bond analysts indicated that the City should have not less than lot in the fund balance because if it dropped, the City would spend that much money in one year just on the additional interest charges on outstanding bonds. DuBose stated that two years before in the same time frame, it was possible to indicate that the actuals were higher than the projections and allowed the council to look at other possibilities. Last year it was different as the sales tax was low. She reviewed the expenditures year to date as indicated in the agenda back-up materials, 5. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding a credit for February wastewater bills. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that wastewater charges were based on water volumes. Two months ago staff asked for a fine tuning of the methodology of doing rates and gave a rebate for some abnormal high usages for December. There continued to be dry weather and some customers had requested a closer look at the rate. In December 1995 the City's customers used a lot of water and were 56% above normal usage. In January the customers were 13% below the seven year average and in February the customers were 17t above the normal average. There were three issues to consider with this item. One was should credit be extended for the above normal February sewer bills. About 301 of the customers had bills which were at least 25% above normal. The second was should the calculation change the methodology and use the historical average of the band width between less than 25$ or greater than 25% or leave it at the 50$ band width above or below the historical average. The third was if a change was made to the 25* band width, should a credit be made for March, April and May as those months were already billed. The Public Utilities Board recommended to grant a credit for 25% above average, change the band width to 25% and give an adjustment for the March, April and May bills. The new average would be used for the rest of the year. Consensus of the council was to proceed with implementing the Public Utilities Board recommendations. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Younq "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 6. The Council received a report and distributed supplemental 1996-97 budget priority questionnaire, Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that staff was requesting Council to provide a supplemental budget questionnaire with the new Council Member now on board. She reviewed the process c r AQtnQa tie. c n Agenda Ite Date_ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 10 for completing the questionnaire. Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened into a Special Called Meeting. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock 1. The Council considered approval of a resolution amending Resolution No. R96-017 authorizing the creation of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. as an instrumentality of the City of Denton; to more clearly express the purposes of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. City Attorney Prouty stated that this resolution provided for a technical correction as the result of a recent Attorney Generalts opinion which indicated that a county could not make loans or grants of public money to an industrial development corporation for promotion of economic development unless the activity accomplished a public purpose. This resolution would amend Section 4 of the original resolution which created the economic development corporation to express that everything the new economic development corporation did would accomplish a public purpose. It would more clearly state that the purpose for which the EDC could be formed under the Economic Development Act of 1979. It also made clear that if programs for economic development were going to be done under Section 380.001 of the Local Government Code they would be consistent with the Economic Development Act of 1979 and would be for a public purpose. The changes did not alter the basic format of the EDC and continued the same Board of Directors and structure of the bylaws and Articles of Incorporation. The following resolution was considered: NO. R96-023 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. R96-017 AUTHORIZING THE CREATION OF THE ECf1'OMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF DENTON, INC. AS AN INSTRUME14TALITY OF THE CITY OF DENTON; TO MORE CLEARLY EXPRESS THE PURPOSES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF DENTON, INC.; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Krueger motioned, Young to approve"aye", theresolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", "aye", Krueger Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. t .t Agenda No. Apeada tem ' ~ ' Oate City of Denton City Council Minutes May 14, 1996 Page 11 City Manager Benavides stated that there were two suggested dates for the Council's planning session - June 21-22 or June 26-29. He asked council which dates would be better for their schedules. Consensus of the Council was that June 28-29th would be the better dates. Staff would look for locations at which to hold the planning session and return to council with suggestions. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS i ACC0030D f M I S v { r Y F Agenda He. 3 Agenda Item_ . Date -~D- (p CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL 6UILDING • DENTO1II, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPHONE 817 566.8307 Office of the City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROMs Ted Benavides, City Manager DATE: June 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Request For Exception to the Noise Ordinance for a bikini contest at Igloos, 112 Eagle Drive, on Sunday, June 30, 1996, from 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. BACK_ GROUND Robin Selman, representing Igloos Frozen Drinks, has requested that the City Council grant an exception to the noise ordinance for the use of amplified sound for a bikini contest on Sunday June 30, 1996. The contest is scheduled to take place in the Igloo's parking lot at 112 Eagle Drive from 3:00 p.m. until 5:00 p.m. (Attachment I). Ms. Selman indicates that Denton residents would gather for a day of festivities and summertime fun. As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunda The ordinance does, however Y (Attachmay k exceptions when the Provide that the City Council may make public interest is served. In addition to obtaining an exception to the noise ordinance the City of Denton Code of Ordinances requires a temporary use permit for this type of event to take place in a commercial zoned district. Ordinance 96-047 grants authority to the Building official to permit such use so long as the applicant meets certain conditions (Attachment 3). Staff has informed Ms. Selman of this requirement and asked that she contact the Building official as soon as possible but not later than 10 days prior to the event. Ms. Selman also understands that should the Council grant the requested exception to the noise ordinance it would be contingent upon their obtaining the temporary use permit. I "Dedicated to Quality Service" Agende Nak-Oonl ~ d I tePROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS ApeI GROUPS AFFECTED Date Various City Departments will be required to review the request for Temporary Use Permit. Area Businesses and Residents. Fiscal Impact, None. Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Ted Benavides City Manager Prepared By: VAdministrative Assistant II Approved By: Josep Portugal Assistant to the City Manager Attachments: 1. Request from Robin Selman 2. Noise Ordinance 3• Ordinance 96-047 Y E Agenda No. C r - Agenda ltem Date May 26, 1996 Dear Sirs: I am writting today on behalf of Igloo's frozen drinks. We are requesting a noise permit needed for a summertime bikini blowout. I am coordinating this contest for the date of June 30th, at approximently 3:00. We would like to have this day of festivities to gather Denton citizens together for a day of music and summertime fun. If permitted, I will gain sponsors to not only help our funs, but to also give out prizes and/or products to our audience. This would inturn also gain recognition for those sponsors. If you have any questions, you can reach someone at Igloo's 387-0494; or you can reach me at 320-1600. Please consider my request, and remember that you are all invited to come see us there. Thank You, Robin Selman I Agenda Na. ~ Agenda Item Date Chapter 20 NUISANCES' M. 1. In General, Of 20.1-20.30 An. 11. Abandoned Property, If 20.31-20.70 Div. 1. Generally, If 20.31-20.40 Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, If 20-41-20.70 Art. M. Grace and weeds, if 20.71-20.73 ARTICLE 1. IN GENERAL Sec. 20.1. vow. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, dis- turbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material did", discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall bc, unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. fe) The following acts, among others, an declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sen• sibilities In any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; i2) The use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, partievlarly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at any time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest wilkbe served thereby; (3) The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger, (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration or repair work on any building at any time other than between the hours of 7:00 I.M. and 8:30 p.m., Monday through 'Cross retenneee-Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, 16-87; inspection and abatement warrants, f 19.86 at seq.; insect and rodent control in mobil& home and rec- reational vehicle parks, 132-91. Supp. No. 1 1389 4 t F Y, Agenda No. 120.1 DENTON CODE Agenda //Item.m__ - Date. ss~L/' Saturday; provided, however, that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public safety and convenience; 4 (5) The creation of any laud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or un- loading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or con- tainers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto. (Code 1966, If 14.20, 14.21) Cross reference-Animal noise, 1 6.26, See. 20.2. Odore. (a) It shall bi unlawful for any person to mate or cause any unreasonably noxious, unpleasant or strong odor which causes material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) it shall be unlawfW for any person to create or cause any odor, stench or smell of such character, strength or continued duration u to substantially interfere with the comfortable t enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts or conditions, among others, are declared to be odor nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) Offensive odors from cow lots, hog pens, fowl coops and other aimilar places where animals are kept or fed which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; (2) Offensive odors from privies and other similar places; { (3) Offensive odors from the use or possession of chemicals or from industrial prooseses or activities which disturb the comfort and repoes of persons of ordinary sensibilities; (4) Offensive odor ffom smoke from the burning of trash, rubbish, rubber, chemicals or other things or substances; (5) Offendve odors from stagnant pools allowed to remain on any promises or from rotting garbage, reflse, offal or dead animals on any premises. (Code IM, If 14.22, 14.93) sec. 20.3. carbaje, trash uA rubbiah nuisanow-Generally, (a) Storing or Along gorbags, trash and rubbish. The storing or keeping of any and all stacks, he" or piles of old lumber, refuse, junk, old can or machinery or parts thereof, garbage, hub, rubbish, scrap material, ruins, demolished or partly demolished structures or buildings, piles of stones, bricks or broksn rocks on any promises bordering any public street supp. No. 1 1390 Y 3 r t eaq,u ee 5 . or d Agenda No. Agenda tem Date L ORDINANCE NO. ~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTIONS 35-7b AND 35-77 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTIN, TEXAS, AND CREATING DIVISION SIX OF ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 35 TO ALLOW TEMPORARY USES ON A PERMIT BASIS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I That section 35-76 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to add the following to the existing list of definitions; all provisions of section 35-76 not specifically changed herein shall retrain intact and in full force and effect: permitTemporary t the use building official in granted accordance rywith division 6 of Article III of the chapter. SECTION Iii That section 35-77 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to add the following to the existing table of permitted uses; all provisions of section 35-77 not specifically changed herein shall remain intact and in full force and effect: Sec. 35-77. Use regulation districts; use of land and buildings. [text of general provisions unchanged) TABLE OF PERMITTED USES USE A W-16 SF-1 3 SF•10 SF-7 ]F MF•R MF•1 MF 2 F OAR O NS CR C C8 L1 HI PD 1E0 ORY USFB, WTI11 PERMIT (SEE D US- X WO X X X X X X OR rA-SPHiALT SEE DEFINITION) R Rfl - X X X X X X X X X X X X X H• - idential PD. S x ApenEa No. / ~ 3 Agend Item Z Date_ SECTION III That the Code of Ordinances, Denton, Texas, is hereby amended by adding division six to Article III of Chapter 35 of the code, which said division reads as follows: DIVISION 6. TEMPORARY USES Sec. 35-131. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to authorize the building official to permit certain specified uses in certain specified zoning districts and use classifica- tions for limited periods of time, upon application for permit and satisfaction of predetermined criteria. The decision of the building official may be appealed to the board of adjustment, pursuant to §35-42 (a) of the code. Sea. 35-132. General provisions. (a) j22cant. The applicant for a temporary use permit, if a natural person, shall be at least eighteen (18) years of age. If the applicant applies for a permit on land belonging to another, the applicant must provide the building official with a notarized copy of the owner's written con- sent. The applicant must be domiciled in Texas or provide a registered agent for service of process within Texas. (b) Location. No temporary use shall be allowed in the visibility triangle, as defined in 518-196 of the code. (c) Re-c-aired information. The applicant shall provide the building official with the following information. (1) Boundaries and dimensions of site. (2) Distance to nearest buildings. (3) Distance to adjacent streets and curbs. (4) Details of on-site traffic circulation and parking. (5) Locations and detailed specifications of necessary electrical sources. (6) Locations of available permanent or portable sanitary facilities. PAGE 2 N 1r1~ Agenda No.-91 ~nu Agenda tem Date (7) Locations, types and sizes of temporary structures. (8) Estimates of daily attendance. (9) Such other information as requested by the building official, reasonably related to the protection of public health, welfare and safety. (d) Revocation of temporary use pelt. The building official may revoke a temporary use permit if he or she determines that: (1) The applicant has misrepresented any material fact on his or her application, or supporting materials. (2) The temporary use fails or ceases to comply with applicable standards or criteria for issuance of a permit. (3) The operation of the temporary use vio- lates any statute, law, ordinance or regula- tion. (4) The operation of the temporary use con- stitutes a nuisance or poses a real or poten- tial threat to the health, safety or welfare of the public. (e) The building official may prescribe reasonable conditions upon a temporary use permit to protect the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, with particular attention to areas proximately located to the permitted temporary use. Such conditions may include, spe- cific performance standards, noise mitigation mea- sures, lighting restrictions, restrictions on hours of operation, odor control measures, off-street parking requirements, traffic restrictions, and other standards designed to minimize adverse im- pacts upon surrounding areas. (f) The applicant may appeal the building official's decision regarding, or revocation of, a temporary use permit to the board of adjustment within ten (10) days of the decision, by making written application to the cit: secretary. Alter- natively, either the applicant or the building official may apply directly to the board of adjust- ment for a special exception, pursuant to 535-52 of ' PAGE 3 a a P Agenda No. Agenda Henn L_ ! Date the code, and consistent with the standards estab- lished within this division. (g) Upon expiration or revocation of a temporary use permit, the applicant shall clean the site of all debris, whether generated by the temporary use or not. (h) The owner's or applicant's violation of any requirement of this division may be prosecuted or enjoined as a zoning violation. Such remedies are cumulative of, and in addition to, other remedies which may exist at law or equity. (i) Neither the grant of a temporary use permit, nor the permittee's compliance with its terms, shall constitute a defense to prosecution under any law or ordinance, other than as stated in this subsection. A temporary use permit serves only to conditionally permit the temporary use of property in a manner which might otherwise constitute a violation of 535-2 of this code, provided that the permittee strictly complies with all permit re- quirements and restrictions. Despite the fact that a temporary use permit may prescribe standards which are either more restrictive or less restric- tive than those imposed by other laws or ordinanc- es, it is the permittee's responsibility to fully comply with all such laws and regulations, whether addressed by the permit or not. The city does not warrant that compliance with a temporary use permit will ensure compliance with any other law or ordi- nance. Sec. 35-133. Events of public interest. (a) Description. Events of public interest in- clude outdoor concerts, carnivals, circuses, and similar temporary events, intended to appeal to the public at large, rather than any specific, targeted group. Permitting decisions shall be made without regard to the content of protected speech. (b) Eligible zoninc classifications. Events of public interest are limited to the A, OAR, GR, C, CB, LI, and HI zoning districts, as well as PD zoning districts which are not residential in character or function. (c) Maximum duration of permit. A permit for an event of public interest may not exceed 21 days in PAGE 4 M 7• j ~yer~aa No. co Agenda Item Date _ C duration and may not be renewed. Only one permit may be issued per event. (d) Permit itpri, The building official may grant a temporary use permit if the applicant demonstrates that the temporary use will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and regula- tions. Sec. 35-134. Christmas tree sales. (a) Description, Christmas tree sales encompass the sale of healthy, non-hazardous, cut or live evergreen trees, wreaths, and tree stands. (b) Eligible zoning _class{ficat permits for temporary Christmas tree sales are limited to the A, OAR, GR, C, CB, LI, and HI zoning districts, as well as PD zoning districts which are not residen- tial in character or function. (c) Maximus dura tQ of pgt.L, permits for Christmas tree gales may be effective for any time period between Thanksgiving Day and December 31 of any calendar year. (d) Permit cri prt,, The building official may grant a temporary use permit if the applicant demonstrates that the temporary uss will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and regula- tions. 1 See. 35-135. Temporary concrete or asphalt batching plants. (a) General R auir ments (1) Applicants for a permit to operate a temporary concrete or asphalt batching plant must submit a letter from the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) indicating that the proposed facility is exempt from the permitting procedures under the standard exemption, as adopted and amended from time to time. (2) All stockpiles shall be sprinkled with water or dust suppressant chemicals, or both, as necessary to achieve maximum control of dust emissions. The stockpile sprinkler system shall be operable at all times. PAGE 5 R „y (Y EV 1 Agenda No.~~, ' Agenda Item G Date ^ l_ . C I (3) The facility shall be operated in a man- ner which eliminates unnecessary dust, noise and odor (including, without limitation, coveriand ng trucks, hoppers and chutee loading unloading devices and mixing operations; and maintaining driveways and parking areas free of dust). (4) The facility must produce concrete or asphalt for the specific subdivision or pro- ject site upon which it is located, and may not produce concrete or asphalt for any other unrelated subdivision or project. (5) Spilled cement and fly ash used in the batch shall be cleaned up immediately and contained or dampened to minimize dust emis- sions due to wind erosion and vehicle traffic. material fopen-a dry bodied vehicles transporting batch shall be 1 dedwithlant final the paving wet sand, and the truck shall be c veredewith a tarp to minimize the emission of dust under exising conditions. (7) Temporary concrete batching plants (in- 9 associated stations stockpiles) shall be located a leeiment an ast 300 feet from any recreational area school or other structure not occupied orusedssodence lely the own faci ity selocated a property upon which the distance not apply to structures within theibound- arees of the project for which the facility is our concret is to ated on oreecoprto"Fided the facility guous to the project, (8) Temporary asphalt batchin be located at least one half mile nfrom hany recreational area, school, residence or other structure not occupied or used solely by the owner of the property upon which the facility is located. (9) Applicant shall clear the site of all equipment, material and debris upon completion of the project. (b) Maxim m duration of oermir A permit shall be valid for a period not to exceed 60 days. No more than three permits may be issued for the same site PAGE 6 v `a F i' Agenda No. Agenda Item -``tem _ Date C5 ~e . or project within the twelve month period following the original date of issuance. (c) Hours of opera L - The facility may operate only between the hours of: 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, from June 1 to Sep- tember 30; 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., Monday through Friday from October 1 to May 32; 8:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Saturdays; 1:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on Sundays. (d) Eligible zoning classifications. Temporary batch plants are eligible for permitting in all zoning districts. (e) Revocation of permit. in addition to the reasons enumerated in §35-132 (c), the Building official may terminate or revoke a permit for any of t`e following reasons. (1) The facility fails to comply with any of the requirements as listed in this Section. (2) The facility violates any of the stan- dards as listed on the standard exemption list adopted by the Texas Natural Resources Conser- vation Commission and amended from time to time. SECTION IV That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the va- lidity 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 y, That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. fourteen (014) V1, That from thesdate ordinance of its shall become and he effective 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 J ' day of 1996. PAGE 7 4 . n 'tI f n Agenda No. Agenda //Item L Date .S BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 8 f. J~ 1 PAGE 8 4 Agenda No. - 3 CITY COUNCIL. REPORT Agenda Item _ We TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager DATE: June 4, 1996 SUBJECT: Rezoning of 1.32 acres to MF•1, from GR. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. SUMMARY: See attached report. BACKGROUND: See attached report. i PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Property owner, surrounding residents, users of Hercules Rd. FISCAL IMPACT`. None at th;3 time. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Prepared by: Ted Benavides City Manager 1 I 0. Owen Yost, ASLA Urban Planner Approved: WVs, ' r~ H R1CP Director of Planning & Development x F Agenda N094 Agenda Item REPORT TO THE COUNCIL Date ~(L=~ To: Mayor and members of the City Council Case No.: Z-96-012 Meeting Date: June 4, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jack Bell 521 E. Windsor Denton, TX 76201 Current Owner: (same) Requested Action: Rezone 1.32 acres from General Retail (GR) to the Multi-Family- One (MF-11 zoning district. Location and Size: The 1.32 acre site is located on the south side of Hercules Rd. approximately 180 ft. west of Stuart Rd. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - The right-of-way of Hercules, across from which are apartments in GR zoning. South - Single-family homes, SF-7 zoning East - Retail "convenience" store, OR zoning West Martial arts studio, GR zoning Denton Development Plan: Study area No. 26 (low intensity). 90% allocated. SPECIAL INFORMATION • Engineering & Transportation: The property is currently platted as Lots 13 and 14, Block A of the Sun Valley Addition. Hercules Dr., in front of the site, is a divided boulevard (grass median). Proposed driveways must be at least 76 ft. from another driveway on that side of the street. r C AQW11 No. A91114 tom There is a public alley directly south of the site. Date e Drainage: There is an existing drainage easement running north-south bisecting the site. 0 Landscaping: During the building permit process, applicable landscape regulations will be enforced. No 6 ft. screen or fence is required on the south, :,ir,ce an alley intervenes the site and single-family homes. * Utiiities: Adequate water, sewer and electric service is available, as is fire protection. HISTORY The site was put into a General Retail (GR) zoning district according to the original (1969) zoning map of the city. According to Chapter 35 (Zoning) of the Code of Ordinances, General Retail zoning allows many uses, some of which are public community center, business or trade school, sewage pumping station, car wash, auto parts (new) store, restaurant and poultry hatchery. NOTIFICATION: On April 26, 1996, notices of the Commission hearing were mailed to the 26 property owners within 200 ft. of the site. At this writing, 29.7% of the land has been protested by its owners, necessitating a three-fourths vote 16 out of 71 for approval. Four notices in favor of the proposal have been received, 11 were returned opposed. In addition, the applicant has personally contacted nearby owners and residents, and delivered a letter (Att. 3) inviting inquiries. ANALYSIS The proposal was analyzed for its consistency with applicable policies of the Denton Development Plan, the criteria against which all Denton's zoning proposals are compared: r x lndre No,- r Apend Item } Dale L ; PLAN POLICY COMMENTS Does COWIN$ conplfea not santwhat c I To be consistent with The proposal lessens the study area's X the Plan, a intensity. The existing GR zoning mean.: the development should site is allocated 858 intensity trips 11.32 x not exceed its 650). The proposed zoning only uses 262 trips allocated intensity. (1.32 x 200). Or, using the applicant's proposal of 42 apartment units, it uses 336 trips (42 x 8). Hence, a reduction in intensity, in either case. Sites of small, Although it does not constitute a commitment, X scattered multi-family the applicant plans only 42 unite for this site. projects are allowed Apartments in the area may not be interpreted In low intensity areas as "scattered" however. There should be at There Is another apartment project, owned by X least SS-mile the applicant, across Hercules. separation between multi-family projects. Access to a collector Hercules is a boulevard with a grass median at X or larger arterial this point; classified as a collector street. street for complexes of 100 or fewer units. Strict site plan control A site plan would need to be submitted and X within 1600 ft. of approved during the building permit process low-density but there is no public review, no conditions are residential proposed or recommended. The DDP discourages Commercial use is not allowed in straight Mll X strip commercial zoning. This rezoning (retail to multi-family) development. improves compliance with this DDP pol RECOMMENDATION in light of the overall lessening of intensity trips, the reduction in the possibility of strip commercial development, and the DDP policy of allowing small, scattered mufti-family projects in low intensity areas, the Commission recommends approval. AL ;'ERNATIVES I . Approve application. 2. Approve application with conditions. 3. Deny application. 4. Postpone. 5. Table. 6. Request P&Z make a recommendation on conditions or PD zoning and consider again. f'S :YJ 1 Agenda No, Agend Item ATTACHMENTS Date f. Location map. 2. Intensity data. 3. Applicant letter. 4. PQ minutes. 5. Draft ordinance. Axx00A" F F ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda No.` Agenda Ite _u U Date r 0 Juno o ° Stott LL El C Ej [j fl C; a D° ` HERCUIM f❑ FO. a IIPM p ` O ❑ ❑ a Q LEY a rn~ RETAMA E ` J ~0~ O o~ ❑ o ~ W a ~o El ❑ - a1 o ❑ D = o NCCA ❑ 00 ° y +ri LJ `J LJ ❑ ~ a o CD - o ❑ ~ ❑ ❑ ~ n f --r-- 1-~- MFERIAl pR Total Acreage - 7.4 acres (Area requesting zoning change not included) Area Opposed - 2.2 acres or 29.77, if k ATTACHMENT 2 Uganda No, apes e Item Date LAND USE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF DENTON Intensity area t: 26 Type: Low Intensity Trips/ac 60 Traffic survey zones: 6746 6548 6549 6551 Boundary description: North: Loop 288 South: Windsor Drive Date: 06/21/93 East: Sherman Drive West: FM 2164 D USE EXISTING LAND USE CURRENT ZONING PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS CATEGORY UNITS ACRES INTENSITY ACRES INTENSITY ACRES UNITS INTENSIT SF- 16 < 20 9.85 200 SF-10>16 270 93.75 2700 18.1 543 13.4 40 400 SF-7>10 559 141.42 5590 78.07 3278.94 51.38 160 1600 LESS SF-7 123 27.84 1230 0 0 MOB. HOMES 0 0 0 0 0 0 C DUPLEX 72 8.29 720 0 O 0 0 0 21.87 0 MF-R 60 4.88 480 0 0 233.35 .35 155 1550 MF-162 216 14.56 1728 303 2424 COX/RET 0 1.58 1027 6.4 4160 16.1 352 2816 OFFICE 0 0 0 0 _-•r)USTRY 0 p p 0 0 0 0 0 ;TIONAL 0 21.58 1834.3 0 0 0 0 0 . %RtrS 0 0 0 0.7 3.7 ill 0 O 0 59.5 R/0/SPACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TRANSPORT 0 49.79 0 10 0 0 AGRIC. 0 0 0 0 0 0 89.3 0 Q 0 0 VACANT 0 326.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1320 703.74 15620 191.87 7982 1---- 1010 8850 850 INTENSITY CALCULATIONS (1) Intensity area total trips 703.74 times (2) Trips allocated to existing land uses (built) 60 42224 (3) Trips allocated to current zoning incl. P Ds (not built 15620 (4) Trips allocated to vacant lands not zoned plus Agric. zonin g 16831 (5) Estimated unallocated intensity trips 1)minus(2)+(3)+(4) 45356 415 -----(6) Percentage of intensity trips allocated I 1 ATTACHMENT 3 ACenda No. ~t3L AQend item c Date_~Q ^ JACK BELL COMPANIES, INC 1002 DALLAS DRIVE . DENTON, TEXAS 76205 (917) 382.6611 April 23, 1996 Dear Property Owners: We would like to take a moment to introduce ourselves and inform the property owners in the area of our future plans. We own several commercial properties in the Denton area including Victoria Square, Victoria Village and Versailles. We also own residential properties such as Crystal Wood and Windsor Village. We have requested zoning change from retail to multi-family for Lots 13 and 14, Block At Sunvalley Additton. Our plans are to build apartments consisting of 42 units on the lots. If you have any questions concerning the development we would be happy to meet with you to discuss then and show you our plans. Please call our corporate offices now located at 521 East Windsor for an appointment 382-6611. Sincerely, JACK BELL COMPANIES, INC. cb~Q' a(. Bell, Jr. President r- t1 ti r ATTACHMENT 4 HGEnoa NO.o P&Z Minutes Agenda ham`' May 8, 1996 Data I1=_' Page 8 M. Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning 1.329 acres to the Multi-Family-One (MF-1) district. The site known as Lots 13 and 14, Block A of the Sun Valley Addition, is located on the south side of Hercules Drive, approximately 180 feet west of Stuart Road. Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. Mr. Yost: The land that w• -•;"-ing about tonight is undeveloped land on Hercules and it is currently zoned General Retort. • study area 26 which is ninety percent under allocated. The property is currently platted as twu ,:a 13 and 14 of the Sun Valley Addition. Normally there would be some screening at the back property, but in this case there is a public alley at the back of the property, therefore screeninz, not be a requirement. We have received four replies in favor of this proposal and seven in opp, r. Right now we are around thirteen percent in opposition. With the zoning going from G.. ' Retail to Multi-Family zoning there is a reduction in intensity trips used by the proposed , use. This is a low intensity area and according to the plan it allows sixty intensity trips per acre so the proposed multi-family zoning is over allocated. With the General Retail zoning there are eight hundred and fifty-eight intensity trips, and the proposal would have two hundred and sixty-two intensity trips, so there would be a reduction in the number of intensity trips. The other applicable Plan policies are in your backup. Staff recommends this rezoning in light of the over all reduction in intensity trips for the site and the lessening of the potential for strip commercial development. Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Jack Bell: My name is Jack Bell and i reside at 2710 Hardee Field Rd. The day after I applied for the zoning change I received a list of all of the property owners within two hundred feet of the property. I sent out a letter and you have a copy of it in your packet. I believe the normal policy is to schedule a neighborhood meeting. We did have the preliminary plans at the time and staff felt that it would be alright for me to contact everyone individually. There were no restraints as far as meetings, time frame, or location. I received one letter back that could not be delivered. One gentleman, who owns the karate studio next door, contacted me and requested to see the plans. They were preliminary plans at that time so changes could be made. He was the only one that came forward to see the plans. He had several concerns, one of those was the dumpster location, and another was the traffic flow. He wanted the dumpsters placed near the center of the property and also asked that the traffic flow be toward the center of the property and not against his property line. After reviewing the plans 1 understood him to be satisfied with the plans that we had proposed. There were no other calls and no one else requesting to see the plans. We fe-I that going from the retail zoning to the multi-family would be proper for the area. We have a school just across the street and we have a lot of children out there. There , -e several things under the J .S 1r y Agenda No. - Agenda Item P&Z Minutes pat¢ May 8, 1996 Page 9 retail zoning that can generate a lot of traffic. We feel that this is a fair request. I own sixtyunits across the street. I am an owner/operator, I am not a speculator. I have done developments in downtown, commercial revitalization of some commercial buildings downtown and 1 have owned these properties since i built them. Mr. Moreno: Are the residents of the apartments going to be able to access that alleyway? Mr. Bell: No. The buildings will be in a U shape along the outer perimeter of the property. The city requires that our entrances to the property be seventy-five feet in from the outer bo,•ndary, therefore it throws the traffic w the center of the property. The buildings will act as a barrier between the property and the surrounding properties. All of the parking and traffic area will be located in that U shape. Mr. Moreno: Mr. Yost said that there would be no screening required because this property abuts a public alleyway? Did I understand that correctly? Mr. Bell: Yes sir. Mr. Moreno: Are you proposing any screening? Mr. Bell: It has not been discussed. The buildings will go from one property line to the other and there will be very little open land between the center of the complex to the rear. These will be two story apartments. Mr. Jones: When you leave your property will you be able to go west? Are you going to be able to cut an access across the median there? Mr. Bell: That has not been discussed. Mr. Cochran: What type of a setback will you have from the side and back property lines? Mr. Bell: It should be the city requirement. I believe it is ten foot. Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? Mr. Ben Weston: My name is Ben Weston and 1 live at 701 Sun Valley Drive. 1 have lived here for sixteen years and my objection to this is that we already have a school with approximately six hundred students, a convenience store. Across the street from that there is an apartment complex with sixty units and there are duplexes in the area. We have all of the congestion that we need in that area. It is a nice quiet neighborhood and we are talking about possibly forty more units and approdmately eighty more cars. 1 don't think that we need this kind of congestion. Mr. Jones: Do you understand what it is currently zoned and what would be allowed under that zoning without having to come to the Planning and Zoning Commission? a i v l Agenda No.1? P&Z Minutes Agend Item May 8, 1996 Date Page 10` Mr. Weston: Yes sir. We do have retail and it closes at night. Apartments are going to have traffic night and day. There will be movement there at all times and if it were retail it would shut down at night and be quiet. Mr. Lewis W. Murphey: My name is Lewis Murphey and I live at 3800 Atlas. The reason I didn't reply to the letter was that I didn't care for the apartments. I have three rental houses on Atlas along with my residence and all of my renters comment on moving away from apartments because of the noise and the parties. I agree with Mr. Weston on the continuous in and out that apartments would have over retail use that normally shuts down at night. I think it would cause problems with the traffic to the schools. Mr. Cochran: You are willing as a neighbor to take the risk of what potentially could go there the way that it is zoned now over potentially less intensive apartments? Mr. Murphey: I think that the retail would likely s:~ t down at night and be quieter than it would with apartments. Ms. Russell: Do you get a lot of noise from those apartments? Mr. Murphey: Those apartments are behind the and there is an alley in between. Sometimes it is very noisy. Ms. Russell: Do you ever have a tenant that has a loud party in a single family neighborhood? Mr. Murphey: I have it in my contract that we don't have parties. Ms. Russell: I am aware of the little strip center that is out there and it hasn't been kept up very well. From time to time I have seen broken windows there and it is not what 1 would consider a real credit to the neighborhood. Are you familiar with some of the properties that Mr. Bell owns and the condition that they are maintained in? Mr. Murphey: I am not a.:-are of what Mr. Bell owns. Ms. Russell: It was in the letter that he sent out and I just wondered if you had taken t'te opportunity to drive by and look at some of the property and the condition that it is in. Mr. Murphey: Several years ago I worked in different apartments over by North Texps and what I found out is that owners would sell the property and there was kind of an up and down effect on the maintenance of the properties. Mr. Edward D. Wittmis: My name is Ed Wittmis and 1 live at 612 Sun Valley Drive. 1 have lived In the neighborhood for almost twenty-four years. It is a quiet neighborhood. This is going to over load the school and Ginnings won't see any relief until 1998. I worked out at Hodge Pamentary for thirteen years and we had over a thousand students. I don't want apartments. y q 5 F x?enda No. Ao iJ PBcZ Minutes Agend Item oats May 8, 1996 Page 11 Mr. Gary Young: My name is Gary Young and I live at 3844 Redstone, which is not inside of the two hundred foot area. I live just slightly to the west and in the second house off of Hercules. I personally do nc4 want the traffic coming down Hercules from west to east. That already is a major concern for people in the area because of the speed of the cars coming through there. Ironically from east to west does not seem to pose that big of problem because the people are already in a thirty mile an hour zone. In that area on Camelot there are two halfway houses that State School clients live in. I personally am friends with a lot of these people and they walk to Keno's daily. They walk up and down that street daily. I feel that more traffic in this area will be more dangerous to them. We have numerous children who ride bicycles and walk in this area. The more traffic that we have the more congested it is going to be and it would not be conducive to good family living. In reference to the schools, primarily the reason that Evers and Hodge was built was to relieve the crowding at Ginnings. As Mr. Wittmis has already alluded to, we will not see any relief at Ginnings or any of the other schools until after 1998. By Mr. Bell's own admission the retail space that is already In that area cannot be supported and he admits that there is a reluctance of people to move into that area. The question has been asked if we would be willing to take another retail space in that area. If retail cannot be supported in that area then retail is not going to be built in that area. I believe that the cut across is going to go into the Karate school so if people want to leave the property to go west they are going to have to go east and make a U turn at Stuart to go west. Ms. Russell: I have a card firm Zola Burch at 3716 Atlas and she is in opposition. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition? Would the petitioner care to speak in rebuttal? Mr. Bell: We use the Texas Apartment Association Lease and it also states that we can't have parties. We are required to give two notices and on the third notice we evict them. I am an owner/operator. 1 built the hundred and sixteen units at 521 E. Windsor. They were built in 1981 and I still own those apartments. When I came up here I didn't know what opposition I was going to have and I wasn't really prepared for it. I do have a letter of intent from a local licensed day care center that is already doing business in Denton. They asked to remain anonymous but Mr. Yost can verify it. They submitted this letter on May 8th to put this property under contract to do a ninety day feasibility study for a twenty-four hour day care with approximately a hundred children. This is merely a letter of intent. Mr. Yost: Let me say that a day care center would be allowed by right in a General Retail zoning district. (Read the letter.) Mr. Cochran: Do you currently own this property? Mr. Bell: Yes sir I do and I have owned it for approximately six to seven years. We have had several plans done for retail and we could not generate any interest in the property. Ms. Russell: Are there any other questions? We will close the public hearing. Any final remarks? I would like to address one thing. As ,.on as the middle school comes on line for the school system there will be some relief at that elementary school because it will take the sixth grade out of the elementaries and put them in another school. ' AgendAltern AgendP&Z Minutes Date ` May 8, 199 6 Page 12 Mr. Cochran: Have we established where that cut in the median is? If a person wanted to exit from these apartments and travel west, what would they have to do? Mr. Yost: We don't have that information right now, but we will find out. Ms. Russell: I never understood why Hercules didn't have any curbs on the median and why it is four lane from Redstone to Stuart? Mr. Salmon: From what 1 understand, many years ago before the Loop was constructed, there was a thought that was going to be the Loop. Of course that section of street was constructed many years ago and so I don't know all of the particulars but that is what I have been told. The original intention of Hercules was to be much more like an arterial street. It is currently classified as a collector and nomnally collectors don't have medians. It was intended to be an arterial originally. Ms. Russell: Would there be a problem with lining up an entrance on the median? Mr. Salmon: We need to determine where the median opening is first. The property is already platted and I don't think he will be required to do any platting. That is a feasible idea and it may just be a minor widening of the existing median openings so that his traffic could get in and out. We would certainly hope that he would do that as opposed to the city coming in and doing it. It is also a function of where his driveway will be. Mr. Jones: I understand the concerns of the residents in the area and we hear this a lot when something is changing and they are concerned about a different zoning, traffic congestion, and so forth. i think it is always easy to say that compared to now we are better off versus what could be there. I think there is a misconception often times of what a multi-family versus retail situation could actually bring. Under the circumstances, I believe from the staff reports and such that this area would be better served, and 1 am not sure that multi-family is the most desirable for that area, but I think it is more desirable than a retail situation because of the broad spectrum of uses that can go under the retail zoning. From that standpoint I am inclined to go along with this rezoning. Mr. Cochran: Another point of view would be that the folks that have lived there for all these years have lived there with a certain understanding that this was zoned General Retail and they are comfortable with that. There are risks involved with that and I might not be willing to take if I was in their situation, but apparently they are and again we come back to the question of zoning as a bond with the citizens. That is one issue there and I am a little troubled by the median situation. I have some difficulties with this just from the point of view that this will very close to some peoples houses. We haven't heard any indication that there may be some limitations on windows so that the two story apartments won't be looking into the backyards of the neighbors. Ms. Schertz: I am comfortable with saying that Mr. Bell is a knowledgeable developer within the community and he has proven it by the projects that we have seen in the community. I feel comfortable that he has explored the options of General Retail versus Multi-Family and that he is comfortable because he is using his own money, time, and ownership to invest in this property, that the best use of the land is multi-family. Because of that I respect his decision and I will vote } c Agenda No, Q_9 3 P&Z Minutes Agenda Item May 8, 1996 Date ? . U. Page 13 accordingly. Mr. Moreno: This is a tough one but I am going to side with Mr. Cochran on this issue. Ms. Russell: I understood that the day, cane could be built witb~ ut coming before the Commission. Is that preferable to multi-family? (Yes from the audience.) Ms. Russell: 1 know the strip center and I know how it looks and I really haven't y^n it look any different. There really isn't going to be any other General Retail going in there because it can't be supported by the neighborhood, That is the reason why typically there are vacant spaces in the retail center there. I also recall the last dting that the applicant has done down by Mercado Juarez. In my neighborhood if I had a choice between another strip center or one of his apartment complexes, I wouldn't have a problem making a decision because what he builds is a real asset. I don't know him in my daily activities as being a seller. I see him as being an owner. That is what I am wrestling with. What Ms. Schertz addressed as far as windows in the second floor, maybe we could be sensitive to that. There won't be any lights shining into your backyard. Ms. Flemming: Which would Mr. Bell prefer, the day care or the apartments? Mr. Bell: I would like to build the apartments. If I had known that there was a problem with the entrance on Hercules I would have addressed that. The plans are complete and if the city staff will allow me to get closer than seventy-five feet to the side of the property we will do one of two things. We can align that approach with the cut in Hercules or I will pay to have what little bit of paving would be required if they will remove the barrier on Hercules so we can cross it. That is a minor thing at this point, if the traffic flow is one of the main issues that you have. I had no idea that there was a problem until tonight. Ms. Russell: On second story windows, could that be worked into the design so that there would not be any second story windows. Mr. Bell: It is very difficult when you have a two bedroom apartment and you have to have a fire exit and you have to have a window. The preliminary plans were done and 1 sent out a letter inviting the neighborhood to review the plans and then I received the final plans yesterday. It would be hard to not have any windows on the back of the building and still mcwt the fire code. Ms. Schertz. I move that we recommend approval of the rezoning of the 1.32 acres from General Retail t0 the Muhl-Family 1 zoning district per case Z-96-012. Ms. Flemming: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-2) Opposed Mr. Cochran and Mr. Moreno. 1 r- , )eellopc.oia CJI Agenda No. ATTACHMENT 5 Agenda Ilem Dale ` L C C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE GENERAL RETAIL (GR) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE MULTI-FAMILY ONE (MF-1) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1.32 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 180 FEET WEST OF STUART ROAD, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HERCULES ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Jack Bell has requested a change in zoning for 1.32 acres of land from the General Retail (GR) zoning district classification and use designation to the Multi-Family One (MF-1) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on May 8, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the proposed change; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use designation of 1.32 acres of land, platted as lots 13 and 14 of the Sun Valley Addition is changed from the General Retail (GR) zoning district classification and use designation to the Multi-Family One (MF-1) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION IT. That the City's official zoning map is hereby amended to show the change in zoning district classification. 21=192 -1,1L. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective four- teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996. JACK MILLER, MAYOR L .ogenLNo. ApenDate ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY:+ i PAGE 2 x r' Agenda Agenda It m Date I - CITY COUNCIL REPORT DATE: June 4, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Platting Regulation Amendments, re: Lease and Expiration of Plats Romm-- dations: P&Z recommends that Chapter 34 be amended to. 1. Eliminate leasing as an action which requires subdivision platting by eliminating the word "lease" from the definition of subdivision in Chapter 34, Code of Ordinances, and 2. Expire a. the Preliminary plat in five (5) years, if no final plat is approved within five (5) years of the preliminary plat's approval; and, b. the final plat, if the approved final plat is not recorded with the County in two years. ' Summary~d Bad r und: LeaselPlat + Eliminating the word lease from the defuution of subdivision will enable ground leases without the requirement to plat, for strip centers or mobile home parks, for instance. The current definition and requirement to plat if land is leased is a traditional, often used method for insuring the orderly proviision of infrastructure and avoiding increased public costs. This is less of a concern because in Dentoa platting may be triggered by development on unplatted land. L Agenda No.2L~r ' Staff Report Agenda Item June 4, 1996 Date _ ~n • 1 / ` fr Page 2 Expiring P m Chapter 34 called for preliminary and final plats to be expired in two years until August, 1994, when these provisions were amended as shown in attachment 1. Those chapter 34 provisions refer to Section 481 of the Texas Government Code. It was thought in 1994 that Section 481 (sometimes called "House Bill 4") would not allow plats to expire. The 1994 chapter 34 provision called for expiration in two years if 481 were amended "as not being applicable to the platting process." Section 481 was amended and clarified by the Texas legislature in 1995. That law is attachment 2. Section 481 still applies to plats. Expiration dates were explicitly enabled in the 1995 legislation. This amendment restores the pre-1994 expiration, but extends the preliminary plat expiaration period from 2 to 5 years and expires the preliminary plat if the final plat is ~tQ, rather than b itted (for Commission consideration), and accomplishes the intent of the 1994 amendment. This will significantly ease record keeping, insure development according to current regulation, and the use of the latest materials for public improvements. Attachment 1 shows by line out and add by italics the current ordinance and the proposed changes. Gro~f~; Plantung and Development Department; platters, &WaLlmm: Record keeping will be eased with a small saving in staff time. Respectfully submitted, 0 ed Benavides, City Manager Y N F A; enda No.~ ^ Ngenoa Item Staff Report 'lase June 4, 1996 Page 3 Prepared by: L~ Frank . Robbins, iZAdlCP Director of Planning and Development Attachments: 1. Current and proposed provisions, 2. 1995 Section 481 legislation. 3. Pre-1994 provisions. 4. P&Z minutes, 5. Draft ordinance. X"OW3 I I 1 Aye.iaa No. l T AgenJa Ittm Date.~0..~L ^ ATTACHm[ENT 1 S S'O AND LAND DEVELOPMPW CHAP7F ~d Subdivision means the division or redivision of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, sites or parcels %-hedwf by se or (d) Applieetien of 1he PftfiWAMr-Y pie! P.- the eewditissiee t"""d-by wi6 in the Opp! isage 1 (of subaquea! Pe. "fits 0M., 4r-- A--, i and other duly adepwed m" new in %pplie mk4et-the as fm being lPPPP SO !!I III , the -9-MA-0 lime -89 a 'W-4-11ilif as (d) Expiration of preliminary plat. A preliminary plat shall become null and void sixty ninths after its approval unless a final plat is approved on all or part of the preliminaryplat within that time. Approval of a final plat shall automatically extend approval of any remaining portion of the preliminaryplat up to the expiration dale of the final plat in question. The director may mail a courtesy notice of the impending expiration; however, any failure to do so shall not toll the expiration. beiMP . , , has not been finled in the OPPMe 415 1 geed -educe. (e) Expiration of final plat and plans. An approved ,final plat which has not been filed in the appropriate records of Denton County within two (2) years of its approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the commission for good cause. The director may mail a courtesy notice of the impending expiration; however, any failure to do so shall not toll the expiration. An unrecorded final plat may not be extended beyond ten (10) years. NOTE: The lined out lines are the 1994 amendments, now in effect. ~xxaonan tr[ _i F ,'-Onda No. Bill Number: TX74RSS 1704 ATTACHMENT 2 Agenda Item~J~ goteDate: _5 26 5 ENROLLED 1 AN ACT 2 relating to the review and approval of certain permits by the 3 state, a municipality, or other local governmental agencies. 4 BE IT ENACTED By THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS: S SECTION 1. Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Government Code, is 6 amended to read as follows: 7 SUBCHAPTER I. STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS 8 Sec. 481.141. LEGISLATIVE FINDING AND INTENT. (a) The 9 legislature finds that current administrative practices often 10 result in unnecessary governmental regulatory delays that inhibit 11 the economic development of the state. 12 (b) The legislature desires to establish requizements 13 relating to the processing and issuance of permits and approvals 4 by governmental regulatory agencies in order to alleviate i5 bureaucratic obstacles to economic development. 16 Sec. 481.142. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter: 17 (1) "Political subdivision„ means a political 18 subdivision of the state, including a county, a school district, 19 or a municipality. 20 (2) "Permit" means a license, certificate, approval, 21 registration, consent, permit, or other form of authorization 22 required by law, rule, regulation, or ordinance that must be 23 obtained by a person in order to perform an action or initiate a 24 project for which the permit is sought. 1 i, M F f 1 (3) ■Project• means an endeavor over which a 2 regulatory agency exerts its jurisdiction and for which one or 3 more permits are (a-permit-!s) required to initiate o C1 4 continue (hefare- initiation-ef) the endeavor. `A3 No, Agenda item d~ (4) 'Regulatory agency" means an agenda 6 department, division, or commission of the state or any 7 department.. (er-ether) agency, rd, commission or governing s bo4X of a political subdivision in its capacity of processing, 9 approving, or issuing (that-paeeesses-and-issues) permits. 10 Sec. 491.143. UNIFORMITY OF REQUIREMENTS. (a) The 11 approval, disapproval, or conditional approval of an application 12 for a permit shall be considered by each regulatory agency solely 13 on the basis of any orders, regulations, ordinances, rules, 14 expiration dates, or other duly adopted requirements in effect i5 at the time the original application for the permit is filed. if 16 a series of permits is required for a project, the orders, 17 regulations, ordinances, rules, expiration dated or other is duly adopted requirements in effect at the time the original 19 application for the first permit in that series is filed shall be 20 the sole basis for consideration of all subsequent permits III 21 required for the completion of the project, and all permits 22 required for the protect shall be considered to be asinglle 23 series of permits. Preliminary plans and related subdivision 24 plats, site plans and all other development permits for land 25 covered by such preliminary plans or subdivision plats are 26 considered collectively to be one series of permits Once an 27 application for a project has been filed, a revelatory agency 2 J Y F 1 shall not shorten 2 the duration of an ro ect, ermit re i a 3 {b A ' This subcha ter shall lenh Item 4 ro ress on or a 1 to alt Data ` com+nenced o ect`iin 5 after r subcha ter the effective date as on inall 6 enacted b of this ` of the 70th Le Section 7 1 islature Re Cha ter 374 Acts ado ted lar Sees' ,on 1987 re irements in effect and the dul e application at the time the o for the first ermit for ri final 9 control. This the ro ect subcha ter shall was filed shall 10 declarato be enforceable solel mandamus or in throw h 11 unctive relief, f.,e1 This section does 12 not apply to: 13 !11 Permits or licenses any form of gamin issued in connection 14 4 or galling; with 15 Code; ferl (2) Permits or licenses issued under Title 2, Tax 16 17 (3) Permits or orders which a state regulato issued under Programs for 18 delegation agency has received authorization, . or approval crom 19 the federal an equivalent state program government to implement 20 programl in lieu of or as part of the federal 21 (4) ermits for the const 22 structures ruction intended of build.tn a or 23 issued for human occu anc or habitation ursuant to laws that are ordinances rocedures rules 24 regulations adop ;in 15 solel the rovisione °f or 25 fire electrical uniform buildin 26 lumbin or mechanical codes rec ized natior.al romul ated b a 27 code or anization such codes enacted solel or local amendments to address to sn threats of 3 x Y R r, 1 destruction of r o ert or in u to 2 are less than two rsons unlepPO~{~C is Years oid • tiasn 8 em s 3 (5) munici al Date zoning re lations that do 11 4 lot size lot dimensions lot c not affect overage or buildin -size,(6) re lations for the location of adult-oriented 6 businesses. ~ {7} state or local laws e ordinances includin cit or count rules- r~lations or other re 9 Coloniaea irements affectin 10 (g) fees lawfull im sed in con 11 development mermits: unction with 12 (9) re lations for annexation- 13 (10) re lations for unlit connections- 14 21} re lations to revent imminent destruction of 15 property or iniury to persons. or 16 (12) construction standards for ublic works 17 located on ublic lands and easements. is (dd) Notwithatandin an 19 rovision of this section contrary, a ermit holder shall have the right to to the 20 of rocedural char take advantage es to the laws rules 21 ordinances of a re lations or re lato a en which enhance or rotect the 22 ro ect includin without limitation chap es which len then the 23 effective life of the P_j ermit after the date on which a lication 24 for the ermit was made without otherwise forfeitin an ri hts 25 under this section. 26 (e) The rovisions of this section 27 expiration date of a relating to the ermit or to the duration of a ermit do not f I apply in the case of a permit issued b the Railroad Comm on , •7 2 of Texas which did not have an expiration date or gaspec c J 3 duration when originally issued. pats c 4 SECTION 2. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to: 5 (1) limit or otherwise affect the authority of a 6 municipality, a county, another political subdivision, the state, ' 7 or an agency of the state, with respect to the implementation or 8 enforcement of an ordinance, a rule, or a statutory standard of a 9 program, plan, or ordinance that was adopted under the federal 10 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1451 et 11 seq.) or its subsequent amendments or Subtitle E, Title 2, 12 Natural Resources Coder or 13 (2) apply to a permit, order, rule, regulation, or 14 other action issued, adopted, or undertaken by a municipality, a 15 county, another political subdivision, the state, or an agency of 16 the state in connection with the federal Coastal Zone Management 17' Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1451 et seq.) or its subsequent is amendments or Subtitle E, Title 2, Natural Resources Code. 19 SECTION 3. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 20 diminish or impair the rights or remedies of any person or entity 21 under a final judgment rendered by, or in any pending litigation 22 brought in, any court concerning an interpretation of the 23 provisions of Subchapter I, Chapter 481, Government Code. 24 SECTION 4. The importance of this legislation and the 25 crowded condition of the calendars in both houses create an 26 emergency and an imperative public necessity that the 27 constituticnal rule requiring bills to be read on three several 5 ,i V 1 days in each house be suspended, and this rule is her& m 2 suspended, and that this Act take effect and be inot ate-- _ 3 after its passage, and it is so enacted. 4 5 President of the Senate Speaker of the House 6 I hereby certify that S.B. No. 1704 passed the Senate on 7 May 16, 1995, by the following vote: Yeas 29, Nays 2. 8 9 Secretary of the Senate 10 I hereby certify that S.B. No. 1704 passed the House on it May 24, 1995, by a non-record vote. 12 13 Chief Clerk of the House 14 Approved: 15 16 Date 17 18 Governor 6 Y f ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda No.10 Agenda ttem,:5-6- Date_~o .~'(D) ~ "02*0 Awe a PWW of Oe *Maw of affr"al ~aId 4( ~ w oa 7 ae fiwaeal wqo~ plan. "m he at newt swadmim mmjm~~ wad qwova of do WW a& an shall a ~ ~ or ~~Ia sa =mine o f °11l"' +bw md u app~+owd We of mob M ysa„ it shall ba plot has not been tllod within two tp'aatod by the Plufdng and psonf and id un~ sn o:tenaion 4 Y F P&2 Minutes ATTACHMENT 4 D Fe aMay 22, 1996 a Page 15 VU. Hold a public hearing and consider amendments to Chapter 34, Subdivision and Land Development of the Code of Ordinances, concerning the definition of subdivision and expiration of plats. Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. Mr. Robbins: This is a proposed ordinance to do two things. One is to amend the definition of the word subdivision and delete lease, which means that platting would not be required if property were simply leased. The other element has to do with the expiration of plats. It is really to clarify based j on the most recent legislation about vesting and specific language in the 1995 legislation about the expiration of plats. In the past preliminary plats have been expired in two years and submission of the final plat extended the preliminary plat for two years. The life of the preliminary couldn't be any longer than ten years. The proposal now is to have the preliminary plat valid for five years and would expire if no final plat were approved. So you move from submission of a final plat to approval of a final plat. If a final plat is submitted and you deny it for the right reasons that would theoretically keep extending the preliminary plat under some of our previous rules, so the approval of the final plat seems to be appropriate. The other element is to expire final plats in two years if it isn't recorded. It is staffs opinion that a preliminary plat in place for five years instead of the previous two year time frame is appropriate and there would not be any administrative difficulties with it. Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? We will close the public hearing. Mr. Powell: Why are you bringing this before us? Mr. Robbins: This is simply a cleanup for the issue of leases. We don't inforce it in situations where there are ground leases for strip centers. We thought we would clean up the ordinance for something that we are not inforcing now and we don't think we need to have that kind of provision on the expired plats. The way that the current ordinance is written, it is unclear and was related to the way the State law was written before 1995. Since the legislation has changed it has changed the way that our ordinance was intended to be applied. If the State law changed to allow for the expiration of plats then that would be done. Mr. Powell: Is there any population out there that if they knew we were doing this would be upset that we are doing this? Mr. Robbins: No sir I don't think so. There are some folks that would like the plats to never expire. Mr. Bucek: Is the way that you are reading it now, since the law has changed, is that there is a two year rule and this will make it five years? 1 would think that the development community would be happy with this because it was two years and this would make it five. Mr. Robbins: The way that it reads now there is no expiration of plats and there would be no expiration of plats unless this statute is amend, appealed, or interpreted as not being applicable to the platting process. The State law did not change the platting process. It changed lYj1 it continued to be applicable to the platting process. That is why we need to amend the ordinance to t r.! i'4l I". N F L v~J Pit Minutes Aflenda No, Kay 22, 1996 )j~,p n a I a Page 16 change that language. Mr. Bucek: Really the question might come up and there would be difference of opinion, so we can resolve it once and for all in a way that makes it better. Mr. Powell: I move approval of an amendment to Chapter 34 that would eliminate leasing as an ac^&ion which requires subdivision platting by eliminating the word "lease" from the defintion of subdivision in Chapter 34 of the Code of Ordinances. And expire the preliminary plat in five years if no final plat is approved within five years of the preliminary plat's approval and the final plat expires in two years if the approved final plat is not recorded with the county in two years. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-0) I , . f:\wpdoc@\ord\n:brgch3.crd Agenda No. J (9 O'2z Agenda Ite"n - 0ate 10- ORDINANCE _ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTION 34-11 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO CONFORM THE DEFINITION OF "SUBDIVISION" TO §212.044 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERN- MENT CODE; AMENDING SUBSECTION (d) OF §34-17 OF THE CODE OF ORDI- NANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR EXPIRATION PERIOD OF PRELIMINARY PLATS; AMENDING SUBSECTION (e) OF 934-22 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO PROVIDE FOR EXPIRATION OF FINAL PLATS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That section 34-11 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to change the defini- tion of the term "subdivision" to read as follows; all provisions of section 34-11 not specifically changed herein shall remain intact and in full force and effect: Sao. 34-11. Definitions. [text of general provisions un- changed] Subdivision means the division or redivision of land into two (2) or more lots, tracts, sites or parcels. SECTION II. That subsection (d) of section 34-17 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows; all provisions of section 34-17 not specifically changed herein shall remain intact and in full force and effect: Sao. 34-17. Procedure for approval. [text of general provisions unchanged] (a) (text unchanged] (b) (text unchanged) (c) (text unchanged] (d) Expiration of preliminary plat. A preliminary plat shall become null and void sixty months after its approval unless a final plat is approved on all or part of the prelimi- nary plat within that time. Approval of a final plat shall automatically extend approval of any remaining portion of the preliminary plat up to the expiration date of the final plat in question. The director may mail a courtesy notice of the impending expiration; however, any failure to do so shall not toll the expiration. a i r Agenda No.C ^y _ . Apend Item Date (r. SECTION III. That subsection (e) of section 34-22 of the code of ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows; all provisions of section 34-22 not specifically changed herein shall remain intact and in full force and effect: Sec. 34-22. Processing procedure for final plat and construc- tion plans. [text of general provisions unchanged] (a) [text unchanged] (b) [text unchanged] (c) [text unchanged] (d) [text unchanged] (e) Expiration of final plat and plans. An approved final plat which has not been filed in the appropriate records of Denton County within two (2) years of its approval shall be considered null and void unless an extension is granted by the commission for good cause The director may mail a courtesy notice of the impending expiration; however, any failure to do so shall not toll the expiration. An unrecorded final plat may not be extended beyond ten (10) years. SECTION IV. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any perscr, or circumstances is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the valid- ity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Coun- cil of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: PAGE 2 Agenda No, qL~f Agenda Item Date APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PAGE 3 e Agenda No. Agenda Item Date_ - DATE: June 4, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(5) requiring perimeter street paving for the Alyssa and David Addition. The subject property is in the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district and is located on the north side of Willowwood, between McCormick and Kendolph. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request, five in favor, none opposed (5-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR-GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Respectfully submitted: rt`J Ted Benavides City Manager i 1 ' i I p r Agenda No..7 Agenda Ifem Date 'e Prepared by: c~lXd Walter E. Reeves, Jr. Urban Planner Approved: t prank A ins, AICP I )irector Manning and Development I Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft Ininutes of the May 22, 1996, P & Z meeting. i f F ATTACHMENT 1 Agenda No._ ,CLS' 1 Date 4, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: June 4, 1996. Subject: Variance to Section 34-114(5) requiring the installation of 24 feet of City standard re~vement along the frontage of any existing substandard perr Teter street, for the Alyssa and David Addition. Recomme_ ndation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-0). 8a k round The Alyssa and David Addition is a proposed 4 lot subdivision on 3.662 acres in the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The property is located on the north side of Willowwood, between McCormick and Kendolph. The owner of the proposed Alyssa and David Addition has applied for a variance tc Section 34.110rdina a the Code 4(5) of of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This section of the Code of Ordinces requires e perimeter street paving on existing, substandard, perimeter streets. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. This `exaction variance" is being recommended to the City Council. The subject property has 284 feet of frontage on Wiliowwood Street which is currently a substandard street. Curb and gutter are not required by this regulation. The estimated cost of the perimeter paving is $9,000. The subject tract is being divided into 4 single family lots, 2 with frontage on Willowwood and 2 with frontage on Oakwood. There will be a total of three additional homes (there is an existing home within the proposed subdivision that will be moved to another lot in the proposed subdivision), generating an additional 30 traffic trips per day in the area. fhis translates into $3,000 per additional lot, which is considerably less than the $4,500 it normally costs to construct streets for an average subdivision lot in Denton. The Commission noted that only one additional house, generating 10 trips would actually have frontars on Willowwood. Willowwood Street will be reconstructed as a 24 foot street without curb and gutter in 1999-2000. The City's Subdivision and Land Development Regulations allows the developer to pay for the improvements, instead of constructing them, if the plat ;s approved within 2 years of the project, or in this case October 1997. This saves the developer design and administrative costs. If the plat is approved after the project is under contract, the developer has no responsibility. Staff did not recommend approval of this variance to the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, the Commission finds that the imposition of this development exaction exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner and is excessive for three additional single family residences. .^Da'Jlit Sk}{ f Agenda No. 7 Attachments Date t. Location map. 2. Rat. 3. Variance application. f f • Apanda No. l 1..~" Agend~ Item A+~T Dale I` 1 f 1 • N L .e r N.T.S. T Agenda No.% L~ Amcm Oaf r (L f f H § i i i 71 1 ! 7 ~ ti r + r.w. O t I it`d its r~ 4 r 3 Agenda No. c_~ 3 " Agand Item Cl"1'! Ol I)MrM Dat: L C _ APPLICAUM Fait VARZAN.s 8Q8DIY BZ= AttO or Lan D> VWAPIMT INGMATIove ffas~e o! Propo/ed plat a arylyoq >t # ~iaae< rfind Lead Duval 4 y+ 5 v ~eo a illillillillillllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllilililljlllla e"Fti £ totw6ner Address r .e { r csh►/state/siP : . Lead OMl4at • , , ~ t K AC. n r_ rf _^j 'b M w a t { Date "1 hIG l " , We* pale i petitioner must provide the following five criteria. rationale for the variance using the (1) The granting of the variance will not public safety, health, or welfare or irjur e party, tri ental to the a to other pro. (2) The conditions upon which the re based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought (3) and are not applicable generally to other property; Because of the particular topographical conditions of the speci.ficrondings, e}1a hardship to propert pep or distinguished from a the owner would y involved, a of these regulations isrcarri d oOwner, if the stri t letter k E T Apenda NIm Agen d iVari Page ace Application Continued Date (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of Zoning Ordinance, the Studies. Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or omissicn of the owner or any prior owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. or, If the variance is from an exaction (eg. road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage improvement - a and/or dedication to the public), the i mposition of public any ideveloimprovement exaction pursuant to these r able benefit to the property owner ilaOr ons (2) {i is exceeds an excessive reason to constitute confiscation of the tract being platted. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council. XMi Request must include the followingr I. Completed application (one per variance). II. $175.00 fee. III. Copy'of proposed plat and location map. Signature of Applicant Date ~l ,•r d 4 y » 1 1. Agenda No. Ageod Item Date April 24, lit# City of Denton wow Variaaw tow Abuse and David Additiasr Willowood Street east of >;andolph. This memo accoapaniss ae Application For Variance of Subdivision sad Land Davaiopment S•gulatiama, ""o are 3 (thy«) vriemcss requested at this ti". Pavement of Milloweod street - motion 69,000 plus oost to pave 213 linear teat is the Siddle of the block too 1 bsn•!i a l ban" 2 bosses tots" 1 auistU* and 1 ear) ema•eds reasonable be the tt orof being Public, and to exoassive se to constitute confiscation is agreeable a 8Platted. 30 !«t of additional right-ol-ray dsdieation easamabl•. 2) Oakwood Prontagea Vawiaaes of loss then 30 toot Iron lase. 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the Public safety, b«ith, or welfare or injurious to other Property. 7) The conditions are unique to the Platting of Oakwood the rigbt-cf-ay, 33) Restric i hardship end of the tract to 1 building site would P by not allowing r'eesonabls u« of the land, 4) Dees not vary the provisions of the Plan. Matter Plan, or Studies. Zoning Or crate, aatao bull n line will be not. Minimum lot width csitariaat the e building S) At the time that J-M- Pell Addition was platted 11/31/55), it was thought that 50 fast should be adequate access to the property. Ater the city, War to purchasing the Property, the currant o ner believed that this access would be adequate for 2 building sites. 3) Sidewalk at Oakwood. i)' Thid not s o~be detrineatal to the public ufetr, health, or welfare or in Propertrr 2) with loss than 50 feet at the amb, an extremely snail amount at sidewalk would be lot! attar two drive" are constructed. 3) Grade requirements for driveways do not allow for adequate grading for a usable sidewalk considering the last length. 4) Does not vary the Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Developaaat Plan, Master Plan, or Studies. S) As stated above, it was believed by tba owner that 50 feat would be adequate access to the Property prior to purchase. @Lb idl7/!6044 f P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 A ends No. nd Ee May 22, 1996 Page 16 DR, VIII. Alyssa and David Addition. The subject property is located on the north side of Willowwood Street, between McCormick and Kendolph Streets. a. Consider a variance of Section 34-114 (5) concerning perimeter street paving. b. Consider a variance of Section 34-114 (17) concerning sidewalk construction. Mr. Salmon: Coleman and Associates is representing the owner of the proposed Alyssa and David Addition and has applied for two variances, the first one being the perimeter street paving requirement and the second one is the sidewalk construction requirement. Section 34-114(5) requires the developer to install twenty-four feet of city standard pavement along the frontage of any substandard perimeter street. In this case the proposed subdivision has frontage on Willowwood Street which currently is not a standard city street section so the perimeter paving requirement would apply to Willowwood Street. Section 34-114(17) requires the developer to in stall sidewalks along all street frontages. In this case a sidewalk would be required on both Willowwood Street and Oakwood Drive. The city is currently under contract to build sidewalks on Willowwood so there is no need for the developer to do that, however there still is a requirement to build a sidewalk on Oakwood Drive. The applicant has based the perimeter street variance on the cost of the improvement versus the proposed use which makes it an exaction variance. An exaction variance is one where the Commission would be making a recommendation to City Council. Staff is not recommending the perimeter street paving variance be granted. The estimated cost would be roughly nine thousand dollars. The proposal is to divide the subject property into four residential lots. There is an existing home on one lot so it would mean three additional homes which would roughly be three thousand dollars per each additional home. Each home would generate approximately ten vehicle trips per day which would be thirty additional trips per day. It currently costs in the City of Denton approximately forty-five hundred dollars to build the streets in an average residential subdivision. In this case we are talking about three thousand dollars per additional home. The ordinance does allow for the street to be built without curb and gutters, which does save some money. What we would be looking at is a twenty-four foot wide pavement of asphalt five inches thick. Willowwood Street is proposed to be reconstructed as a twenty-four foot wide street without curb and gutters in the 1995-2000 fiscal year, in our current Capital Improvements Program that was just voted on earlier this year. Our subdivision ordinances are very specific in terms of how we deal with this when we have something that is on the CIP. If the plat is approved within two years of the CIP project, which in this case will be October of 1997, then the developer has the option of giving the money to the city for that improvement. That is advantageous because they will save on the cost of engineering and they save on the administrative cost of the construction. The section that is being required is the same as what will be built but we are not under contract yet to have it built so our ordinance does require them to make those improvements. Concerning the sidewalk, we are only looking at the short fifty foot frontage on Oakwood Drive. The applicant has based their reasoning for applying for the variance on the unusual physical circumstance that there is only fifty feet of frontage on Oakwood Drive. This particular variance can be granted by the Commission if all of the five applicable criteria are met. Staff is recommending the sidewalk variance because we feel that it meets all five criteria. We don't feel that not constructing the sidewalk would cause a detriment to public safety because we are only talking about fifty feet of frontage at the end of a residential cul-de-sac which has very little traffic on it. Of that fifty feet of frontage there will be a twenty foot driveway entrance for two of the lots there so it will leave very little room to build a sidewalk. The fifty foot frontage Y e t F 4 P&2 Minutes r' May 22, 1996 r Page 17 p e e - was established when the JM Bell Subdivision was platted which was well in excess of thi ago. I know that our current sidewalk ordinance came about in 1988. rtY Years Mr. Cochran: You talked about the trip generation and if I am reading this right these will actually be in two different neighborhoods that back up to each other. There will only be one house on Willowwood. This doesn't look like it will have much impact at all on Willowwood. Mr. Powell: Willowwood is going to be widened in the future? Mr. Salmon: It will be widened somewhat. When the city gets done with it, it will all be twenty- four feet wide. Mr. Powell: So we are asking the applicant to widen that portion of the road? Mr. Salmon: Right. Mr. Powell: Will the other homeowners on Willowwood be asked to pave for the paving on Willowwood Street? Mr. Salmon: No, it is funded in our Capital Improvements Program and there is no assessment to adjacent property owners. Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Bill Coleman: My name is Bill Coleman and I am with Coleman and Associates Surveving and my address is 1421 N. Elm. I am working with the petitioner in this matter. Most of the points that I was going to make have already been discusscJ as far as the Willowwood variance. We considered this variance an exaction because it was nine thousand dollars for one house that was going to be built on Willowwood. They bought 3.62 acres out there and they want to put one additional house on Willowwood and then they want to divide the portion that has access on Oakwood into two lots. We feel that this is a reasonable way to use the property and aside from the cost it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to rebuild two hundred and twelve foot section of Willowwood throe years before the city is going to come through and rebuild the whole thing. That is what we are basing our variance on. One other point is that before they purchased this property they talked to the city to find out what they would run into and this particular cost to them was not mentioned until they went to DRC. Mr. Bucek: DRC is the point where staff explains to the applicant what the requirements are. Are you saying that they should be told that prior to that stage'? Mr. Coleman: What I am saying is that before the applicant purchased the property they went down to the city and they were told that they would have to plat it. They were not told about the nine thousand dollar paving requirement on Willowwood prior to purchasing the property. I was not brought into it until after they purchased the property. Mr. Bucek: If they had gone to you at the appropriate time this never would have happened. r.4 nv~ e T7 PiZ Minutes :A e o May 22, 1996 A e It Page 18 at Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance be granted for perimeter paving on Willowwood Street as the required improvement has no direct relationship to the development. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-0) Mr. Powell: I move that a variance be granted for sidewalks along Oakwood Court due to the unusual physical circumstances. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-0) I Agenda No. " Agenda Item Date (0-(/- DATE: June 4, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.116(e) requiring adequate water capacity for fire protection for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164), approximately a mile north of Loop 288. RECOMMENDATION- The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request, four in favor, none opposed (4-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. , Respectfully submitted: Ted 8enavides City Manager 4i i rYi'm a y~ f i Agenda No. Agend Item _ Date ` Prepared by: Walter E. eaves, r. Urban Planner Approved: C Frank Ins, AICP _ Director Planning and Develcpment Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the May 22, 1996, P & Z meetin~j. a i r 5 Agenda No.l L)t~ (jo? A enda Item Dale PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission DAte: June 4, 1996. Subject: Variance to Section 34-116(e), Water capacity for fire flow for the GWJ Addition. Recommendation ' Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-0). j3ackground The GWJ Addition is a proposed 2 lot subdivision on 8 acres in Division 1 of the ETJ (Attachment 1). The owner of the proposed GWJ Addition has applied for a variance to Section 34-116 (e) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This section of the Code of Ordinances requires: Every development shall provide adequate water capacity for fire protecton purposes. Unless buildings In the development are provided with fire protection by means of automatic sprlnider systert,s in accordance with Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances, each development shall provide the following minimum water capacity (calculated with twenty (20) pounds of residual pressure). For low•Iniensity residential use, that capacity Is 500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds of residual pressure. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection yetween the required improvement and the proposed devslor ment. This 'exaction variance' is being recommended to the City Council. Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the City's existing 12' water line at Hercules and FM 2164, which is approximately 8,000 feet t:.way. At the average cost of $42 per linear foot (for an 8' line) the total cost of assuring adN- uate fire flow would be approximately $336,000. Attachments 1. Location map. 2. Plat. 3. Section 34-11 S(e). 4. Variance application. C -I " V Agenda No, ATT Agenda Item. Date ^ w +w 1+ f..~--- • MWARMS i ~Y~ F 1 [ I POfARI wow IICC~ZYI! ' ream I,... lr.0 . -,lo y t- - . / .far . f .T a4i~x a'4 aTYIw 0[YRafY[1R fvN1 NOTES: / 1. TN[ PJWM or Tt" OMW N TO PLAT P1M 1 LOTS. . ~f 0.0 Aent f^ 1R s. NO srcwluolT cwlas a ToPDrAAnR AI1[ PINKD. AIRf!Mo n ws w w. .Mp91i'Rrt L 7 . w Y PfP114 a wTi 3. IROTOTIT N 1101 S/TIaN A 8000 1011[ I[II T.[.YA. / NP1~rt 'WTIA r rLow N Ao" RATE WP MR rK Cou" or g~ [Of PA ~RrA.1 A i~ r _ _ MMTON. 11XAS COYMMTY IAEDn s, fvNt 01slwr09! NM A. V1 1f It [ IE9.D3 of nY 3 It MwOU[S ff[wnw. wfwE ~11 n _ a,6 NAN.SR N RO. (•1 4 l~ A. PROPERTY R Rflel OM or OCRTOM Vi e LOT! ! S. CN039 M'MSITV'3W11ea Ac.•a,30O/AA. • arI N 1. PRCKm Lo"T[D M lie NNTEWIM $M 177 R /M ST 7i e1! o • T, urAnRr PUNIEST OTT or a[YMM TA1RR Lpoc n . em or D[NMTI sccR Ut a APMOl. ie.er 0,000 n. lYY. N I • • • env 1 ' r e PRCIRARNY PLAT WOf% 1. WE P^-VA Of TIM COW IS To PLAT MD 1 tars, ' To PoorcNIT Cwwo[S N TOPOCA04" APE PLAW40, 6 L"A 3. ►ROPP" r3 Not YIIIwI A /t000 COT[ KIN 0 1 MA. '--CRY Irwrt ! , d 1 "SV • YOM noaD PRIAvoct RAt WP FOR TIC Couxry Or C[TNIOIA Trw CCmm"ry I460714. Pwl[l 01ow or TK [AIC W. PArIRONMT OWDOZE DTNr jSf YANER Is 11[ONIC[RO a D C 14. 4 "loom 4 W" WY or 0" AMU" V s. PPWQS D LAND US[ 0 vNa3 fAYAI Pf N m 1 ~ GRNFR: OEWMK ' MWOp Mq01 yp~{ NAY MITI Tlw ~iaa1A n ' T MNN10vm h. DAIL Dwccw or ftv^v4 C. W. J. ADDIS D[MTON COIMTY LOTS I AND IAD A Y r/[ s DEMON c OVMryp _ rwu+ AVPAV.CD M. - OAR 7."-- 1 nusa r f:tMON covm AAa F . a1 Avoo m Agenda er Agend H Item Date ~ L C-0 G SUBDIVISION Hp •k-DEvs! •eo. 34-11i, Water utilities standards. (a) liasinoUQYA- Water systems shall be rovided cient number of outlets and shall be of sufficient suet to furnish adequate domestic water supply to furnish fire lots and to conform to the city master water plan eCthe comprel hensive utility ordinance and the standard specifications of the city. All water utility standards are applicable in the city limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction. (b) Ddiiti4.dlfion standards Water pipe shall be a minimum of six. Inch nominal internal diameter construction. (c) fire hydrwn~a Fire hydrants shall be a mximum of six hundred (600) feet apart in residential areas and athree hundred (300) feet apart in commercial/industrial areas. (d) lwaUwl, Location of water utilities shall city right-of-way; in unusual circumstances, locationemaylbebinia utility easement. (e) 1[ater cay re+~ a Every development shall adequate water capacity for fire provide buildings in the development are protection purposes. Unless means of autoratic sprinkler systemsoindaccordancerwithoChapter 28 I of the Code of ordinances, each development shall provide the following minimum water capacity (calculated with twenty (20) pounds of residual pressure): High-intensity commercial and industrial , Medium-intensity commercial 3000 Medium-intensity residential . • • . .75 0 Low-intensity residential • • • All flows to be c;lculated with went . $00 pressures, Y (20) pounds residual i M a 6 QY V ATTff4%w*w Agenda No, Agenda Item Date "re _ CIT? OF DXWM APPLICATION FOR VJIRMUTZ 8II8 MSION AND LMM DsV=LO PKUT RRQQL7ITIONB Name of pX~posea plat A 4 Y I A sti ~~-'f•e ,o! ~t1~~•_Subdivifi~o~a1 Laad Deve op~anb > ~ . ~~`'•°NT""°.+,~'7N.n,```✓x~~~^t`,iYy A A~ , w < b fx ~zY -0,. P~tltioa C , <„z?M~ >`b,. ix✓ v Mme.. # ✓ Tel hone CP; ` ✓~:r jam a d b 1l yJ. s n)y Rro' . { n.>:a xw rs` `4 l dre// q S Y Z E} f Ad W✓ City/8tats<Ziq`, '~cttcw\ 4,~ Date a , t Rtt ` r.e' pafaL1~ Petitioner must following five criteria, the rationale for the variance using the Cl) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty, (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property] (3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations: is carried out; a K C; Agenda No. Agend Item Variance Date Page 2 Application Continued (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Studies. Master Plan, or (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the ict or omission of the owner or any prior owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. or, If the variance is from an exaction (e. of-way dedication, drainage i g road construction, tight- and/or dedication to the public) gthe ement _ a public imPr'ovement exaction e imposition of any development benefit to rsuaent to these regulations (1) exceeds any reasonable own constitute confiscaton of t ee tract beinis s excessive as to g platted. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council. 140Th Request must include the following: I. Completed application (one per variance). II. $175.00 fee. III. Cop of propo ed plat and location map. ignat o li ant at r Agenda No, Ap.nd Item Date 'r May 6, 1996 City of Denton RE: Variance for Guy Jones property, North FM2164 - ETJ This memo accompanies an Application for Variance of Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. There are 5 requested at this time. Some are related. 1) Fire Flow - Section 34-116(e). - Exaction To meet this provision would require extending the city water Ine well over a mile. The cost of extending this water line would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner and would be excessive. 2) Drainage Improvements - Exaction The cost of underground pipe or channel lining would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner. The she of the lots (4 acres) and the placement of a single family residence on each lot will have minimal, if any, affect on the drainage. 3) Street to existing public street - Section 34-125b - 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or Injurious to other property: 2) The conditions upon which the request fora variance Is based ore unique to the property for which the variance Is sought and are not applicable generally to other properly, there 4 no access to a public street without crossing another persons property. 3) this property Is virtually land locked other than a rood easement, to meet this regulation would be a porti;ular hardship, not only for the owner but adjacent landowners as well. 4) The variance will not In any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or Studies 5) This condition was not created by the owner. This situation has been In existence for over 15 years. 4 t! v F i Agenda No. Agenda item r - - Date L 4) Private Road Construction - Section 34-114(13)c - Exaction - To reconstruct this road that has been In existence for over 15 years would exceed any resonable benefit to the owners and would be excessive. The reconstruction of this road would be only in front of the 2 - 4 acre lots and over 700 feet from the public street. You would have an unpaved road leading to a paved section 700 feet long to serve 2 single family residences. S) Sidewalk - Exaction - Sidewalks of approximately 700 feet to serve 2 single family residences In the country would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner and would be excessive. We would literally have 700 feet of concrete g&.g from nowhere to nowhere. 1 a ATTACHMENT 2 No, Enda P&Z Minutes D43A May 22, 1996 Page 19 IX. GWJ Addition. The subject property is located 700 feet east of FM 2164 (Locust Street), approximately a mile north of Loop 288. The property is Division 1 of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Mr. Jones removed himself at 9:10 p.m. because he has a financial interest in this project. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) providing for adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes. Mr. Reeves: This is a variance to Section 34-116(e) water capacity for fire flow. Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the city's existing twelve inch water line located at Hercules and Locust, which is F.M. 2164, and is eight thousand feet away. This is an exaction variance with an estimated cost for extending that line eight thousand feet to the property is approximately three hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars which far exceeds the value of that. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Mr. Cochran: What are they proposing out there? Mr. Reeves: The preliminary plat is for two 4 acre single family lots. Mr. Cochran: 1 move that we recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34-116(e) for the proposed GWJ Addition because it does not represent a reasonable connection between the requirement and the proposed use. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) b. Consider a five-criteria variance of Section 34.125(b) requiring adequate access to an existing or proposes public street by frontage on such street. c. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.124(e) requiring line or pipe drainage channel. d. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(3) regarding street construction standards. e. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) requiring sidewalks (only if variance is not granted for private road. Mr. Salmon: 1 would prefer to address all four variances at one time and you can vote on them separately. Coleman and Associates is representing Guy Jones and they have applied for these four variances of our subdivision requirements. One is for drainage design standards, another is public street access, the third is the street paving standards, and the fourth is sidewalks. This is a somewhat unusual piece of property. Section 34-114 concerning street access requires that all lots have to have frontage on a public street unless they are in a PD zoning district. Our Subdivision Regulations require that private streets have a minimum paving standard which in this case would w P&Z Minutes AQenda No'. -S May 22, 1996 Page 20 re ~ be twenty-four feet pavement either five inches thick asphalt or concrete. If it weren't a private street and it was going to ]act a public street then we would require a sidewalk along that pu' ;ic street. ConcerrdM drainage, our design standards would require that any existing drainage courses must either be lined, or be piped underground. What we have is an existing piece of property that currently has no street frontage and is several hundred feet from a public street. It is separated from the public street by other private property. The developer proposes to leave the street private. Because this is in the ET) they have no mechanism of doing that because there is no zoning in the ETJ. The applicant wishes to leave the street in its current physical condition which is a crashed rock all weather surface. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a drainage easement large enough to contain a 100 year storm and he is proposing to leave it in its natural state. The public street access variance has been applied for based on unusual or unique physical circumstances which makes it a five criteria variance which is one that you can grant if you feel that it meets all rive criteria. In this case the staff is recommending that the street access variance be granted. We believe that it does meet all of the five applicable criteria. There are only eight individual properties on this private road, one of which is a microwave tower that generates very little traffic. We have a very limited amount of traffic on this private road. The existing road does meet geometric conditions that we require for private roads, mainly meaning that it is not a through street. We feel that the health, safety, and welfare issues are minimal in this case. In order to make the existing road public the right-of-way would need to be significantly wider than what it is and in addition not only would it have to be granted in front of this property, but the developer would have to convince the adjacent property owners between him and Locust Street to do the same thing. Of course he has no control over what those property owners want or would be willing to do. Granting the variance would have no effect on the zoning ordinances. This is in the ET). This property has been in this state in excess of ftfteer, ,yf-ars. The current private road criteria that we use came about in 1988 so the fifth criteria would be applicable in this case. The other variances that we are looking at, sidewalks, drainage design standards, and paving standards have all been applied for based on the expense of those items compared with the size and type of development that we are looking at. This is an exaction variance and you would be making a recommer.dation to the City Council. Staff recommends the paving standard variance with the condition t'.tat if the existing gravel surface isn't at least twenty feet wide that it be widened to that with grav,.l to allow for two way traffic and emergency vehicle access. Our minimum fire lane standard in the city is twenty feet so that is why we are recommending a minimum of twenty feet. In order to pave this to city standards just across the frontage alone would cost thirty-five thousand dollars. Staff feels this would be well in excess of what would be warranted for two residential lots. Staff recommends the sidewalk and drainage variance also. The sidewalk would cost over seven thousand dollars and the drainage improvements would cost anywhere between thirty-five to fifty thousand dollars. Both of those figures are well in excess of what staff feels would be reasonlble for two single family residential lots. The construction of two homes on eight acres will have very little if any noticeable impact on the drainage in the area. We feel that with the developer willing to dedicate a drainage easement that will provide for orderly development in the area and will provide a factor of safety so that people who buy these lots won't build their homes to close to the existing drainage course. Mr. Cochran: Is this area served by the Denton fire department? Mr. Salmon: I don't think it is served by the fire department but I think they are served by the EMS service. Y V i Yy 1 P&Z ,Minutes Agenda No. May 22, 1996 , m Page 21 at Mr. Cochran: I move that a variance of requirement for public road access be granted based on unusual physical condition of the property. Mr. Powell: Second . Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand, opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the ;.acing requirements be granted with the condition that the existing gravel surface be twenty feet wide as the expense of paving would far out weigh any rx,iefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the sidewalk requirement be granted as the expense would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign, Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the channel lining or pipe requirement be granted as the cost of such improvements would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discuuion? All in favor please raise your hand. Opposed same sign. Approved, (4-0) F Agenda No. 93 Agenda Ito Date DATE: June 4, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT- Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design standards for the GWJ Addition. The subject property is in • Division 1 of the ETJ and is [w.ated approximately 700 feet east of Locust (FM 2164), approximately a mile north of Loop 288. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request, four in favor, none opposed (4-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Respectfully submitted: T d B-~s City Manager 3 ' Agenda No. ~-Agenda tem~ii Cf Dale Prepared by: J'I 'T Walter E. Reeves, Jr. Urban Planner ~f Approved: Frank obbins, AICP~ Director Planning and Development Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the May 22, 1996, P & Z meeting. i i b r Agenda No. ' A enda tam ate PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: June 4, 1996. Subject: Variance to Section 34-124(e), concerning drainage design standards for the GWJ Addition. Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4-0). Background The GWJ Addition is a proposed 2 lot subdivision on 8 acres in Division 1 of the ETJ (Attachment 1). The owner of the proposed GWJ Addition has applied for a variance to Se.,tion 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This section of the Code of Ordinances requires any existing drainage courses that are not associated with a 100 year floodplain to be lined or piped. The applicant proposes to leave the subject drainage course in a natural state and will dEdicate a drainage easement wide enough to contain a 100 year storm. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. This 'exaction variance' is being recommended to the City Council. The required drainage improvements would cost $35,000 to $50,000. This cost is far in excess of what would be justified for two single family lots. In addition, the construction of two homes on 8 acres will have very G!tle affect on drainage in the area. The easements will prevent construction of buil6ings too close to the drainage channel, and thus help keep the channel clear of obstruction. Attachments 1. Location map. 2. Plat. 3. Variance application. f ~ r! Fl Agenda Apenda Jfem • ~ ~ Date Si' LWL Z 4ft 14 M i~i m mum j 1r~r -brim ~ ' 1 I AAwI'n ono n.. / ~ ~f t ~A~ _ w~~ r 11Q7ffIIJY! 1 N 6820']? E WI-261763 - S 6820'~ - - t~. - / i .wares~~Lf c: _ ' + a D(NERAL muxunn Prw NMI F` / d0 ADM$ I. TM[ nwrosc OF n4S aHbr f$ TO PLAT WTO 2 [CFS N - _--~~-1 r cWO r..1N n. ~•'M'~°i ~f • H 2, No wArrma CLWIM N rWOoww AK PIAMNCo, y . S tlY] JPwTRl I AR J. PACK" is Nor wTW A ROOD 20W Put Fl Y A. ROM N]LR1w]c[ RATE Rw FOR M cOUTm OF = I wr I. f Wi "I mos 3 d •.'t'1• xvrar TEXAS coNwN.r IbarT.. Jiv.n DlPS6 6 . Or TN[ SAND W. PR[lwwM M WOE MOT 7 b ~I N 59 ff E 219D! tArtR Is KoutsrtD. I b 9 ! J r S. PROP[IIY R W" Cm Or L K" t. T.! r. r ' = 4L!- ' 6' S. DAM DENSRY.]OV/T00 A -0JOV/ASo A MOKRPT TOUTED M LOW MTN" IAMA $27 6 IH Ad' i ^MS NEMEST COY OF DVODN wN[R VNC FS AP t[TT OF PROR o2p~TONn sEwMte . PoEA LIK a: a.ro+c AWAY. PKLAW w PVT M'tt: 9 1. M "POSE OF 14] []NWT R TO RAT WO 2 LOTS2NO VGN A W CNUTCES N TCPOCRAPNT AK PLANN[D ~ IQ" J. "MP 7 W w A FLOW 2OW KR F.[Y.A. FLOOD "SWOA2RE RAN WA FOR TK COVNrl Of DEWOoL n-03 ccmwN IARonA. Pwn 0,05 Aiwr r OF n4 YID W. PRELMNVT ORAN: DU STAY ~ O . • ""'Jw Wk tR M REMSTEO ^Am ' 'N~ ..w^ •w A PROKRn a Rr'WN cr, Of cfwm c.ri, n n rL I PROPOSto LAND LSE n mall ruFAT RE h,,, 1NO1ON ppTyr rt]AS ]1201 vPPafc 6Y' CA 1-4 DKCTOR OF PLWNNo TA.A DENTON coN 6. W. J. TO LOT] T MO 2. OCR v. t DAEOR SWh A. 2 ~rA sN wRTw.RNw Rrr+ NTON COUNTY n qa F Ab M \w! ATRRPICD W. Gil rq. uw DWON COLNrY Iw= 'R j~2.M_.rjYlT f l1 T f Agenda No, l l _ ATTAcome"r 3 Agend Item Date CITY OF DIR"NOW APPLZCATION POR VARZ"VX S08 MOZON ANA LAM DRVSLOPKINT RROMaTION$ Name of *_,wed plat hOY 1Rbi~~iioa lad Laud ~m o! tae Davfl RaQttiatieair e M~You:, • ##ace7 ° a 5. Y c Petitionar Tolepboae 1C,:. Addref~ ~ ; ; ~~str/eta~/gyp' 1e band ow, '~,r[~SF s w 6Y+ 9, llddreff City/Stat4/*t3#' "may '7~&MC A Date 45 tee paid Petitioner must provide the rationale for the variance using the following five criteria. (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty, (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; (3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the omier would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried out; H Y M Y 3 Agenda No. Date ltem~ Variance Application Continued Page 2 (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master plan, or Studies. (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or omission of the owner or any prior owner, subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which a variance is sought. or, If the variance is from an exaction (eq. road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage improvement - a public i ment and/or dedication to the public), the imposition evelop exaction pursuant to these regulations (2) exceeds any development benefit to the property owner or (Z) is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract being platted. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council. XMj Request must include the following: I. Completed application (one per variance). II. $175.00 fee. III. Cop of propo ed plat and location map, 1 i 3 gnat o pli ant at r F 3 Agenda No, Agenda Item Date 1 May 6,1996 City of Denton RE: Variance for Guy Jones property, North FM2164 - ETJ This memo accompanies an A Land Development Application for Variance of Subdivision and Regulations. There are 5 requested at this time. Some are related. 1) Fire Flow - Section 34-116(e). - Exaction To meet this provision would require extending the city water line well over a mite. The cost of extending this water line would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner and would be excessive. 2) Drainage improvements - Exaction the cost of underground pipe or channel lining would exceed any reasonable benefit ,:o the owner. The size of the lots (4 acres) and the placement of a single family residence on each lot will have minimal, If any, affect on the drainage. 3) Street to existing public street - Section 34-125b - 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or Injurious to other property; 2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is , based are unique to the pr ,arty for which the variance Is sought and are rat applicable generally to other property; there is no access to a public street without crossing another persons property. 3) This properly 4 virtually land locked other than a road easement, to meet this regulation would be a Particular hardship, not only for the owner but adjacent landowners as well. 4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or Studies 5) This condition was not created by the owner. This situation hos been In existence for over 15 years. a Y V H F Agenda No. 3 Agvp item Datt 4) Private Road Construction - Section 34-114(13)c - Exaction - To reconstruct ihb rood that has been in oxlstence for over 15 years would excel any resonoble benef t to the owners and would be excessive. The rec:onstnuction of this road would be only In front of the 2 - 4 acre lots and over 700 feet from the public street. You would have an unpaved road leading to a paved section 700 feet long to serve 2 file family residences. 5) Sidewalk - Exaction - Sidewalks of approximately 700 feet to serve 2 single family residences In the cixuntry would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner and would be excessive. We would literally have 700 feet of concrete going from nowhere to nowhere. i k F w ATTACHMENT 2 P&Z Minutes Agenda No. "CJ _ May 22, 1996 ° - Page 19 D Rog _ _ IX. GWJ Addition. The subject property is located 700 feet east of FM 2164 (Locust Street), approximately a mile north of Loop 288. The property is Division 1 of the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Mr. Jones removed himself at 9:10 p.m. because he has a financial interest in this project, a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) providing for adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes. Mr. Reeves: This is a variance to Section 34.116(e) water capacity for fire flow. Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the city's existing twelve inch water line located at Hercules and Locust, which is F.M. 2164, ai-A is eight thousand feet away. This is an exaction variance with an estimated cost for extending that line eight thousand feet to the property is approximately three hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars which far exceeds the value of that. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Mr. Cochran: What are they proposing out there? Mr. Reeves: The preliminary plat is for two 4 acre single family lots. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34-116(e) for the proposed GWJ Addition because it does not represent a reasonable connection between the requirement and the proposed use. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. i Approved. (4-0) b. Consider a five-criteria variance of Section 34-125(b) requiring adequate access to an existing or proposes public street by frontage on such street. c. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) requiring line or pipe drainage channel. d. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(3) regarding street construction standards. e. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) requiring sidewalks (only if variance is not granted for private road. Mr. Salmon: I would prefer to address all four variances at one time and you can vote on them separately. Coleman and Associates is representing Guy Jones and they have applied for these four variances of our subdivision requirements. One is for drainage design standards, another is public street access, the third is the street paving standards, and the fourth is sidewalks. This is a somewhat unusual piece of property. Section 34-114 concerning street access requires that all lots have to have frontage on a public street unless they are in a PD zoning district. Our Subdivision Regulations require that private streets have a minimum paving standard which in this case would , r h(,EfiGa No. Q, 3 _ P&Z Minutes It C. tA _RP' 'I May 22, 1996 DN"RT Page 20 be twenty-four feet pavement either five inches thick asphalt or concrete. If it weren't a private street and it was going to be a public street then we would require a sidewalk along that public street. Concerning drainage, our design standards would require that any existing drainage courses must either be lined, or be piped underground. What we have is an existing piece of property that currently has no street frontage and is several hundred feet from a public street. It is separated from the public street by other private property. The developer proposes to leave the street private. Because this is in the ETJ they have no mechanism of doing that because there is no zoning in the ETJ. The applicant wishes to leave the street in its current physical condition which is a crushed rock all weather surface. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a drainage casement large enough to contain a 100 year storm and he is proposing to leave it in its natural state. The public street access variance has been applied for based on unusual or unique physical circumstances which makes it a five criteria variance which is one that you can grant if you feel that it meets all five criteria. In this case the staff is recommending that the street access variance be granted. We believe that it does meet all of the five applicable criteria. There are only eight individual properties on this private road, one of which is a microwave tower that generates very little traffic. We have a very limited amount of traffic on this private road. The existing road does meet geometric conditions that we require for private roads, mainly meaning that it is not a through street. We feel that the health, safety, and welfare issues are minimal in this case. In order to make the existing road public the right-of-way would need to be significantly wider than what it is and in addition not only would it have to be granted in front of this property, but the developer would have to convince the adjacent property owners between him and Locust Street to do the same thing. Of course he has no control over what those property owners want or would be willing to do. Granting the variance would have no effect on the zoning ordinances. This is in the ETJ. This property has been in this state in excess of fifteen years. The current private road criteria that we use came about in 1988 so the fifth criteria would be applicable in this case. Tne other variances that we are looking at, sidewalks, drainage design standards, and paving standards have ail been applied for based on the expense of those items compared with the size and type of development that we are looking at. This is an exaction variance and you would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the paving standard variance with the condition that if the existing gravel surface isn't at least twenty feet wide that it be widened to that with gravel to allow for two way traffic and emergency vehicle access. Our minimum fire lane standard in the city is twenty feet so that is why we are recommending a minimum of twenty feet. In order to pave this to city staadardsjust across the frontage alone would cost thirty-five thousand dollars. Staff feels this would be well in excess of what would be wan-anted for two residential lots. Staff recommends the sidewalk and drainage valiance also. The sidewalk would cost over seven thousand dollars and the drainage improvements would cost anywhere between thirty-five to fifty thousand dollars. Both of those figures are well in excess of what staff feels would be reasonable for two single family residential lots. The construction of two homes on eight acres will have very little if any noticeable impact on the drainage in the area. We feel that with the developer willing to dedicate a drainage easement that will provide for orderly development in the area and will provide a factor of safety so that people who buy these lots won't build their homes to close to the existing drainage course. Mr. Cochran: Is this area served by the Denton fire department? Mr. Salmon: 1 don't think it is served by the fire department but I think they are served by the EMS service. Agenda P&Z Minutes {e MI&A May 22, 1996 kl~e Page 21 Mr. Cochran: I move that a variance of requirement for public road access be granted based on unusual physical condition of the property. Mr. Powell: Second . Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. ' Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recomni;;nd to the City Council that an exaction variance of the paving requirements be granted with the condition that the existing gravel surface be twenty feet wide as the expense of paving would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the sidewalk requirement be granted as the expense would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second Ms. Russell.: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the { channel lining or pipe requirement be granted as the cost of such improvements would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) s Agenda No, 9 Apanda Ito Date - - DATE: June 4, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAL' TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavldes, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.114(17) concerning sldewalks for the GWJ Addition, The subject property is In Divislon i of the ETJ and Is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (f-M 2164), approximately a mile north of Loop 286, RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commisslon recommends approval of the request, four In favor, none opposed (4.0), SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report, BACK ffOU_ND. See Planning and Zoning Commission Report, _P~iOGRAMS. DCPARTMENTS OR GROUPS ,gFFECTED; Not applicable, FISCAL IMPACT: None, Respeolfully submitted; Ted Benavides Clty Manager it i •~gandn No. ~ r^ ~ s' Agenda lam _ llate~~c,_ < G~ _ Prepared by: Wafter ,peeve Jr. - Urban Planner Approved: --Y ~~/j,;RC 1 Frank Robbin P D lrector Planning and Development Attachment #1; Planning and Zoning CommlSSlon Report, Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the May 22, 1996, P & Z meeting. Agenda ND-9 Agenda Item D11P_ , PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To; City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: June 4, 1996. Subjeot: Variance to Section 34.114(17), concerning sidewalks for the GWJ Addltlon, Aeaommendatlorl Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4.0), Background The GWJ Addltlon Is a proposed 2 lot subdivision on 8 acres In Division '1 of the ETJ (Attachment 1). The owner of the proposed GWJ Addition has applied for a variance to Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This sectlon of the Code of Ordinances requires sidewalks be constructed along all street frontages, 'rho request Is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required Improvement and the proposed development. This "exaction variance" Is being recommended to tho Clty Council. The requlred sidewalk would cost over $7,000, which is excessive for two single family residential lots, and far outweigh any benefit to the subject oroperty or surrounding properties, ttaohments 1. Location map. 2. Plat. 3. Variance application. a No 6L w w a ww4mm mom Q w ~vw ' I ~I !N R LY p kt' 1 W' y % J[ ` t f 10.p: L'I1 tuP rru / I I / II 1 rY7fL1'lfY.llAC 1Ir war, l rT+rr _ _ 1 Nb eo - - p H B90'3t E 70 _ X A p4d [&~Od3l res ➢l yun PLAN os 4taavcts OIN' uno 7 Lots t o 4 Of 1'u4vroRO 94NI11GL 7 OMlaou I , 1 P.LIL 41P I R II YBcoo IN IS Nor xWE I t[O 704E PLR Ltr A r MtouO w, UNI LL of INI, nus c. o ARY (R, NNft [t c lose t'f ~■L t ' or n+t s.stit w'.+. PRLUU IIUIr tn.ru,t sIANNtil IS RiPROpEA Ortdbi 19 imgvN 11nN rm 01 oU11)N [ f1Lor+ sp OfNSi1Y 13OV/10.0 940. LNSI" A1hu,7~41Ir, x PPtpr Off4tt LNA1t0 It 1Ox Np LNSNY Ldl'F111f y 1 :m[SIrMLII CI1Y Of rtla Al(R V4[ IS 61ti PAPROL8,000 11AR10. tlIML01 c1w It'll U' OCMW4 SNIP Utrt 15 rDIWnY. .ooo 6' P0.[1N gLF'I F1A1 NOttS~. I IN( FVPPOSC Or q, ,xN'&t n 10 PUI INTO 7 WS 5011FIC"I clV ,s O4 forootw I fn PIAIWrnCOV v0s FNOPLNW IS 401 "IN 1 ROOD ION( FIR Lt 4,5 6711'6Lt YL 707.06 rlow 14SINWICC WE bF lot 111E Coulon or _CaY Wit9 \ U(ulOw, NW COUWII1T, 1180;14 FI1RL 01094 / Of IIII SNJ VN. FRLVUN40 00.11140[ SRKIY luu~~~64r n AURR IS R[OLR91[D, tt \ F.ax.7 ff.1!f'fY"''" 4. ppVtott1 IS FIINN Cm or nt,00 r I) . nl 7~ 4 L` .99~ r~ a 9. PRUPOSIO (,Qp] USE IS Sh'i't MI. Ff PCt11Nlar L rr A~ oxu[P JONLS rL Lull i I 9808 pul,114olul NfJ9CE4 DIN 5N, Ifni Pilot MAY 1 L1 ~ o'er ru1.aAI n.u1' I I unctcR Or VUNINNO 0' 0[ICOII COVNIY L019 1 ANO 1, bl uuy V. C fMOR LVRSLY It I,,,~,J plNI~N cov_+n . I.L IV Afnj LNII['r {I{. ~E rF r l1eyL{ to p LI rW rr y 1rr "yl MCPIA(06Y: WE: 9lmRT~_- ^ ) _..1 W ,lJ N,.y L, ~`I111 1 ul•N W Of/fidl CO'JHtt JIgOC ATTAawwimr 3 CZ" OF APPLI TIOK FOR VAAIAM etis MIXON AND LAUD DsrvsLo Flour "MATUwe Raw of +'Ak." wY j c1f H lat. F ~ c ~'r~,qq ItaAd ~~~aaE Y~u~F4' !Y R~' li ~ ~ { a c ~ Y ~1 r f t l \ tt'? M 1 l'( r , `t ANb e'd~7✓i'''a .fit; J' ~ i Y> s: ~ , ~ t ~ `Y~ 7~~. f i#.. ; f d E } ~ x ✓ r1 / Bit ✓ ,fu.. t Patitiamar . ~ A 4 3 r 1 r (t~4 f ~ r ✓ • ~ l (Y L~ "f ; vihrj F !=iJt r: 3 , rx.~ n Y f M~YSA., VAiM.C . `\Y.\i`~x. ' S a, ~;~1~s.wt ! ,~F ~ N~i~/ a)i ~ ~r a~ ; ~7y,`#'~t,:~ ~ <la, fx f•64 iXt 31 Cit~►~8ba~a~~{~y ' "may ~~~s"yC'S1 ~,,y Date XN Paid Petitioner trust following five criteria the rationale for the variance using the (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental -,tio the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- pertyi (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property 01 Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried outp I Ageadil NO_ . Apend 1101111 1-1 Variance Application Continued tiatQ Page 7 {4) ZoThe ning r Ordinance, not in any manner vary the provisions of the Studies, Denton Development Plan, Master Plano or (5) The special or peculiar conditions based did not upon which the re result from or were not created by the the owner quest is omission date of of creation of the r an i prior owner, subse tot or sought, ~N rement from which agvariancetis or, I Of -way dedication, f the variance is from an exaction (e and/or dedicati Co linage improvement road construction on _ a public i right- exaction pursuant to theneubic)' the imposition of au mprovement benefit benefit to the regulations (1) exceeds development confiscation of Cheer or (2) is so excessive sonable tract being platted, as to Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered recommendation from the Planning and zoning Commission b council, after a by the city RMI Request must include the followings I Completed application (one aor variance). II. $175.00 fee. p and location map, 4ttoo opo ed let ant at - - 3 npu~n'1llan~ May 6, 1996 City of Denton RE; Variance for Guy Jones Property, North FM2164 - ETJ This memo accompanles an Application for Variance of Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, There are 5 requested at thh time. Some are related, 1) ire Flow - Section 34-116(e), - Exaction To meet this provision would rw4uire extending the city water tine well over a mile. The cost of extending this water tine would exceed any reasonable beneffft to the owner and would be excesove. 2) Drainage Improvements - Exaction The cost of underground pipe or channel lining would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner. The size of the lots (4 acres) and the placement of a single family residence on each lot will have minimal; M any, affect on the drainage. 3) Street to exkttng publlo street - Section 34-125b - 1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or Injurious to other property; 2) The cond*m upon which the request for a variance h based are unique to the property for which the variance h sought and are not applicable generally to other property; there Is no access to a public street without crossing another persons property. 3) This property 0 virtually land locked other than a road easement, to meet this regulation would be a particular hardship, not only for the owner but adjacent landowners as well, 4) The variance will not In any manner vary the provisions of the Toning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or Studles 5) This condition wus not created by the owner. This situation has been In existence for over 15 years. App da No ; hpond Hom. ~ 4) Prtvate Road construction - Sec0on 34.114(13)c - Exaction To m=uhd thb road that has been In existence for over 15 years would exceed any resonable benefit to the owners and would be excessive. The reconstruction of this road would be only in Mont of the 2 - 4 acre lots and over 700 feet from the pubk street. you would have an unpaved road leading to a paved section 700 feet long to serve 2 single family residences. 5) Sidewalk - Exaction - .9dewolks of opproxImptely 700 feet to serve 2 single family residences In the country would exceed any reasonable benef t to the owner and would be excessive. We would Itteralty have 700 feet of concrete going from nowhere to nowhere. ATTACHMENT 2 P~, Minutes Agenda No-0. 6-j May 22, 1996 DO A A i p Page 19 Rn IX. GWJ Addition, The subject property is located 700 feet cast of FM 2164 (Locust Street), Jurisdiction approximately a (BTJ)mile north of Loop 288, The property Is Division 1 of the Bxtraterritoriai , Mr. Jones removed himself at 9;10 p.m, because he has a financial Interest in this project. a• Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) providing for adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes, Mr. Reeves; This Is a variance to Section 34-116(e) water capacity for fire flow, Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the city's existing twelve inch water line located at Hercules and Locust, which Is P.M. 2164, and Is eight thousand feet away. This is an exaction variance with an estimated cost for extending that line eight thousand feet to the property Is approximately three hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars which far exceeds the value of that. Staff recommends approval of this variance. Mr. Cochran; What are they proposing out there? Mr. Reeves; The preliminary plat Is for two 4 acre single family lots, Mr. Cochran; I move that we recommend approval of the requested variance to Sectlo.ri 34-1 I6(c) for the proposed GWJ Addition because it does not represent a reasonable connection between the requirement and the proposed use. Mr, Powell; Second. Ms. Russell; Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved, (4.0) b. Consider a five-criteria variance of Section 34-125(b) requiring adequate access to an existing or proposes public street by frontage on such street, c. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.124(e) requiring line or pipe drainage channel. d• Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(3) regarding street construction standards. e• Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) requiring sidewalks (only If variance is not granted for private road, Mr, Salmon, I would prefer to address all four variances at one time and you can vote on them separately, Coleman and Associates Is representing Guy Jones and they have applied for these four variances of our subdivision requirements. One is for drainage design standards, another is public street access, the third is the street paving standards, and the fourth Is sidewalks, This is a somewhat unusual piece of property. Section 34.114 concerning street access requires that all lots have to have frontage on a public street unless they are in a PD zoning district. Our Subdivision Regulations require that private streets have a minimum paving standard which In this case would i4DOnde ND. P&Z Minutes a It %1-.Y1' )r May 22, 1996 r Page 20 v ` _..;._,t_...... ate be twenty-four feet pavement either five Inches thick asphalt or concrete. If it weren't a privato street and it was going to be a public street then we would require a sidowaik along 111,11 public street. Concerning drainage, our design standards would require that any existing drainage courses must either be lined, or be piped underground. What we have is an existing piece of property that currently has no street frontage and Is several hundred feet from a public street. It Is separated from the public street by other private property. The developer proposes to leave the street private. Because this is In the 617 they have no mechanism of doing that because there is no zoning in the ETJ. The applicant wishes to leave the street in its current physical condition which is a crushed rock all weather surface. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a drainage easement large enough to contain a 100 year storm and fie Is proposing to leave It In Its natural state. The public street access variance has been applied for based on unusual or unique physical circumstances which makes it a five criteria variance which Is one that you can grant if you feel that it meets all five criteria. In this case the staff is recommending that the street access variance be granted, We believe that It does meet all of the five applicable criteria. There are only eight individual properties on Oils private road, one of which Is a microwave lower that generates very little traffic. We have a very limited amount of traffic on this private road. The existing road does meet geometric conditions that we require for private roads, mainly meaning that it is not a through street. We feel that the health, safety, and welfare issues are minimal In this case. In order to make the existing road public the right-of-way would need to be significantly wider than what It is and in addition not only would it have to be granted In front of this property, but the developer would have to convince die adjacent property owners between him and Locust Street to do the same thing, Of course he has no control over what those property owners want or would be willing to do. Granting the variance would have no effect on the zoning ordinances. This is in the ON. This property has been in this state in excess of fifteen years. The current private road criteria that we use came about In 1988 so the fifth criteria would be applicable In this case. The other variances that we are looking at, sidewalks, drainage design standards, and paving standards have all been applied for based on the expense of those items compared with the size and type of development that we are looking at. This Is an exaction variance and you would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the paving standard variance with the condition that If the existing gravel surface Isn't at least twenty feet wide that it be widened to that with gravel to allow for two way traffic and emergency vehicle access. Our minimum fire lane standard in the city is twenty feel so that Is why we are recommending a minimum of twenty feet. In order to pave this to city standards just across the frontage alone would cost thirty-five thousand dollars. Staff feels this would be well In excess of what would be warranted for two residential lots. Staff recommends the sidewalk and drainage variance also. The sidewalk would cost over seven thousand dollars and the drainage improvements would cost anywhere between thirty-five to fifty thousand dollars. Both of those figures are well In excess of what staff feels would be reasonable for two single family residential lots. The construction of two homes on eight acres will have very little if any noticeable impact on the drainage In the area. We feel that with the developer willing to dedicate a drainage easement that will provide for orderly development in the area and will provide a fa,:tor of safety so that people who buy these lots won't build their homes to close to the existing drainage course. Mr. Cochran: Is this area served by the Denton fire department? Mr. Salmon; I don't think it Is served by the fire department but I think they are served by the EMS service, f r-y r-qonda No._ Cl-,` P&Z Minutes n an May 22, 1996 n Page 21 _ Mr, Cochran: I move that a variance of requIretnent for public road access be granted based on unusual physical condition of the property, Mr. Powell; Second Ms Russell: Any discussion? Ail in favor please raise your rlght hand, Opposed same sign, Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exactlon variance of the paving requirements be granted with the condition that the exlsting gravel surface be twenty feet wide as the expense of paving would far out weigh any bencfitto the property or any adjacent property, Mr. Powell: Second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved (4-0) Mr, Cochran I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the sidewalk requirement be granted as the expense would far out weigh any benetlt to the property or any adjacent property. Mr, Powell: Second Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4.0) Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exactlon variance of the channel lining or pipe requirement be granted as the cost of such Improvements would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property. Mr. Powell: Second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your hand, Opposed same sign Approved. (4.0) r Agonda No., 'k~~6- DATE: AQondn Iter Ualo. - June 4, 1996 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT i TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Soctlon 34.114(3) concerning street paving standards for the GWJ Addition, The subject property Is In Division 1 of the ETJ and Is located approximately 700 feet east of Locust (F'M 2164), approximately a mile north of Loop 288, RECOMMENDA ION: The Planning and Zoning Commisslon recommends approval of the request, four In favor, none opposed (4.0), SU MARY; See Planning and 7_orrrng Commission Report. SACKGROUN,D: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report, PiiQGRAMS DEbART VIENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED, Not applicable, R$-IS-AL-IMPACT, None, 1 Respectfully submitted: Tod Benavides City Manager 1 Aponda No.-66 Prepared by, Walter E eaves, Urban Planner Approved: C kra Robbins, AICP Director Planning and Development Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commisslon Report, Attachment 42; Draft minutes of rl;e May 22, 1996, P & Z meeting. Agmida No. Agonda horn.. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: June 4, 1996, Subject: Variance to Section 34.114(3), concerning street paving standards for the GWJ Addition, Reoommendatlon Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (4.0), subject to the condition that the private road be at least 20 feet wide, Bggkaround The GWJ Addition Is a proposed 2 lot subdivision on 8 acres In Division 1 of the ETJ (Attachment 1). The owner of the proposed GWJ Addition has applied for a variance to Section 34.114(3) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This section of the Code of Ordinances requires private roads to be a minimum of 24 feet wide and have 5 Inch thick concrete or asphalt pavement. The existing road is gravel, and tho developer wishes to leave the road in its existing state at 23 feet wide. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required Improvement and the proposed development. This "exaction variance" Is being recommended to the City Council, The required street paving standard would cost over $35,000, which Is excessive for two single family residential lots. The recommendation is for approval of the variance subject to the condition the private road be at least 20 feet wide to allow for two way traffic and emergency vehicle access. Attoohmonts 1, Location map. 2. Plat, 3. Variance application, i Ap od1 No., r i r4 i~ - ! ~ a~i o m"m Poo 1 1~ I 1 L~ >d a w Iea a 1~`.Mw r4[l'11 Il(p fkl Dot 1 ,11[flCl7rlldt 4LL4t;~4 A •11 INIT `4511977!' _ et1 ~ ,OI I3b'32B9 e "L~0 e K A ••A'S7.Pp.HI➢J. 1 .°~a 0[NIIw. onftorunn PUN Nnn. l _ T 8.0 Acre$ n H. nrt wRPDSsor Iris uNrrr h To Pul w1o r lots F ~ Nry " / 3 - -I YYIPNALID. 1~Np~a3. , Pro W44"41 L t Nw [s IN tI lh MC P / 0! r r^7 N4 / PROPIR h IS N07 NHINIR A ROOD 70NC PLO !,f W ,k , tov"ITY or µr r ! N r _ 0.111 UM ICA OR n't 01[ I q "At 1 R000 N 111 J - orN IDN, ICJAS CO'NeNlh II 60111. PMIJIh [l 0Or I pSD p Q .'I a :A Olt N 649'12' F 469.03 PPWUNV D0. Wt WOON Lot J/ a vd/loo 11.•pswMr. VWIU ICA 1 6011 pOIc[a tlW111, 4t0A ao[Nloa WA A b d Air 9 f'!1 u1 5 NDCrrVh M 717 h 7pt f V 6` 1 001 Of DOW" WATER ME SS CTY A M UDom IT. NWILST NION SIM4 LINE 4 MPNOV~ Ir I+r+l""N - 6,DOO IS AAAV. PAIVV11Vh PW NOIM I, IRC PURPOS[ Or THIS OwIR4 i5 10 put VISO t 1055. COY VGA L No VDA 11C11rr CNANO[S III SOPOORV'Iff MC PININID. Cih 6 $ be f-14-60" W 70).00 5. "OPLRSY IS Nor Nf0M1 A now ION[ 1'[R PC V.4 000 wSURNKt FAIL VW Pon 11R. CW111Y or M WON, ICVAS COVWIArN 75§0771, PIMI 01OSO \ Or IN[ S4D VAN, PRILNIUHY WWI SIUUY ,,,,,~,N '^'°'7 N,•ffY 1'!"'"' 1, PRO Ckry rs Mn 111 cor, Cl orrtrrfmr f,rl, ~~].,7 1aI \ rZ A GI 1 7, PWOS[p LNID US( N YMIC r!Sltl FISOENMLttl i° I 1 gel O OANI R, Me NUNiw01011 1 NION, ICYAS 16701 WF O YIl 1I 7 OW[CiDR M PLAA440 OWN COUNrY 011 J. ADDI Cols I AND 7, DC v [ MCA sum IS .IL m J+IN Nnlw CM 1( GOUIf 19 A raw «rY _ we N1vN MPROKO PIT 00t: An^c"momrJo AD d Ham onIo4S dj~ III ~ I~n APPLI TZW PCR vAxx w a ass MSXC2i AIM r x a~ Pxrsw Rsa:nw►TrcUa Haar n! +t li~Y 'aa y tvl Z..1 ~ ♦ l~~~~ ti~lyr'~~ #r, ff/ : r+/a~1W~lU(:n ~ 4ti fiir f I ~•~#1 • r.riY 1 ,Tkk Yr ~ : s Pei 4 iii 6 d ~5 r£7`( „n v v d r. ?i 1~'y,` i r~ I?., ~ 'f"l:;' d'l.r~ ►1,$~`~', vary. r'-._~~,~4wr~~ar ~t"., ~~t , v s Ci~;l►k1b. r+ t o S ; N 1%,.t 'd , x. n 2 t-7 v Laced y~ i ~2rf xfV A .~►~ir' ~ 7y tl ~7^t".'1 e y I V yqt : i y ..YYi t > s Y, 0 1 + R a r; m}"xr f~19'r. , ~ s', d f S• ~r+y~r~{ eltivita M. Data ~H• paid 1'1S~tL Petitioner must following five criteria, the rationale for the variance using the (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty; (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; (3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried out; r n0e0da ltorp Variance Application. Continued { Page Z (4) The Zonin variancena g sillncenot in any manner vary, the provisions of the Ordi Studies. , Denton Development plan, Master Plan or (S) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or domssioncreat a oowfn the the Any prior owner, subasquent to the sought, requirement from which a variance is or, If the variance is from an exaction (eg, road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage and/or dedication to the pub i limp the mient - a public improvement exaction pursuant to theca regulatregulations sition of any devel benefit to the PrapeYty owner or { ) exceeds e ° °ent constitute confiscation of the tract bein is st excessreasonable as to g platted, Waiver of developmental exactions shall be, considered after a recommendation from the planning and zoning Commission by the city council. v NMs Request must include the following, I. Completed application (one per variance), III $175.00 fee. III. Cap of propo ed plat and location map, ignat o pli ant at y Apanda No,_f 3 Auonda llam_ _ May 6, 1996 City of Denton REt Vorlance for Guy Jones property, North FM2164 - ETJ fib memo ocoornpanles on Appkatlan for Variance of Subdlvlslon and Land Development Regukrtlons. There are 5 requested at this time. Some are related. 1) Re Flow - Section 34-116(e). - Exaction To meet"prrvislorr would require extending the city woter Ane well over a n ape, They cost of extending this water line would "coed eaoy reason hie benefdt to the owner and would be excessiv. 2) Drairxype Improvernerrs - Exaction The cost 0 undergmund pipe or channel lining would exceed any reasonable be"M to the owner. The size of the lots (4 acres) and the placement of a single family residence on eaclt lot will have m(nimal, if any, otfect on the drainage, 3) Street to exfsting public street. Section 34-125b - 1 J The Wan*V of the vortatzrv will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or ln)urioxn to other property; 2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance Is based are unique to the property for which the variance Is sought and are not applicable gencraily to other property; there 4 no access to a public street without crossing another persons property. *jd )his property s virtually land locked other than a road easement, to meet this regulation would be a particuk3r hardship, not only for the owner but ad)acent landowners as well. 4) The variance+MN not in any manner vary fhe provhlons of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or Studies 5) This condition was not created by the owner. This sttuaNon has been In existence for over 15 years, Y'Y aoenJarom' C4r' C 4) Private Road construatlon - S,ctkm 34114(13)c - Exaction . To reconstruct thh road that has been In e)Mence for over 1,5 years would excod any resonable benefit to the owners and would be excesstve. The reconshuctlon of this road would be only In front of the 2 - 4 acre lots and over 700 feet kom the public street, You would have an unpaved road leaning to a paved section 70o feet long to serve 2 single famliy residences, S) Sidewalk - Exaction - Sidewalks of approximately 700 feet to serve 2 single family residences In the country would exceed any reasonable benefit to the owner and would be excessive. We would Iterally have 700 feet of concrete going, from nowhere to nowhere. ATTACHMENT z P&Z Minutes E t May 22, 1996 R Page 19 DD IX, GWJ Additlon. The subject property is located 700 feet east of FM 2164 (Locust Street), approximately a mile north of Loop 288. The property Is Division 1 of the ©xtraterritorlal Jurisdiction (STJ), Mr. Jones removed himself at 9:10 p.m. because he has a financial Interest in this project, a, Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) providing for adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes. Mr, Reeves: This is a variance to Section 34.116(e) water aapachy for fire flow. Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the city's existing twelve inch water line located at Hercules and Locust, which is F.M. 2164, and is eight thousand feet away, This Is an exaction variance with an estimated cost for extending that line eight thousand feet to the property Is approximately three hundred and thirty-six thousand dollars which far exceeds the value of that. Staff recommends approval of this variance, Mr. Cochran: What are they proposing out there? Mr. Reeves: The preliminary plat is for two 4 acre singlo family lots. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend approval of the requested variance to Section 34-116(e) for the proposed GWJ Addition because it does not represent a reasonable connection between the requirement and the proposed use, Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4.0) b, Consider a five-ct;teda variame of Section 34.125(b) requiring adequate access to an existing or proposes public street by frontage on such street, Co Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.124(e) requiring line or pipe drainage channel. d. Consider an exaction varlance of Section 34.114(3) regarding street construction standards. e. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) requiring sidewalks (only If variance is not granted for private road. Mr. Salmon: I would prefer to address all four variances at one time and you can vote on them separately. Coleman and Associates Is representing Guy Jones and they have applied for these four variances of our subdivision requirements. One Is f,r drainage design standards, another Is public street access, the third Is the street paving standards, and the fourth Is sidewalks. This Is a somewhat unusual piece of property, Section 34-114 concerning street access requires that all lots have to have frontage on a public street unless they are in a PD toning district, Our Subdivision Regulations require that private streets have a minimum pavin; standard which In this case would P&Z Minutes May 22, 1996 .5.._. Page 20 be twenty-four feet pavement either five Inches thick t tphalt or concrete, If it weren't a private street and It was going to be a public street then we would require a sidewalk along that public street. Concerning drainage, our design standards would requlro that any existing drainage courses must either be lined, or be piped underground, What we ;iavo is an existing piece of property that currently has no street frontage and Is several hundred feet from a public street. It Is separated from the public street by other private property. The developer proposes to leave the street private. Because this Is In the ETJ they have no mcchanlsm of doing that because there Is no zoning in the ETJ. The applicant wishes to leave tine street in Its current physical condition which is a crushed rock all weather surface. The applicant has agreed to dedicate a drainage easement large enough to contain a 100 year slorm and he Is proposing to leave it in its natural stale, The public street access varianco has been applied for based on unusual or unique physical circumstances which makes It a five criteria variance which is one that you can grant if you feel that It meets all five criteria. In this case the staff is recommending that the street access variance be granted, We believe that it does meet all of the five applicable criteria. There are only eight Individual properties on this private road, one of which is a microwave tower that generates very little traffic. We have a very limited amount of traffic on this private road. The existing road does meet geometric conditions that we require for private roads, mainly meaning that It Is not a through street. We feel that the health, safety, and welfare Issues are minimal In this case. In order to make the existing road public the right-of-w,iy would need to be significantly wider than what It Is and In addition not only would It have to be granted ht front of this property, but the developer would have to convince the adjacent property owners between him and Locust Street to do the saute thing. Of course he has no control over what those property owners want or would be willing to do. Granting the variance would have no effect on the zoning ordinances. This Is in the ETJ. This property has been in this slate in excess of fifteen years, The current private road criteria that we use came about In 1988 so the fifth criteria would be applicable In this case. The other variances that we are looking at, sidewalks, drainage design standards, and paving standards have all been applied for based on the expense of those items compared with the size and type of development that we are looking at. This is an exaction variance and you would be making a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends the paving standard variance with the condition that if the existing gravel surface Isn't at least twenty feet wide that it be widened to that with gravel to allow for two way traffic and emergency vehicle access. Our minimum fire lane standard in the city is twenty feet so that is why we are recommending a minimum of twenty feet. In order to pave this to city standards just across the frontage alone would cost thirty-five thounid dollars. Staff feels this would be well in excess of what would be warranted for two residential lots, Staff recommends the sidewalk and drainage variance also. The sidewalk would cost over seven thousand dollars and lue drainage Improvements would cost anywhere between thirty-five to fifty thousand dollars. Both of those figures are well In excess of what staff feels would be reasonable for two single family residential lots, The constriction of two homes on eight acres will have very little if any noticeable impact on the drainage in the area. We feel that with the developer willing to dedicate a drainage easement that will provide for orderly development in the area and will provide a factor of safety so that people who buy these lots won't build their homes to close to (lie existing drainage course, Mr. Cochran; Is this area served by the Denton fire department? Mr. Salmon; I don't think it Is served by the fire department but I think they are served by the EMS service. P&Z Minutes ntlunda N9 May 22, I996 Page 21 hgor fa f~( Mr, Cochran: I move that a variance of requironoent for public road accoss be granted based on unusual physical condition of the property, Mr, Powell, Second Ms. Russell; Any discussion? All In favor ploaso raise your right hand, Opposed same sign, Approved, (4.0) Mr, Cochran I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the paving requirements be granted wlth the condition that the existing gravel surface be twenty feet wide as the expense of paving would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property, Mr, Powell; Second, Ms, Russell: Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand, Opposed same sign, Approved, (4-0) Mr Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the sidewalk requirement be granted as the expense would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property, Mr, Powell: Second Ms. Russell; Any discussion? All In favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign, Approved, (4-0) Mr, Cochran; I move that we recommend to the City Council that an exaction variance of the channel lining or pipe requirement be granted as the cost of such Improvements would far out weigh any benefit to the property or any adjacent property, Mr, Powell; Second, Ms, Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your hand. Opposed same sign, Approved, (4.0) Agenda A'ponda ItonJJ ~ Date- (0 CITY of DENrON, TEXAS _ MUNICIPAL BUILDING 0215 F.. WKINNEY # DEN TON, TEXAS 76201 (817) 566.8200 # DFW METRO 4342629 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Mombers of the Clty Council FROM; Ted 13enavides, City Manager DAT$t May 22, 1996 SUBJECT; APPROVAL OF A TAX REFUND TO ELI7.AE313TH OI.UPSF:N RECOMMENDATION: The Tax Department has tnafied all Overpayment Letter and an Application for Tax Refund to the taxpayer, All completed forms and necessary docuntentatlon have been returned, requesting this refund, which the Tax Technician recommends. SUAIMARY, Chapter 3 1.11 of the. Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing { unit for refunds In excess of $500.00, Elizabelh Oiufseu has requested a refund In tho amount of $912.61 because she overpaid her taxes on account #023434. BACKGROUNDt Ms. Olut'sen made a payment of $912.61 on December 29, 1995 and she also made a second payment of $912,61 on December 29, 1995 through her accountam, Carl Deacon. A tax refund is clue, PROGRAALS, DEPARTHI NTS OR GROUPS AFFIiCP D; The Tax Department aad the tax account of Elizabeth Olul'sen FISCAL IAIPAC7 $912,61 "Dedic'ured ro Qu(INV Service" ,f City Council Report Agenda Nn,_~ LY`~ Tax Refund Agenda lom 7~ _ Page 2 Date- Please advise if I can provide additional information, RESPECTFULLY SUBmirm: Ted Benavides Prepared by: Clty Manager l~ l Ilene Evans Tax Clerk Approved, Jon irtune Chi 'Finance 01cer Attachmenist Application for Tax Refund Copy of Cancelled Check Copy of Overpayment Record A:N?14N I auM Propwty Tex Board APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUNI'~denda No,_._L Refund APPllcabon 31.11(4/12) Apand horn -ti Dale. 4 JL Collecting Office Name; (✓I'TY Or- PIENT-6N k opricE Colleoting Tax For I`f`1 bN OJT - - -ZTax ng n is Address 21.5 B. MrKINNCY City, State, ZIP Code beA/TONr TEXAS '767c) I ` In order to apply for a tax rotund, The following tnformatfon must be provided by the taxpayer. IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNER: Name: Eft U~SGN Address: 2,0I N'rA_ MTN)>C a R~ CN•T'o TX 7r - Telephone Number (If additlonal information is needed): 8) 1 - 3$'7-5v3Ei IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY: V Descrlptlon of Property: - fti__1(-_NT15 o AOJ)I\),. U 1-01" 3 or Location of Property: -Z-q-Q TA MONI A DR, _ 6- 0 )5C Account Number of Property: 02, 3:2-r Q Q ,L?0 or TAx Receipt Number: _ INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF TAXES: Name of Taxing Unlt Year for From Which Refund Which Refund Date of the Amount of Amount n Is Requested Is Requested Tax Payment Taxes Paid Tax Refund Requested 2. ~ OEfJ~N 18 MI5 r~ / 19 `L_ $ !r`dz5,'2Z $ ~I)Z, G 4 19 / 19 S $ 3. 1B /19 S $ Taxpayer's reason for refund (altach supporting documentation): TAX WLL, WAS, PA)) `1"WI(-G 6y 17)k.5. 01-lerSt',t) qNn arr~ls.s:LLA14 A_ 2ErccN~ o CdN 0VfR&v/„~1J7, "I hereby apply for the refund of the above-desorlbed taxes and cet ~Ify that the Information I have given on We form Is true and correct. e'e ~ Unl ni J Si nalur g 7U--10-76-71 T Date of Applleatlon on for r Tax Refund _ ,-----------------------•-------76do~_a~77 DETERMINATION FOR TAX REFUND: Approval Disapproval Signature of Authorized Officer Dale Signature of Praslding Officer(s) of Taxing Date _ Und(s) for refund applications over $500 Any person whomakNefalse entry uponlhoforegoing record shall be subject To one oflhwfollowing ponMtfee; I. Impdeonmenlol not more Than 10 years nor lees than 2 yens and/or a fine of not more than $5,000 or both such 11" and Imprisonment: 2, confinement In tell for a term up to 1 year or a fine not to exceed $2,000 or both su,;h fins, and Imprisonment asset forth In Section 37.10, Penal Code. AEFuNO 3111 "l ELIZABETH OLUFSEN Apend~a,l"lem~_. P.O. BOX 977 DENTON, TEXAS 70202 estararlue L~vZI_I~~~i_S I'AY TO TI IF. . OI21)E i2 Of?„ - ~ y--0 EL Of4 Z , v N Vv .4v- r+ c 7TVJ ,lie. ----__'-17qui.m s ft%% S'~ATE BANK I onion. Tx 70202 (0171582• d is L L 19 L474 21:1 ' 114 17 59 76 .0311' 06 ? 111000 09 L L.1• r.~',`•'.`Vi1:.x, ~ ; ~ I ~ I ~IR;aI ~i'sq'r I`iH(~ i', ; cNl N(ll}1anal dLI~ y r r-- r r REPORT FIOROBOW 05/15/96 Al 18;08 O V E R P A Y M N T 5 ACCOUNT NO. RECEIPT NO, NAME. ADDRESS AMOUNT STATUS 0 027£1300000 06/03/13-0349 MCMINN, LEON PENNSYLVANIA D 872.41 OVERPAY 08616000000 96/03/13-0041 BERRY, LINDA K E MISSION ST 640.93 OVERPAY .17318200000 96/03/16-00.16 AFV ENTERPRISE AND 2,20 OVERPAY 02178300000 96/0G(22-011I5 POWERS 609 C FOWLEk DR 20,00 OVERPAY A1167.'/700000 96/63/28^0078. SALDIN66,:13RIAN D JTM OHRISTAI R. 0,42:0VERPAY 16677600000 96'/03/28°0229 BALDTNGER,'BRIAN 1) JIM OHRISTAL R '1,14"OVRRPAY 09431200000 96/03/28-0308 FORD, LINDA P MACK PL 31,99 OVERPAY 027BI100000 96/03/28-0462 FOLSE, W LEE RIDGECREST CR 730,66 OVERPAY 02432000000 96/03/28••0664 JACKSON, JOSEPH H LINDEN DR 306,49 OVERPAY 17808400000 9B/03/2a-0667 SUTTON, RUSSEL C CHARLESTON CT 800 00 OV-Ft 10323900000 9B/03/28,0642 D&JKOMP, RAOHOL H L4T'TIMOR6'ST 4'.1,71 OVERPAY to3?0400000 90/00/28+0643 OARTER LYNN'A LATTJMORE ST AC 00 DV[RPAY IIE H0 1,32U,AC 130723000.00:96/03/28^04'/1 BRADSHAW, DURWARD B JR SEVI OVERPAY 13431100000 96Y03/29-0608' KNI'GHT'S MILLER P'/S SHADY OAKS OR 22,63"OVERPAY .16479600 0 96 03/29-.068ARM.Y~€LZ4 ~L 1.74 OVFRPAY~. -7_~- S N7A MOI~>'~A D ' 912.61 OVERPAYy, r 3g34 0 0 aA 2-1033 LUF SEN, EL r1A9ETR -pt~~'ST- - ~9UD0O~ ~~T ~ S WOOD'ST 26.85'OVERPAY 17318892A000000000 9696 /0 044/0/02?.^1110793@F AFV OX, 6N7EHOMERRPAIS&INC .2170 OVERPAY 1731/-t 2 70 OVERPAY A34486d0900 96/04/02°1.137 AFV<ENTERPRISE INC ' MACK PL B 84-i, 09430200000 96/04/02-1272, BIGGS, ANTHONY 0 SCOTT DR " 2473 OVERPAY 02029400000' 96/04/03-0263 SELLERS; WILLIE GEORGETOWN DR 492.86 OVERPAY 02603600000 95/04/03-0339 RIPPLE, JOHN L OVERPAY 03407200000 96/04/03-0431 BAILEY FAMILY TRUST N N ELM LOCUSST T ST 333311.7262 OVERPAY 03017300000 96/04/03-0438 GAILEY, DWIGHT L 03629600000 98/04/03-0439 ..LIBERTY EDUCATIONAL MINISTRIES :INC S BONNIE. BRAE -681.63 O.VERPAY~ 030767.00000 96 oAj.o3.0723' WOOLVERTON, JAMES A FREEDOM LN 406062 OVERPAY, 3,89 OVERPAY 46834900000 96/04)08-0083 KEtrK 'TORY TEASLEY N 97 L S140120001 46834900000 96!04/08-0.660 RICHARDSON, ROBERT L LINDSEY ST 12.0 41. OVERPAY,,,.; 1789660060086/04/06-0832 'LA1OLDAT NATCHEZ 7C 160:60 OVERPAY 03683900000 96/04/08-0164 CENTENNIAL HOMES INC D/B/A LILLIAN MIL PW 1,599,06 OVERPAY t1374800000 96/04/11-0124 THE STEAM MACHINE OAKR1DGE ST 1,60 OVERPAY 14562000000 96/04/26-0223 HOENIG, DAVID ELECTRIC INC DAUCHERTY ST 118.87 OVCRPAY 141362200000.96/04/26-0223 HOENIG DAVID EL6CTRSC INC DAUGHERTY S1 12247 OV9RPAY 02208400000 86/04/29~D-094 VII.LAR1iEAL, BAKER J IMPERTAU DR 29.10 OVERPAY 9141/0460000 96104/2910203 IZOD I44 3Bs.N307 30, 1e OV9RPAY 000a0a00000 8+/04129"0442 SORRBLLS, RANDY ORWAYNE SORIHTURE, S1 6.47 OVERPAY, 03173200000 9:/04/30-6426 WIMMER, JEFFREY G a TAMARA SALADO T x92.49 OVERPAY 02972500000 96/04/30-0460 SPRABARY, BETTY MULKEY LN 16.41 OVERPAY 1669101.0000 98/04/30-0649 MADDOX, MICHAEL E WELLINGTON OAK 27.04 OVERPAY 11980200000 96/04/3t-0817 STING EAGLE. LTD P/S AVE E 62.01 OVERPAY ,1.1:OVfRPAY 1I98O200000 96/04/31-0864 STING EAGLE LTD P/S AVE E 190 90149300000 98/66/01-6402 ' FIRST INSTANT PRINTING INC N ELM ST : Id, 60 OVERPAY 02369000000:06/,06/015-0330- JORDAN, LOU A EGAN 37 433:29 OVERPAY 02486110:0000 85'/;08/06^,0331 GAIFPIN, ERNEST.R NOTTINGHAM DR 41,00 OVl:RPAV 03161400000 95)06/06-0337 FULLINOTON, JEFFREY D TYLER ST 123,74 OVERPAY 08224600000 98/06/08-0338 TOLLESON, CHRISTIE R DALLAS DR 206,20 OVERPAY 09431200000 96/06/05-0339 FORD, LINDA P MACK PL 31,99 OVERPAY 03367200000 96/06106-0024 WENDT WILLIAM L HIGHLAND ST, 3.82 OVERPAY 029419700000 00/G6/14»0001 DUNSAR,, EIAZABETH 2 38-DVERPhY 02679600000 96/06/22-OutO 'SMITH, ANNIE R 6 SHERMAH OR 6 01.oVGRPAY 0"1002000.00 06/08/26.0008. WILLIAMS, DONALD It. UAHRY S7 2 00 OVERPAY 01~U u,esl ~p6~aa: W~ ON ?¢PARq, Agenda NN o. Agenda Ilefs~ r ORDINANCE NO, Date AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or Improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS; SECTION I. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file In the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids; BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 1891 J. C. EVANS CONSTRUCTION $390,826,00 1 SECTION-Ii. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvemems herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including (lie timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION_III, That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and 131d Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. f I A je wo IOWA item D1}e_ SECTION IV, That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive b b _ ids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized horoin, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and In the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto, SECTION_V, That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ------,-day of JACK MILLER, -MAYOR - ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY i BY:-. - - h APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY CONT'RA(700C 1 DATE: JUNK 4, 199 Agenda No.- CITY- COUNCIL. REPORT Agenda H0111 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Date FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: BID #1891 - MONCAVO - STUART 15" SANITARY SEWER RECOMMENDATIONt We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, J.C. Evans Construction, in the amount of $390,826.00. SUMMARY: This bid is for the construction of a two segment 15" sanitary sewer line to replace an old obsolete 10" clay pipe line. The Stuart Road segment consists of 2,369 L.F. of 15" sanitary sewer. This portion starts at Sun Valley and terminates south of Loop 288 near Selene. (See Exhibit attached). The Moncayo Road portion is 1,371 L.F. of 15" sanitary sewer, beginning at Driftwood and continuing north to Stuart Road, (See exhibit attached). The Stuart Road portion is the second phase of a project began in the 1993 CIP This project was presented to the Public Utility Board for consideration and they recommend approval. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Shect PROGRAMS,.DEPARTMENTS_OR-GRO.UPS_AFFECTED: Denton Municipal Utilities and J.C. Evans Construction Co. FISCALIMPACTt Funds for this project are available in the current CIP budget, account 0674- + 082-RB93-V309-8560. Respectfully submitted: Ted Benavides City Manager Approved: Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title Purchasing Agent 7a9.A06NDA r u111 n IH91 II c 1Y Ittlllty IlibMik bra .1 C 1#nos Circle C Colnmh^r Dickerson .lugac-l'ublic 1111) NAME MoncuyoSluar11511 Sonllnry ('oIII rnclors CnrrsIrucllou Cuuslrucllart Coustrucllon ConstruWon Sewer OPEN DA'Z'E April 23, 1996 H I QTY I. _DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR. VF;NDOR VENDOR._ YFNDUR._. ._VENDOR_. Tola , $399,894,90 $702,02700. $390,826,00 5407,765,80 5432,901,25 $SOl,d48,00 5446,881,00 Bid Bond Enclosed yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Addendum Acknowledged yes yes yes yes z ~ v Four 1) E. L. DAI(on 1,0. Murray Construelion Constructlon 4-3 VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR Tolal $196,716.15 $503,780.30 _ $521,841,90 Bid Bond Enclose) yes yes yes Addendum Acknowledged yes JI 1 I i I Apida No_ <1 Agenda ltonl _ Stuart Road 15" Sanitary Sewer JUPITER ~2 POPOLL❑ - j PERSNIN . J! NO LN, JUNp R ~ CAME T Q F z 0 H Q ¢ a L:) w cz ~ s ti a N ~ ERC ES Y SU VAZ_LEY ac:) Uc ` RETAMA s Li HILTON Exhibit 11 (1 of 2) r l l Agonda No,. Agond Itom rata__ ' Monca o Road Y 15" Sanitary Sewer p,gP i' . J THE a - 4 w VILLAGE w ~ ~ MCS a WOLFTR R, CEDAR H1L . E NDSOR Or GLEWOO _j 0 j i a WIND p UEBONN IN ELI) A MEADOW- -3 13ROOK CIR DR FTW OD TRAIL CHISHOLM TRAIL w CORDOVA N w s f MAh LI Exhibit 11 (2 of 2) s hpcnda No,_- #~I~ A'ponda Ft n_ ORDINANCE NO. bate AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT BY THE CITY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES TO FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (FERC); AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, In order to comply with contractual agreements with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the City of Denton Is required to the pay Administrative Fees for Hydro Electric Facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and recommended that the Council approve the payment of such administrative fees; NOW, THEREFORE, ]'HE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINSt SECTION-1. That the expenditure of funds in the amount of $18,071.47 to be paid to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is hereby authorized, SECTION-H. That this ordinance shall become effective Immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996, JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY I BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY AT'T'ORNEY BY: Pg6, ORD - I' DA'L'E; JUNE 4, 19966 CITY COUNCIL REPORT 19e1)(Ia N6 :4i(S?' (r~^ Apb[ttla II@HI`.~`Il. TO; Mayor and Members of the City Council Moo. FROM; Ted Bonavides, City Manager SUB.)ECT; CHECK RE QUE STTO FEDE RAL ENERGY REGULATORYCOMMISSION (FERC) RECOMMENDATION: We recommend [his check request bo approved to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the amount of $18,071.47. SUMMARY. This check request is for the payment of the ndministration fees for operation of the hydro electric facilities at Ray Roberts Dam ($2,765,13) find Lewisville Dam ($15,306,34), These fees are the result of a memorandum of agreement pursuant to FERC licenses between the City of Denton and Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, approved September 27,199 1. DACKGROUN% Check Request dated 5-14.96, invoice dated 4-30.96. PROGRAMS,.DEPARTMENTS _OR_GROUPS_AFI?ECTED.: Denton Municipal Utilities, Electric Production Division. FISCAL.IMPACT; This check request will be paid from 1995-96 budget funds, account M610- 101.1011-5400.8521-D. Respectfully submitted; 'l'ed I3enavides City Malinger Approved- Name; Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title; Purchasing Agent 740,AaVNDA t CITYGOf lU E~CN PUC.1', kE'CK REQUISITION-VOUCHER (fRq(,101to 96 14A'I 21 Pil 2 4 % Aptida No. . Agoodi) I19111 1.i +r PAY TO., FERC CHECK NUMBER LOCK BOX 93938 CHICAGO IL 60673 ~ AMOUHr _ ELECTRIC PRODU¢TION DEPARTMENT (36 14 96 DATE INVOICE DATE. NUMBER ANDIOR EXPLANATION ACOT. NO. NET INV. AMT. RAY ROBERTS GOVT DAM CHARGE (FY96) 610-101-1011-• $ 2,766.13 LEWISVILLE GOVT DAM CHARGE (FY96) 6400-8621-0 $16,306.34 MAKE CHECK PAYABLE TO: FERC PRINT BILL NUMBERS ON CHECK: H60666 & H60667 RETURN SUMMARY SHEET W/CHECK PAYMENT IS DUE 6/16/96 TOTAL AIR 071-A7 THE ABOVE HA8 SEEN REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDATION FOR BILLING 18 MADE BY THE UNDERSIGNED. ACCOV"IN O APPROVAL EIGNAT E CRY MANAGER APPROVAL 0EOTOROF FINAHCEAPVROVAL r PEDE L ENERGY REDO ATORY COMMISSION HYDRI •i+OWER ANNUAL CHARGES A4Bnd5 No, SUMMARY OF BILLS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES Ap id Ifonl FOR BILL YEAR 1090 D1f0 L ' BIII Date: 04/30108 j_!C07Many-I(d: 005083 DENTON, CITY OF (TX) ATTN: JIM THUNE 1701 A SPENCER ROAD DENTON, TX 75206 BIII Number Pro)eot•Id Amount Due PLEASE INDICATE AMOUNT PAID H00bt18 03039 - H60567 2,780,13 _ 03040 15,306,34 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $ 18,071.47 Please Indlcate amount paid by prolocUblll by completing the last column Intltled AMOUNT PAID. The total AMOUNT PAID should equal the total of the cheok(s) being eubmftted. RETURN THIS COMPLE')'-D FORM AND CHANGE OF ADDRESS FORM WITH REMITTANCE(S) TO: Federal Energy Regulelory CL,-nlaeton Lock Box N95030 Chicago, IL 80073 LICENSEE COPY PAGE 10F 1 r Affonda No._ % l+yoada Item Da to May 30, 1996 CITY COUNCIL. AGGNDA ITEN4 TO: MAYOR AND MEMf13I'sIZS OF'"I CITY COUNCfi, FROM: Ted 13enavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Lone Star Gas hate Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of cite ordinance authorizing modification to the mainline extension rllte and the Wcather Normalization Adjustment. SUMMARY: On May 24, 1996, Lone Star Gas filed a sWenlenl of intent with the City Secretary to amend the cta•rent gas utility rate ordinance in Denton recovering actual cost for mainline extension (in excess of 100') and for a Weather Normalization Adjustment, 'I•Ilcsc two issues involve: I) Modification of the ntainlitte extension clause Presently L,onc Star is required to extend a mainline gas line 100 lecl at no chal,gc for customers so requesting. Any extension beyond 100 13. is paid for by the customer at a price cquaf to file Lone Still' Co. system average Ow (11111 type of line, Lone Star is requesting that this Cxtellsioll CIatISC be amell(Ied such that ally extension beyond 100 ft, he paid for by the cusiouler al the "actual" cost of construction, which would be established prior 10 C011SIruC(IOII by a fit'Ill bid front Lone Slay Gas (,'0. contractor. 2) Modification of the Weather Normalization Adjusunent Presently Lone Star adjusts their rate for nctual 1VCaIl1Cl' COII(11t10115 15rI1C11 the roles are periodically subnliued to the Railroad Commission Lone Star's rates are set assuming Certain gas volume Salcs and norlimi wcalher. If (lie weather is colder than normal, volomnles increase alld Iflc rates prodacc more rcverttlc !hall necessary to cover the approved cost of' service. Likewisc, [lie rates uudercollcci if the tveluher is warmer than nornlai. Lone Star is requesting that at wcnther Normalization adjustment (WNA) be adopted So that this nor 1141H ation process is handled routinely each month. Lone S(ar already has obtained this WNA rale in soma 155 cities IhcY serve, illelt1(1ing Dallas and }iAhomeAyenuy_!.Acounc•II\agILEM\rMIcr,,21 i4 I nllualfn Ma,_J Rort Worth. This WNA should be ncuu•nl to the customer since the correction would be made ultimately when Lone Star files for rate ndjusimcnts wilh the Rallroad Commission. The staff is in support of these two atodilications. Theses modiflcatlon hnve been adopted by many of the other cities in the north 'T'exas area iuciuding Dallas and Tort Worth, Respectfully submitted, cd Benavidcs, City Manage] Prepared b)~ R. L. Nelson, Lxecullve Dircelor Utilities Lxhibits; 1. Leiters flroat Floyd Cunningham, Lone Star Gas Company H. Letter of Intent 111. Executive Summary of Amendments j.\home\penny-b\agitem\lonestar.,704 i Agonde N0,~i (r~' OAlond/a Ron- - - Y • ,rvt~ MEMORANDUM DATE: Mny 1, 1996 1,0: herb PrOUrly, City Attorney Kathy Dul3ose, Execulive Director of finance PROM: R. E• Nelson, Executive DII'Cefel• Utilities SWU LONE STAR GAS CO, RL'QUES'1' 1"OR RATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Attached please Lind documen[s that L,oue Star brouglil by my office regarding Ihcir request to atlleud file 1,0110 Star Gas role orclinnncc. 'T'hey have iwo requests: 1) Modification of (lie nutinlinc extension clause Presently I,0110 Star is required (o extend It Inninline gas line 100 Ibet Ell no charge for any customer so requesling, Any extension beyond 100 R. is paid for by (he customer III it price equal to (he Lone Star Gas Co, system overage fol, 11181 type of 11110' Loac Suir is requesting that this extension clause be amended such that any extension beyond 100 R,would be paid for by the customer at (lie "acitlnl" cost of construction, which would be established prior to couslruclio11 by a first bid from a bone Star Gas Co, coulractor. 2) Modificlilion of the weather nornmlizadon adjustment (WNA) Presenlly Lone S(41r weather ndjusls their rates whorl the rates m'c submitted to the Railroad Commission, L,onc S(m's rules are set assuming certain volununes and nornml weather, 11' (lie weather is colder llian norni ll, volumes fnerease and the rates produce more revenue (114111 necessary to cover the approved cost of service. Likewise, the rates undcrcollccl if, the wencher is wfn'111e1' 111a11 1101-11111!, Lou Star is requesling (hat a welidler nornmliz"1001) adjustment (WNA) be adop(ed so thEll this rtormaNzation process is handled routinely each mon(h• 1,0110 Star alrendy has obli fined Phis WNA ra(c in some 155 cities [hey serve, including Willis & Fort Word), This WNA should be revenrlc nc11(ral to 1110 customer since (lie correction would be made ullinlately when Lone Still- files for fare 8djuscnlcnls wi[h the RElih'oml Commission, j Agend~ilam _ 1 I see no problems with these adjusttnea(s rind reconuncnd that au ordittance1fbe d~ heel top ( ^ these into effect. Enclosed in the attached documents is a proposed ordinance. If is lily understanding (hat Lone Star Chas Co. call merely post notice of this proposed request and Ihat if the City takes no action to postpone or challenge the action flint these changes automatically take effect. Altl-.,n(gh such a method is an option, I believe it would be best for Denton to take a proactive position and propose these ordinances. Let's discuss Ihis at the staff meeting next Tuesday, May 7, 1996. 't'hanks. R. E. Nelson, Executive Director Ul litics I I Aoinida No. Apulia it001 Lone Star Gas Company 300 N. Elm, Stifle 0104, Denton, 7'exns 76201 May 24, 1996 Honorable Mayor Jack Miller and Chy Council Members City of Dcnton 215 E. McKinney Strecl Denton,'1'eras 76201 Proposed Amendment to Lone Star Ons Rate Ordinance Dear Mayor Miller and City Council: On May 24, 1996, 1 filed it Slatemenl of Intent Will the City Secretary (Attachment No. 1) to amend the current gas utility rate ordinance in Donlon to provide for the actual cost of tnainiiuo extensions beyond file franchise free limit (100'), and to provide for a Weather Nonnalimflon Adjustment (WNA). The effective date of these proposed changes Is July I, 1996, Both of these proposed items are considered revenue neutral with regard to gets sales, and as such, do not represent all increase In cun~cot residential and coumnerclal gas utility rates as previously set by the City In 1982, The WNA, tvltlch is based on the same 30•yearaverage method used to determine the current residential and commercial rates in Denton, is a mechanism that Is designed to stabiiizr customer bills by Insuring that the Company neither over collects ht periods ofabnormally cold, nor under-collects in periods of abnormally warm weather. Tito attached Bxeelllive Summaries keynote the benefits of both the WNA and the mainline extension modifications. To (late over200 Lane Star (ins cities, including Dallas, Norl Worth, Waco, Wichim Falls, Plano, Richardson and Garland, have adopted the WNA as being pre-consumer, pro-City and pro-Company, because of the stabilizing effect It has ou cuslonners' bills, oil City's gross receipts revemtes, and on Company distribution system annual revenues, 't'hese proposed changes will compliment the Company's efforts over the last three years In streamlining and in refining its operations to bcconno a more efTlelenl and a high-performance gas utility to better serve the needs of the coumuLill ily, I Lone Star Gas believes that the City will find thal tdtcse proposed changes will also be mutually beneficial for like City, ourcustomers and our Company asa means of enabling Lone Slaroas Company to continue providing safe, dependable natural gas service at the lowest possible cost. As a final note, file City can choose to take no action on tills request which would allow the proposed changes to go into effect autanaflcally upon the effective date as slated tat the Slalemunt of Intent (July 1, 1996). 1 will he happy to provide additional Information to you upon your regtmst. S incerely' .11 CJ'._ f4' _-a- G,L- L-c- -s-t~-e.. d-.-~.. Floyd dlnninghnnn V Business Development Manager Attachments: 1. Stalcntcnlorlutcnt 2. Bxecutivo Sunmmaries (2) cc, Mr. Ted IJetevides Mr. Bob Nelson I SSIATENIENTOC INT'1 f I'O MODII'Y TFIL MAINI „ L' ~ ~ AND'I'O~'ROI'OSF' WEAT'I IER NQRMAI I' A'1'ION AQL1S'C Date I'U TIIIi CI'I')' OP DENTON. TEXAS, COMES NOW Lone Slar Gas Company, a Division of ENSERCI.1 CORPORATION (Lone Star), a public utility under TEX,RE\l.CIV.S'I'A'I'.ANN,art. 6050 eL seq. and 'I'EX,REV,CIV,STA'f.ANN.arl. 1446c, and files this its Statement of Invent to A4odify the Mainline Extension Rate and to Propose a Weather Normalization Adjustment in the City of Denton, Texas, under the provisions of T'EX,IZEV.CIV,S'I'A'I'.ANN,art. 1446c. Section 5.08. 1. Lone Star proposes to modify its races, and (lie details of [lie proposed modifications in rates arc as follows: I Name ofl1JW-y - Lone Star Gas Company, a Division of RNSERCH Corporation 2. I)escription of Area A fee d - City of Denton, 'Texas 3. 'r Ul Sc$edult:.s: A. Mainline Exq» Rale The charge for extending mains beyond the free limit established by Franchise, for residential, commercial, and industrial customers shall be based on the actual cost per fool of the extension, B. Weatlier. Normali ation Adjustment: Effective wi(h bills rendered during (he October 1996 through May 1997 billing months, and annually (hereafter for the October through May billing months, the above residential and commercial comsuniption rates for gas service, as adjusted, will be subject to a weather normalization adjus(mcnt each billing cycle to reflect the impact of variations in (he actual heating degree clays during the period included in the billing cycle from the normal level of heating degree days during the period included in the billing cycle. The iveather normalization adjustment will be implemented on a per Mcf 1lasis and will be applicable to the heating load of cacti customer during the period included in the billing cycle, It will be determined separately for residential and commercial cus(otncts based on heating degree data recorded by the D/PW weather station. The adjusunent to be made for each billing cycle will be calculated according to the following formula: "ADD tVA'rt NDDADD ` .e M x dHL Where: WNA = Weather normalization adjustment NDD = Normal heating degree days during the period covered by the 1 billing cycle ADD Actual healing degree days during the period covered by the billing cycle K X1 = Weighted average margin per Nief included in the commodity portion of the rates effective during the October through May billing nsonlhs Al iL = Actual }seating load per customer The heating load to which the weather nomnali7.,ntioa adjustmew is to be applied is determined w d by subtracting the base load for the customer from the total volume being billed to the customer. < C3 The base load of a customer is the average level of nonhcating consumption. 'file weather normalization ad,justnsent is subject to a 50% limitation factor based on temperatures being fifty percent warmer or colder than normal, ]'he weather normalization adjustment will be calculated to the nearest $.0001 per Mcf. 4. &temem of Chsla=: The proposed modification in the Mainline Extension policy would pemsil all cuslonlers to be charged for the actual cost of their installation if it exceeds the applicable free limit provided by franchise. The current charge for residential and commercial customer's mainline extensions is based on the lower of the prior year's system-wide average cost or an indexed cost, Industrial customers are presently charged the actual cost of their mainline extensions. The proposed Weather Normalization Adjustment Clause will adjust residential and commercial customer's bills during the billing months from October through May to reflect the impact of variations in the healing load for each customer caused by weather. The clause includes a limitation factor Ihal will prevent unusually large adjustments when the weather is more than 50% warmer or colder than normal. 5. Effecl of Proposed C S: 'file proposed charges for Mainline Extensions do not directly increase or decrease revenues. Payment by a customer for a gas main extension is accounted for in contributions-in-aid of construction, a deduction from total investment for ratemakiug purposes, that reduces the rate base and ultimately the required rate. During the period when the proposed rates are in effect, the proposed Weather Normalization Adjustment Clause will increase and decrease revenues. The clause will assist in eliminating unusually large fluctuations ill custonners' billings duc to weather variations. The clause will also assist in leveling Ilse Company's revenues and Ilse City's franchise payments. 6. Class of Customers Affected; Residential and Commercial 7. Number of Customers Affected; 16,991 2 These modifications will affect all residential and commercial customers. However, in the case of the Mainline Extension Policy, the only customers directly affected by that change will be (hose who seek service in (he future to locations beyond the applicable free limit for main emensions, S.jcclivc Date of Prq i s a x JULY 1, 1996 9. The proposed change will not result in a major change as that term is defined in I'Ea,R1;1r.CIV,S'1'A'I',ANN.att. 1446e, Section 5,05(b). Service or publication of required notice containing the information relative to This Statement of Intent shall be made in accordance with applicable statutes and rules. THEREFORE, Lone Star Gas Company requests the City allow such new rates to become applicable for (he Chy of Denton by operation of law or by ordinance granting it the authority to charge such rates. Respectfully submitted, ~ LONE. S 'I AR GAS COMPAN , a Division ofENSERCI1 CORPORATION By Flud Cunniti_~ham Date F iled. { 3 I Agenr~llo~ (fEXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FOR PROPOSED AMENDED RATE ORDINANCE t,.oda No._~1" Agand Item.-_ EAEcuTwE SUMMARY Ilalo__l~ FOR PROPOSED RATE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IN DENTON, TEXAS 1. PURPOSr To utilize revenue neutral nrcebanisms In we existing Lone Shin Gus Rate. Ordinance to stabilize customers' bills and distribution system revenues, IL PROCESS Amend current Rate Ordinancc to incluic a Weather Normalization Adjustment (WI\A) clause and modify the existing Mainline Extension clause to provide for actual cost versus system averagelindexcd cost heyond the franchise free limit, III, PROI)UC'r A. Customers benefit by being better aide to budget for high bills during winter months; w 13, City benefits by being; able to rely on stabilized gross receipts Income from LSG; C. Company benefits by being able to plan better due to more stabilized revenues; 1). Coin munity benefits by all of the above, Hdunda No, Agenda,ltem.- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ON WEATHER NORMALIZA'T'ION ADJUS'T'MENT (1YNA) AND MAINLINE EXTENSION CLAUSE o Residential & Commercial revenues are highly weather sensitive. o l3enefitc of WNA are to stabilize Custonter bills, City Gross Recelpts Income, and Company revenues from wide monthly swings during months of October through May. 0 V1'NA is mechanism to moderate impact of obnormnl wenther based on 30-year average, and prevents over-recovery of revenue from customers during colder than normal weather, and under-recovery during warmer than normal weather. o Normal weather is determined by the National Weathrr Service. 0 Adjustment is made monthly anti has a 50% minimum and maximum limitation on margin dollars to further minimize wide swings In weather teraperntures. 0 Four primary considerations used in the calculation of the WNA: 1. Actual versus Normal Heating Degree Days (from Notional Weather Service); 2. Calculation applied to the margin portion of the rate (determined by rate ordinance from last rate case); 3. Amount of adjustment applied to monthly sales volumes (Mef of gas) per bill; d. Adjustment applies only to residential and commercinl customers. 0 11'NA Is considered to be revenue neutral since It Is based on the same 30-year average of weather data used to determine current rates. o Already implemented In over 200 Lone Star Gas cities, including Dallas, Fort Worth and Its 18 city distribution system, Wichita Falls, Waco, Piano, Richardson, Garland and numerous smaller cities. ZVIODIFICATION OF MAINLINE Ea'I'ENSION L I. o Change from system average/indexed cost to user-based actual cost of main extensions beyond franchise free limit for residential and commercial customers. 0 Industrial customers already charged actual cost for main extensions. s 1 Aponda No. ~ ,3 A'gonda Ile ' C,LI Y UU CI L_ REPORT FORMAT DATEi May 28, 1996 TOt Ted Benavides, City Manager FROMi Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering and Transportation ,SUBJECTi Disabled Parking space oil Cedar Street 1=011E, NDATION- Traffic safety Commission and Staff recommend approval Of the disabled apace to serve the Denton Community Theater, SUMMARY/BR XGRU NDi The TheaPoe is located at Cedar and Hickory. There are no other disabled spaces in the area, The OlOSest ones are on the Square itself. The building is a focal point for cultural events and meetingyso disabled parking access is essential, This space is the moot convenient and much safer than any would be on Hickory, PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR OROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens who use the Denton Community Theater, Engineering and Transportation Dept., Police, and Main Street. FISCAL IMPATL $300 for signs and paint markings for disabled space, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTEDt 0 enav ee City Manager Prepared/App~~r++ovodbyi To ar --F-r Di for o Engineering & Tranaportation AEE00605 . _i Agenda No..~ Agency Ilaa:_' ' Palo `,A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 1996 TO: Ted Benavides, City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation SUBJECT: Disabled Parking Space on Cedar Street T at the corner of his request was generated by the Denton Community Theater located disabled parking space right and in Cedar, front of They are l o along C dar,(at the northwest corner of Hickory and Cedar. Field observations show that this is a needed space since the next available disabled parking space is on the squaro. Staff recommends approval. Please advise if you need further information (8358). Jer Clark AEE0075C C Agenda No,A() TSC Agand Item _ Memo Apr Data, U r April 18, 1996 page 6 XTBM 5 HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE ALONG CEDAR AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HICKORY AND -QBDAR;, The Denton Community Theater is requesting one handicapped parking space along Cedar at the northwest corner of Hickory and Cedar. This would be directly in front of the theater and is adjacent to a handicapped ramp at the corner. Our field observations show that this one space is needed, would be situated in the beat possible location to provide safe access to the theater, and is the closest location that uses a side street like Cedar versus Hickory Street, Staff recommends approval based on the above criteria, 1 1 AEE006EB 1 I March 13, 1996 Agenda No,_:`('~j- D C`ir genda,llom _L1~ M T To: Denton Main Stre'ato Jane Jenkins Denton Community From: Denton Community Theatre, Inc, Theatre, Inc. Scot S, Wllkinson quj at the Campus Theatre Re: Handlcap Parking 214 West Hickory P.O, Box 1931 Denton Communlty Theatre, Inc„ managers of the Campus Theatre, Denton, Texas would Ilke to request a Handicap Parking Space to be located on the Corner 76202.1931 of Hickory and Cedar Street, This space Is on the corner of the Campus 817.3827014 Theatre and looks onto Hickory Street. PAX: 817.891.1691 This space would be appreciated by our many patrons who vlslt the Governing Campus Theatre, We thank you for looking Into this matter, Board of olrectors Margaret Smith President J-4 Springer 5ue Hays Patsy Peo.cerson Dens Brlton•CIauS Neta Stallings Murray Ricks Terry Widmer Rudy Men" Horace Brock Pat Courtney Ralph Culp + Walter tagleton Roy Harllne Gary Klrchoff Unnle McAdams Russell Welch Honorary Dlrect~rs Lindsay Keffer Troy LaGrone Imogene Mohat Arvin Short 5cot'5, Wllklnson Dtn rter feecuH we Afnllated with Tewas Non-Protlt rAcatres and the Southwest rheatre ASSoclation and Funded In Part by Greater Denton Arts Council, The Arts GulldofUenton, andthe Texas Corruntsston on the Arts I, i AQOnda Ilelp_ TSC Minutes May 6th, 1996 page 9 ITE 5 1,=DICAPPED PARKING SPACE ALONG CEDAR AT THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF 11MM[ AND CEDAR i Clark presented the request. He said this is a request from the Denton Community Theater, If you visit the location in the field, it in very close to the ramp, people would have problems with handicap access on Hickory, so this is the beat street. Staff recommends approval. There are several handicap individuals that will use this regularly. Sawko asked if there was any other handicap parking. Clark said no. The closest is back on the Square. Jane Jenkins, Main Street Manager, came forward to address the c,)mmission, she has been working with the community theater trying to locate a spot for handicap space. Everyone believes this will be a good location. There have been several business openings in that area and will servo them as well as the theater. Also when buildings are built on the vacant lot, it will serve that as well. it is a good location. STAFF RECOMIdENDEDi Approval COMMISSIONERSi Sa•ako made a motion to approve the handicap parking space along Cedar at the northwest corner of Hickory at Cedar. Hobdy second the motion. Motion passed unanimously. AEE0075E Apc (1~ Itam T Q W W y _ z EAST HICKORY ~ ic ~ HANDIC" PARKNG IffCWRY AND CEDAR J 0WM0',S\01D\D I SABL ED.ORD r Agenda No. Agenda floni ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 18, SECTION 18-109, TO PROVIDE FOR AN ADDITIONAL DISABLED PARKING SPACE ON THE WEST SIDE OF CEDAR STREET AT ITS INTERSECTION WITH WEST HICKORY STREET; AMENDING SECTION 18-109(a) TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAOEJ PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS/ PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION i That pursuant to Section 18-96 of the Code of Ordinances, the city engineer is directed to designate and mark parking spaces in areas where parking is to be limited. SECTION II That Section 18-109(x) of Chapter 18 of the Code of. Crdinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows: (a) When signs are erected giving notice thereof, it shall be unlawful for any person at any time to stop, stand, park or leave standing any vehicle not displaying special license plates or a parking placard issued pursuant to the requirements of the Texas Department of Transportation indicating that the owner or a passenger thereof is permanently or temporarily disabled at any of the following locations: S. TON I i That Section 18-109(a)(1)-(24) shall remain in full force and effect. B=1QV JY.L That Section 18-109(a)(25) shall be added to create a now disabled parking space on the corner of Cedar Street and West Hickory Strreet and subsection (25) shall read as follows: (25) One (1) parking space on the west side of Cedar Street, immediately north of West Hickory Street. SECTION V An individual adjudged guilty of violating any provisions of this ordinance when signs are erected giving notice thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). SECTION--VIt. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of this ordinance become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the conflict. Agenda No.~~ SECTION VIII That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court 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 111, 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 (10) days of the date of its passage, PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 8Y: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM) HERBERRRTT~ L. PROUTYYJ,, CITY ATTORNEY BY: / ' i. Agenda Mo,_~y[p-~J Agenda Item • Oate.~p~ CITY OF DE TON, TEXAS , MUNICIPAL BUILDING ~ DENTON, TEXAS 76201 I TELEPHONE 817 566.8307 Office of the City Manager MEMORANDUM DATE: May 29, 1996 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary SUBJECT: Board/Commission Appointments The following is a list of current Board/Commission vacancies: Denton Development Policy Committee - Donna McClendon has resigned from this Committee, This was an appointment for Mayor Castleberry who did not nominate anyone before leaving office, Data Processing Advisory Board - Council Member Young has nominated Lupe Tavor, Keep Denton Beautiful Board - Robert Gentile has resigned. This is u nomination for Council Member Krueger, if you require any further information, please let me know. Je i er Wal ers C y 'ecret ry ACCOOOF4 "Uedica:ed io Quailry Service" Agooda Na /_1 Apada )tem. May 15, 1996 Bill Watson Keep Denton Beautiful P.O. Box 374 Denton, TX 76202 Dear Bill: This letter is provided as written notification of my resignation from the Keep Denton Beautiful Advisory Board. The resignation will be effective immediately in order to allow the appointment of another citizen to fill the vacant position. I appreciate the opportunity to serve, but I am unable to continue as a Board member. Sincerely, Robert Gentile ,~~s Dbi+2.1 iJ~J6 IrI PITY oil of;R'fQN M Y Agenda No. Agenda Item NORTH CENTRAL 96 Designation of Voting Representative MIN F As a member of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, hereby designates the (name of county, city, school district, or special district) following elected official to serve as Its voting representative to NCTCOG's General Assembly. Name: Title: Mailing Address: Telephone: ( ) Signed: Title: Date: • • Under the Bylaws of the North Central Texas Council of Governments, each me ber government • • • is entitled to one voting representative on the General Assembly. The voting representative must be an elected official from the governing body of the member government. This vot- ing representative serves as a liaison between the local government and NCTCOG; receives publications and announcements from NCTCOG; and is eligible to vote on proposed Bylaws amendments and for candidates to serve on NCTCOG's Executive Board. A city or county official must be a designated voting representative in order to be con- sidered for service on the Executive Board. Some voting representatives may have retired from office or some member governments may wish to select a differ- ent representative from the one currently serving. Therefore, NCTCOG annually requests recertification of voting rep- resentatives - usually after the municipal/school board elections as the next NCTCOG Regional Directory is being pre- C pared, Use this form to designate your official voting representative to NCTCOG. If you wish, you have the option to list your existing voting representative, without formal reappointment, unless that person is no longer In office. Return form to: • • 76005-5888 FAX: 817-640-7806 v R F F:\WPDOCS 1On\LGNSTAR.CFD / y? Agenda No, / Agenda Item Date _i s- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CONFIRMING THE ACTION TAKEN BY LONE STAR GAS COMPANY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GAS UTILITY REGULATORY ACT TO MODIFY THE MAIN LINE EXTENSION RATE AND IMPLEMENT A WEATHER NORMALIZATION ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE IN THE CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on May 24, 1996, Lone Star Gas filed a Statement of Intent with the City Secretary to amend the current gas utility rate ordinance in Denton to provide for the actual cost of mainline extensions beyond the franchise free limit (1001), and to provide for a Weather Normalization Adjustment (WNA). WHEREAS, both of these proposed items are considered revenue neutral with regard to gas sales, and as such, do not represent an increase in current residential and commercial gas utility rates as previously set by the City in 1982. WHEREAS, these proposed changes will become effective on July 1, 1996, if the City takes no action pursuant to the Gas Utility Regulatory Act; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The mainline extension rate established by Ordinance No. 82-1 shall be amended to read in accordance with Item A in the attachment hereto which is incorporated herein. SECTION II. The residential and commercial rates established by ordinance No. 82-1 shall be adjusted upward or downward for variations in the heating degree days according to Item B in the attachment hereto which is incorporated herein. SECTION III. The rates set forth in this ordinance may be changed and amended by either the City or Company in the manner provided by law. Service hereunder is subject to the orders of regulatory bodies having jurisdiction, and to the company's rules and regulations currently on f_.le in the company's office. SECTION IV. This ordinance is effective with bills rendered on and after July 1, 1996. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 19 JACK MILLER, MAYOR LL V ^J? A: I ' r } Agenda No.z Agenda~tem Date ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY:c ~-f PAGE 2 r F Agenda No, Agenda Item Date 1L ATTACHMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS LONE STAR GAS COMPANY TARIFFS & SCHEDULES ITEM A. MAIN LINE EXTENSION RATE h The charge for extending mains beyond the free limit established by Franchise for residential, commercial, and industrial customers shall be based on the actual cost per foot of the extension. ITEM B. Weather Normalization Adjustment: Effective with bills rendered during the October 1996 through May 1997 billing months, and annually thereafter for the October through May billing months, the above residential and commercial consumption rates for gas service, as adjusted, shall be subject to a weather normalization adjustment each billing cycle to reflect the impact of variations in the actual heating degree days during the period included in the billing cycle from the normal level of heating degree days during the period included In the billing cycle. The weather normalization adjustment will be implemented on a per Mcf basis and will be applicable to the heating load of each customer during the period included in the billing cycle. It will be determined separately for residential and commercial customers based on heating degree data recorded by the D/FW Airport weather station. The adjustment to be made for each billing cycle will be calculated according to the following formula: WNA . ND AD-DDD x M x AHL Where: WNA = Weather normalization adjustment NDD = Normal heating degree days during the period covered by the billing cycle ADD = Actual heating degree days during the period covered by the billing cycle M = Weighted average margin per Mcf included in the commodity portion of the rates effective during the October through May billing months AHL = Actual heating load per customer 1 1 4 Agenda No. ' Agenda Item G The heating load to which the weather normalization ad,us~menT fo 6e applied for residential and commercial customers is determined by subtracting tho base load for the customer from the total volume being billed to the customer. The base load of a customer is the average level of nonheating consumption. The weather normalization adjustment is subject to a 50% limitation factor based on temperatures being fifty percent warmer or colder than normal. The weather normalization adjustment will be calculated to the nearest $.0001 per Mcf. I 2 ~I