HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-1996
F
i
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
September 3, 1996
}
~g9R9d Nn,.e.,.7i.-w
AGENDA Apende ite
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
September 3, 1996 Date_ -3
Closed Meeting of the City of Denton city council on Tuesday,
September 3, 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. Consult with attorney regarding status and
strategies regarding RPS/Weber d Barnes v. Citv,
and consider mediation or settlement.
2. Discuss status and consider settlement of
litigation styled Johnson/McCoy v. City of Denton.
3. Discuss status and consider settlement of
litigation styled Cohagen, et al. v. City of
Denton.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
September 3, 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:
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 July 23, 1996.
3. Recognition of Ms. Cynthia Wren and Ms. Joanne T. Hanna for
lifesaving efforts.
4. Citizen Reports
A. Receive a citizen report from Roderick E. Courtney
regarding City Policies Section 109.01 and 109.03.
B. Receive a citizen report from Dan McBride regarding
dangerous solicitation during the Fireman's Fill-The-Boot
campaign.
F
City of Denton City Council Agenda
September 3, 1996
Page 2
C. Receive a citizen report from Joe Dodd regarding a
request for resignation of all sitting City Council
Members.
D. Receive a citizen report from Nell Lights in response to
a staff report.
5. Public Hearings
A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
o-dinance to rezone 7.352 acres from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district to the Light Industrial conditioned
(LI(c]) zoning district. This tract is located on
Teasley Lane, south of Hickory Creek Mobile Home
communitY (Z-96-029) (The Planning and Zoning
commission recommends approval 7-0.)
B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance amending a detailed plan of Good Samaritan
Village. The property consists of 26.817 acres in
Planned Development 21 and is located on the southeast
corner of Hinkle Drive and Headlee Lane. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.)
C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance to rezone 2.6652 acres from the single Family
16 (SF-16) zoning district to the office Conditioned
(O[c]) zoning district. The subject property is located
on the west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 500
feet south of I-35E. (The Planning and zoning commission
recommends approval 7-C.)
6. Consent Agenda
Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval
thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations.
Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his
designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff
recommendations. The City Council has received background
information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding
these items prior to consideration.
Listed below are bids 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 7.A,
7.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.
I
6
1
F
Y
Y,
City of Denton City Council Agenda
September 3, 1996
Page 3
A. Bids and Purchase orders:
1. P.O. 167375 - Paradigm
B. Agreements
1. City of Gainsville - Rental of Tub Grinder
7. Consent Agenda Ordinances
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for the
expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or
equipment which are available from one source in
accordance with the provisions of state law exempting
such purchases from requirements of competitive bids.
(6.A.1. - P.O. 167375)
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City
Manager to execute an interlocal agreement with the City
of Gainesville, Texas for the purchase of various goods
and services by way of a purchase order to the City of
Denton authorizing Vie expenditure of funds therefore.
(6.A.2.)
8. ordinances
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance amending Ordinances 85-
59 and 96-103 by approving a corrected legal description
of a 10 acre tract located east of Mayhill Road
approximately 10001 north of the intersection of Gayla
and Mayhill Roads.
9. Resolutions
A. Consider approval of a resolution appointing certain
persons to an Economic Development Sales and Use Tax Task
Force to evaluate, make recommendations and to promote a
sales and use tax election for economic development.
B. Consider approval of a resolution appointing ex-officio
members to the Board of Directors of the Economic
Development Corporation of Denton, inc.
30. Consider a voting and alternate voting delegate to the
National League of Cities' Annual Business Meeting.
11. Consider nominations/ appointments to the City's Boards and
commissions.
12. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
w
.
b
F
t
City of Denton City Council Agenda
September 3, 1996
Page 4
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.
Following the completion of the Regular Session the Council will
convene into a Work Session to consider the following:
NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to
one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the
purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters
should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the
Council for citizen input, city council deliberation and formal
City action. At a work session, the City Council generally
receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City
staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or
organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council
or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by
individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases
when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to public
input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens
have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so
citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless
invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City
Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report
regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored.
Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting
agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining
the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens
prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The
purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the
regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow
citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1. Receive and consider information on the 1996-97 fiscal year
budget and give staff direction.
2. 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
}
City of Denton City Council Agenda
September 3, 1996
Page 5
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
NOTT: 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.
ACC00334
ACM0140, Q3 7
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agenda Item_ a'
July 230 1996 Da'a -
The council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, July 23,
1996 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Ten Brock; Council Members
Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
1. Discussed the acquisition of property for expansion
of the City's wastewater treatment plant.
2. Discussed possible purchase of vacant Texas
Instruments facility at 3940 N. Elm Street by a 4B
non-profit economic development corporation to be
formed by Dell Computer Corporation and the City
and discussed possible terms of a lease between the
4B and entities that might consider leasing of such
facility from the 4B.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Work session on Tuesday, July 23, 1996
at 6:00 p.m. in the city Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Cow:ail Members
Beasley, Biles, Cott, Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the Denton Central Appraisal District's proposed budget.
Joe Rogers, Chief Appraiser - Denton Central Appraisal District,
reviewed the proposed budget as presented in the agenda back-up
materials. There would be a p+,.blic hearing on July 25th for public
comment. The budget was approximately 4.21 over the previous
budget. Primary changes in the proposed budget were the addition
of an appraiser for personal property which was the only addition
of employees for the proposed budget, an increase in the reserve
for legal expenses, an increase in data processing related
expenses, an increase in the printing and postage accounts, and an
increase in the contingency account.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the City really did not have a
choice about approving the budget.
Rogers replied that the amount which the City paid was set based on
the total tax levy for the City.
a
Yt
F
Y
r;
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 2
Council Member Krueger asked if there was a reserve which the
District had and were there ways to use that reserve rather than
have an increase.
Rogers replied that this year he reviewed the 1994-95 budget
expenditures for each account and the budget was proposed on what
was done over the last several years. His budget was driven by
what they were required to do.
Council Member Krueger stated that last year the District budgeted
$30,000 for the contingency fund and this year $50,000 was
proposed. Had the District gone over the $30,000 this year? '
Rogers replied no but that the fiscal year was not over and the
last several years the District ended with a reasonable balance.
If there were funds remaining in the account at the end of the
fiscal year, it had to be returned to the taxing jurisdictions.
2. The Council received presentations, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the hotel occupancy tax funding to
various organizations including:
A. Chamber of Commerce Convention and Visitors Bureau
B. North Texas State Fair Association
C. Denton County Historical Foundation
D. Denton County Historical Museum
E. Greater Denton Arts Council
F. Denton Main Street Association
G. Denton County Amphitheater Association
H. Denton Festival Foundation
I. Denton Black Chamber of Commerce
J. Denton Historic Landmark Commission
K. Denton Hispanic chamber of commerce
Mayor Miller stated that the first five organizations had ongoing
funding under a two year program. The other organizations received
funding for only one year.
A. Chamber of Commerce - Convention and visitors Bureau - Greg
Sawko stated that there was an existing contract which set the
amount of money the Bureau was provided and which went through
1997. The purpose of the Bureau was to attract conventions and
visitors to Denton.
Council Member Bthat the Bureau would be
concentrat concentrating less on convention stated solicitation because of the lack
of a conference center and would be focusing more on tourism
especially with the new Texas Motor Speedway. She felt that that
was a good marketing plan as the City did not have any type of
convention facility.
Council Member Young expressed a concern regarding transportation
inside the City when the Speedway opened as he felt the City's
present cab service would not be adequate.
Y
Z
F
s
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 3
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about the funding for the billboard on I-
35. There was no funding listed in that account.
Sawko stated that the Bureau would continue to use the billboard
but that the criteria had been changed to not include commercial
messages. Very little funds had been received for outside
commercial messages and it was felt that the billboard would be
best used for other purposes. The money in that account was
deleted as it was anticipated that there would be no funds received
for the use of the billboard.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that when various events were discussed
by the Chamber along with points of interest, there were no sports
events related to either of the two universities and there were no
concerts or other events listed. She asked if the Bureau was going
to promote those types of items.
Sawko stated that the Bureau had entered into an agreement to do
advertising for the University of North Texas.
Mayor Miller stated that a proposed budget had been submitted to
each of the organizations. In each case, based on the formula
developed, there was some carry-over from the 1995-96 fiscal year.
Those numbers were included in the budgets from the organizations
and indicated how the organizations were going to use the funds
from the City.
B. North Texas State Fair Association - James Roden stated that
his proposed budget did not increase any salaries but that other
allowable areas were increased.
Council Member Young asked how much the Fair attendance had
increased last year.
Roden replied that the attendance had not increased much but that
the number of exhibitors had increased.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about the Fair's practice of allowing
political signs on the fence around the Fairgrounds.
Roden replied that the Fair was not putting those signs up. If
someone put up a sign, they were not going to take it down.
C. Denton County Historical Foundation/D. D e n t o n C o u n t y
Historical Museum - Norma Jean Gamble stated that these
organizations were about giving people something to come to Denton
to see. Without the Historical Museum and the Historical
Foundation, she was not sure there would be things for people to
come and see. She detailed several of the projects they were
working on including microfilming old newspapers for public
viewing.
E. Greater Denton Arts Council - Sara Harvey stated that the
allocation of the Labor funds had been simplified this year in
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 4
their budget. The majority of the disbursements would be going
towards salaries. Staff was involved with the promotion and
programming of the Greater Denton Arts Council and the supervision
of the Center for the Visual Arts.
Mayor Miller stated that the following organizations were ones
which were funded on a one year basis and the proposal was to
consider them for another year of funding in the upcoming budget.
F. Denton Main Street Association - Jane Jenkins stated that the
funding the Association had received during the past year enabled
them to considerably increase their program. The Main Street
Program was now actually serving as a community revitalization
program providing services to other business districts in the
community which required assistance in getting organized for
revitalization. The allocation which they received was spent on
promoting the Main Street events.
G. Denton county Amphitheater Association - Diane Edmondson
stated that the Association viewed the allocation of funds as an
investment in Denton. The feasibility study for the amphitheater
had been completed and would be presented to Council in the near
future. The script was being revised and updated for presentation.
H. Denton Festival Foundation - Carol Short stated that the funds
given to the Foundation were spent on advertising, tourism and
promotional materials. They had many plans for the future and
wanted to implement them with the help of the City. More stages
were needed for performers as well as for well-known headliners and
large tents.
I. Denton Black Chamber of Commerce - John Baines stated the
Black Chamber of Commerce had seven objectives that it was
currently focused on. Several of those included helping emerging
and small businesses connect with the available services within the
community, preparing an information directory of minority
businesses, focusing on special events, focusing on membership,
networking among the businesses, and encouraging youth to become
involved in business. The money granted to the organization in the
prior year was slated to be used in a September production.
J. Denton Historic Landmark Commission - Jane Jenkins,
Preservation Officer, stated that the Commission was allocated
$1,000 which was used for a subject marker for the City of Denton.
It was planned to purchase another marker for the City if Council
allocated funds to the Commission for next year.
K. Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce - There was no
representative present from the Denton Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer, stated that Council would be
considering the budgets presented from the first five organizations
on August 6th. if there was no further direction from council,
d
a
r,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 5
staff would proceed with the proposal as presented in the agenda
back-up for the other organizations. They would be presenting a
budget to Council at a later date.
Consensus of Council was to proceed with the first five
organizations as presented.
Council Member Krueger suggested exploring the possibility of
establishing certain percentages for two year terms for some of the
organizations.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the employee group health insurance
program for the plan year beginning January 1, 1997.
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that the health
insurance program was rebid every three years to ensure that the
City was receiving the best cost for the services provided. A
comprehensive rebid had been done regarding the service. The bid
specifications were developed by Foster and Higgins with input from
the Human Resources staff, the Legal Department and Purchasing.
Council reviewed the specifications in November 1995. The bids
were released in early February and bids opened on April 18, 1996.
Specifications included addressing the employee access to one or
both local hospitals with a minimum bid requirement of at least one
local hospital in the network, providing an IPA model as opposed to
a staff model, active and retiree quotes for rates, plan design
with a choice for employees of HMO or point of service. A one year
contract was bid with the option to renew for two consecutive years
with a second and third year not to exceed rate guarantee.
Qualitative issues associated with the bids included provider
access, contracting and reimbursement methods, ti;e financial
stability of the carrier, utilization management, medical
management, member services, and the length and experience in north
Texas. The bids were distributed to 16 prospective carriers. six
carriers did not respond, four declined to respond and six
submitted bids. Foster and Higgins with the concurrence with the
Legal Department and the Purchasing Department, evaluated the bids
and determined that two carriers fully met the bid specifications -
Harris Methodist and Signa. On an analysis of cost basis, the
Signa bid had the lower first year cost. However, when looking at
second and third year rate guarantees, the Harris bid represented
the lower overall three year cost to the organization for both the
City and covered dependents. Accepting the Harris bid would
eliminate any transition period to a new carrier or disruption to
the employees.
Council Member Cott asked why ten carriers did not bid.
Klinck stated that four of the carriers did not bid as they felt
they could not be competitive in terms of the rates. Cities did
not always represent an attractive risk as a private sector
corporation did to some carriers.
F
v
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 6
Council Member Beasley asked about the hospital situation.
Klinck stated that Columbia had discontinued service with Harris
Methodist, only 25% of last year's claims dollars were spent on
in-patient care with 119 admits in 1994 and 139 in 1995. That
represented 4-7% of the 2000 individuals insured. Approximately
64% of the City workforce lived within the City limits and would
have access to Denton Regional Medical Center.
Council Member Beasley stated that Harris would have to still
guarantee one hospital in Denton with its bid.
Klinck replied correct.
Denise Blain, Harris Methodist. Health Plan, understood and was very
aware of the situation with the divestiture of one of the
facilities by Columbia. It was their commitment to the City to
provide a comprehensive provider network and once the divestiture
took place, they would aggressively pursue the continuation of the
current contract.
Council Member Young asked about the rates for t=tirees.
Klinck stated that a blended rate was being recommended which would
lower the cost for retirees.
Mayor Miller asked about the hospital privileges of the network
doctors.
Klinck replied that an analysis had been done on those doctors in
Denton. There was only one doctor in the Denton/Lewisville area
who did not have admitting privileges at both hospitals.
Blain stated a "disruption of hospital services" analysis was done
to look at all of the participating physicians in Denton and the
primary care physicians who the employees used. The analysis
showed that there was one Lewisville pediatrician who did not have
admitting privileges at both hospitals. That doctor provided
services for four City of Denton dependents.
Mayor Miller stated that there were instances where one hospital
did not have the equipment necessary for certain types of surgeries
which the other hospital did have. Where would those patients be
served in those cases?
Blain replied that they would initially look within their
participating facilities to determine if that type of equipment was
available. Arrangements would be made to receive services at those
facilities. The physician would not have to change, only the
facility.
Council Member Beasley suggested proceeding with the contract with
Harris Methodist. Conditions included having at least one hospital
in the Harris network and that as soon as possible to have both
F
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 7
hospitals.
Council Member Biles stated that he would be in favor of the
contract if it stipulated that Harris maintain at least one Denton
hospital, at a minimum.
Klinck stated that a letter of understanding was executed with that
provision. It also included that Harris would pursue discussions
in an attempt to include both hospitals.
Consensus of the Council was to proceed.
4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding a proposed extraterritorial jurisdiction
agreement line between the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey.
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
in 1988 there was an agreement line conceptually approved by the
Denton City Council and Aubrey. Staff was requesting Council
direction to finalize the release of Denton's extraterritorial
jurisdiction on the east side of the Elm Fork. It was felt that
this was an appropriate line to draw as it was the current
regulatory line. Denton was not certified to provide utilities in
the area and the provision of City services, from the west across
the Elm Fork, would be difficult. Staff was recommending the
release of the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Council Member Krueger asked for the reasoning for the northern
line around Aubrey.
Robbins replied that that was out of the area which Aubrey was
asking for.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the extraterritorial jurisdiction
was determined by State law. The extraterritorial jurisdiction was
automatically three and one half miles from the city limits line.
Robbins replied that that was the ETJ line in 1988 and currently
was further north due to the annexation of the Elm Fork.
Mayor. Pro Tem Brock asked if Denton had the ability to release
extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Robbins repled yes that there was a specific provision in the Local
Government Code which enabled cities to do that.
Council Member Biles asked why the area south of Highway 380 was
being considered.
Robbins replied that that was where the City's ETJ currently was
located. Denton could unilaterally release that area and whoever
had that ETJ or could get it, would not need Denton's permission.
P
}
i
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 8
Council Member Biles asked if Kruegerville or Cross Roads had
expressed an interest in the area.
Robbins replied no.
Council Member Young felt that Denton should honor the 1988
agreement.
Mayor Miller stated that he understood that there was an agre ment
drawn up between the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey in 1988.
According to Denton, that agreement was never signed and returned
to the City of Denton.
Mayor King of Aubrey stated that he disagreed with the agreement
line from 1988. The City of Denton in 1988 approached Aubrey with
the agreement. The agreement line went from St. John's Road to
Highway 455 to Elm Creek, down Elm Creek past Orbin Hill Road.
Aubrey's attorney had documentation of letters from the City
Manager of Denton which later requested that the line be lowered to
Highway 380. The City of Denton encouraged Aubrey to pass an
ordinance to regulate the extraterritorial jurisdiction in the
area. That was done and sent to Denton's Council. As requested,
Aubrey passed an extraterritorial jurisdiction ordinance. They had
notarized documentation of the landowners requesting to be in
Aubrey's extraterritorial jurisdiction. Aubrey wanted the City of
Denton to acknowledge the 1988 agreement. They were on the verge
of becoming a growing city and did not want to be boxed in. Several
of the landowner's were disturbed that they migi-it not be in
Aubrey's extraterritorial jurisdiction as previously thought.
Mayor Miller felt that there was a disagreement on what land area
was being discussed. He felt that Denton's staff needed to work
with Aubrey's staff in order to know exactly what area was being
considered. He suggested that the item be postponed and have staff
work with the staff from Aubrey to exactly determine the area.
Council Member Biles felt that it was important to determine
exactly where the City of Denton and the City of Aubrey each
contended where the lines were drawn. Perhaps staff could develop
colored maps in order to pinpoint the areas.
Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to postpone the issue in order for 1
staff to work with Aubrey's staff to determine the exact location
of the agreement lines. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye",
Cott "aye", Krueger Faye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor
Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding the City's support for the extension of
the Clean Air Act,
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the
Council of Governments and the Regional Transportation Council had
asked cities in the north central Texas area to pass resolutions
R
4
f
u r.}j
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 9
supporting the extension of the Clean Air Act. The counties of
Dallas, Denton, Collin and Tarrant comprised a moderate ozone non-
attainment area. Failure to obtain an extension for this area
would mean additional federal mandates which could potentially
adversely affect economic stability in the area. Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison had introduced legislation which would extend the
date for compliance for two years.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to direct staff to prepare the
appropriate resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye",
Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor
Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened
into a Special Call Session to consider the following:
1. The Council considered a request for an exemption to the noise
ordinance from Marathon Builders to pour concrete on four occasions
at U-Haul, 164 N. I-35 East, starting at 5:00 a.m.
Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that at the
Council's June 16th meeting, Council considered a request from
Marathon Builders for an exception to the noise ordinance to pour
concrete at the U-Haul location. That request was denied with a 2-
4 vote. Following that meeting, staff met with Norm Jones, a
consultant with Marathon Builders, to obtain additional information
regarding the need for the request. There were four heavy pours
remaining which included 300-350 yards of concrete per pour. Those
pours would be done as close to the weekend as possible. Equipment
which would be used at the site would be a 36 meter pump truce: with
generator powered overhead lighting. There were approximately 15
mobile homes near the site which could potentially be effected by
the noise.
Council Member Young stated that the start time of 5:00 a.m. did
not mean that concrete would be poured at that time. It meant that
they could start setting up at that time.
Norm Jones, Marathon Builders, replied correct. The set-up time
would include pulling the trucks on site and getting the temporary
lighting set up. The extra hour would be for set-up time.
Council Member Young stated that it would take approximately an
hour for set-up.
Jones replied correct.
Council Member Young stated that starting earlier would help the
workers with the heat.
Jones stated that the workers at the site were local workers. In
order to get a good finish on the concrete it was necessary to
begin before the heat of the day.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
July 23, 1996
Page 10
Council Member Krueger stated that the company had received a
citation for starting early one morning.
Jones replied correct.
Council Member Krueger asked if the neighbors had been Contacted.
Jones replied that he had contacted one individual before the work
had started. The neighbor had a problem with a 251 dedication
which did not relate to the concrete pour.
Jim Inman stated that there were seven mobile homes approximately
351 from where the heavy equipment had been operating. The
neighbors felt that the codes were in place to protect the
residents and that those codes should be honored. Some of the
residents had small children and there was one individual
recovering from a hospital stay. He felt the current regulations
should be honored.
Council Member Young stated that he had talked with the residents
in the area. Three residents were against the early start and
three individuals did not mind.
Council Member Cott suggested that the neighbors and the contractor
talk together about the situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that she was against
exception as it was too great an imposition othe neighbors g The
neighbors deserved the Council's consideration, The council had
already considered early construction by changing the ordinance to
allow for a 6:00 a.m. start time in the summer months.
Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to reject the request for an
exception to the noise ordinance and adhere to the 6:00 a.m.
starting time for construction. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock
"aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "nay", Biles "nay", and
Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
2. The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's
Boards and Conunissions.
The Council voted on prior nominations and presented nominations
for future consideration. (See Attachment A)
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m..
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Yrt'kJ
E
Aktachment A
BOARD/COMMISSION NOMINATIONS
1996-97
AIRPORT ADpI80R BOARD
Pir& ~uBRENT MEMBFU NOMI_ NEON -
Tim cO1w=
*7 John Dulemba
Terry Garland 1994-96 Miller
*3 Don Smith
Ann Houston 1994-96 Hiles
*4 James Jamieson James Jamieson
*5 Jim Risser 1944-96 Cott
Jim Risser 1994-96 Beasley
UrKAL BgaL.T- ER nVIBORY ROAAn
DIST 9QRREN_ T, M__EMBER NOMINATION
TERM COQ.
*Z Joella Orr
Joella Orr 1994-96 Krueger
5 Vacant Mary Bendzick
6 1496-98 Beasley
Vacant
1996-98 Brock
BOARD _Qr_&WSkTX=
DIST 0w1ff M£MASFtQ ~O , ATION
T- UNC
*5 Rebecca King Rebecca King 1994-96
*3 Bob Ragemann Beasley
Greg Muirhead 1994-96 Biles
*4 Joe Bendzick Joe Bendzick
*Z Larry Collister 1994-46 Cott
Larry Collister 1994-96 Krueger
BDILDINa COD pQUj2
M CMENT MEMAFA
XQUY-AU-0; am COQ
*3 James Fykes (ALT) Bob Hagemann
1994-96 Biles
*4 Byron Woods (ALT) Byron Woods 1994-96
*5 Steve Kniatt Cott
Steve Kniatt 1994-96 Beasley
*6 (Mary McCain) Mary McCain
(Architect) 1994-96 Brock
*7 Greg Muirhead Ken Dobias
1994-46 Miller
* Individual nominated and approved
No Individual nominated but not approved
No nomination
f
CADL3 TV ADVIBoRY BoApn
DIST CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION
TIM COQ
*5 Mark Burroughs Mark Burroughs 1993-96 Beasley
*2 Richard Rodean Richard Rodean
1993-96 Krueger
3 Vacant
1996-98 Bilge
4 Vacant
1996-98 Krueger
iITY D~aLOPMEW ADpi60RY COlaiiT~ras
CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION
T= COUNCTT
*5 Dorothy Martinez Jean Hinojosa 1994-96 Beasley
*6 Peggy Fox Peggy Fox 1994-96 Brock
*7 Jean Ellen Rogers Jean Ellen Rogers 1994-96 Miller
*3 Larry Bailey Kimberly Franklin 1994-96 Biles
*5 Ann Hatch Ann Hatch 1994-96 Beasley
ETA PROCEa9IMO ADPIaOSY 80 4D
DIST CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION I COUNCT
*3 Rosa Lawton Warren Searls
1994-96 Krueger
3 Bruce Mitchell Lisa Green 1994-96 Biles
*4 Rona* Seely Renae Seely 1994-96 Cott
5 Vacant Vicki McCombs 1996-98 Beasley
6 Vacant Maurine Saringer 1996-98 Brock
DOWNTOWN VISOIIY pgM
2.ST CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION COQ
*3 Geneva Berg George Goen 1994-96 Biles
*4 Joanna Deonath Joanna Deonath 1994-96 Cott
*5 Joy Williams Jo Williams
y 1994-96 Beasley
*6 Michael Flanagan Michael Monticino 1994-96 Brock
*7 Rahna Raney Bette Sherman 1994-96 Miller
* Individual nominated and approved
No * Individual nominated but not approved
No nomination
F
z
I
ELECTRICAL CODE BOARD
Q= CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION Tf~ COUNCIL
*3 (John Hardinger) John Hardinger 1994-96 Biles
(Master Electrician)
4 Don Fox 1994-96 Cott
*1 Robert Hicks (ALT) Robert Hicks 1994-96 Young
HISTORIC LANDKMLX CONX188IOIt
DIST CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION T= COUNCI
*3 (Kenneth Morgan) Diane Ricks 1994-96 silos
(Reel Property owner)
*7 Judy Cole Peggy Norton 1994-96 Miller
*2 Jim Kirkpatrick Jim Kirkpatrick 1994-96 Krueger
XMIAM SRRVIC=s COMMITTEE
DIST CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION Tfg~ COUNCIL
*b Pat Muro Fran Miller 1994-96 Brock
*7 Diana Briggs Carol Brantley 1994-96 Miller
*2 Kevin Miller Charles Saunders 1994-96 Krueger
*4 Sandy Kristoferson Wallace Duvall 1994-96 Cott
KEEP DMMN BEAUTIFUL HOARD
D= C=ENT MEMBER NOMINATION T,E81'S COUNCIj~
*1 Mabel Devereaux Larry Mullen 1994-96 Young
*6 Gayla Robles Gayla Robles 1994-96 Brock
*7 Vera Laney Vera Laney 1994-96 Miller
*3 Fjola Jeffries Fjola Jeffries 1994-96 Biles
*4 Bill Watson Dee Dee Scott 1994-96 Cott
*2 Robert Gentile Mark Osborne 1995-97 Krueger
(resignation)
* Individual nominated and approved
No * Individual nominated but not approved
No nomination
i
LISBARY HOARD
DiST CURRENT MEMB R DiUINATION 0 MATT.
*7 Kjell Johansen Kjell Johansen
1994-96 Miller
*3 Kathy Pole
Kathy pole 1994-96 silos
*4 Ema Ruth Russell Ema Ruth Russell 1994-96 Cott
PARIS AND RECREATION SOAap
DIST CURRENT MEMBER N9I~INATION TFeB~ CO N Tr,
*7 Tom Judd
Annie Burroughs 1994-96 Miller
*2 Loyce Wilson
Tom Reece 1994-96 Krueger
PINING AND SONING COlOliBStew
DIST CLMENT MEMBER NOMINATION TEEM COUN~C7l
*3 Mike Cochran Carol Ann Ganzer 1994-96 Biles
*5 Ellen Schertz Ellen Schertz 1994-96 Beasley
*6 Katie Flemming Mike Cochran 1994-96 Brock
PLUNHINO AND NEClLfvTn~i +nns eQ
DIST CURRENT MEMB R H9X1 iATLQt(
TF~S COUNCIL
*5 Millard Heath Millard Heath 1994-96 Beasla
(Mechentcal Contractor) Y
*6 Lee Capps
Lee Capps 1994-96 Brock
(layman)
1 (Jeff Peploe) 1994-96 Young
(Master Plumber) g
PUBLIC UTILITIEe ansnn
CURRENT MEMBER
QZ~T NOMINATION iE81~1 S~&
*5 Bill Giese Bill Giese
1992-96 Beasley
*
Individual nominated and approved
No * Individual nominated but not approved
No nomination
Pit
BiaN BOARD OS APPEALB
DIST CURRENT MEMBER NOMI_ N, A_ TIpN T= COQ
*1 Spencer Washington Slick Smith
1994-96 Young
3 Ann Houston (ALT)
1994-96 Hiles
*7 Mike Wiebe Mike Wiebe
1994-96 Miller
TRRUTC SAFETY COHNIABION
DIET CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION COUNCI
*6 Greg Sawko Greg Sawko 1994-96 Brock
*1 Kathy Devine Fred Hill
1994-96 Young
*2 Derrick Hartsfield Derrick Hartsfield 1994-96 Krur_ger
3 Mark Coomes Art Seely, Jr. 1994-96 Biles
*4 Larry Luce Larry Luce 1994-96 Cott
CIVIL 2 slow
DEBT CURRENT MEMBPR NOMINATION
*2 Dennis Stephens Dennis Stephens 1993-96 City
Mgr.
DENTON 8O08ING ADTEORM
DEBT CURRENT MEN= NOMINATION TEEM
*1 Tony Soto Tony Soto 1994-96 Mayor
*2 Bob Crouch Bob Crouch 1994-96 Mayor
F DIRECTORO
a T CURRENT MEMBER NOMINATION
TEEM
*0 Tom Harpool George Hopkins 1994-96 Council
ACC00128
* Individual nominated and approved
No * Individual nominated but not approved
No nomination
Agenda No. `a3
Agenda item
Date Z-3 - !d
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor Miller and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: LETTER OF APPRECIATION
RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that Mayor Miller
recognize Ms. Cynthia Wren and Ms. Joanne T. Hanna from Mayor
Miller for their outstanding, lifesaving performance on July 22,
1996.
SUMMARY: Ms. Cynthia Wren and Ms. Joanne T. Hanna together
performed the Heimlich maneuver on a customer at Mr. Tee's Chicken
& Ribs on July 22, 1996. Their heroic and unselfish actions may
have saved this man0s life.
BACKGROUND:
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: None
FISQAL IMPACT: None
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
{
Ted Benav des
City Manager
Prepared by:
22 _ I
James R. mason
Deputy Fire Chief
I~
6
MEMO
TO: Ted Benavides, City Manager
FROM: James R. Thomason, Deputy Fire Chief
DATE: July 26, 1996
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR LETTER OF RECOGNITION
On July 22, 1996 while eating lunch at Mr. Tee's Ribs, located at 2311 W. University
Drive, Robert Anderson began to choke on a piece of meat. With the food lodged in this
throat, his airway became completely blocked and he quickly became hypoxic (suffocating
from lack of air movement). In the later stages of hypoxia, patients become panicked and
often times combative as they try to breath; as well they quickly loose consciousness and
they begin to show the bluish-gray discoloration typically noted in this situation. Mr.
Anderson began to exhibit all of these conditions.
Upon noting Mr. Anderson's condition Cynthia Wren, a store employee, began to attempt
the Heimlich maneuver to dislodge the food from Mr. Anderson's airway. Because of his
size and combative demeanor, Nis. Wren was unable to effectively use the Heimlich
maneuver. Ms. Wren, who has experience as a medical aide and is currently enrolled in a
nursing program, laid Mr. Anderson on the floor while calling for another store employee
to get Ms. Joanne Hanna from the Kwik Kar Lube & Tune next door. Ms. Hanna, with
nursing experience, quickly responded to assist Ms. Wren . Together they were able to
use the Heimlich maneuver, for an unconscious person, to dislodge the bolus of food in
Mr. Anderson's airway. Upon arrival or & Denton Fire Department engine company and
medic unit from station five, Mr. Anderson was beginning to breath on his own and was
regaining consciousness. The first arriving fire department personnel reported Mr.
Anderson was still extremely cyanotic (blue) and was slowly recovering from his ordeal.
It is the belief of the fire fighters that the outcome may have been dramatically different if
Nis. Wren and his. Hanna had not acted as quickly and professionally as they did. Mr.
Anderson recovered sufficiently enough that he was able to leave the scene under his own
power without any serious side effects.
The Denton Fire Department would like to recognize his. Wren and Ms. Hanna for their
outstanding, lifesaving, performance on July 22. If it is possible, we would ;ske to
recognize them at a City Council Meeting in August or early September with an award
from the Fire Department and/or an official letter of appreciation from the Mayor.
Please advise me what we can do in this case and we will provide any assistance
necessary.
i`
s.
JACK MILLER
CITY OF DENTON
MAYOR R 215 EAST MCKINNEY STREET
DENTON, TEXAS 16201
August 28, 1996
Cynthia Wren
700 Park Lane
Denton, Texas 76205
Dear Ms. Wren:
As Mayor of the City of Denton, I am proud that our city is a where place people
can live and work with the confidence of knowing that fellow citizens are caring
and considerate of the needs of others.
On July 22, 1996, you came to the aid of a customer at Mr. Tee's Chicken & Ribs,
who was at risk of dying due to choking. Your actions were truly heroic. You
deserve the recognition and praise of everyone in our city. Your quick response
and willingness to "get involved" made a difference in the life of one man and
stands as an example for others to follow. It is refreshing to see people in our
community helping others in such a special way.
We commend you for a truly unselfish deed and thank you for being an exemplary
role model.
Sincerely,
Miller
ayor
• ,;Mmu0
CITY OF DENTON
JACK MILLER 215 EAST MLKINNEY STREET
MAYOR DENTON, TEXAS 76201
August 28, 1996
Joanne T. Hanna
2303 W. University Drive
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Ms. Hanna:
As Mayor of the City of Denton, I am proud that our city is a place where people
can live and work with the confidence of knowing that fellow citizens are caring
and considerate of the needs of others.
On July 22, 1996, you came to the aid of a customer at Mr. Tee's Chicken & !fibs,
who was at risk of dying due to choking. Your actions were truly heroic. You
deserve the recognition and praise of everyone in our city. Your quick response
and willingness to "get involved" made a difference in the life of one man and
stands as an example for others to follow. It is refreshing to see people in our
community helping others in such a special way.
We commend you for a truly unselfish deed and thank you for being an exemplary
role model.
Sincerely,
)a Miller
ayor
l'
f
i~
DATE: September 3, 1996 AbaAdd Agenda Ne Nt,.
7'
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT Date 3'96
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance to rezone 7.352 acres from
the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial conditioned (U jc))
zoning district on property located on Teasley Lane, south of the Hickory Creek
Mobile Home Community.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
request (7-0) at its meeting on August 28, 1996.
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,
ry
Ted Benavides
Prepared by: City Manager
Do na Batema
Senior Planning Technician
Approved by:
Frank RobLlns, AICP
Director Planning and Development
Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
Attachment #2: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from August 28, 19%.
Attachment #3: Ordinance.
f
r%''.:'.f.
Cyr
f
fPLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
CASE #Z-96-029
August 28, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Applicant: Kent Key
25 Oak Forrest Circle
Denton, TX 76205
Owner: George & David Arthur
1313 Lynhurst
Denton, TX 76205
Action Requested: Rezoning from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light
Industrial conditioned (LI[c)) zoning district.
Location and Size: The subject property consists of a 7.352 acre tract located on
Teasley Lane, south of the Hickory Creek Mobile Home
Community.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Commercial BusinessNacant; Agricultural Zoning
South: Vacant; ETJ
East: Commercial Business (Bayport Pipeline Inc.); ETJ
West: Residential/Commercial Business (Plant Nursery); ETJ
Denton Development Plan (DDP):
The subject property is located in a low Intensity area. Allocation
amounts cannot be given as this property is not in an area that
has analysis information available.
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
The property was platted in 1987 and public improvements, including fire hydrants,
130 feet of sidewalk, and an easement were provided at that time.
BACKGROUND:
Below is a brief history on the subject property:
Mid 1986:
The subject property is brought to the city's attention when the owner applies for a
'development permit" (the county's version of a building permit) to construct a 5,000
square foot office building and a 12,000 square foot aluminum airplane part
fabrication shop.
°t7
{
Case #Z-96-029
August 28, 1996
Page 2
i
August, 1986:
The property is in the City of Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction; therefore, platting Is
required. The owner submits a predesign application.
! September, 1986:
The applicant/owner request that the property, if annexed, be zoned light industrial, in
accordance with the proposed use.
October, 1986:
The City Council requests that staff prepare documents for annexation of the subject
property to control the proposed use. The Beautification Task Force recommends to
the City Council that F.M. 2181 be Identified as a major entranceway to the City of
Denton and states that annexation may be necessary to prevent unsightly commercial
stripping on the thoroughfare.
January, 1987:
The plat is approved and construction immediately followed.
July, 1987:
The City Council approves annexation of the property and the property is zoned
Agricultural (A). The business Is defined as "grandfathered or legally non-
conforming".
TIC : 1
Eleven (11) property owners were notified of the request on August 16, 1996. As of
this writing, three reply forms were returned in favor and one reply form was returned
in opposition.
NALY I :
Staff reviewed the policies of the Denton Development Plan to determine intensity of
the current structure in relation to the proposal. The current intensity allocation Is 60
trips per acre or 441 intensity trips. Intensity for light industrial is 105 trips per acre or
772 Intensity trips on this 7.352 acre tract, By limiting the property to light industrial
or light manufacturing uses only, the allocation would not increase.
The Commission waived analysis by intensity policies because they found that at least
51% of the goods produced by the business are designed to serve people outside of
the City of Denton. This waiver policy was designed as an incentive to encourage
new basic industries to Denton and allows existing basic Industries to expand locally.
The table below further shows the analysis of the project in comparison with the
Denton Development Plan:
3
r
F
Case #Z•9"29
August 28, 1996
Page 3
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area
POLICY Development Rating vs. Policy
COMMENTS
SignRicantly somewhat Consistent
To be conaiNeM with the Plan a Incor,aistem Inconsistent
development should not exceed to This Policy was waived ow n0
allocated ktensty, unless it is f&jW to and Zoning con isslom s Pleml
be basic Industry. X
Strict ate plan cortrol wthin 1.1300 feet of The building is existing wth one
exkding low denaty residonlw. rseidential Property kmmediaiety to the X
west.
Concentration
Direct access to freeway o 5 acres The aoPerh consists of 7.35 acres and
Diced access b ertedai . 3 acres fronts F.M. 2151, which is an artedai X
Oww saes to cdlectot . 2 acres street
There Is e norwasidemW stvcture
separation (1/2 mice ruts) knmedutely to the east and ano0w
approximately 100 to 200 feet to the X
WOK both d which are outside the city
fimts,
Traffic design to ensure that MutwAmay
or Nan-Peolde tial uses have access to The subjed Property has direct access
colisdore a larger arterials with no direct to F. M. 2181 which Is defined as a
access through reeklentw streets. primary/secondary arterial. X
Suf wit green apses, recreational The +I
1844th end dM my of parks are from exutrng business is setback !80 test
Provkled. from t1s street Providing for green space
dung tM street frontage. X
I" Into planning by neighborhood No neighborhood meeting was
rsocletlors and sounds is encouraged. Scheduled though" applicant spoke
with adjoining properties. X
Nelghlxxhood esrvice carter is The ezlstirp use Is not a r*ghbo hood
encouraged. service see, X
Any lorm d contwxmie Mrlp commercial Then we other non-resWerdw
development is stror" discouraged in Properties surrounding the sub)ed
or Met low Intw" areas, prop", except for one rseklsmial X
avudura. The Topography an affect of the land will not have
proposed development
or surrounding propertes. X
Land use In planting arse and TM Property Is Prunerly surrounded by
surrounding uses, non-reskfential properties. There is one
resklentiai Proparly on the west side d X
the subject property.
y
e
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission, noommends approval of this
request with the condition that only light industrial/manufacturing uses
be allowed on the property and that the height of the building not
exceed two stories.
ALTERNATIVIS
1. Deny the request.
2. Approve the request as submitted.
3. Approve the request with other conditions.
4. Postpone consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map.
i
S':
i
Skyfab ATTACHMENT 1
1
c
I
I
1 I
I 11
i
i
I
ALDALTlIN ~ DAIVE~
BUTT*Ul
CP
O I
kNDi/U' Bl
r _LEA kj
Y~ - DAISY e
-7
I - _ FA!-dARO
1 PAINT l81
SITE
e
F
P&Z ;Minutes ATTACHMENT 2
August 28, 1996
Page4 DRAFT
Mr. Cochran: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand, opposed same
sign. Approved. (6-1) Ms. Russell opposed.
E IV- Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone a 7.352 acre tract from the
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial conditioned (LI[c]) zoning district.
The subject property is located on Teasley Lane, south of Hickory Creek Mobile Home
Community. (Z-96-029)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: In 1986 the owner wanted a development permit from the county to build his
business and the city decided to annex the property to regulate the use. The owner requested
that it be zoned Light Industrial. The property was annexed in July of 87 and it was zoned
Agricultural. This is a long tract of land and I believe it is a hundred and seventy feet along
the front. We notified eleven property owners. We received four in favor and one in
opposition. Initially the request was for a Light Industrial zoning district that allowed for
all of the uses that are involved in Light Industrial and that includes general retail and a lot
of commercial uses. With that you get a lot more traffic generation. We don't have an
Intensity allocation for that area because it has not been studied. We were able to determine
that with the commercial and general retail use the intensity would be over allocated. The
applicant has agreed to conditioning the property to a Light lndustri,d use only. When we
annexed the property the business was already there and the intensity was there. An option
that the Commission may consider is waiving the intensity
find that at least 8fiy-0ne percent of the goods produced by this bus neth can be done if ou
use.
ss are for out f town
Mr. Powell: You said that there was not intensity out there because the area had not been
studied and then you said that this would be more than the allowed intensity. If there was
never any intensity set how could it be more than what is allowed?
Ms. Bateman: In a low intensity area there are sixty intensity trips per acre. There is not
a defined study area or calculations for this area so it is defined as a low intensity area.
Light Industrial use will generate a hundred and five intensity trips per acre.
Mr. Powell: Was the property zoned before and has it been platted?
Ms. Bateman: The property was zoned Agricultural when it was annexed in 1987. The
property was platted before it was annexed.
Mr. Powell: They requested Light Industrial and they got Agricultural zoning? Do we
know why?
Ms. Bateman: I couldn't find the information in the file. That was one of the things 1
7.
I
k
r
P&Z Minutes
August 28, 1996 d,
Page S L
researched but I didn't find an answer.
Mr. Powell: Do you think that they thought that they had Light Industrial all of this time?
Ms. Bateman: 1 really couldn't answer that.
Mr. Drake: One of the issues that our Code of Ordinances provides is that upon annexation
the property is temporarily classified as Agricultural zoning.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. Kent Key: My name is Kent Key, 25 Oak Forrest Circle. 1 am representing Skyfab.
1 am a builder and I came to get a permit to add another building at their site. We found
that the zoning was agricultural zoning. The Arthur's thought that they had Light Industrial
zoning. Frank and I looked through the staff report but we couldn't find what we were
looking for. The Arthur's went through a lot when they platted their property. They have
a sidewalk down the front of their property, they installed an eight inch water line, and they
had to dedicate road easement. They did every thing that the city asked them to do. They
have been doing business out therefor about ten years. They want to add onto their facility
by putting anothe; 'wilding there that will be about seven thousand square feet. That is the
reason that we are here. We talked to the neighbors and all of the neighbors are in favor of
it. The only person that was opposed was Mr. Hutchins and he lives in Corpus Christi. His
complaint is that he thought this was a residential area and he says that Bayport, which is
next door, was discharging some hydraulic fluid, diesel, and some other fluids on the
ground. He didn't have anything negative to say about Skylab. There is a house next door
on four acres. She is not opposed as long as we don't change the zoning on her property.
We would like the Light Industrial zoning because they are doing business out there. We
are trying to get a permit to build another building. We were asked to get a CO on the
building that is there and that has been done.
Mr. Dale Arthur: My name is Dale Arthur and I live at 1509 Gatewood in Denton. I am
the owner, along with my father, of Skyfab and Southern Stretch Form. We do metal
fabrication. One of the things we do is curve metal. We curved the metal for the windows
on the First State Bank building on University. We do the fabrication and then sell it to
someone who does the installation. We did a job in Los Angeles in 1989, a fifty story
building. We did a job in Las Vegas called Stratosphere Tower. We did all of the skylights
around the top, the windows on the top, and the hotel below. We have done several jobs
in Dallas. About one percent of our business is local. Most of our stuff is shipped out of
state and is for resale.
Ms. Russell: Is your new building going to be behind your existing building?
Mr. Arthur: Yes and it is for fabricating aviation skins and extrusions.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in
opposition to the petition? We will close the public hearing. Are there any final remarks?
1
i°
P&Z Minutes h
August 28, 1996 F T
Page 6 I Lt
Ms. Bateman: Staff recommends approval with the conditions that the use be limited to light
industrial or light manufacturing and that the height of the building be limited to two stories.
If the Commission chooses to waive the intensity policy then the intensity would not be an
issue.
Mr. Robbins: The intensity policies are a criteria, not an element of the actual zoning itself.
In other words intensity is a criteria that you use to determine whether the case ought to be
approved or not. It is a basis for whether it ought to be approved. The Denton Develop-
ment Plans policy about this type of business says that the analysis of intensity can be
waived. It is an economic development incentive policy and so your analysis of project for
a company like this that would qualify, you wouldn't have to consider intensity as an issue
or a criteria. You may waive it and in our staff report to the Council we would report that
as part of your recommendation that intensity not be analyzed because it qualifies as an
economic development project based on the information from the company. It doesn't have
to be part of your motion for the zoning.
Mr. Powell: I move we recommend approval of Z-96-029 with the conditions recommended
by staff.
Ms. Ganzer: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (7-0)
Mr. Powell: Additionally I move that we waive the intensity policy.
Mr. !ones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (7-0)
V. Hold a public hearing and :onsider the final replat of Lots I R thru 3R, Block 1, of the U.S.
Bank Addition. This 5.822 acre tract is located on the northwest corner of Hinkle and
University.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: Sidewalks are associated with the public improvements along with a fire
hydrant. Plat does conform with the minimum.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Is there anyone to speak in favor of the
petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? We will close the public
hearing.
Mr. Cochran: Move
r
ib
F
' Z-96-029
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONED (LI-C) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 7.352 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TEASLEY LANE, EAST OF HICKORY
CREEK; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00
FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Mr. Kent Key, on behalf of George and David Arthur, initiated a
change in zoning for 7.352 acres of land from the Agricultural (A) zoning district
classification and use designation to the Light Industrial Conditioned (LI(c)) zoning
district classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the change from the Agricultural (A) zoning district and use
classification to the Light Industrial Conditioned (Li-C) zoning district and use
classification; 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:
1EQLIQN~1 That the the 7.352 acmes of land described in Exhibit 1t sl changed from the Adri kuaal (A)
zoning district classification and use designation to the Light Industrial Conditioned
(LI-C) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive
zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION iI. The property shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. No structure shall be taller than two (2) stories.
b. The uses fisted within the list of prohibited uses attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 are expressly prohibited.
IEDJJDB III That the City's official zoning map is hereby amended to show
the change In zoning district classification.
SECTION lV. 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.
/0.
SECTION V. 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, 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
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
r
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY i
BY:
Page 2
C
r
sulcAT loll
STAIR 01 T11 A!
COUNTT Or 0LN100
IIIREAIL III AM Ca.aa. Ira L IM a•n A / U A 1N tl, N I/ it. A Corm Ln0.
MW. n
kl°1d Y.~ 117, m.ar CN«I. T 1q a4 11-0 Nh{ Na.• 11 Nd, liPAa da.•
01 100`- .«111 4 rn.M 1414, try 1.1 AIM 1..1 "W', I««ih..4 .Ia NI. a .d, on.•I PnI moss
ROAD F.M. ILOV or MN N Fie A1L I as .I small l/ VA... INI. h11III4,0[111 h.Nry R[Rd. A moss
1. faY•A
EASLE P.O•M• b.•p, T,mn1,W N .0 fall, d o
N 4 1110' 1 16G' rm,d Ma• ..1." Mllaliq fr M aV.Y1.1 ",W M 1%1 IM M4{ IIarIN1 MnIA 1 I (good I/E4N near. 114
17 1 K Y,•W r00111M r[Y,r ISM MIII IAa IMlbal CM As, IY n11 f it'Ali no, Irrl.wl IIl1. 1/N LI It QI 11«11Nn [M•n
~~r1 . „ U1V UK N n1 Iq 1 ANUIa N,A1.a A,t.«1 I EW`NAd O, P41 "ad h-° Co." IYI Rnr1L
I Mw Ill! ITNWI L.Nk
A
N B d. a.Ili rlWd •p liu A F.,n wibdn RN
GRAPHIC KALE IM PUT TAnI. Ea1Y N Npln fl .bald 1[ Ynall I•n, IINI IN 1a ON d mid 768 *01 Yid IT.LN
• 14K Iq[ IIn .N IM as, 111 A ..4 1•T's4a A118na,.J,Na1 A 145C49 h.. u 2.01 1 A IrI
' I. nNr Ir M 1Nlkna Mr•n A H. %'..la 11111M1 L..4 did r.N, Out NI•l M rn Wa .m.n A
• N 1N Ida m IN INS Ia Hi11N.An M1I11Y.ISY SIN,hp NglM a.H.M t«N. A rld joy-old, AOIN4R. 1" 414,« i ,
0a. N I Y EA. GI a Law 11. Yak
9NAPNEC SCALE IN METERS 1 y£Y A.2v T/an SNrk 14 1.11d 10 .INId IS 1.••ft 4n dal OI walk Rr1 M .od 14 AM 0.0 ITA.ra
LK has In NNlea I«H UN 4,.N U14,.II•tL An1ia11 sI adI V.I«/1/I IMNaUIN I"1
ad. Pat. O Sip All "W. ow naI Mi.I IM wlLlWa sur Arl1 /i , . a, r s IN1 Ad Wass l
• II ! N N N IN O1 Id IN IN M 1t~ C .r.1 I4nA.r / !If p ht. r • rl I/1'I•A uMr Ia IN r•1bN v N1 M a4 W41 Ad Yd 1r11N
Ida. .A a Oil WRa«i~ „ hIi Is Rahn A. WIW an.r1d4
A• E lY N~aa INAhV x11.1 IMpraat
TIn1 N«1Y M IOrm 71 .1.0n 11 anaU °.14 •4a9 M as it. N all 11p Art 1.•d IYNaI
✓.911 hn /INNf/IiM r,L.r
• a INL hp 111E a1 rM IIM UNA a4 Y..L14p.«. n
T 1« wIMNM awlMnl ,«MI A R,«riW YIrI: V IO n1V .la NI-,A Its I.A."
M•
- was
1VTN/4i1A U,4/1/' All dal l•dlws lNl, Th. 471LPa -so an.."NI/a N•rn11,IN•fI NNa
I R as •11 YAb 1 ,«nN1 lI T a.aa ] b A 1.11711 A IM W ua Cw•q R nl Ir.Nn1 RI1V Ia
I • r Th... hold 111r ,M N WdA N ..ad. LIa. LWal do aNlk 1N. .r a4 14 -Ad Irad (TAW
I 114 hP d1L Ni Iu a.d U a or al/Wild .1.411 W. NYq 1-0 w•haNI/ 14F11 AM
IM ~ Md tval lLA ratio 1131, a, was ldrrf,at Wild Mrln xML 1.4 Is 'ad 1iN A MN IJI"W
I
9r` M val(we•aI I111,hy 711k
I LOT I : TNK1 N.1n M 1alr.d 71 .bun 111na11 W.IL Ilal 1M .,st Rae of mid IIp AN Inn Ir•Y.a
I' . BLOCK 1 IIII, Iq. 717L Ni k[ nM x11 ( NI/ 411. Ina1, a IINNa or 1/7101111 n a 11 its INa nbr fa
; nld nN111N 06-6 114 [Vrk..6 (agar 1x'I
7.352 LOC AC .1 1N IV HlOadl /10.,.1 .«Nr A 1M Nrnl VarIMA rnn
IR < ^ A u4 PpAV1 or., Ir•I.Aa 14 It Pala 1.[L , 111 aV 1: 11.10 IVUr A 1.4 bu110q IN la ,M a.d
1 B
np1•A•.y 1111 N Gold, /1. Y. N•, NI Rat N
•r Van
14 Mood, r ~.I n . a ald!«II iwH dd R d NAr f Ir1, 1/Me. A y
14
sr' M • d h..,. Hold N1 ,1.M J r«k dlM o
91 : ,1 I' i t s I SIGN.
Good fail at 1k11.41 A MIIUd{tN IN4bIq 1.H7.dnA 4N.
Af Y 9 1
P ~ rf S 10Y.TN[RpOR[, kNOV ALL M[N 1T TM[7[fR[t[NTk
THAT. III AM C..N11, $at SAM eanM SAW 1110401 Ixlpliq HI each 11a11ea1 Pori d La
r 1
1i_ y I, N1YIArMI1Tf.kA11NIaa04 C, wN A0.u16Ta111I11rI Mnkr [N I.rM "MAN
LOCATIOM MAP Z < a1 rd'im, M Mn[uaN u1. lYfas arNN W wuJm14• nM aN Nu H
S' . 1 RILES n
7 rP A•nw
1n11.A, IIf Ad C..-I. IN
14
_ r A STATE OF Till"
Y f ' eaf«/ .a H. aMn.Is d N«•n h1Y fa, W N.n A 71.4 N NI. NI lfr.1 -W--W-1-4 CI-M
A VIM.. 11.1 1• M I. M 14,. l.nN .(Iw N.1 4 nN11ea1 b .Ae IrrM: 1
I" Wasps Y Hal k...dY111 a, 1.. to ,M arfdr I.1 NN41ra11M11N,.ia 1II.a4 IN II
C•' 1 Me Hl .a/RNl MW.
a I ~ clap. .aMrnfllt/NvdrfAf41H4R.~.61d .In. '
LLL
r'
w P«.,1.1.1 n • n.I.
sl
°.ti MER , 9 C. a.Mna o fi 1 d
FIG-ART CO., INC. GA'ol oe' 1 {
`i 3I20 S. TEXAS STREET Ie1 A9' D
j LEWISVILLE. TEXAS IO I. IRIaI e LNOM ALI.I [N EY 7N[Sl7R l1[NTS
73Q67
L'[• WW IA' RIM t J4 All ' • TI•. L tYrJ«1 KNf1.aa Nllx.rtl A.1Y I.prp,. 11 ,,,or .ntll7 .}at I Nf L1r414r
• .W Nuw a0,1 NN,`WWdN aVN•1• n0MN.,wN a1 law ka Nat Nr Most
I.
' as ,WANT IF
. n .N1.1a
T. I" R IAitY 1d/.Y4
f.nnr N.a1r 1Ul
as A. RuRnE 1 a # WTFROPLEX ENGINEERING CORPORATION
I.0.C( A1[.lMl OR • PLANMING a SLNIAITIMG
ni Ltd KIKLLOE1YIn j11,: GI1 41I. OIiIn R.1.1 n..M;1:N71-Iw
IN I ML /ec, $1 171 9.It
!7x11 RAT
SKYFAB A00I7IDN
R LOT 1. BLOCK 1
SEiNG 7.]077 ACHES 1.171
I.10 I/f' }1Na I1 THE a. 1. C.1akYl S1IRVEY,
'~a°• W JI+M •mPl°, clTl ft NIO•I t J JInIrIN cd1xll Itl Al
119.17' paA.n rypt„ SCALE OAIE JOB NO.
N
1 Si oG'S1• 1' 100' 29 OEC eB 850455C
V.1.A. GARIA LASE[ tLN ANaN r, Nd. 110! Il C.(p[6 ~Z
EXHIBIT 2 - LIST OF PROHIBITED irSES
Primary Residen ial s
one Family Dwelling Restricted
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel
Educational. institutional r Special Uses
Art Gallery or Museum
Cemetery or Mausoleum
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (public)
Day Camp
Day Nursery or Kindergarten School
Group Homes
Halfway House
Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients
Hospital (General Acute Care)
Hospital (Chronic Care)
Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature
Public Library
Monastery or Convent
Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged
Occasional Sales
Park, Playground or Public Community Center
School, Private Primary or Secondary
School, Public or Denominational
School, Business or Trade
Utility. Accessory and Incidental Usas
Accessory Building
Community Center (Private)
Electrical Generating Plant
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Temporary Field or Construction Office (Subject to Approval and
Control by Building Inspector)
Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Building
Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station
Home Occupation
Off Street Parking Incidental to Main Use
Off Street Remote Parking
Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard
Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, State, or Federal Government
Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower
Sewage Pumping Station
Private Swimming Pool
Telephone, Business Office
Telephone Line and Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Water Reservoir, Water Pumping station or Well
Water Treatment Plant
/3.
r
F
L
Recreational and Entertainment Uses
Amusement, Commercial (Outdoor)
Amusement, Commercial (Indoor)
Country Club (Private) with Golf Course
Dance Hall or Night Club
Drag Strip or Commercial Racing
Fairground or Exhibition Area
Go Cart Track
Public Golf Course
Commercial Golf Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Play field or Stadium
Rodeo Grounds
Roller or Ice skating Rink
Sexually Oriented Business
Stable, Private Club
Stable, Commercial Rental
Stable, Boarding
Swim or Tennis Club
Theater, Drive-in
Theater, Other than Drive-in Type
Transportation Related Uses
Airport Landing Field or Heliport
Bus Station or Terminal
Hauling or Storage Company
Motor Freight Terminal
Railroad Freight Terminal
Railroad Passenger Station
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
Railroad Team Track
Truck Parking Lot
i Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
Aut mo obilgService Uses
Auto Laundry
Auto Painting and Body Repair
Auto Sales and Repair (In Building)
Gasoline Service Station
New Auto Parts Sales Stores
New or Used Car Sales Lot (In Open)
Seat Cover and Muffler Installation Shop
Tire Retreading or capping
Used Auto Parts Sales (In Building)
Retail and Service Type Uses
Antique Shop
Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail)
Cafeteria
Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup
Custom Personal Service Shop
Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop
Florist or Garden Shop
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (Retail)
/Y
a
Retail and Service Type tae (continuedl
Handicraft Shop
Household Appliance Service and Repair
Laundry or cleaning Self Service
Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop
Mortuary or Funeral Parlor
Offices, Professional and Administrative
Off Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine
On Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine
Licensed Private Club
Pawn Shop
Restaurant
Retail Stores and Shops - 4,000 square feet or less
Retail Stores and Shops - Over 4,000 square feet
Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health
Secondhand Store, Used Furniture or Rummage Sale
Tool or Trailer Rental
Agricultural Type _s
Animal Pound (Private or Public)
Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens)
Animal Clinic, Hospital or Kennel (with outside runs or pens)
Farm or Ranch
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery
Hatchery, Poultry
Commercial Type U s
Bakery (Wholesale)
Building Material Sales
Cabinet and Upholstery Shop
Cleaning and Dyeing Plant (Commercial)
Cleaning Plant, Bags or Carpets (Special Equipment)
Clothing Manufacture or Light Compounding or Fabrication
Contractors Shop and Storage Yard
Engine and Motor Repairing
Feed Store
Heavy Machinery Sales and Storage
Job Printing or Newspaper Printing
Laundry Plant (Commercial)
Milk Depot, Dairy, or Ice Cream Plant
Paint Shop
Petroleum Products, Storage - Wholesale
Plumbing Shop
Scientific or Research Laboratories
Storage and Sales of Furniture or Appliances (Outside a Building)
Storage or Sales Warehouse
Trailer Rental or Sales
Transfer, Storage and Baggage Terminal
Wholesale Office and Sample Room
Special Tnduatrial Procpss2e
Mixing and Sale of Concrete
1'.1• kit
,6__WITH APPROVE APE USE PERMIT
Primary Re id n-ial U ,
ses
Trailer Camp or Mobile Home Park
Rdu a i na , Institutional Special Uses
Correctional Facilities
Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club
Utility, Accessory and incidental Uses
Sewage Treatment Plant
Agricultural Type Uses
Livestock Auction
Livestock Feeding Plant, Pens or Yards
Commercial Type Uses
Flea Market
Sand, Gravel or Earth Sales or Storage
Natural Resourge Storage and Extraction
Extraction and Storage of Sand, Caleche, Stone, Clay or Gravel
Petroleum or Gas Well
Petroleum Collecting or Storage Facilities
Mining or Storage of Mining Wastes
Special Tndustrial processes
Temporary Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant
Brick Kiln or Tile Plant
Dump or Sanitary Fill Area
Open Salvage Yard for Rags, Machinery, etc.
f
l
Agenda NOo,
Agenda item
Date
DATE: September 3, 1996
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an amended detailed plan of Good
Samaritan Village, The subject property consists of 26.817 acres in in
Planned Development 21, and is located on the southeast corner of
Hinkle Drive and Headlee Lane.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request, six
in favor, none opposed (6-0).
MMAR Y:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGRQUND-
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS DEpppTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED.
Not applicable.
EM AL IMPACT:
None.
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
1
f
Prepared by:
W=P1 . Reeves,
Uanner
Approved:
Frank R ins, AIC
Director
Planning and Development
Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report, '
Attachment #2: Ordinance,
Attachment #3: Draft minutes of the August 14, 1996, P & Z meeting.
i
a.
f
it
k
another channel.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was placed in the Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning district by
Ordinance 69-01 which adopted a new zoning ordinance and map for the City of
Denton.
March 1981 The property was rezoned to Planned Development 21 (PD-21) by
Ordinance 81-25, for an 'elderly retirement complex, including apartments, duplexes,
triplexes, a health complex and adult day care center.
August 19134 The detailed plan is amended to reconfigure the main building by
Ordinance 84-96.
August 1994 The detailed plan is further amended to allow for more duplexes in a
new configuration.
N TI E
Fifty-seven (57) notices were mailed on August 2, 1996. A total of seven (7) written
replies were received. Four (4) replies were in favor, two (2) were opposed, and one
(1) was undecided.
ANAL Y61
The 1994 detailed plan had 12 existing duplexes, 2 existing triplexes, and 10 proposed
new duplexes. The proposed detailed plan under consideration tonight has 14 existing
duplexes, 2 triplexes, and 18 proposed duplexes, as well as a proposed chapel, multi-
purpose facility, and 2 proposed storage buildings. The table below wilt provide a
summary of the Plan related analysis for this project.
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area
Development Rating VS Policy
POLICY COMMENTS sisdr Gnw sar"hol ca" it"
sxa,wlem Inoo law
To be consistent with the Plan, a Intensity allocated with oNJnal planned
development should not exceed its deveb
allocated Intonsity. development case. x
Strict silo plan control within 1,600 There Is residential use within 1,600 feet of
lest of e>dsting low density the project, and a delailed plan is under
residential. consideration, x
~r
r,
Tragic dsstgn to ensure G jt Mutti-
Family or Non-Ass4entiat uses have Not applicable.
access to collectors or larger
arterials with no direct access x
through residential streets.
SuMclent green space, recreational E d,ong tandsceping meets current city of
Provided Facilities and and dwrs ry of parks are Denton requirements
x
Input Into planning by neighborhood No nei
ghbofiood meetin
associations and councils Is g
encouraged.
X
NafghborhOod Service center
concentration Not / ppprrebie.
X
SapareUon
Not Applicable.
My form of continuous amp Not x
commercial devetopment Is strongly Applicable,
dscouraged in or near low intensity
areas. x
Detailed Plan Comments (Attachment 1).
!Acreage. The acreage in the plan as shown by a survey, certified by a
registered surveyor.
Acreage is certified by a registered surveyor.
Land uses. Permitted uses, specific In detailed as determined by the
department, and the acreage for each use.
Ordinance 81-25 approved a planned development for an 'elderly retirement
complex, including apartments, duplexes, triplexes, a health complex, and adult
day care center.'
3• Off-site irformatlon. Adjacent or surrounding land uses, zoning, streets,
drainage facilities and other existing or proposed off-site improvements, as
specified by the department, sufficient to demonstrate the relationship and
compatibility of the district to the surrounding properties, uses, and
facilities.
Complies.
4. Traffic and Transportation. The location and size of all streets, alleys,
parking lots and parking spaces, loading areas or other areas to be used
for vehicular traffic; the proposed access and connection to existing or
proposed streets adjacent to the district; and the traffic generated by the
proposed uses.
Provided.
7/
if t:{
]L♦
F
f.
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: September 3, 1996
Subject: Z-95-034
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Landmark Surveyors
4238 1-35E
Denton, Texas 76201
Owner: Good Samaritan Village
2500 Hinkle Drive
Denton, Texas 76201
Action: Request approval of a detailed plan for Planned Development 21
(PD-21),
Location: The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Hinkle
Drive and Headlee Lane.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: Residential use In SF-10 zoning.
South: Vacant land in SF-16 zoning.
East: Residential use in SF-10 & 2F zoning, SUP for Fairgrounds
parking.
West: Residential use, vacant land, office, retirement home, in a
variety of zoning districts. 1
Denton Development Plan: Low Intensity Area #23 (84% allocated).
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The subject property is platted in part, and will be replatted to accommodate the new
detailed plan. The preliminary replat was approved by the Commission on August 14,
1996. Improvements associated with the plat will include, sidewalks, on-site fire
hydrants, and drainage.
This particular request was first presented to the Commission on January 10, 1996, at
which point in time it was postponed largely because of a drainage variance
associated with the proposed plat. The details of that variance have been 'worked
out,' and Good Samaritan will be contributing $50,000 which will be used along with
money already existing in the Capital Improvements Program, which will fund
improvements on Hinkle Drive and the main channel and some additional grading in
i
F
3. Buildings. The location, maximum height, and minimum setbacks for all
buildings, and If nonresidential, the maximum total floor area.
Provided.
s• Residential development. The number, location, and dimensions of the
lots, the minimum setbacks, the number of dwelling units, and number of
units per acre density.
Provided,
i 7.
Water and drainage. The location of all creeks, ponds, lakes, fioodplalns,
or other water retention or major drainage facilities and improvements.
Provided,
8• Utilities. The location and route of all major sewer, water, or electrical
lines and facilities necessary to serve the district.
Complies.
9. Trees and landscaping. The location of all protected trees and a landscape
plan as required by the city's landscape ordinance.
Existing landscaping meets ordinance requirements.
10• Open space. The approximate location and size of greenbelt, open,
common, or recreation are$, the proposed use of such areas, and whether
they are to be used for public or private use.
Not applicable.
11. Screening. The location, type and size of all fences, berms, or screening
features proposed between different land uses or adjacent properties.
Provided. {
12• Signs. Location, type, and size of all signs regulated by the city's sign
ordinance.
No sign is proposed.
13• Sidewalks and bike paths. Sidewalks or other Improved ways for
pedestrian or bicycle use.
None are proposed.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the amended detailed
plan ((6-0).
C~~
ve as recommended.
F VE
ve with additional conditions.
. ostpone consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Detailed plan.
a
I
i
.
r
Lot I
- - -•-N6~ID E-- 3s7a ACRES
I 4 rZ
r''es ~ _ b
I SK T17 °..cr. s i °T P Ne RCK to
, 0. aNe. SL LOT I toff 7 O ,
MATER LINE
SEWER L{[ Eli Rr0 7-S
ball
5 NI wCn I I E 7F+D y:{ SR K UPILI ' • oN .~i SON rRPt F LOr 7
LK !L E O
-r
A POW! r ' LOT 1 0
MT. LINE LINE I n
u.nr
pS I LOC i~• I
t i U
ASP I OAOSEUILOT Rsrnc % {t'' ` -Lots w
o"+iri,I 8.700 ACRES 77 a ss Dl'
D. .c.t. I+lo, S 3'7
O -
AESRHALr LOT 20 .
,
LOT I
I 'DRC t ~ ; ~D LQ1E VICINTY MAP a
i j I I RETREMENT Z~ / aM ON /C°OOESI°IwAfiTAN vELUE f i I RESIDENCE 7SK WINKLC DAL SCALE I"=2000
745I S
I" EXITS T of / P LOT ~ii7) °ii:- 4
I I nuw
A so YEAR wK9RpY{ ~7+ 1 • wr IT SvRVfTDR
MOOD PLAN a.i f/Dlfa L1 ADWA-J! N~VEYORS. W-
4234 EAS 710A S• ROA+. Z
NT TEXAS 76201
r ASPNAFL p[ 0N, _
1 , (ItT) 317-10%
eIfK•• \ jP l0'TaC It ur,i nva mxni w'i' ~•••W1 KM1Y~I1
C e^ ty ,w.a •~YY.r •l.Pw~erZ•i ~.x•.r,.w
AOGARD-t :•A "EXosr
FRE ,t4kKY It
` f. r: sow, wo. we r.s sn.
E FOE ill 4 I JI'IDR?N , CF' Y„o 3r,.1 w^ar
HYDRANT I] i 1 i ® io x J,`, nma"rnir°M1w.lrwSt:ni w~Y.r. nn,.~rr~~.. N..,
'i `O 7i s GRAPHIC SCALE
123 As PR0P0 D REP + LOT n 1 7 r +M •r. '~E'
ROAD DEDICAr Lot M.
1•~ 7 1-STY 7[%ES
-STY DETAIL PLAN
13 :4 WENT
E A o wn 23`oTTZ DUPLEXES
GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE
\ T-A STOSaITTI EMENt LOTS 1r 2+ & 3F BLOCK 1
~ r/PYKACFLOOR AREA
+ 111 ROBERT BEAUMONT SURVEY A-31
iI 30OSS°.F7 CITY OF DENTON RECEIVE
NORTH . i 'if ` 'S \W NA. 73
DENTON COUNTY TEXAS xs n em
r~•+~'r'r,•R ~iR ~n~ E" 26.817 ACRES P-low Im
I PETm E. KERN
ZONED PO-ws \ PEtERTC°., KCRN ~e AM1 1-71 NORTH
I 0.CRK'S~ D t -SY3l2^o NDb1ARIC OENTOK TEXAS 71!01
°
ROBERT BEAUMONT SURVEY A-31 SURVEYORS, INC. FAX (117) W-9784
DRAWN R: _1TH $CALL f.W DAIL. 21 Mr. 9% J01 NQ gin's
F
FS
900daam3.ord
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE DETAILED
PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 21 (PD-21) AS SHOWN IN THE
ATTACHED DETAIL PLAN FOR 26.817 ACRES OF THE 27.437 ACRES THEREIN
DEFINED; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; REPEALING ORDINANCES 84-96 AND
94-149; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Good Samaritan Village has applied for an amendment
to Planned Development No. 21 (PD-21), as defined by ordinance No.
81-25, with respect to 26.817 acres of the 27.437 acres therein
defined, more particularly described in Exhibit A, and to authorize
development in a manner consistent with the detail plan attached as
Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, on August 140 1996, the Planning and zoning Commis-
sion, after a public hearing, recommended approval of the requested
changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendments
will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECT ON i That Ordinance No. 81-25 (PD-21), providing appro-
val of a planned development zoning district classification and use
designation for 27.437 acres of land is hereby amended with respect
to 26.817 acres of land located therein, and more particularly des-
cribed in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit A, by adopting the detail plan, attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit B for all purposes.
SECTION II. That the provisions of this ordinance as they
apply to the 26.817 acres described by Exhibit A govern and control
over any conflicting provision of Ordinance No. 81-25, but all the
provisions of ordinance No. 81-25 as they apply to that remaining
portion of the PD zoning district classification and use designa-
tion not herein amended, shall continue in force and effect and
shall apply to the remainder of said district.
prior amendme is to Ordinance No. 81-25 s(PD-21) 6 arand 94-149, e hereby repealed
as being obsolete and inconsistent with this ordinance.
SECTI_ ON IV That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached
to ordinance No. 81-25, showing the amendment herein approved.
SECTION V That any person violating an
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined sum vnotoexceeding
$2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
L?
1'f n a
~Y
F
SECTION VI. 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, the official news-
paper of 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
i
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
F
•FV
r,
FIELD NOT98
26.617 ACRES
OEtNO all that certoh lot, tact, or parcel of land situated in the Robvi 8saumorit
Survey, Abstract Number 31, In the City and County of Dentin, Texas, being ail of
Lot 1, Block 1 of Good Samaritan Village, an addition to the City of Denton,
Denton County, Texas, according to the plat thereof recorded in Cabinet 8, (Page
148, Plat Records, Denton County, Texas, and being all 1luot certain taut of land
conveyed by dead from Frank N, Hail, Trustee to tw Evanpeleal Lutheran Cool
Swmr bn Society recorded in Volume 736, Page 641 Dead Records, Denton
County, Tom, and being more particuhrty described as tWWm:
isECINi IM 9 an Iron rod found for corner in the stet Ilse of Hinkle Drive, a
public roadway having a rtg".vray of 60.0 feet, add point being the southvrost
corner of valid hood Samaritan Sodety tact;
THMI Nath, 30.00 hM with .aid east tine of said Hhtdds Drive to a point for
corner; .
THENCE N W* 36' SW W,17.57 feet to a point for caner;
THME North, 954A3 feet with sold Hinkle Drive to a point tar corner;
THENCE N $V Sr 4fl E, 1757 het b a point for comer k1 the cad Ins of acid
Hi" Drive; said point being No soult►wadt cwrer of acid Lot 1, W** 1, of said
AddMon;
THEME Notts, 310.13 fed with acid east line of saki Drive b a point br conwr In
the youth Nne of Heddlee Drive, a public roadway hrft a rIgM-dfA1MY of 50.0
tart
THENCE N $r 45' 00' E. 887.31 fed with sold south tine of said Hsadf" 004
b a point for comer, said point belnq Ow rwftmst caner of Lot 1, of OatdrlM
Addition, an addftlon to the City of bw ton, Dentin County, Tom;
THENCE S 00' Of 60' W,1305.00 feet with the west Ifnd of said Oakhlll Addition
and w1h the waet Ine of Inlhity Shah AdMon, on addition b it* C 41Y of Dentin,
Dentin Cowtty, Tom, to an iron rod lburtd far earner in the wth lMa of 0*
cofti n tad of land =.wayed by dead to Peter C. Kam, noorded under Clerks
Flio No. 04.643 , Real Properly Reoerde. Donlon County, Tom
THENCE N 88" 38' S4" W, 9= 30 hat wlh grid nw%,i Ibe of veld Kam trad b ft
MAN OF EEOIiMININO and oontahing 28.817 acres of WN.
1 TOTAL. P. 02
s„ f
E
ATTACHMENT 3
P&Z Minutes
August 14, 1996 711
Page 3 D R A F I
Opposition? We will close the public hearing.
Ms. Schertz: I more to approve the preliminary replat of Lots 1R, 211 and 3R, Block I of the U.S.
Bank Addition.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
IV. Hold a public hearing and consider the final replat of the Arbors of Denton. The 11.563 acre tract
is located on the southeast corner of Bernard and Collins Streets and is located in the Multi-Family-1
Conditioned (MF-1[c]) zoning district.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: You have seen this before and you actually approved a final replat of this property. The
reason that we are doing this again is that on the southern property line the plat that you approved had
a fifteen foot setback on it and apparently that is not going to work for the project. The setback on
that side will now be ten feet and that is consistent with the zoning on the property. Everything else
remains as it was. DRC recommends approval.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. Kenny Steinhart: My name is Kenny Steinhart and 1 am with First Worthington. The reason that
we are here is that we had to have a fifteen foot setback behind the residential uses along Bernard and
it was an oversight that our engineer put the setback at fifteen feet along the south line also. Our
architect had planned for ten feet so we need it to be ten feet on the south side.
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. Jones: I move that we approve the final replat of Loc 1, Block A of the Arbors of Denton.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed
same sign. Approved. (6-0)
V. Good Samaritan Village. The 26.817 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Hinkle Drive and
Headlee Lane and is in Planned Development 21 (PD-21).
a. Hold a public hearing and consider the detailed plan.
b. Hold a public hearing and consider the preliminary replat of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Good
Samaritan Village.
~a.
4
e•
6
P&Z Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 4
Ms. Russell cpened the public hearing.
Ms. Russell: We will hold one public hearing and we will take two votes.
Mr. Reeves: You saw this case last Nov ember ar:d at that particular time there was a drainage issue
that needed to be addressed and that iss.,e has been addressed. Good Samaritan is now back to
complete the process that was started last November. This property is in a planned development and
to complete the planned development zoning process a detailed plan has to be approved. There is an
existing detailed plan and Good Samaritan would like to am.-nd that detailed plan. We mailed out
fifty-seven notices on August the 2nd and we received seven responses. The twenty percent rule will
not be in effect. The current detailed plan had twelve existing duplexes, two existing triplexes and
ten proposed new duplexes. This proposed new detailed plan has fourteen existing duplexes, two
triplexes and eighteen proposed duplexes, as well as a chapel, a multi-purpose facility, and two
proposed storage buildings. There is only one access to the property and that is off of Hinkle Drive.
This detailed plan does meet our requirements and staff recommends approval.
Ms. Russell: Did you say that the drainage has been worked out?
Mr. Reeves: Yes. On page 1 of my staff report in the last paragraph, Good Samaritan will be
contributing fifty thousand dollar
g s which will
be used along with money that is in the C1P to put
improvements on Hinkle Drive and the main channel, and some additional grading on the other
channel.
Mr. Salmon: With the plat that you are going to see, Good Samaritan Village is going to give the
city fifty thousand dollars to be placed in addition to the hundred thousand dollars that we currently
have in our Capital Improvements program. Fifty thousand dollars will be used to do grading work
in the main channel from Hinkle Drive all the way down to the shopping center on University. Fifty
thousand dollars will be used to install a Gabion type lining in the main channel there on the comer
of the Good Samaritan property, and the other fifty thousand will be used to improve the drainage
system on Hinkle Drive. At a later date when Good Samaritan Village does additional building on
the northem part of their property they will put some sort of lining in the smaller north-south channel
at that time. They have agreed to that and we have agreed that it would work.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition?
Is there anyone to speak in opposition?
Ms. Arlene Morrison: My name is Arlene Morrison and I live at 624 Headlee. I have been there
thirteen years. It doesn't take much rain for Hinkle to be flooded. I avoid going down Hinkle if it
is raining.
Ms. Russell: Does this answer your concern about the drainage?
Ms. Morrison: Yes,
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in opposition? We will close the public hearing. Any fipal
comments?
/3.
z
r. a
h
r;
P&Z Minutes
August 14, 1996
Page 5
Mr. Powell: I inove we recommend approval of the detailed plan of Good Samaritan Village.
Ms. Ganzer: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
Mr. Jones: I move we approve the preliminary replat of Lots 1 through 3, Block 1 of the Good
Samaritan Village.
Ms. Schertz: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
VI. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 42.815 acres from the Light Industrial (LI)
and Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Multi-Family-1 (MF-1) zoning district. The subject
property is located between Spencer and Loop 288, east of the abandoned railroad line.
Ms. Russell Mr. Reeves can you tell us about this letter that ive have? Is this item being pulled
from the agenda?
Mr. Reeves: Yes it is. The petitioner would like to reschedule this for the Sept. 11th meeting. The
decision is up to you.
Mr. Moreno: Is there anyone here tonight to speak to this item?
(There was one gentleman in the audience.)
i
Mr. Robbins: The Commission can direct us to make notice again of that public hearing, or you can
postpone the public hearing to a date certain and those that are here tonight will know that you are
going to have a public hearing on the 11th.
Ms. Russell: 1 would like to set it for Sept. 11th and will you please send out notices again.
Mr. Reeves: Okay.
VII. Hold a discussion and give staff direction concerning zoning regulations for public and private
schools.
Mr. Robbins: The memorandum pretty well speaks to the issue and the information that we have
received from our legal consultant, Terry Morgan. We have to treat parochial schools, or schools
associated with churches in the same way that we treat public schools, given some new federal law
and case law that is coming out of that federal law. We think this is a fairly major issue which we
didn't talk to you all about before. We don't think we have a choice because of the legal issues. We
would add a definition and add that to the table of permitted uses to allow parochial schools in the
l~
t
i`
Agenda No.
Agenda Item
Date_.Q
DATE: September 3, 1996
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 2.6662 acres
from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district to the Office
Conditioned (O[c]) zoning district. The subject property is located on the
west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 600 feet south of 1.35E.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request.
Since the Planning and Zoning Commission is technically the applicant or
petitioner having, in the public interest, initiated on its own motion study of the
zoning, the Council may wish to suspend its rules of procedure to enable the
proponent/landowner (First State Bank of Denton) to speak and respond as the
petitioner In this case.
MMARY:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGROUND:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS t?EPAHTMEN'TS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: i
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Respectfully submitted:
J~ 1
Ted Senavides,
City Manager
i
rs✓
ATTACHMENT 1
Prepared by:
Walter E. Reeves, AICP
Urban Planner
Approved:
Frank Robbins, AICP
Director
Planning and Development
Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report,
Attachment #2: Draft minutes of August 28, 1996, P & Z Commission meeting.
Attachment #3: Ordinance.
d
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: September 3, 1996
Subject: Z-96.007C
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Planning and Zoning Commission
221 N. Elm Street
Denton, Texas 76201
Owner: First State Bank of Denton
PO Box 100
Denton, Texas 76202
(Mr. Phil Gallivan)
Action: Rezone 2.6662 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning
district to an Office Condition (O[c]) zoning district.
Location: The subject property is located on the west side of Lillian Miller,
approximately 500 feet south of 1-35E. (See Attachment 1)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: Red Lobster and shopping center in the Commercial (C)
zoning district.
South: PD-87 (Vacant).
East: Shopping center in the General Retail (GR) zoning district.
West: Single family residential in the SF-16 zoning district.
Denton Development Plan: Low Intensity Area #F79 (71% allocated).
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The subject property is Lots 6, 7, & 8 of the J.W. Erwin Subdivision. It is unknown
whether the property will be developed as three separate lots, or whether it will be
replatted and developed as one lot. As existing platted lots, there are no public
improvements required from the City's Subdivision and Land Development
Regulations. If the property is replatted, there would be a number of major concerns.
These same issues could also be considered as part of the rezoning request, but
would require being made part of the ordinance in order to be binding. There would
be no additional driveway cuts into Lillian Miller, drainage would need to be collected
on-site, and run directly into the existing storm sewer in Lillian Miller. A short storm
sewer extension would be required. Additional fire hydrants would need to be
provided. Sidewalks would be required along the Lillian Miller frontage, and the 8 inch
Page 1
3.
t
water line directly north of the property might require extension depending on the
s lope.
BACKGROUND
There is quite a bit of history associated with this property.
1981
Case Z-1497, a request to rezone the property from SF-16 to Office, is denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission
October 1983
Case Z-1616, a request to rezone the property from SF-16 to General Retail is
withdrawn by the applicant (at that time) prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission
public hearing.
December 1983
Case Z-1625, a request to rezone the property from SF-16 to a Planned Development
for Office Use was withdrawn by the applicant (at that time) prior to the Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing.
December 1985
Case Z-1772, a request to rezone the property from SF-16 to a Planned Development
for Office Use was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and denied by
the City Council.
February 27, 1991
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a request to rezone the
area from SF-16 to a Planned Development for a 5,148 square foot restaurant
(Owens) and 12,121 square foot office. The recommendation is appealed to the City
Council, then withdrawn.
June 18, 1996
The City Council fails to reach the required six votes, due to the "20% Rule", to
approve a rezoning of the subject property to an Office Conditioned (O[c]) zoning
district.
Prior to September 1989, this tract was located in a moderate activity center. In
August 1988, the Appendix A Task Force (Denton Development Plan) was appointed
by the City Council and was given the duty of recommending the boundaries of
intensity areas in order to implement the policies of the Denton Development Plan. In
drawing the line for this particular intensity area, the Task Force considered the
existing land in that area. The Task Force came to a consensus that moderate nodes
should contain no more than 20 acres of Commercial/retail type uses (1/3 Rule). This
particular area contained 23.15 acres of existing retail/commercial activities; therefore,
Page 2
7'
z
it was agreed that :his was enough nonresidential usage foi that area in view of the
traffic build up on Lillian Miller. The Task Force identified a boundary line for the
moderate activity center which included only the 23.15 acres of land currently zoned
commercial and general retail. This particular tract was excluded from the moderate
activity center because of its residential zoning and vacant land use status.
NOTIC E
Nineteen notices were mailed on August 16, 1996. As of the time of preparation of
this report, One reply had been received which was opposed.
ANA_ LYSI
The table below will provide a summary of the Plan related analysis for this project.
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area Z-96-007
Development Rating VS Pocky
POLICY COMMENTS '++~w a«a..ne ce~aaet
tnoendrdM Y+cawwnt
To be consistent with ft Plan, a Allocated Intensity . 160 Intensity trip3.
development should not exceed its Proposed Intensity . 450 intensity trips, x
allocated Intensity. The proposed Intensity Is 181% more than
allowed by the Denton Development Plan.
Strid site pion control within 1,600 No site plan proposed. This Is significantly
feet of exisilrg low density Inconsistent with past staff recommendations x
residential. on previous cases, and also Inconsistent with
the plan,
Traft design to ensure that Multi. Union Miller is classified as a primary arterlal.
Fancily or Non-Residential uses have
access to oollodore or larger x
arterials with no direct access
through residential streets.
Sufficient groan space, recreational Landscaping win be required as per the C4Vs
facilities and dver$4 of perks are Landscaping, Screening, and Tree
provided. Preservation Ordnance, Further landscaping x
Is addressed by Conditions 5 and 8 of the
proposed rest of oonditions.
Input Into planning by neighborhood A r rmber of nelgiiborhood meetings have
associations and councils is b ,n held to each the proposed Ist of x
encouraged, conditions being revlowed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Neighborhood service center The subject property has direct access to
concentra kn Liman Miner, which Is dassMed as a primary
arterial. Maximum plan size is 3 acres along x
a primary arterial. Subject property is 2,6662
acres.
Page 3
F
Nonresidential 14 mile seperatlor, The subject property is directly adjacent to a
shopping center to the north, and Is within 200 X
feet of a shopping center to the east across
Lillian Miner.
Any form of continuous strip Rezoning of this property would extend
oommercal development Is orongry nonresidential zoning furthe+south along X
discouraged In or near low intensity Lillian Miller, and would be considered strip
areas commercial development
Lillian Miller Specific Area Polkies. Given the Prominence of the South East Planning Area and the thoroughfare network In
that sector Oars are likely to be pressures to locate high to moderate inlensity land uses along Teasley two, FM 2181, Lillian
Miller Parkway, Hobson Lane, 135E, and between Loop 288 and Lilian Miller. These pressures are likely to Increase as FM
2181 is developed as a primary anerlat and extended further south to ultimately connect wilh the l Airport
The policy of this Plan therefore, Is to restrict the further intrusion of high and moderate Intensity land uses In this area, Limited
neighborhood services and high density housing consistent with the standards for a low IntanVy area, are not prohibited, The
following specific guidelines are required.
The neighborhood densitylinlensity The proposal exceeds the plan maximum
standards should be closely Intensity by 181% X
monitored and vigorousty
implemented.
Restrict curb outs to Teasley Lena, If replotted, access will be Ilmited to the
Ffd 2181, Lillian Miller, and Hobson existing driveway, X
Lane.
Residential subdivisions should be NA
generally designed so louses do not
face onto major thoroughfares.
Those should access onto local and X
wneclor streets.
Through traffic to l NA X
In considering the disproportionate share allocation of Intensity, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City
Counet should consider the following Items, but are not limited to these Items:
Adeq<iala Infrastructure There will be a number of public Improvements required If the property Is replotted.
These same Improvements can be considered as part of the razon',ig request, but
would need to be part of any ordinance rezoning the property in order to be binding.
The major Issue a number of the previous cases was treffk impacts on Lillian Millar.
In the most recent case (1991), the petitioner proposed dedicating a place of property
and constructing a right turn We at the comer of Lillian Miller and 1.35E4 The
applicant also proposed to construct a left turn lane for the northbound lanes of Lillian
Millar Into the property. No Traffic Impact Analysis has been conducted for the
current proposal. Other public Improvements would be required if this property is
roplatled, or made part of the ordnance rezoning to property. Hydrant spacing Is
600 foal In residential areas, and 300 feat in commerciaNndustrial areas. Fire hydrant
spacing Is o requirement of the Citys Subdivision and Land Development Regulations,
but would only come Into play d the property Is replotted or it such a requirement Is
made a part of any ordnance rezoning the property.
Unusual Topography The subject property is gamy sloping. At ona point it was heavily wooded but was
clear-cut' in the canter. There are n0 unusual topographic features thief would
warrant an additional intensity allocation.
Page 4
lv I
1.
F
µ
compatibility This property would act as a transition area between the shopping center directly
north and ft resldenfial uses to the South and west Wlh good site, architectural,
and landscape design, an office structure could potenttatiy be an asset at this location.
This location has long been Identified as a site extremely sensitive to use, scale, and
aesthetic Issues. The petition, as proposed, has been worked out ty a long series of
meetings between first State Bank and the neighborhood.
Tho following is a list of conditions proposed for this case:
1. Restricted list of permitted uses (Attachment 2).
2. Total floor area for all buildings constructed on the 2.6662 acres shall not
exceed 30,000 square feet.
3. No loading docks shall be permitted.
4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of brlck or
brick veneer.
5. The owner of the property shall maintain all trees larger than two (2)
Inches In diameter within ten (10) feet of any property line, other than a
property line fronting Lillian Miller Parkway, unless such trees would
interfere with any required fence.
6. No "off-premise" signs as defined Ordinances of the City of Denton orr Its successor) will be permitted.
7. No direct off-site lighting shall be perm tted.
8. A "bufferyard" measuring fifteen (15) feet wide, and comprising four (4)
canopy and alght (8) understory trees per each one hundred (100) linear
feet, shzil be Installed along the western and southern property lines of the
subject property.
8. There shall be na second story windows allowed on any western-facing
facades of any building, nor any second story windows on any southern-
facing facade within one-hundred and fifty (150) feet of the southern
property line, on the subject property.
10. Maximum building height shall not exceed two (2) storles; however, no
more than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in the aggregate may be
located on the second story of all the two-story buildings.
11. No Individual building may exceed 7,500 square feet In floor area.
Page 5
i
z
F
12. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof surface may have a
slope of less than 30%.
13. A minHum eight (8) foot tali solid fence shall be erected and maintained
on the western and southern borders of the property.
Finally, questions are likely to be raised about Conway Street, which runs along t' e
western edge of the subject property. Conway Street Is a private driveway dedicated
by the J.W. Erwin Subdivision to owners of property in that subdivislon. Conway
Street is not, and never has been, a dedicated City of Denton public street. No owner
was listed on the tax roles for the street, however, a letter was found in the 1991 case
file regarding the street, and is Attachment 3. Additionally, staff engaged the services
of Denton County Title Company to research the status of Conway Street. The title
company found no owner of the property (Attachment 4).
For the Council's Information, Traffic Engineering took 24-hour traffic counts at two
locations along Lillian Miller in February 1995.
LOCATION 1995 1993 1992 1991 1990
South of 1-35 20,898 13,859 11,709 12,087 9,74
North of Southridge 12,672 10,141 9,037 9,048 6,382
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval subject to the listed
Conditions 1.13.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve as recommended. i
2. Approve with additional/other conditions.
3. Deny.
4. Postpone consideration.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location map.
2. Proposed list of permitted uses.
3. Letter regarding Conway Street.
4. Letter from Denton County Title Company.
5. April 24, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
6. July 10, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
7. July 24, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission minutes.
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 1
\ \ } !rte
111 107 2201
2?n 07
1419
1 %6
e a ® 2201 /'Q0~ 2219
NO I
23
` 2416 a ` ` as
e 6L 'k 230W 4Q \ \
jig
\ \
7 0 2426 ® ♦ ~
7 2409 2 06
• ' / 2408\'
i--
2405 \
2401 2404
19 2313 328 I
lob 4ft
J , 2309,~{~~~ 2324
2602
} • 2301 2308 % 2320 'r
2316
2
242 ,
19 /
2305 2312 2525 2
nee y
R
t
ATTACHMENT2
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
Z-96-007C
Art Gallery or Museum
College or University or Private School
Public Library
School, Business or Trade
Telephone Business Office
Offices, Business or Professional
Studio for Photographer, Musician, or Artist
Scientific or Research Laboratories
i
r
/G.
v
F
I.
ATTACHMENT3
Southwest
Federal Savings
WGIIL/WD PARK WEST
4300 MacArthur Avenue
DaPUJ Texas 76209
February 15, 1991 .
Mr. Randy Carter
Senior Vice President
First State Bank
101 South Locust
Denton, Texas 76201
SUB7ECT; QUITCLAIM DEED TO FIRST STATE BANK OF CONWAY
CONWAY STREET
Dear Mr. Carter:
f The following is a summary of the agreement between First State
Bank (sank) and Southwest Federal savings AssociatAon (sWFSA)
regarding Conway Street (an abandoned private street).
SWFSA will execute a Quitclaim Deed to Bank and has agreed in
return as compensation to SWFSA, the following:
1) The Quitclaim Deed will be executed once
proposed rezoning of the property
owned by Bank is approved.
2) Bank will build a six foot brick wall
with columns appropriate to enhance the
value of the adjoining residential Jot
development faa ng the east side and
facing Conway, . the street area.
Estimated cost approximately $20,000.
3) Bank will comply with the City
landscaping requirements reflecting the
Conway Street area to include a berm,
shrubs, and sprinkler system. Estimated
cost approximately $75,000.
4) The second floor of the office building
structure will have no windows facing
south or west to the Conway area.
40 0
7
ATTACHMENT 3
Hr. Randy Carter
First State Bank
Page Z
5) Bank-will escrow funds at SWFSA for the
landscaping and fence at the time the
Quitclaim Deed is executed.
SWFSA believes that the above improvements would enhance the value
o! the subdivision and the lots affected by the proposed
development by'Bank.
The above ,is a -summary of the basic business terms of our
agreement. our agreement is subject to the execution of mutually
acceptable document, which address the business and legal details.
I would appreciate if you would acknowledge this and return an
original to ms for my records.
sincerely,
Michael, a ,Yl
. Montt om
Credit Specialist
RTC
Acknowledged bys
first State Bank
Bye
Itse
Dates
/oZ,
ATTACHMENT 4
VCTC DENTON COUNTY TITLE COMPANY
406 $O. CARROLL BLVD., P. O. BOX 2506, DENTON, TEXAS 76202
(817) 566.2226 METRO 434.2116 TELECOPIER (8171 5651012
July 26, 1996
City of Denton
Denton, Texas
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERNS
Upon our re
uest I have e t
y q , examined the Title to Conway Street. It
is my opinion, and the opinion of our underwriter that ownership to
Conway Street is in all adjoining property owners.
Conway Street was a part of the plat of J.W. Irwin Subdivision
recorded in Volume 337 Page 530 Deed Records, Denton County, Texas.
Said street was a private road to be used by the owners of the
lots. The street was never opened or maintained by the city or the
County of Denton. The street was shown on the plat as a 50 foot
right-of-way. Since the street was never opened, our underwriter
feels that the street was abandoned, and 25 feet would go to the
owners of the lots in Block A and 25 feet would go to the owners of
the lots in Block B.
If I can be of any further assistance to you on this matter, please
feel free to contact me.
Thank yo
CfLQ.Q.~M
SUE BALLINGER Q
PLANT MANAGER
DENTON COUNTY TITLE COMPANY
13
i
a
a
F
.y
ATTACHMENT5
P&Z Minutes
July 10, 1996
Page 3
Mr. Robbins: Would all of you like to have copies or do you just want it p>~
the reply forms? sed around when we do
Mr. Powell: I think it should be In oLr backup.
Mr. Robbins: Okay so this will be part of the backup.
(Consensus of Commissioners.)
Mr. Robbins: Okay we will put an address map in the zoning case packets. So 1 can communicate
to Mr. Rayner that he doesn't have to pay a fee when he brings in his application?
Ms. Russell: I think that is only fair.
(Consensus of Commissioners.)
Mr. Robbins: You have on your desk the Midwest Sections Annual Commissioners Workshop that
will be on July 29th. This years agenda Is a d" that has been put together by the Texas Deparnnent
of Housing and Community Affairs in cooperation with the Texas Chapter of the Americ:m Planning
Association. In the Midwest Region of which we s.e a part, rather than have a separate situation we
have combined the Texas Dena: u,r.nt of Housing y,d Community Affairs with the annual workshop.
So this is a little longer get toge.,h,r then what we usually have, you all are used to having dinner and
then an hour and a half or two hours of stuff. This one Is probably a half and hour to forty-five
minutes longer. One of the things Ow we are trying to put together and I wouldn't want to represent
to you that has actually been put together, I have been lobbying to have a break out session In which {
Mr. Clary'from TDHCA would talk about some general Issues with probably a hundred other
commissioners that would be there and then there would be an opportunity to go to a break out
session for commissioners to go to an individual table on a specific topic that they may be interested
In. Then you could sit around with a bunch of other commissioners and a resource person and talk
about Visioning or implementation methods and zoning cases and that kind of thing with other
commissioners at a much more Informal level than you could have with a hundred people. If you are
Interesting In going I would appreciate you letting us know before the 24th so we can pay for your
registration and organize transportation.
Ms. Russell: I would like to go to this. This is something that we have really enjoyed.
Mr. Powell: I will have to look at my schedule in the morning.
Mr. Jones: Same with me.
Ms. Russell: Let us get back with you.
Mr. Cochran: 1 won't be able to go.
Mr. Robbins: We will see if we can get a van. We 11 work that out.
ATTACHMENT6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 2
Ms. Russell: We will now go into a closed meeting to consider legal matters under the Texas '
Government Code 551.071. It is now 5:15 p.m.
Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on
Wednesday, April 24, 1996, and began at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney.
Meeting called to order at 6:05 p.m.
I. Consider approval of the minutes of the April 3, 1996 meeting.
Ms. Russell: Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Mr. Powell: 1 move approval of the minutes m presented.
Mr. Cochran: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
IL Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 2.6662 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-
16) zoning district to the Office conditioned (Ojc)) zoning district. The subject property is located
on the west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 500 feet south of I-35. (Z-96-007)
Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning of 2.6662 acres on the west side of Lillian Miller just south of the
Red Lobster. We mailed nineteen notices out on April 12th. We received three responses in
opposition and two In favor. At this point In time, I don't know if the 20% rule will be in effect, but
it will probably be pretty close. The last time rezoning was attempted in February of 1991, it was
for a Planned Development for a five-thousand square-foot restaurant, which was Owens, and a
twelve-thousand square-foot office. The request before you tonight is for the Office conditioned
zoning district. There is a list of conditions that the applicant is proposing for the property in your
backup on page 16. The applicant is proposing to restrict the list of permitted uses. The total floor
area for all buildings is not to exceed twenry-five thousand square feet. The loading dock and
dumpster areas will be screened. Corrugated or metal exteriors will not be allowed on any building
elevation visible from Lillian Miller. The owner will maintain all trees larger than two Inches in
diameter within ten feet of the property line. There will be no off-premise signs allowed. The
applicant Is proposing a class C bufferyard which would consist of four canopy and eight under-story
trees per every one hundred linear feet in a fifteen-foot wide strip. There is no location proposed for
that, and our normal C bufferyard would also have a six-foot fence. Condition number eight Is that
there will be no direct off-site lighting and the final condition is that maximum height of the buildings
will be two story, which in the Office zoning district the maximum height Is three stories. In your '
backup, you have the analysis that was done in reference to the DDP. The proposed twenty-five
thousand square-foot building would exceed what is allowed by the Plan by a hundred and thirty-four
percent. The maximum square footage that would be allowed by the Plan would be ten thousand,
six hundred and sixty-six square feet. There is no site plan proposed. The Plan calls for strict site
/s,
,
F
ATTACHMENT6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 3
plan control within sixteen hundred feet of existing low density residential, traffic designed to ensure
that multi-family or non-residential uses have access to collectors or larger arterials vyith no direct
access through residential streets. The proposal would meet that; there is direct access to Lillian
Miller which is an arterial level street. This is somewhat inconsistent with the green space. There
was a neighborhood meeting on April 3rd, and 1 can't say that there was a lot of support for the
project as it was presented that night. Neighborhood service center concentration: the plan would
allow up to five acres along a freeway, three acres along Lillian Miller; and this property is 2.6 arses,
so it would meet that requirement of the Plan. We also have some policies that directly relate to
Lillian Miller. Two of those are that the neighborhood density and intensity standards should be
closely monitored and vigorously implemented. The proposal exceeds the Plan intensity by a hundred
and thirty-four percent. Curb cuts are restricted on Teasley Lane, F.M. 2181, Lillian Miller, and
Hobson Lane. There is already an existing driveway cut, and there may be a possibility of obtaining
another right turn, only out from the property. The other two criteria for the Lillian Miller specific
area policies aren't applicable to this case as they apply to residential subdivisions and through traffic
to Dallas/Ft. Worth Airport. Staff is not recommending approval of this conditioned rezoning for
a number of reasons that are in your backup. It is not consistent with several important areas of the
Plan, those being intensity, site plan, and separation of the strip commercial development. We are
not saying that this property shouldn't be used for office; we are saying that it should be done as a
Planned Development where the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Ccuncil have the
opportunity to look at a plan and see what it is they are proposing and see how it is going to work.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. Rob Rayner: My name is Rob Rayner, and my office is at •.1108 Dallas Drive, Suite 310. We
did have a neighborhood meeting, and there were nine families represented. The owner of the
property feels that the Office conditioned zoning is the best use of the property. At the neighborhood
meeting, we addressed several issues, and we feel that some of those issues have been meet with this
conditional zoning from the past as well as the present concerns that they have. One of them is that
you have permanent uses that are office in nature. Many of the uses that we have in the Office
zoning have been marked out. We marked out the restaurant use from the list of permitted uses
which would eliminate any unpleasant smells. You would have traditional office hours of eight to
five with no late night activity so the unpleasant noise would not be there. We have a condition for
no off-site lighting. We are using the Office conditional zoning because it protects the surrounding
neighborhood, and the neighborhood will know what is permitted, and those uses will be disclosed.
The condition restricts the building size as well as addressing the bufferyard standards. This helps
the neighborhood realize the natural beauty that will be used to screen the building from the
residential neighbors. By using the conditional Office zoning, the city allows the landowner to
market his property with disclosed restrictions that can be flexible to a variety of users fitting with
the permitted uses. The reason that we like the conditional zoning Is because we have seen that it
works very well with different kinds of zoning, meeting different needs within the city. With your
PD zoning, because we do not have a buyer, or a user at this point, we don't know what kind of
J+~ office will be there or what shape that office will be. If we are restricted to a PD, as the staff has
recommended, then we are obligated to follow that specific size and shape. If we have a user that
V doesn't need that, then they will have to come back before you to have it changed; and we think that
is a little cumbersome for them. We feel that if we can have the flexibility as this conditioned Office
zoning has allowed in previous cases; it gives us ;o a flexibility. The conditioned u-ning has been
K
ATTACHMENT 6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 4 '
a wonderful alternative, as opposed to PDs and straight zoning. We need to have the flexibility and
to be able to maximize the market potential for the property. _
Mr. Cochran: All of the list of uses that stave been eliminated were done by you and the property
owner?
Mr. Rayner: Yes, and the conditions were done by the property owner.
Ms. Russell: Did you have this list of conditions when ycu met with the neighborhood?
Mr. Rayner: No. Our feeling was to have the neighborhood meeting and see what the neighborhood
wanted, and then we could address that with the conditions and the permitted uses. It was quite
apparent from the meeting that the neighborhood wanted residential use, so we felt that by looking
at past experiences with this tract of land, the least offensive use and the highest and best use for the
land was Office. We knew that the intensity trips for an office would be less than a restaurant. The
owner feels that it would be a very nice office location.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition
to the petition? I have cards from Clint Ballard and Chris Schwelker, and they are both in opposition.
Mr. Skip Beard: My name is Skip Beard, and I live at 2304 Stonegate. There is a tremendous
amount of interest in this particular issue from the people in that neighborhood. There are a lot of
concerns with this rezoning. Talking about property values, talking about concerns regarding changes
that can occur once a zoning change takes place in order to accommodate a certain type building
fact condition
and then that building plan somewhat changes over time as a result of marketplthe with ace
little
buyers changing their mind. Those kinds of changes end up occurring opporwnity for anyone to do anything about them. All of those
ha goes on in concerns pat tthe neiarea rh od of the
has. They have a high stake in their property city. values and Ms. Jane Graner: My name is Jane Graner, and 1 live at 2400 Stonegate Circle. Currently, my home
is the only residence that is within two hundred feet of the site. I site. I have a lot f d with traffic and
property values especially since my property backs up to the concerns. This
my dream home that I worked very hard for. After graduating from TWU in 1984, I decided that
I wanted to make this my permanent home. I bought this lot with the understanding that it backed
up to residential property. I wanted a lot with good access to 1-35, yet 1 was very concerned about
privacy and light pollution. For me, star gazing as an amateur astronomer is a very Important passion
of mine. 1 deliberately chose a lot that was as far away from street lights as possible. If any kind
of office goes up, even wltli only indirect security lighting, that will greatly inhibit my ability to enjoy
my love of stars. Moreover, my privacy will be compromised. In addition to light pollution, there
will be noise pollution; and also, if this zoning change goes through, from ay this take y g erosion, he
other lots that are there on Stonegate Circle. 1 ask that you, protect effects on our neighborhood; and I appeal to you as a citizen to protect me and my home from
these
adverse effects of having to live right next door to it.
Mr. Powell: The other lots that are there are not occupied at this time?
r
I
s
r
ATTACHMENT6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 5
Ms. Graner: Not at this time.
■ Dr. Ray Stephens: My name is Ray Stephens, and I live at 619 Ridgecrest. When the citizens who
live adjacent to the property that is the subject of this rezoning request and the citizens who live in
the affected neighborhood invested in their homes, they put a considerable amount of their limited
capital at risk. For most of them, this purchase is the greatest amount of capital outlay they will
personally face in their lifetime. Obviously, they looked over the neighborhood to get an idea of the
quality of life where they would invest. They may have searched through the maps at City Hall to
find the parameters of residential zoning that would provide some space from the higher intensity
zoned area, to locate their homes where the noises and smells associated with non-residential uses
would not crowd up against them. They expected and depended upon local government to protect
them from an erosion of zoning that would seriously jeopardize their investment and diminish the
quality of life they enjoy in their neighborhood. A major concern is the adverse effect of property
values on adjacent homes and homes in the neighborhood if the rezoning is done. Many of the
citizens who have reservations to this proposed rezoning are those who would not have purchased
homes in this area if they had even suspected that city government would not honor what amounts
to a pledge to help preserve their property values by keeping the parameters of residential zoning in
tact. I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this attempt to invade this
neighborhood with Office conditional zoning with all of the flexibility that makes such zoning so open
ended. How much farther will city government allow the erosion to go? What good is a plan if it
is not adhered to? The plan for this neighborhood, made in goci faith, as the highest and best use,
` and subsequently followed by city government, has been in place for some time. We have existing
higher intensity uses nearby; we have zoning for residential in place. Please help preserve the
existing plan for residential community development that has been in place for approximately the last
thirty years.
{
Mr. Powell: You talked about flexibility. You talked about Office zoning having a lot of flexibility.
it would aMar to me that the applicant has taken out almost all of the flexibility with the conditions
that he has added.
Dr. Stephens: If the zoning is changed from residential to something else, then it is much easier to
come back to the Council to have adjustments made. The idea seems to me that one of the best
protections we have is to keep it residential so that we won't have to worry about repeated trips here
as Office conditional may be adjusted. 1 heard what was said; I was at the neighborhood meeting that
Mr. Rayner talked about. And at that time, the same thing 1 am expressing here was made there-
that if we had our choice, we'd rather keep it residential.
Ms. Russell: Dr. Stephens, I have a question. I was just asking Mr. Robbins to refresh my memory;
I know this is bigger than a collector street. Lillian Miller is a secondary arterial street and it's quite
a busy street. To my memory, there are no residences that open on to this street along there. Do you
recall?
Dr. Stephens: Not it this time; however, the lots south, right next to the lots in the petition, on down
to Southridge Drive, were set up as garden-type homes back in the mid-80s, not Single Family 16,
as in the interior. At least it maintains its residential nature. The idea is that the zoning was in place,
but no residences were built. There are no residences that face Lillian Miller in this particular area.
/ d',
f
F
I
P&Z Minuses ATTACHMENT 6
April 24, 1996
Page 6
Ms. Russell: This is quite a busy street, and I am trying to recall that there are not residences that '
face this street. Since they can't face any other way on Lillian Miller, would you want to build a
home there?
Dr. Stephens: The developer of the entire Southridge area chose to build his home on the interstate.
Mr. Cochran: You mentioned the time frame of thirty years; when was Lillian Miller Parkway
planned through there?
Dr. Stephens: About mid-80s.
Mr. Robbins: That's correct.
Mr. Cochran: So at the time that these were zoned, residential Lillian Miller was not on the plans?
Dr. Stephens: That is correct.
Mr. Robbins: If my memory is correct it might have been zoned with a road planned through it
called Ridgeway.
Dr. Stephens: The Ridgeway that you are talking about became Lillian Miller. The original plan was
in 1965. The entire area was set up as residential. '
Mr. Moreno: I have a question? If this rezoning was approved, could the petitioner come bark and
ask that these conditions be removed.
i
Mr. Robbins: That would require another rezoning, and you would review that, and it would go to
the Council.
Mr. Mitch Vexler: My name is Mitch Vexler, and I am the second developer of Southridge Fast and
the Ridge (of Southridge. I am currently the largest landowner in the immediate vicinity. I have sold
well over a hundred lots in the area, and I plan on developing another nine acres on the immediate
boundary of the property in question. I also build over a million square feet a year-single family,
mull-family, office, and single family subdivision. I don't object to an "office" use, but what I
object to is the question of flexibility. What has been proposed ...I believe that tract of land should
be used for medical doctor's offices; however, with certain conditions put on it. There is a
reasonable solution to what Is at hand here; however, what has been proposed and the method that
it has been proposed in, is not the best for the subdivision, and it is not in my best interest as a
landholder. What has been taken off of the list are uses that never would have been put there in the
first Place. What has been offered as the applicant's proposed conditions, in my opinion, I wouldn't
be caught dead building property with these types of restrictions on them. The applicant is proposing
that corrugated or any metal exterior shall not be allowed on any new building elevation visible from
LillianMiller. Corrugated Is butler; butler is a steel frame with a steel exterior. The lots that back '
up to that particular tract have roughly three-hundred- to five-hundred-tl, jusand dollar homes on
them. That is what I plan on budding or having built on those lots. You don't put a butler building
next to that caliber of home, There are other things such as lighting; lighting issues can be resolved.
a
Y
F
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 6
Ape. 124, 1996
Page 7
The other conditions that are here such as off-site signage and off-site premises are insignificant.
What is significant is the fact that they have requested a two-story maximum height. You don't want
strong What
opposition building to the being able to look into the back yard of these homes. The concept of putting
a two-story building there, in my opinion, would be out of the question. For those reasons, I am in
way that this proposal has been submitted, although I do not oppose the
office-type use.
Mr. Cochran: Would you propose that we make our decision on this zoning based on the value of
the houses behind this property?
Mr. Vexler: No. I am currently developing over a thousand multi-family units in the metroplex, and
one of those properties is in Lewisville. We had eighty-thousand dollar duplexes in the backyard of
a particular tract of land with an alley in between. The people in the duplexes had no objection to
the multi-family, but they had an objection to my original layout. I had a third story that looked over
the duplexes, so 1 changed by layout and had a solid brick wall facing the dup'.=xes. Anything that
is over two story will be able to see over an eight-foot fence and it will affect the value of the lots
and the value of the homes. What you want is a high-class facility that is representative of the area
with a brick facade. 1 sold lots to the majority of the people in the audience, and I have an obligation
to them and to future developers to make sure that whatever goes in that subdivision is representative
of that area. There shouldn't be a butler building in that area, and it shouldn't be a two story building
in that vicinity,
Mr. Powell: Aren't the houses in the area two story?
Mr. Vexler: You are talking about a house versus ar office building.
Mr. Powell: You can still see over the eight-foot fence.
Mr. Vexler: But you are not talking about something that backs into one lot after another,
a
there
nd a big difference. A» office building has anywhere from a fifteen- to seventeen-foot floor plate and
a house has a ten-foot floor plate. That is five to seven feet per floor which would be ten to fourteen
foot height difference, not to mention what goes up on the roof. You could end up with a two-story
building that has an overall height of forty-two feet.
Ms. Russell: If it were a brick building and there were no windows on the back? We had a case
farther down the street where it is a two-story building, but there are no windows on the back to
overlook the neighborhood.
Mr. Vexler: There is a piece of land next to that property that is currently zoned SF-16, and I own
it; and if you had that type of facility; then I would have to contend that. You could have a two-story
building with no windows on two sides and that would be one ugly building. I would object to that.
Ms. Vera Gershner. My name is Vera Gershner, and I live at 2312 Stonegate Circle. The reason
why I have chosen to speak tonight is because we have lived there the longest, and we have the
largest home. We chose to build a large homc because my husband has been diagnosed with a
debilitating illness, and we knew that over time he would be increasingly handicapped. We built a
a~
d
k
i
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 6
April 24, 1996
Page 8
home for a multi-family dwelling. We live with my daughter and her family. When we decided to '
build such a large home and commit the rest of our life to that, we looked all over the county before
we decided to build in Denton. 'Are have a large investment to protect.. When you buy a piece of
Property, you should be able to count on the zoning of that area and the protection that you assume
is in those contracts when you first sign them. We have a lot of concern in the area, and I want to
support the things that Ray Stephens said. I really would like to thank the city for their
recommendation. 1 hope that you will protect our neighborhood in a way that we won't have to keep
coming back.
Dr. George Christy: My name is George Christy, and 1 live at 2416 Southridge Dr. Iyould like
to ask•a question, and that is, "who is the present owner of the property and who is representing this
wition?"
Mr. Reeves: The owner of the property is First State Bank, and they are also the petitioner.
Dr. Christy: My problem with the petition is that it is intentionally vague, and, because of its
vagueness, it is untimely. The last time that we were here addressing the Owen's Family Restaurant,
we knew the nature of the use, and we could visualize the problems, such as the hours of operation,
the congestion, the extent in 'short the adjoining property owners and those nearby would be
inconvenienced. Here we have a very generalized petition to open this property to office usage. I
will not say that I am unalterably opposed to putting offices in there, but I would like to have a little
more definite information and a little more definite idea of just what sort of offices are going In. I '
would like to have the ability to judge for myself how much congestion and how much inconvenience
might result to property owners in our area. I think for that reason, the fact that we do not know
precisely what use the property will be put to, or exactly what the result will be to the neighboring
area, that this petition is untimely and should be rejected, at least until we have a more definite sort
of petition and prospective usage.
Ms. Russell: Dr. Christy, you brought up a very good point. (Read the list of permitted uses that
the applicant is proposing.) (Read the names, off of the yellow comment cards, of those people in
opposition but not wishing to speak: Andrea Saddler, Dean Saddler, Tobye Nelson, Alice
Greenspoon, Mrs. Gil Adaml, and Charlotte Whaley.)
Mr. Alvin Whaley: My name is Alvin Whaley, and I live at 2304 Hollyhill. 1 can't say that my
opposition is that great, but there are a lot of questions that are unanswered. 1 heard key words such
as loading docks and corrugated metal buildings. I would say that it needs a lot more research before
we finalize it.
Mr. R.B. Escue: My name is R.B. Escue, and I live at 707 Ridgecrest. I am about three hundred
feet from the property in question. I built my house in 1965; there was no Golden Triangle Mall,
there was no Lillian Miller, and the only thing that was along 1-35 was the Texas neon sign. That
one little place has developed into SouMdge Village, which was supposed to be a moderate area and
is already well over the moderate configuration. The petitioners are asking not for strip zoning, but '
for spot zoning. For some reason, we have Provident Bank coming in and establishing a commercial
place on an SF-16 lot, which the city has never been able to explain. That is to the north. To the
south, you have what is called single family detached. All of that area was SF-16 In order to protect
i
F
r
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 6
April 24, 1996
Page 9
the existing homes which were there in Southridge, and to give us some latitude of buffering with
respect to encroachment. That is disappearing. I certainly hope that you will hold the petitioner to
a more stricter situation because of the situation of spot zoning that would be involved in this
particular case.
' Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Do you wish to hear from Mr. Vexler
again?
Mr. Vexler: The petitioner brought up the marketability of the land without him being able to change .
the zoning. In the past year, 1 have bought about five hundred acres of commercial land and single-
family land and, on occasion, some of the land is not zoned the way that I want in order to develop
it. In that case, 1 go to City Council and get it rezoned. Basically, this land is in the same position.
If 1 was a buyer for this tract of land, it is in a good location, it is a good tract of land; if I was
interested In it, I would make an offer conditioned on rezoning. At that point in time, I would make
my presentation. This is not the time or the method in which it needs to be done. It needs to be
marketed under the current zoning and if someone is interested in the property, then that is the time
to bring a petition to the Commission.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition to the petition? Would the petitioner care
to make any rebuttal?
Mr. Rayner: One of the things 1 would like to address is Mr. Stephens saying that Mr. Stiles' home
being on I-35; that is true, but the front door is not facing 1-35. What I would like to do is to talk
about the 1991 case, addressing the restaurant. The owner of,the land wishes to use this property for
office. What we have done is taken the concerns of the citizens, and we have tried to make it fit
those concerns. I do not see where an office building is going to create smells, particularly those
smells that we were greatly concerned about when we were talking about a restaurant. I do not see
the office hours and the noise being affective when you are talking about an office building that will
have a traditional type of time frames, where your restaurants now will stay open until 2:00 In the
morning. Back when this case was brought up, there were problems. We had Teasley going under
I-35 and it was only two lanes. We now have turn bays, turn arounds, things that help offset the
congestion that you have along that corridor. You also have a right turn lane right in front of Jack
in the Box which was the very issue that Jerry Clark, the city engineer, asked about in 1991. That
has been taken care of. The owner, First State Bank, took care of that because it was a need that was
there. It was done even though the zoning was turned down. These were important issues that the
engineering department was looking at. To address the Conway Street situation-Conway Street is
a private road. We did quite a bit of investigation work through title companies so that we could find
out ownerships. We found that it has been a private drive and is not dedicated to the city. It Is not
in very good condition because it hasn't been used in a number of years. It is not owned by the
applicant or Mr. Vexler. The Denton Development Plan, that was approved in 1988, does not
address and could not address the issues that you face in today's market. Conditional zoning Is a
wonderful tool that the city should use for landowners to give them the flexibility to use their
property. It is unfortunate that you all have the backup information, the knowledge; you know the
conditions that have been presented before you, and many of the people that are sitting here don't
have that wealth of information, so they may not understand when we talk about a metal building.
I would have to agree with Mr. Vexler in that I don't think a butler building was intentioned there;
y
f
k
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 6 -
April24, 1996
Page 10
but at one time, Peterbilt, which was then Moore, had a metal building for Storage.
f have that kind of concept, I wanted to have" 'if there was going if tt was going to be a metal building, then it would have a brick facade. Ix did not want
office building itself. If there i
at all,then thbaetsome kind of storage and
reason I put it s no butler building there t would be similar
to the
in there, to cover that
we have the Conditions that fit an office buildinar type of use that I have seen in the pa~' chartkstha~ and
allows pple to use I way. I don't think the citizens behind me care ~~f the building is U-shaped or that L-shaped. and in an affective
~Y are concerned that we have a good user end that it doesn't stay vacant. Clunk think this conditional
Mr. zoning is a good tool for developers to have the access to use in the City of this I that
. Powell:n suucDotio tY enton.
a brick co you think that the applicant would accept the conditions that the office building
n? Do Y'Ur conditions cover windows on the back side of the building to the south
or west? Is that part of the conditions? I have just been informed that it was for I991, but it is not now. Would you consider those conditions now?
Part of the conditions
Mr. Rayner: Yes, sir, we would.
Mr. Drake; I am concerned that this could be misconstrued later and viewed as bet
and prohibited contract zoning issue. 1 would just like the parties to clarify
is not a negotiation, that Lt. Powell . just asking about possibilities that the owner re a negotiated
and that Mr, Rayner was on the record that this
owner and not an speaking about possibilities which would or would not be accep atble to the
any kind of a negotiated zoning case.
Mr. Rayner: Igo under the co
I don't mean to impl nce t that the Co
y negotiating. P mmission can put whatever conditions they want and
choice {
of submitting our own to thefe did not like those particular items, then we would have the
g City Council. Is that not correct, sir?
Mr. Drake: You would certainly have the right to appeal. The point that I wanted to make is that
it the Is COrnm acceptable tssion to as the going to make their recommendation to the City Council lyres
o
community based on the weer health not, The Commission is going to be acting in the best interests of the
was concerned about what , safe
rrta lY' and welfare of the citizens at large. I assumed that Lt. Powell
concerned about makin Y or may not be a developable use for the property,
that would make the go a that whatever the Commission was consider;ng woulnot be something
th 'negotiated Property not valuable to the owner, rather than trying to reach any kind of
settlement of zoning. I Just wanted to make sure that was clear on the record.
Mr. Rayner: Thank
you, I would not want that to be misconstrued either.
Ms. Russell; For an office building, how do you envision the need for a loading
Mr. Rayner; I think once again loading dock should have been removed. The dock?
the lines of the Moore Business Forms, now Peterbilt. dumpster was along
Ms. Russell; We will close the public hear in .
Conway Street-how wide and who owns it? g Mr. Reeves, would you talk to us a little about
023 .
e
s
ATTACHMENT6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Reeves: Conway Street is a private driveway that was dedicated by the original plat, not only
the property in question, but up and down both sides of its length. It is technically a private
driveway: This was ail the J.W. Irwin Subdivision. I think it was platted in the middle 40s and
Conway Street was a private driveway dedicated to, and for the use of, residents along it. It is not
now, nor has it ever been, a city street. Obviously, when we do the two-hundred-foot notice, we
have to identify all the property owners. There is no identifiable owner for Conway Street. I think
Mr. Rayner said that his research was unable to identify who owns it. If it were a standard city type
street, what normally happens when the city abandons a right-of-way is that adjoining property
owners on both sides get half of it. In this particular case, I don't know what would happen. My
understanding is that down at the end, where the lots in question are located, it is heavily forested.
If there is any pavement left there, it will not be very useable. Conway Street is fifty feet wide.
Ms. Russell.- In the event that the Office zoning is passed, what is the setback from the back property
line?
Mr. Reeves: In the Office zoning, I believe the setback is based on the height of the building. There
is a minimum setback, and then you add X number of feet for every X number of feet in additional
height of the building. It is in your backup on page 22.
Ms. Schertz: Is there any situation where this case could come back to us if the Office zoning is
passed?
Mr. Reeves: Zoning-wise, they would not be back unless they wanted to do something other than
what is on the list of uses or In the list of conditions. These are three platted lots, and, at some point,
they may want to come in and replat this into one big lot. At that point, it would be a residential
replat that would require a public hearing, and would require notice of everyone in the subdivision
that lives within two hundred feet. Unfortunately, at this time, there is almost nothing left of the
J.W. Irvin Subdivision. A plat is a little bit different from a zoning case. Unless they were asking
for some sort of variance, we could send out notices and they could object, but it wouldn't make any
difference if it met our requirements-you would be required to approve it. If there is a variance
involved and people object, then the 20% rule would come into effect. This means that it could
potentially take six members of this body to approve a plat with a variance. This property is in a
transition location between the commercial center to the north and the residential uses back behind
it. Staff Is not necessarily opposed to an office-type zoning because that is a fairly low intensity type
of use. The problem that staff has with what is proposed here in front of you tonight Is that it is
grossly over the Intensity allowed by the Plan. It is a hundred and thirty-four percent over allocated.
Some of the conditions would be an excellent addition to a planned development; they don't
adequately address the issues associated with this site, and, as you can tell from the staff report and
the history on this property, it has long been a site that has been known to have certain sensitivities
associated with it regarding the scale of the project, the size and type of project and the aesthetics
associated with it. While we cannot recommend approval of what has been put in front of you
tonight, we don't necessarily think that it is not possible to have an office use there, we just think that
it needs to be in a planed development where you can seethe arrangement of the site. (Covered the
twenty percent rule.)
a y.
a
F
ATTACHMENT 6
P&Z Minutes
April 24, 1996
Page 12
Mr. Cochran: This is a classic zoning case where the neighborhood interest is against the interests
of the developer. It is always the most difficult decisions that we have to make up here. There are
a number of excellent points on both sides. There were some points made by some of the neighbors
that I am personally sensitive to. Ms. Gershner talked about the contract of zoning and about a bond
with property owners, and that is something that comes up here all of the time. It is something that
I truly believe in. That is a big issue. There are some other factors here that affect me and one of
them is that things have changed over the years and the major factor that affects me is that Lillian
Miller has come along and thrown things a little out of kilter. Making this land function as single
family area just can't happen; it doesn't seem reasonable to me that someone would want to put their
home there'. The fact that the petitioner has voluntarily limited their list of uses-[ think they are
acting in good faith, and I think it addresses most of the fears that you all have about how this land
may develop. It seems to me that it is destined that something is going to happen there and it will
not be single family. We have talked abuut buffer zones, and it seems to me that you have a natural
buffer zone with that abandoned street back there. It would be very difficult for me to look at this
and not think that it is a reasonable use.
Mr. Moreno: I am concerned about the proposed intensity. I think this is the most dangerous
intersection In Denton and for that reason, and some others that have been brought up, I am going
to vote against this.
Ms. Schertz: Often times we are not privileged to know what parties are involved in a situation.
This evening we are privileged to know that it is First State Bank; and, living in Denton for over
eleven years, I understand that First State Bank is committed to Denton, and they have shown it time
and time again. 1 think that they have shown it again this evening when they have agreed to the
conditions and have come forth and given us conditions and restrictions of what they would put there.
Based on my confidence and faith in First State Bank, I don't believe they are going to put anything
there that would disrupt the community or hurt the homeowners or the value of the property. I think
they will keep this in mind. They are here listening tonight; they value the concerns that you have.
I think I will take this into consideration when I vote this evening.
Ms. Russell: I would like to make some comments because I have some concerns about what has
been offered. 1 think that it is valid that the construction be all brick, that there be no second-story
windows on the south and west side, and that there be no loading dock. If you agree with me,
whoever makes the motion, if you would take that Into consideration.
Mr. Powell: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 2.662 acres from the Single
Family (SF-I6) zoning district to the office conditioned (O(c)) zoning district with the conditions that
it be brick construction, no second-story windows on the south or west side, that there be no loading
dock In addition to the applicant's conditions.
Ms. Schertz: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed
same sign. Approved. (5.1) Mr. Moreno opposed.
l
F
_ c,
ATTACHMENT 7
MINUZT.S
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 24, 1996
Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on
Wednesday, July 24, 1996, and began at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney.
Present: Mike Cochran, Katie Flemming, Guy Jones, Rudy Moreno, Bob Powell, Ellen Schertz, and
Barbara Russell.
Present from Staff: Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development; Jerry Drake, Assistant City
Attorney; Owen Yost, Urban Planner; Walter Reeves, Urban Planner; Donna Bateman,
Senior Planning Tech; Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering and Transportation; Chris
Rodriguez, Secretary.
Meeting called to order at 5:08 p.m.
1. Consider approval of the minutes of the following meetings:
a. June 12, 1996.
b. June 26, 1996.
c. July 10, 1996.
Ms. Russell: Are there any corrections to any of the minutes? The minutes will stand approved as
presented.
11. Consent Agenda:
The following item is recommended by the staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of
staff recommendation. Approval of the consent agenda authorizes the staff to proceed with each item
in accordance with the staff recommendation.
a. Consider the final plat of Denton Criminal Justice Facility. The subject property is in the Light
Industrial Conditioned (LI[c)) zoning district, consists of 32.398 acres, and is located on the south
side of McKinney Street, approximately 700 feet west of Woodrow.
Mr. Cochran: I move approval of the consent agenda.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
Mr. Powell arrived at 5:12 p.m.
III. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 2.6662 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF.
16) zoning district to the Office conditioned (0[c]) zoning district, The subject property is located
on the west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 500 feet south of I-35. (Z-96-007B)
-l
a
F
ATTACHMENT7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 2
Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning of 2.6662 acres from the Single Family 16, (SF-16) zoning district
to an Office conditioned zoning district. The property is located on the west side of Lillian Miller
just south of the Red Lobster. We are all pretty much aware of the issues involved here. On July
12th we sent out notices and when the staff report was prepared we had only received one reply that
was in opposition. Since that time we have received four more replies, one in favor and three in
opposition. I do not know if the 20 percent rule will be in effect when this goes to the Council. The
applicant submitted a list of ten conditions all of which you recommended the last time you saw this
case. In regard to Conway Street we still do not have any information on the ownership and the title
company will not have that information until the end of this week. Based on these factors and for
consistency with previous cases the staff recommended denial of the previous proposed Office
conditioned request and that the applicant submit an application for a Planned Development, however
the Commission as per the Denton Development Plan found factors existing with the subject property
that warranted the allocation of additional intensity. With this in mind staff recommends approval
of the request as it is submitted tonight.
Ms. Schertz: Can you go over attachment 4 and the allocated intensity?
Mr. Reeves: Attachment 4 is the minutes for the last meeting. The proposal is over allocated by a
hundred and thirty-four percent and by recommending approval you recognized that this property has
certain features associated with it that warrant the allocation of that additional hundred and thirty-four
percent intensity.
Ms. Schertz: So it is basically based on our vote?
Mr. Reeves: Right.
Mr. Drake: We need to qualify who the petitioner is in this case tonight. At your last meeting there
was a discussion at the end as to whether or rot the Commission wished to initiate and waive the fee
on this rezoning case. We have had some questions come up about that and in making sure that
everything is done correctly, Mr. Robbins and 1 have met and it is our belief and our understanding
that in the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to reconsider zoning on this property again,
that the Commission wished to do that and to waive the fee. We have taken that to mean that the
Planning and Zoning Commission has requested that the City Council undertake a study and review
of this zoning with the Commission as the applicant. If that is not correct then we need to know
about that. If Mr. Rayner or First State Bank is still the applicant then it would not be appropriate
to waive the fee under the Code of Ordinances, Section 35-7.
Mr. Cochran: When we discussed this last time I do not recall the issue coming up of us becoming
the applicant. I am not comfortable with that. 1 am also not comfortable with the applicant having
to pay again.
Ms. Russell: In my mind this was similar to another case where we waived the fee. I did not think
that we were the applicant. Did anyone else consider that we were becoming the applicant?
Mr. Drake: The situation has come up and the wording of Section 35-7 is such that the language of
oZ 2.
r
t
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 3
the code provision is somewhat mandatory in terms of collecting a fee from an applicant who brings
forward an application of 35-7(a). If we want to make sure that we are doing this correctly and there
is not any danger of this thing coming under scrutiny in the future, we could do one of two things.
We could have the Commission proceed as the applicant, if that is what the Commission intended,
or we could have First State Bank or Rob Rayner to submit another application and to pay the fee.
Mr. Robbins: The intent was essentially that the Commission would become the applicant and that
is what we had in mind on the 10th. That would equate to waiving the fee so we could continue the
review. Technically P&Z would be the applicant.
Ms. Russell: I would like to adjourn to executive session so that we can discuss this.
Adjourned at 5:21 p.m. to go into executive session.
Reconvened at 5:50 p.m.
Ms. Russell: In an effort to not charge twice to hear a zoning case it was the Commission's intent
to waive the fee and it was necessary in waiving the fee that the Commission became the
That was the intent of the Commission and we will become the applicants. Is there a motion applicant.
the Commission?
Mr. Powell: So made.
i4 Ms. Schertz: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Is there any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (7-0) We will now hear from Mr. Rayner who is in favor of the petition.
Mr. Robert Rayner: My name is Robert Rayner and my address is 1108 Dallas Drive. My
understanding of this zoning case is that the conditions that have been presented to you were the same
conditions that the P&Z approved at your last meeting concerning this case. I would like to go over
them because 1 think there has been some confusion within the citizenry of Denton. I would like to
make some clarifications if I could. First of all there are no metal buildings. The condition asks for
exterior walls to be all brick or brick veneer. I also wish to make it clear that Owens Family
Restaurant is not behind this and is not funding this, as I have heard rumors to that effect. I would
also like to point out on the list of uses that restaurants has been removed from the list of permitted
uses, so there will not be a restaurant there. We are asking for strict conditional Office with the uses
that you see under the ten conditions that you have before you. Conditional Office zoning is a
wonderful tool for the City and the developer. It gives the flexibility for the City to be able to see
certain parameters of uses for a tract of land and in these particular conditions it also helps the
neighborhood know the size of the building, they will know that it will be all brick, they know that
there will not be any loading docks, they know that there will be a bufferyard, they know that no off
<premise signs will be in place, and they know that there will not be any second story windows
o: the western and southern facing sides of the building. There will also not be any direct off site
lighting. 1 think it is a wonderful thing that we have conditional zoning to be able to tell you
x
1t
y~
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 4
that and at the same time give our perspective user the flexibility to put the type of building there that
they want. That is of course opposite of what a PD zoning would allow them to do. I would like to
state that you voted on this before and I would like to see you vote favorably on this again.
Ms. Schertz: Is this more restrictive than what you originally submitted, or are these the same?
Mr. Rayner: These are more restrictive than what we originally submitted. These are the conditions
that the Planning and Zoning Commission wanted and approved.
Mr. Cochran: Was the bank aware of the zoning when they acquired the property?
Mr. Rayner: Yes they knew that it was SF-16.
Ms. Schertz: Have there been any changes in the surrounding property?
Mr. Rayner: Yes there have been some zoning changes in that area. The is a new assisting living
facility. There have been changes and they have not all been residential.
Mr. Moreno: Would you specify how this application is more restrictive?
Mr. Rayner: On the original conditions that I submitted, I aske ; for metal buildings and loading
docks. The reason I asked for these was that I was comparing the potential use of this tract to that
of the old Moore building which is now the Peterbilt building. It has L loading dock in the back and
it also has a metal building. I was looking at that as an example of a building that is harmonious with
the neighborhood. When I submitted thle we did not have anything about the lack of windows on the
second floor of the western and southern facing.
Mr. Moreno: On your proposed bufferyard you are not proposing to put in a fence, is that correct?
Mr. Rayner. We were told by staff that as part of the landscape ordinance a fence would be required
and the owner has been made aware of that.
Mr. Moreno: You do not have any kind of a site plan available?
Mr. Rayner: No sir and the reason is that we do not have a buyer.
Mr. Moreno: According to the staff report the proposed Intensity is one hundred and thirty-four
percent more than allowed by the Denton Development Plan. Would you speak to that issue for a
moment?
Mr. Rayner. I would say that because of the history of this property office use has a lower intensity
than a restaurant would. The owners of the property have been working on this with the
neighborhood to try to ease fears and concerns that they have. An office type zoning, even though
it would show a greater violation of the intensity, simply because something would be built there,
would not be as great as the previous zoning requests that have come In. If we put In residential
houses it would also violate the intensity. We are try ingg to fit a use that Is the least offensive for the
AC 9
fj
F
ATTACHMENT7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page S
area. We still think that it fits well with the area.
M:•. Schertz: Is anything going to be done to Loop 288 that might relieve some of the traffic on
Lillian Miller?
Mr. Clark: We are currently working on the Loop 288 bypass which would eventually connect down
to F.M. 2499. That is approximately ten years out.
Mr. Cochran: Looking at the traffic surveys for this area and comparing them, it appears that it has
gone up seven thousand trips per day for the last two year periou. Do you have any information on
the capacity for that street?
Mr. Clark: There has been some development to the south. The road is not to capacity but the
intersection at Loop 288, the bridge needs to be widened and that is part of the request that we have
in with a 288 project. In the peak hour I think this only creates an additional sixty-five trips for the
entire site. The lanes are not the problem it is the intersection down at 288 and then the crossing right
there at Red Lobster. The left rums out are the problem there.
Mr. Ca:hran: What kind of capacity would there be on a street such as this?
k Mr. Clark: I think on a four lane divided highway you can carry up to around thirty thousand before
you start having capacity problems.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the petition?
III
Ms. Diane Edmondson: My name is Diane Edmondson and I live at 910 Whitney Court. I arri here
as a resident of Southridge because I have seen a lot of articles in the Denton paper about this. I
thought that it was only fair that you know that there are a great number of Southridge residents who
are not opposed to this zoning change. I personally have never been notified of any kind of meeting
to discuss this, I certainly woa'd have gone had I known about it. I think that perhaps if anyone has
ever had a two story house behind them with windows, you might understand the privacy Issue that
can be raised. As I have just heard that is not going to be an issue here because there will be no
windows facing the residential area. I think that it is silly for us to think that residential housing
could go in there. I certainty would not want a house facing Lillian Miller speedway, as we call it
is Southridge, and I don't think that any of the people who are opposing this would choose to live on
Lillian Miller either. We need to look at what would be a good use for the property and I think this
would be a good use. I would urge the Commission to approve this.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in
opposition to the petition? I have a card from Jane Graner, 2400 Stonegate Circle and sle wishes
to register her opposition.
Ms. Vera Gershner. My name is Vera Gershner and I live at 2312 Stonegate Circle. I came to
Denton twenty-two years ago and decided to live in Southridge. About eight years ago we decided
to build a larger home and we chose the Ridge o' Southridge. What we have in common is our love
for Denton and our neighborhood. We want a satisfactory solution to First State's problems and to
(30.
}
s
.
F
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 7
July 24, 1996
Page 6
approach that we know that you need to address the concerns of the neighborhood.
Mr. Mitchell Turner: M n
opposition to this petition or twoereasonSheFirsi it sires hes the policies otf the Denton Development
Plan too far. Secondly it creates too much additional traffic in an area where traffic istd to
al ea
problem. This 2.6662 acres is located in a low intensity area. A twenty-five thousand square foot
building makes it a moderate intensi
ty. As has been pointed out this would exceed the intensity
special area policies and one of rt-four percent. Also in the Denton Development Plan there are
those is the I-35/Lillian Miller area
it restrict' the further intrusion of high or moderate intensity land uses in that area. This is In view of the currents being
problems
ignored. The retirement center, Trendmaker, and Hunter's Ridge have been mentioned. In all of
these three rezonings the resulting intensity is lower than the previous zoning. This office complex
will produce nine hundred and thirty vehicle trips prty er day. veF,cle If the trips _
currently zoned it would produce two hundred and fo property
was developed
is
that area you know that traffic backs up at 1-35. In fact, accordin to per our day. If
lice de you have as t driven in
one of the most troublesome intersections in the City of Denton. If you are driving north on Lillian
Miller and you want to make a left turn to get to the Red Lobster you know that it is difficult to dos
If you are driving south and you want to make a left to go to Albertson's that is difficult also. We
don't know where the entrance for the proposed office cornp'cx will be, but we do know that we have
a monster here and it doesn't need to get any bigger. This stretches the policies of the Denton
Development Plan too far, and because it creates too much additional traffic in an area where traffic
is already a proLlem I would ask that you deny this petition.
Ms. Flemming; What do you mean by saying that it stretches the Denton Development PI
too fare j
Mr. Turner: This is a low intensity area in the Denton Development Plan but b
Y Putting an this kind
of office complex in there it changes it to a moderate intensity area. That is stretching it. For
example from the vehicle trips, instead of two hundred and forty a day it goes up to nine hundred and
thirty so that stretches it. It also ignores the special Plan for areas like Lillian Miller and I-35 where we have problems already, where it actually restricts
the intrusion of further high or moderate intetyususe a nthat policies that are in the Denton Development
Ms. Russell; You are aware that the Denton Development Plan right now (st has been ignored.
rev. u T being studied and
ypically it has been revised every five years but I think it has been about ten being
since it was redone. It may not be the best document to reference at this time since its revision is
long over due and is now being done. Years now
Mr. Turner: Yes I am aware of that and it would have been done sooner if the City
voted to do it. They are the ones dragging their heels. I was on the Land Use Planning
Council ha
that helped produce this article and it is as current as today's newspaper until it is revised, or until
it is replaced. I was also one of the two neighborhood representatives for southeast Denton
our project was completed I and hen
when
was givers the privilege of making the oral P
this Presentation of this plan to
a joint session of the Planting and Zoning Commission and the City Council. 1 am very f
amidar with
Ms. Schertz: You talked about intensity trips and is the two hundred and forty trips ba3ed on
t
}
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 7
residential?
Mr. Turner: It is based on SF-16
Ms. Schertz: Are you recommending that residential uses be put here?
Mr. Turner: That would not be my recommendation. I would recommend a smaller office complex,
one story, or a series of garden offices which would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Mr. Bob McMenamy: May name is Bob McMenamy and I live at 2305 Stonegate Circle. I keep
hearing that this property is not suitable for residential but the adjoining property was rezoned a
couple of years ago to Southridge Oaks. Does that mean that this adjoining property is not suitable
for residential? I have visited with the neighboring subdivisions and we don't want to see Lillian
Miller become Harry Hines North. I thought that I did my homework, I went to Planning and Zoning
and I was told that the property was SF-16. I didn't know that zoning could be changed so easily.
We like Denton. Strong attractive neighborhoods are a big drawing card for a number of people.
Does the loss in property value to homeowners outweigh the developer? There is a new retirement
center on Lillian Miller and the affect that it is going to have has not been figured in yet. We are
headed for a real problem on Lillian Miller.
Mr. Richard Simms: My name is Richard Simms and I live at 2249 Stonegate. I have lived on
Stonegate for nineteen years and I have lived in Denton for twenty-seven years. We are opposed to
this, but that doesn't mean that something cyi't be worked out in the future. The bank that owns this
property has millions of dollars in assets and this property represents a small portion of their assets.
Whereas the houses in Southridge that abut this property represent a huge part of the wealth of the
homeowners who live in Southridge and my question is whose rights are more important? We were
there first and we had city zoning on our side. Who is protecting the rights of the homeowners in this
city? It needs to be this Commission and the City Council. We have our homes and they are very
important to us. The bank at this point has not seen fit to address all of the concerns of the
homeowners and until they do we will remain opposed to this.
Mr. Cochran: I believe some representatives of your group have talked with the owners, how far
apart are you?
Mr. Simms: I have not been a party to those discussions, but my understanding is that progress has
been made. The document that you are voting on tonight is a long way from meeting the concerns
of the neighborhood.
Ms. Russell: What are some of the issues that you feel I•ave not been addressed?
Mr. Simms: Personally I think that the neighborhood would not be as opposed to a single story
buNing that has a roof line that is similar to the houses in the area. We are concerned that if this is
approved the way it is, then it will make it that much easier for other cases to be approved.
Ms. Russell: Are you familiar with the two office buildings that were built in Bent Oaks?
s
i
r
r;
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 8
Mr. Simms: Yes and those are the kinds that 1 would personally find acceptable because they blend
in with the neighborhood well.
Mr. Jones: Are you aware that those are two story office buildings?
Mr. Simms: No I was not aware of that. A high pitched roof that fits in with the neighborhood like
that I think would be a lot more acceptable to the neighborhood than a rectangular two story building.
Ms. Toby Nelson: My name is Toby Nelson and I live at 2400 Stonegate Circle. My backyard looks
back onto this property. I moved to Denton in 1983 to get a degree. I have degrees from both
universities and I have had a business now for six years in Denton. I have built my dream home and
I have made Denton my permanent home. We looked long and hard before deciding on a lot to build
on. We waited for this property to come out of trust so that we could purchase it. The existing trees,
the isolation from Lillian Miller and the existing zoning conditions all played a part in our decision
to buy and to build. I am thirty-one years old and this is the biggest investment that I have made in
my life and probably ever will m&-. 1 see it being threatened by zoning erosion. I am asking you
to put yourself in my position. You go to your backyard where there used to be large beautiful trees
and now an ugly multi-story office building is your view. What used to be a buffer between the busy
commercial traffic is now a parking lot with trash dt mpsters. At night you go out to show the
constellations to you children but they can't see them fog all of the indirect off site lighting spillage.
Because no one wants to build with these conditions in ?weir backyard the lots next to your home
remain unsold and neglected thereby :!lowing juveniles aid vandals to destroy your property. 1
wouldn't wish these conditions on anyone. By allowing this zoning change you are opening up a
Pandora's box on me and the other residents of Southridge. Fry allowing this change we have no clear
cut guarantees as to what the property owner does with this land. Will the rezonin
g stop with this
piece of land, will it stop when you get to Southridge, Teasley Lane? Many potential homeowners
are looking at this decision before making a choice as to whether to build next to Lillian Miller or
not. This is unacceptable and we would like to compromise.
Mr. Cochran: What year did you build your house there?
Ms. Nelson: We moved in September of 1993.
Ms. Russell: What would you like to see there?
Ms. Nelson: I wouldn't mind having something similar to what is out at Bent Oaks provided they
are one story. I would also like for the lighting to be security lighting or motion sensors. Even with
indirect lighting such as Pep Boys and others, there is still lighting spillage.
Ms. Schertz: I am a home builder here in Denton and I have recently secured a contract and will be
building in Hunter's Ridge. The people that purchased the lot are aware of what is going on and it
makes no difference to them. I am also in the process of securing a contract on a lot directly next
door to your lot and these people are also aware of what is going on and it does not make any
difference. They like the neighborhood and they like that part of Denton.
Mr. Skip Beard: My name is Skip Beard and I live at 2304 Stonegate Circle. Anytime you have a
i
F
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 7
July 24, 1996
Page 9
zoning situation where there is an adjacent change of zoning you are looking for something that has
to do with compatibility. At the last meeting one of the things that was mentioned by one or two of
the members was that there needed to be a trust of First State Bank. i certainly would say that these
gentleman are very trustworthy, but this isn'; about whether you should trust First State Bank or not.
This is about an obligation that I think you have to basically look after those sites, whether they be
home sites or business sites, and you make those sites compatible with each other. That is your
obligation in my mind, in your position. My question to you is what are you doing in a proactive
way to achieve that compatibility between the two parties? This isn't a situation where you sit back
and make a choice of siding with one group or the other, it is about you taking a proactive position
and arriving at a compatible plan that is consistent with what the city wants to do in looking out for
the interests of the neighborhoods and the businesses. You have to find that transition. That's what
this is about. Finding that solution and being proactive to meet the compatibility of the neighborhood
with whatever is either encroaching or adjacent to it and try to keep that compatibility there so that
transition is one that is made satisfactory to both parties.
Ms. Russell: There has been a comment made already about some dialog that has gone on between
the neighborhood and the bank, were you involved in that dialog?
Mr. Beard: No I was not. Has there been any attempt to meet and work with any of the
neighborhood group to see what that would be in the form of compatibility by anybody?
Mr. Drake: What you are suggesting makes a lot of common sense, unfortunately I have found that
the law and common sense don't always coincide. The Commission's role is defined by state law
and their role is to have these public hearings, which is where they do receive the input of the citizens
and of the owner/developer/petitioner. This is the mechanism that is established by state law. It has i
been consistently the practice of the Commission to ask that the parties get together and try to reach
some kind of understanding prior to the matter coming before the Commission. It
my observation that the Commissio has always been
n has been very interested m terested in
make t tY n anki
to facilitate those meetings. There is a real problem with the idea of a Co mm ss on meeting
with individual homeowners and landowners. First off there is the issue of the incredible amount of
time that it takes, none of these people here are paid and yet they spend one night, every two weeks
to hear several cases. We will probably be here tonight until nine or ten o'clock. The other Issue
is one of the open meetings act, every time a quorum of the Commission gets together to consider
anything, it requires notice seventy-two hours in advance and a posting of the item on an agenda
which must be followed. It involves having staff here, the legal officer must be here also, and there
must be a secretary here to record and transcribe the minutes of the meeting. There is a real
feasibility issue here as well as a legal constraint. If less than a quorum meets with the neighborhood
then, there is an issue of whether or not everyone has had an opportunity to have input into the process
and that causes problems as well. For those reasons I think that it is not a workable solution to do
as you suggest.
Mr. Robbins: Literally I think the situation that you are describing is what is going on right now.
The last time the Planning and Zoning Commission did this they added Jme conditions.
Mr. Bill Claiborne: My name is Bill Claiborne and I live at 820 Smokerise Circle. I would like to
speak in opposition to the petition. Having served on this body for six years, I might say this that
3y.
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 10
for every other Wednesday night for about five years and ten months I had butterflies, just as I see
from the Commissioners up here. You have concerns, you listen to those who speak, and you often
times change your mind after hearing petitions and things of that t.ature. Our u
evening is to try to get you to change your mind. M rim P rpose here this intrest is that perhaps we see coming down Lillian Miller. We o not want anotherhUniverlsit
y Drive7nnthe
southeast part of town. We see University Drive that has been developed with primarily retail
operations. It has been a traffic nightmare for eons and we are trying our best to prevent that from
happening on Lillian Miller. 1 would like to address whether or not an office building is compatible
in a predominately residential area. The one major difference with the Moore building is the acreage
that it sits on. You have sufficient and adequate buffering between all of its neighbors. Across from
the building's front door there are duplexes and the parking lot is in the back. I would not want to
be a resident on Southridge Street or Londonderry lane from the hours of 7-8, 11-2, and 4-6 because
of the additional traffic load during those times due to the office. The applicant has said that they are
trying to market this. I would like to suggest a planned development zoning district as opposed to
a straight zoning district with condition. A Planned Development offers the opportunity for the
immediately surrounding neighbors to help participate and plan through the public forum in the
development of the adjacent property. As we have heart;, many of these property owners that are
within two hundred feet of the property, have a very substantial personal investment in their homes.
To me, the bank is the new kid on the block and the homeowners were there first, their property is
developed. The second thing about a Planned Development is that it offers a site plea for the
neighbors to participate in the development of the footprint of the property. It allows a little bit more
adequate room for maneuvering and buffering, such as parking lots that are required. Those kinds
of things help a little bit more and would offer more options to the neighborhood than a straight
zoning district with conditions. The conditions seem to address many of the neighborhood concerns
but I think they would like to see a footprint because of the investment that they have. This property
has a very colorful history. Several years ago a petitioner was denied a rezoning so he went out and
clear cut the trees. One of the byproducts of that clear cutting and other clear cutting activities in the
city lead to the trey preservation ordinance.
Mr. Cochr
tention
that here but younwould likenmo a control over whatthaof commercial t development i development is at least acceptable
P s?
Mr. Claiborne: The term highest and best use of the land always sticks out in my.mind, and highest
and best use can be interpreted by each individual, in that respect I don't think we are going to get
a developer in the City of Denton who is going to make this residential, such as you see in the City
of Plano. You are not going to see that abutting a thrroughfare like Lillian Miller. From that
Perspective I am saying that I doubt that the property would be developed as single family residential.
Ms. Russell: Think about Carroll Blvd. and the office buildings that have been built along there that
are very pleasant and nice looking. Think about an investor that would buy twat land. That is not
going to be inexpensive. With an investment in the land and given the terrain and the wonderful,
beautiful neighborhood of Southridge, it would be in his best interest to put something there that
would be pleasant and appealing to command the rents that they are going to anticipate.
Mr. Claiborne: I believe the tern Is marketing influence and 1 have heard that term over and over.
I agree In principle with what you say and a lot of times the written ordinance says that is the %vay
3r,
..:f
a
f
r,
ATTACHIMkNT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 11
it must be. For that reason the PD offers the opportunity to specify the footprint of the development
of the property.
Mr. Robbins: That is correct.
Mr. Claiborne: Whereas the straight office zoning district even though it has conditions and very
rigid conditions, sometimes it doesn't quite do that.
Mr. Robbins: Traditionally that is true, however you can get to the same place with conditional
zoning. You are just using words instead of a site plan.
Mr. Ray Stephens: My name is Ray Stephens and I live at 619 Ridgecrest. We are hereto take care
of our property. This case has been revisited several times and each time it comes back with a
different spin on it. The Southridge neighbors who are closest to this area have met and discussed
this issue and are in opposition to the plan that you have before you. We are working toward
compromise but we are not there yet. We recognize that the owner does not have a user for the
property. The size and the nature of the appearance of the building are a concern. The need for a
buffer is a concern. After our meeting with the Commission last time our neighborhood group met
and we chose three representatives who met with a representative of the bank, Mr. Lamar Ball. We
need to take the information from the meeting with the bank back to the neighborhood to tell them
the terms that we came up with. I cannot discuss those terms tonight. We are having a neighborhood
meeting next Monday. (Those who came to support the neighborhood stood. Approx. 25 people in
the audience stood.) I would ask that you either deny this petition or table it until your next meeting
so that we can meet with the neighborhood.
Mr. Wayne Allen: My name is Wayne Allen and I am at 100 W. Oak, Suite 350. It sounds tike we
have people who want an office zoning change and it sounds like the bank is working with us. It
sounds like it is being worked out. Please table this so that we can possibly gets this worked out.
I would like to see this come back where everybody agrees and it can go on to Council without any
opposition.
Mr. Cochran: We have heard about tabling it from one side but we haven't heard that from the other
side.
Ms. Russell: I have a card from Barbara Ivey and she states that she is in opposition to commercial
infringement on the Southridge neighborhood. I also have a card from Clint Ballard who would like
to register his opposition to the petition. Is there anyone else to speak in opposition?
Mr. Powell: Based on the comments from two of the speakers about tabling this 1 would like to ask
Mr. Rayner or a representative of the owner to comment on this.
Mr. Lamar Ball: My name is Lamar Ball and I live at 1101 Ridgecrest. 1 would not want you to
table this. I think that the reason we have had productive meetings is because of this petition.
Mr. Cochran: When this came before us the first time there were two entrenched positions and I am
quite impressed with the neighbors because there has been some good compromise on their position.
36 .
P&2 Minutes ATTACFUNENT 7
July 24, 1996
Page 12
What we see back from the bank is essentially the same thing that went out of here last time. There
htroubas got tolingtoebe Bmorne compromise here and the fact that you still want to keep your leverage Is slightly
.
Mr. Powell: If there are no other speakers then I would ask for a ten minute break.
Break at 7:22 p.m.
Reconvene at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Russell: The public hearing is closed. Are there any final remarks?
Mr. Reeves: I would just like to say that this isn't scheduled for the City Council until the 20th of
August.
Mr. Powell: As an employee of a public entity, I would like to talk about the comments I heard
about profits. Profits are essential and taxes are paid from profits. I own some property in Denton
and I would hope to make a profit when I sell it.
Mr. Cochran: This is one of the roughest issues that we have to deal with and that is development
up next to residential. I think there are arguments on both sides. I was impressed that the citizens
have made some effort and in a situation like this finesse is needed on both sides. I personally feel
that the bank is using strength in this particular case instead of the necessary finesse. This area has
had phenomenal growth over the last two years and I think extra scrutiny and care is needed to
determine what goes in on that to?. I am going to change my stance and vote against this in hopes
that there would be some compromise forged between the developers and the neighbors.
Mr. Moreno: I want to paraphrase what one of my fellow Commissioners says from time to time
about zoning changes. He has said that zoning represents a bond between the City of Denton and its
citizens. I.think there are some times, some cases come up that could cause.our citizenry to loose
faith In the City of Denton. Other specifics that I want to address is that the Class C bufferyard is
only half done, there is no site plan associated with this zoning change. This is significantly
inconsistent with the Denton Development Plan The proposed intensity of a hundred and thirty-four
percent Is also significantly inconsistent and the potential for continuous strip development along
Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller is there. There are too many inconsistencies in the policy analysis
summary, therefore my vote will remain to deny the petition.
Ms. Russell: I would like to thank you for your presentation and for not repeating what was said.
I did not hear anything to change my vote. 1 read everything that 1 could about the property. When
this was zoned SF-16 Lillian Miller did not go through there like it does now. There has got to be
some kind of a compromise. If I thought that this would devalue your homes then I would not vote
In favor of it. When we got this the first time the applicant had marked off everything but thirteen
uses and typically we don't see that. We added conditions concerning windows on the second floor
and lighting directed to the property.
Mr. Powell: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 2.6662 acres with the
7
r
f
ATTACHMENT 7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 12
What we see back from the bank is essentially the same thing that went out of here last time. There
has got to be some compromise here and the fact that you still want to keep your leverage is slightly
troubling to me.
Mr. Powell: if there are no other speakers then I would ask for a ten minute break.
Break at 7:22 p.m.
Reconvene at 7:35 p.m.
Ms. Russell: The public hearing is closed. Are there any final remarks?
Mr. Reeves: 1 would just like to say that this isn't scheduled for the City Council until the 20th of
August.
Mr. Powell: As an employee of a public entity, I would like to talk about the comments I heard
about profits. Profits are essential and taxes are paid from profits. I own some property in Denton
and I would hope to make a profit when I sell it.
Mr. Cochran: This is one of the roughest issues that we have to deal with and that is development
up next to residential. I think there are arguments on both sides. I was impressed that the citizens
have made some effort and in a situation like this finesse is needed on both sides. I personally feel
that the bank is using strength in this particular case instead of the necessary finesse. This area has
had phenomenal growth over the last two years and I think extra scrutiny and care is needed to
determine what goes in on that lot. I am going to change my stance and vote against this in hopes
that there would be some compromise forged between the developers and the neighbors.
Mr. Moreno: I want to paraphrase what one of my fellow Commissioners says from time to time
about zoning changes. He has said that zoning represents a bond between the City of Denton and its
citizens. I .think there are some times, some cases come up that could cause.our citizenry to loose
faith in the City of Denton. Other specifics that I want to address is that the Class C bufferyard is
only half done, there is no site plan associated with this zoning change. This is significantly
inconsistent with the Denton Development Plan. The proposed intensity of a hundred and thirty-four
percent Is also significantly inconsistent and the potential for continuous strip development along
Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller is there. There are too many inconsistencies in the policy analysis
summary, therefore my vote will remain to deny the petition.
Ms. Russell: I would like to thank you for your presentation and for not repeating what was said.
I did not hear anything to change my vote. I read everything that I could about the property. When
this was zoned SF-16 Lillian Miller did not go through there like it does now. There has got to be
some kind of a compromise. If I thought that this would devalue your homes then 1 would not vote
in favor of it. When we got this the first time the applicant had marked off everything but thirteen
uses and typically we don't see that. We added conditions concerning windows on the second floor
and lighting directed to the property.
Mr. Powell: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 2.6662 acres with the
7
r
"T: R d
h~
r
ATTACHMENT7
P&Z Minutes
July 24, 1996
Page 13
conditions shown in the application.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (5-2) Opposed Mr. Cochran and Mr. Moreno.
IV. }cold a public hearing and consider the preliminary replat of Lots 1R and 2R, Block 1 (consisting of
3.1361 acres) and the final replat of Lot 1R, Block 1 (consisting of .9280 acres) of the Gamer
Addition. This tract is located on the south side of 1-35, west of Teasley Lane.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: This is a 3.136 acre tract located approximately seven hundred feet west of Teasley
Lane. You may be familiar with Action Imports, the purpose of the replat is to extend the business
farther back. Lou 1R and 211 are going to have to share a driveway since the minimum three hundred
foot spacing between driveways could not be met. The applicant is aware of this. Public
improvements associated with this will consist of a sidewalk along 1-35 and the dedication of sidewalk
and utility easements. The plat does conform to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision and
Land Development Regulations. DRC recommends approval.
Ms. Flemming: Who pays for the public improvements?
Ms. Bateman: The developer will.
I
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition?
Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move to approve the preliminary replats of Lots 1R and 2R, Block 1 and the final
replat of Lot 1R, Block I of the Garner Addition.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed
same sign. Approved. (7-0)
V. Hold a public hearing and consider the rezoning of Lots 6-9, Block A of the Willowwood Addition
from the Multi Family-2 (MF-2) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. This
is located on the ,vest side of Golf Court, north of Willowwood. (Z-96-023)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: This is the zoning cleanup that you saw back in June. We notified twenty-three
property owners and we have received six reply forms in favor. This is the City initiated request to
clean up the zoning. The zoning line was inadvertently drawn and was not drawn along property
lines. We do not know why it was done that way. 3~
,I
s
F
ATTACHMENT 2
P&Z Aug Minutes August 28, 1996
Page 2 DRAFT
U. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 2.6662 acres from the Single Family
16 (SF-16) zoning district to the Office Conditioned (O[c]) zoning district. The subject
property is located on the west side of Lillian Miller, approximately 500 feet south of 1-35.
(Z-96-0070
Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning of 2.6662 acres from the Sirgle Family - 16 (SF-16) zoning
district to the Office conditioned (O(c)) zoning district. The Planning and Zoning
Commission is the applicant tonight. This is the vacant piece c f ground just south of the Red
Lobster. We mailed out another set of notices on the 16th and we got four responses. Two
were in favor and two were opposed. One of those responses was not a name on our mailing
list. The first condition is a restricted list of permitted uses. Those proposed permitted uses
are an art gallery or museum, college, university or private school, public library, school
business or trade, telephone business office, business or professional offices, studio for a
photographer, musician or artist, or a scientific or research laboratory. These conditions are
pretty similar to the conditions that you saw a couple of weeks ago. There are a few
changes. The first is that the total floor area of all of the buildings constructed on the
property shall not exceed thirty thousand square feet. The last time that we looked at this
it was twenty-five thousand square feet. If you look at condition number 5 that is slightly
different in that while the property owner will maintain all of the trees larger than two inches
in diameter within ten feet of any property line other than the property line along Lillian
Miller. That particular condition would be waived if the trees would interfere with any
ic.;:ired fence. Condition number 10 is the biggest change in that the maximum building
height will remain two story, however no more than ten thousand square feet in the
aggregate may be located on the second story of all of the two story buildings. That means I
that the total square footage that will be on second stories will not exceed ten thousand
square feet of the tote] thirty thousand square feet. Conditions 11 and 12 are new
conditions. Number 11 is that no individual building may exceed seventy-five hundred
square feet in floor area and that includes second stories. Number 12 is that all buildings
must have pitched roofs, and no roof surface may have a slope of less then 30%. That is
intended to give it a more residential look. Staff is recommending approval of this with this
list of conditions. As per the last two times that this was presented the Commission has
found conditions existing associated with the property that would warrant an additional
allocation of intensity and staff recommends that for this case as well.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition?
Mr. Robert Rayner: My name is Robert Rayner, 1108 Dallas Drive, suite 310. The owners
have agreed to the conditions. This is showing the flexibility of conditioned zoning over a
planned development when you have a case like this where we don't have a user for the
property. We are just preparing the land for a future use and for the good of Denton. 1
think it is very commendable that both sides have worked very hard in making this a
successful zoning case.
~y.
k
P&Z Minutes
August 28, 1996 DORAFT
Page 3 Dr. Vera Gershner: My name is Vera Gershner and I live at 2312 Stonegate Circle. 1
would like to thank all of you for hearing this
t the bank for working with us in ring t again. I would like to thank Frank Robbins
and come tog ether as a coming up with a win-win situation. I think we have
g neighborhood. I think we have come u with somethin
marketable fo- the owner and
good for the neighborhood. P 8 that will be
Ms. Russell: 1s there anyone else to
would like l' speak in yak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone that
Opposition? We will close the public hearing. Any final remarks?
Mr. Cochran: I would like to thank Ms. Gershner for all of her hard work and her
negotiation with the bank. I think that they have come Lip with something that seems like
a most reasonable compromise to me. I am glad to see it.
Mr. Moreno: I too want to congratulate the parties involved for coming to a compromise.
I am still concerned about the traffic and the int
along this stretch of road,
petition. I mov I ensity and just the Potential for prepared to change my mind and vote in favor of this
e we recommend approval of this request to rezone 2.6662 acres from the
Single Family-16 (SF-16) zoning district to the Office conditioned
subject to the listed conditions 1-13.
(O(c)) zoning district
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand,
sign. Approved (7.0)
Opposed same
Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 2,3549 acres from the A ricultur
(A) zoning district to the Office (0) zoning district. The subject
south side of I-351:, g ~
approximately 500 feet west of Teasley 1 Property is located on the
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. Lane. (Z-96-027) Mr. Reeves: This is a request to rezone the subject property from the Agricultural zoning
district to the Office zoning district, This is a straight forward case and it just about meets
all of our requirements of the Denton g
Development Plan,
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. room Kent Bell: With Dewey and Assoc"
room Budgeel Motel Staff expressed tes. We are proposing to build a hundred and nine alot treesonit a concern for saving trees and this ro
. We are proposing to save a total of a hundred and thirty-four trees. We
will have to remote some trees in order to put in the driveway. p property does have
appropriate use for this property, We feel that this is an
Mr. Cochran: what kind of grading will you have to do?
~d .
f
Z95007C.ORD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY 16 (SF-16) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONrITIONED (O(c]) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNAT`ON FOR 2.6662 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LILLIA!' MILLER PARKWAY APPROXI-
MATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF I-35E; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Mr. Rob Rayner, on behalf of First State Sank of
Denton, initiated a change in zoning for 2.6662 acres of land from
the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district classification and use
designation to the Office Conditioned (O(c]) zoning district
classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of a change from the Single Family 16 (SF-16)
zoning district and use classification to the Office Conditioned
(O(c]) zoning district and use classification; an3
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1996, the Council of the City of Denton,
Texas considered the rezoning application and voted 4-3 in favor of
the rezoning, believing at the time that a majority •rote was
sufficient; and
vote was WHEREAS, it was subsequently discovered that a supermajority
fact that the owners to t€leastt20t h of the land within 200 feettof
the subject property were opposed; and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 1996, a majority of the Planning & zoning
Commissioners in attendance gave informal direction to City staff
to waive any subsequent zoning application fee on the subject
property; and
WHEREAS, On July 11, 1996, Mr. Robert Rayner submitted a new
petition to rezone the subject property, requesting rezoning to a
conditioned zoning district which was more restrictive than the
petition considered on June 18, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on July 12, 1996, notice was sent pursuant to State
law f-)r a second rezoning case on the subject property, similar to
the first; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1.596, the Planning & Zoning Commission of
the City of Denton, Texas voted to allow the City~s application of
this second rezoning on the property in the public interest, and
without fee, pursuant to 535-7(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Denton, Tvx:j, so that the original applicant would not be
called upon to pay a second application fee in this matter, and so
s
`F
s'
that the rezoning effort would not be barred by 535-7(b) (6) of the
Code of ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, which prohibits
reconsideration of a denied zoning application within twelve months
of the _znial, absent a finding of changed circumstances in the
neighborhood, or a finding that the reconsideration was for a more
restrictive zcning classification; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1996, the Planning and zoning Commission
recommended approval of a change requested in the subsequent peti-
tion, from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district and use
classification to the office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning district and
use classification; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the property and a designated represen-
tative of the neighborhood settled upon a set of conditions
agreeable to the owner and the surrounding neighbors, and havo.:
indicated their concurrence with the rezoning herein proposed; and
WHEREAS, a new set of proposed conditions reviewed by the
owner and the neighborhood representative was reviewed by the
Planning staff, and found to be in compliance with the Denton
Development Plan; and
WHEREAS, the newly proposed conditions included at least one
condition which was deemed to be less restrictive than those which
were previously noticed for public hearing a7id considered by the
Denton Planning & Zoning Commission on July 24, 1996; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1996, the Planning & zoning Commission
indicated its ongoing approval of city's sponsorship of a third
rezoning proposal, in thc:public interest and without fee, pursuant
to 535-7(a) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas;
and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 1996, notice of an August 28, 1996
public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Co,.anission was sent to
all owners of real property within 200' of the subject property;
and
WI•iEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission reconsidered zoning
under the newly proposed conditions on August 28, 1996, and voted
to recomtaend approval of same to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council now finds that it would have
postponed the June 18, 1996 vote on the rezoning to allow time to
clear up the uncertainty surrounding the majority requirements
prior to voting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the withdrawal of
the zoning protest of Mitchell Vexier on three lots within 200 feet
PAGE 2
E
Y
of the subject property, as well as the apparent resolution of
conflicts between the owner and the surrounding neighborhood,
constitutes a substantial change in the conditions surrounding the
area to be rezoned, that would have warranted reconsideration of
the original rezoning request; and
' WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that due to the confu-
sion surrounding the initial vote concerning the percentage of land
owners protesting the rezoning, and the fact that the City Council
anticipates that the chapter of the Code of ordinances applicable
to zoning will be shortly amended to allow zoning reapplications
similar to this without the necessity of a waiting period, that a
variance from the waiting period should be granted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed office
conditioned zoning would provide a smoother transition between
adjacent properties zoned for residential and commercial uses.
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 the 2.6662 acres of land described in Exhibit 1, is
changed from the Single-Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district classifi-
cation and use designation to the office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning
district classification and use designation under the comprehensive
zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the
following conditions:
1. That the uses described in the list attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 2, shall be
prohibited within this district, in addition to those
ordinarily prohibited by the Office classification, or
any other condition listed herein.
2. That the total floor area for all buildings constructed
on the 2.6662 acres shall not exceed 30,000 square feet.
3. That no loading docks shall be permitted.
4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be
constructed of brick or brick veneer.
5. The owner of the property shall maintain all trees larger
than two inches (2^) in diameter which are located within
ten feet (101) of any property line, other than a
property line fronting Lillian Miller larkway, unless
such treea would interfere with any required fence.
PAGE 3
MENENV_
f
is
b. No "off-premise" signs (as defined by Section 33-2 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, or its succes-
sor) shall be permitted.
7. No direct off-site lighting shall be permitted.
8. A "buffer-yard" measuring fifteen feet (15') wide, and
comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees
per each one hundred linear feet (100'), shall be in-
stalled along the western and southern property lines of
the acreage described in Exhibit 1.
9. There shall be no second story windows allowed on any
western-facing facades of any building, nor any second
story windows on any southern-facing facade within 150'
of the southern property line, on the acreage described
in Exhibit 1.
10. Maximum building height shall not exceed two (2) stories;
:iowever, no more than ten thousand square feet (10,000
ft.'), in the aggregate, may be located on the second
stories of all the two-story buildings.
21. No individual building may exceed 7,500 square feet in
floor area.
12. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof
surface may have a slope of less than 30V.
13. A minimum eight-foot (81) tall solid fence shall be
erected and maintained on the western and southern
borders of the property described in Exhibit 1.
SECTION IT. That the City's official zoning map is amended to
show the charge in zoning district classification.
SECTION III That the provisions of 535-7(6) of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, to the extent that they would
impede any reconsideration of a rezoning on the subject property
within 12 months of the initial consideration, are hereby varied
and superseded for the limited purposes of this rezoning.
SECTION IV. 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 V. 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
PAGE 4
E
i
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 paseage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L..PROUTY; CITY-ATTORNEY
`BXJ
PAGE 5
d
E
n ~ 'r
DESCRIPTION OF 2.6662 ACRES IN THE JOHN MCGOWEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NUMBER 797, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS.
ALL THAT CERTAIN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED
IN THE JOHN HCCOWEN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 797, CITY AND COUNTY
OF DENTO.Y, TEXAS, BEING ALL OF LOTS 6, 7 AND 8, BLOCK 1, J. W.
ERWIN SUBDIVISION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 337, PAGE 530,
DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 WHICH IS THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 3R, BLOCK 1, J. W. ERWIN SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN CABINET E, PAGE 96,
PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND IN THE WEST RIGHT OF
WAY OF LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY OF LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY A DISTANCE OF 449.32 FEET
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNEF. OF SAID LOT 8, BLOCK 1, AND THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF A CALLED 5.1649 ACRE TRACT, TRACT 1, AS
DESCRIBED IN A DEED FROM, TERI TAYLOR COMPANIES, INC., TO MAVEX
9, INC., ON THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1992, AND RECORDED IN VOLUME
3417, PAGE 0001, REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 24 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE
SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 8 AND THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF
SAID HAVER 9, INC. TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 258.44 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CONWAY STREET IN THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF
LOT 11, BLOCK A, THE RIDGE OF SOUTHRIDGE, AN ADDITION TO THE
CITY OF DENTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDEO IN
CABINET D, PAGE 330, PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE EAST
RIGHT OF WAY OF CONWAY STREET A DISTANCE OF 449.39 FEET TO THE
NCRTHWAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
LOT 3R;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 3R A DISTANCE OF 258.50 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND CONTAINING 2.6662 ACRES OF LAND.
S,
EXHIBIT 2
LIST OF PROHIBITED USES
2-g& ?C
One Family Dwelling Restricted
Community Unit Development
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel
Church or Rectory
Community Center (public)
Day Nursery or Kindergarten School
Group Homes
Halfway House
Hospital (General Acute Care)
Hospital (Chronic Care)
Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature
Monastery or Convent
Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged
Occasional Sates
Park, Playground or Public Community Center
School, Private Primary or Secondary
School, Public or Denominational
Accessory Building
Community Center (private)
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Temporary Field or Construction office (subject to approval and control by Building Inspector)
Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Building
Gas Transco sslon Line and Metering Station
Home Occupation
OM Street Remote Parking
Sewage Pumping Station
Private Swimming Pool
Telephone Line 6 Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well
Country Club (private) with Goff Course
Public Gall Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Play Field or Stadium
Swim or Tennis Club
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
Animal Clinic or Hospital (no• outside runs or pens)
Farm or Ranch
Cemetery or Mausoleum
Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club
Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients
Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, State of Federal Government
Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower
Water Treatment Plant
Airport Landing Field or Heliport
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
Cafeteria
Mortuary or Funeral Parlor
Restaurant
k
AOenas IVb.-..-I
Agenda Ile A
ORDINANCE NO. Dale
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASES OF
MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMP'T'ING SUCH PURCHASES
FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 252.022 of the Local Government Code provides that procurement of items
that are only available from one source, including: items that are only available from one source
because of patents, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies; films, manuscripts or books;
electricity, gas, water and other utility purchases; captive replacement parts or components for
equipment; and library materials for a public library that are available only from the persons holding
exclusive distribution rights to the materials; need not be submitted to competitive bids; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to procure one or more of the items mentioned hr the above
paragraph; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the following purchases of materials, equipment or supplies, as described in
the "Purchase Orders" attached hereto, are hereby approved:
PURCHASE
ORDERNLMBER VENDOR AMOUNT
67375 PARADIGM 5381722.00
SECTION II, That the acceptance and approval of the above items shall not constitute a contract
between the City and the person submitting the quotation for such items until such person shall
comply with all requirements specified by the Purchasing Department.
SECTIONDI. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any contracts relating to
the items specified in Section I and the expenditure of funds pursuant to said contracts is hereby
authorized.
1~
Pfd Ri{
{
r
i
SECTIONIV. 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:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
SOLE SOURCE
a,
t
a
F
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1996
CITY CQUNCILREPORT
TO. Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER 067375 TO PARADIGM TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
RECOMhUEMATIOX' We recommend this purchase order #67375 to Paradigm Traffic
Systems in the amount of $38,722.00 be approved.
&UHMARY* This Purchase is for the acquisition of Peek Transyt traffic controllers These
controllers are a sole source purchase available only from Peek Transyt Corporation which is
distributed in Texas only by Paradigm Traffic Systems. The Peek Trans
b
controller compatible with the City of Denton's closed traffic loop. Software rand's the only
protected by copyrights and patents. Purchase of sole source materials are exempt fromsthe bid
process by Texas Local Government Code Chapter 252, Section 252.022.
The controllers being purchased at this time will be used in upgrading
unreliable due to age or lightening r new ute which have become =dons, one Row at Loop 288 and the other at Bonnie Brae a Oak and H ckory. One c no troller will
r,eplacega
unit at Bell and Withers which was struck by a motorist. The Risk Retention Fund is funding this
replacement but will be reimbursed by the motorist's insurance company.
BAC1WJKH1ND, Purchase Order #67375, Memo from David Ayers dated August 23, 1996, and
Letter from Peek Transyt Corporation.
Denton. ~A MENTS-OR GROUPRAFFECTED; Traffic Division, Citizens of
"SCA "ACM This Purchase Order will be funded by Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Grant Funding, CIP Funds, and Risk Retention Fund, Account #'s 446-020-SIGL-9150,
453-020-SIGL-9150, 807-004-0028-8980
Respectfully submitted:
Prepared by:
J~ Ted Benavides
^S\~~0~'Y City Manager
Name: Dennis. arpool I '
Title: Senior Buyer
AP roved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
760.a a
~i
PURCHASE ORDER NO: 57375 THIS IS A
Ills rxunber muss appear on all . CONFIRMING ORDER
invokes, delivery slips. cases, OF MARKED)
clns,. boxes, packk+g slips and bills. 00 NOT DUPLICATE
Req No: Bid Na Dals: 08 23 96 Pape Na O1
PURCHASING DIVISION 1901 B TEXAS STTRREEI IrDENTOK TEXAS 76201-4354
817/383-7100 D/FW METRO 8171267-0042 FAX 817/383-7302
VENDOR PARADIGM TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
NAME/ P.O. BOX 161607 DELIVERY CENTRAL RECEIVING S15
ADDRESS ADDRESS TRAFFIC DEPT.
FORT WORTH TX 76161-1607 901 B TEXAS ST
DENTON, TX 76201
MIKE FISKE ,
VENDDR NO. PAR49000 DELIVERY QWTED 09 20 96 FOB DESTINATION BUYER DH TERMS
i
001 8.00 EA VENDOR CAT. #SC 3000 MFG NAME 10850.000 14,800.00
CITY # 55080
SC3000 CONTROLLERS (LATEST SOFTWARE)
002 3.00 EA VENDOR CAT. #1880 EL MFG NAME ),850.000 51550.00
CITY # 55080
1880 EL CONTROLLERS 8 0
003 2.00 EA VENDOR CAT. #SC 3000 MFG NAME 6,995.000 13,990.00
CITY # 55080
SC 3000 CONTROLLER & CABINET
(FOR LOOP 2881KINGS ROW AND BONNIE BRAE/OAK-HICKORY)
004 1.00 EA VENDOR CAT. #M/A MFG NAME 4,382.000 4,382.00
CITY # 55080 J
SIGNAL CABINET ONLY FOR CABINET INVOLVED IN TRAFFIC 1
P.08 TOTAL s 38,722.00
YjkpD11 pi6TlIUC[IQjI$'~ _ 3. Terms - Net 30 u.....Mv.u..y.rabu
L K Mrolc~ waryitaM q~Y 4. Skipping Instructions: F.02. Destination prepaid luau .M...;,..v..ir.el
Z Acc4aAS PayaW S. No federd or sate sales tax sMll be Included
=1# # dt In prices Filled PLorchasing Division
E.._.....:..,...i.... s: ;/?98 PURCHASING
rr, i t,{
Q;
C
ti,VPURCHASE ORDER NO. 67375 THIS IS A
This number must appear on all CONFIRMING ORDER
invoices, delivery slips, cases, IIF MARKED)
tins., boxes, packing slips and bills. DO NOT DUPLICATE
A" No: Bid No Date: 08 23 96 Page No. 02
{
PURCHASING DIVISI N19001 B TEXAS STREEI I DENTON,SEXAS 76201-4354
817/333-7100 D1FW piETRO 817/2e7-0042 FAX 8171383-7302
VENDOR PARADIGM TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
NAME/ P.O. BOX 161507 DELIVERY CENTRAL RECEIVING S15
ADDRESS ADDRESS TRAFFIC DEPT.
l FORT WORTH TX 76161-1607 901 B TEXAS ST
DENTON, TX 76201
MIKE FISKS
VENDOR NO. PAR49000 DELIVERY GIOTED 09 20 96 FOB DESTINA` 1ON BUYER DR TERMS
r
I ACCIDENT AT BELL/WITHERS DOLs 07/11/96
i
7~
f
1
1
P GE TOTAL s 0.00 j
GR ND TOTAL s 38,722.00
01 446 020 SILL 9271 9150 20,350.00
02 453 020 SILL 9635 9150 13,990.00
03 807 004 0028 8980 4,362.00
I
3. Terms - Net 30 el .Mown..p-O l1
L Seel 4ttpitnR Mrske wide 610ksM fol 4. Shipping Instructions: F.O.& Destination prepaid ells en..,e w«ne,J
Is • Aecwats P"tle S. No federal or state safes tax shill Ire included
215 E McKI-y ii in prices billed Purchasing iv s on
QvxMw 1X;11201, 4216 J PURCHASIW3
r
F
~~'fhTi TEX" MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 215 E MCKINNEY • DENTON, TUAS 76201
MEMORANDUM 18171566.8200 • DFW METRO 434.2529
Date: August 23, 1996
To: Denise Harpool, Senior Buyer
From: F. David Ayers, Transportation Manager
Subject: Purchase Order for New Traffic Signal Controllers from Paradigm Traffic Systems
For several years, Paradigm Traffic Systems has been the only supplier of PEEK Traffic
equipment in our srea The City of Denton made a commitment to this manufacturer and now
have all but two intersections running with PEEK equipment. Standardization of signal
equipment allows for quicker responses to problems encountered by technicians while i
troubleshooting.
The controllers being purchased on line item one are for replacement of older equipment along
Carroll Blvd. This will assist in keeping Denton's major signal systems with the latest technology.
University Drive has already been upgraded to the SC3000 controllers using Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality grant furling.
Several of the controllers on line item one will be used as repla-mnents for controllers that are
damaged by lightening or have continuing failures due to the controUer itself. This reduces down-
time at the intersection and allows continued operation.
The equipment being purchased against line item two will be used at two new intersections.
Kings Row at Loop 288 and Bonnie Brae at Oak and Hickory will be constructed later this year
using CIP funds and this is the initial purchase toward the construction of these intersections.
Lim Three is the Risk Retention Fund used for replacement of equipment involved in traffic
accidents. The cabinet listed on the P.O. was smock by a motorist on July 11, 1996 at the
intersection of Bell and Withers. These furls will be reimbursed to the Risk Retention Fund by
the insurance company of the motorist at fault.
Please call if you have any questions or need additional information I hope that this memo will
assist you In processing this Purchase Order.
6aAm .0 ,
F. David Ay
mmm~
"Dedicated to Quality Senice"
t
F
w.. ....rr+ aa. ra va~-vu-aro~ YAIVW1hM Ih44'-t ~C: YAIt tlY
DEC 16 '94 11MM P. tit
Apo*
wtlpryr
r•boh« sm man
Deo.myer to tN4
c v Dorm' ~ii`a+itN~,° /1°"'c
!otB Tame tlkod
Derdon, Tit Mol
DMr W. Shaw:
Ube have aPW*d Parafti Traft tt*W ne, In a our oxck*a dettlbuW in IN
Sbb of Teooa. AN OAn s" d our egttlp mM w* M twwiw by Amw pon.
Alec, the Wawt p TW&A Mom Cw*oftm operate in y0w Cbwd Loop
mws Ism
Model x000
TM Model 1 M11 hu been dhoontlnued and m p - m - 4 - by the above modsi&
H flethw b mpkw, pwm oontool ue.
~ SlnoerNy. i
PW TRAFMC w 1RM18YT
04 4 ea. A
cove wutfnuvwm
Dtfeotor of Macho 0
oo: a yb Ayere, T. r mMenper
215 ! MolMm sy ant
Dotal 0 TX ?Mt
Pan*it
TISM~I Owornetin TraMI.C.ev« 1y~Ntw
DEC 22 '94 12:52 / 817 625 9407 PAGE.OM
a
Agenda No.
Agenda lie
ORDINANCE NO. Date
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, TEXAS
FOR PURCHASE OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES BY WAY OF A PURCHASE
ORDER TO THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS;
8ECTInX I, That the City Kanager is authorized to execute
an interlocal agreement between the City of Denton and the City of
Gainesville for the rental of a ten foot (101) tub grinder, under
thn terms and conditions, contained in said interlocal agreement,
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
S&CTZON iii That the City Council hereby authorizes the
expenditure of funds in the manner and amount as specified in the
agreement attached.
SECTZON-1II. That this ordinance shall become eff3ative
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
1996.
JACK MILLER, MA- YO
ATTESTt
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BYt
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BYt
INTER.OFD
li
f
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3,1996
CITILCQUXMREPM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager '
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON AND CITY
OF GAINESVILLE
RECJDA1AfEhWATMN- We recommend this interlocal agreement be approved to allow the use
of a Vermeer 10 foot (10') Tub Grinder for grinding brush, trees, stumps and wood products at the
City of Denton Landfill.
SUMMARY. The interlocal agreement was approved by the Gainesville, Texas City Council oil
August 1, 1996. The agreement would allow the City of Denton to rent a 10' tub grinder from the
City of Gainesville at the rate of $200,00 per hour.
The grinder was purchased by the City of Gainesville several years ago to assist in clean up activities
after a tornado storm pa: sed through their city. The unit now has considerable idle time and the City
of Gainesville has offered to rent this unit to the City of DeAlton at a discounted rate in an attempt
to recover some of the cost.
The City of Denton owned unit currently in use at our landfill is considerably behind due to the
amount of brush collected and the sorting efforts of the landfill staff; The additional grinder from
Gainesville would allow us to catch up and also compliment our on-going composting of wastewater
sludg,- program,
Our landfill supervisor, Mr. David Dugger, has estimated that a 50 hour usage time period would
allow us to catch up and eliminate our current brush backlog. He has also indicated this unit would
only be used as required.
%t OCKGRQi0%. Interlocal agreement approved by City of Gainesville City Council, August 1,
1916.
PRWiRAMS,DEPARTMENTS O"ROUPS FFFCTED; City of Denton Landfill and
Composting Operations as well as the Cit f of Gainesville,
FI__ AL-MwA,CT; The initial 50 hours at $200.00 per hour ($10,000,00) are available in the
1996/97 budget.
Respectfully submitted:
Prepared by:
11+ t Ted Benavid
City Manager
r
Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
761.age
a,
a
r
jl
THE STATE OF TEXAS S
COUNTY OF COOKE S
S
INTBRLOCAL AORBEMBNT
This Agreement is entered into on the date below written, by
and between the City of Gainesville, a home rule municipality of
the State of Texas, ("GAINESVILLE"), and the City of Denton, a home
rule municipality of the State of Texas ("DENTON"), each acting by
and through their respective governing boards.
WHEREAS, the City of Gainesville and the City of Denton are
Municipal Corporations and Local Governments who are authorized to
enter into this agreement under Chapter 791 of the Govarnment Code
"Interlocal Corporation Contracts";
WHEREAS, each party to this Agreement is authorized to perform
the governmental function or service contracted for herein;
WHEREAS, this Agreement is duly authorized by the governing
body of each party to the Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Agreement is to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of each party through the mutual
agreements herein contained.
NOW THEREFORE, GAINESVILLE and DENTON AGREE as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this agreement is to provide for
the use by the City of Denton of one (1) Vermeer ten foot (101) tub
grinder and to provide terms and conditions for said Lae.
2. Doage of of the Vermeer tub rinderdby~the City Gainesville
Denton upon the permit
specific terms:
a. Transportation: Transportation of the tub grinder shall be
the responsibility of Gainesville at its sole cost.
b. Personnel and other Equipment: Gainesville shall provide
one operator of the equipment, who shall direct the
operation of the tub grinder. Denton shall provide one
front end loader and one loader operator to load material
into the tub grinder or, in the alternative, shall provide
such other equipment and labor as may be needed to pull out
contaminants from brush piles.
c. Materials Specifications: The operator provided by the City
of Gainesville shall have discretion to reject any materi-
als which in his opinion may be dangerous to the safety or
3.
F
integrity of the tub grinder. The following specifications
shall apply to material to be placed in the tub grinder:
(1) Brush, trees, logs, and stumps shall be limited to
less than ten feet (10~) in length and no more than
eighteen inched (1811) in diameter;
(2) Materials to be ground will be free of any and all
contaminants such as metals, steel, steel bars, car
parts, household goods, tires and any hazardous solids
or liquids. If any such contaminants are found in the
materials to be ground, Denton shall provide laborers
for the removal of such contaminants, and shall be
solely responsible for their disposal.
d. Fuel: During the use of said tub grinder by Denton, Denton
shall provide fuel for Gainesville's use, the cost of which
ahall be subtracted from the final consideration paid by
Oanton under this Agreement.
3. Consideration. The parties agree that as consideration
for use of the tub grinder as provided herein, the City of Denton
shall:
a. Pay to the City of Gainesville $200. per hour of
machine operation, excluding transportation- time.
b. Pay said consideration to the City Manager of the City of
Gainesville, in a lump sum within thirty (10) days follow-
ing its receipt of billing by the city of 04inesville.
4. Damage to Tub Grinder. Gainesville shall be responsible
for all normal maintenance costs associated with grinding brush
acceptable under the terns of this agreement. In the event that
any repairs are necessitated due to the introduction of any
contaminated or prohibited materials into the grinding operation.
Denton shall be responsible for the cost of all such repairs, which
shall be made by the Vermeer Factory repair shop in Dallas, Texas,
payment for which shall be made within ten (10) days of Dentonrs
receipt of a statement of charges from Gainesville.
5. Cooperation Between Parties, Denton agrees to cooperate
with the Director of Public Works of the City of Gainesville in
using the equipment and personnel provided for under this Agree-
ment, who shall control such matters as may be reasonably necessary
to carry out the terms of this Agreement.
e
defend the ach6pa ty agrees to ndeshall~ indeTo the mnify extent
and n hold allowed lard
other,
against any and all third party claims, losses, s, employees
damages, causes of
action, suits and liability of every kind, including all expenses
of litigation, court costs and attorneyts fees, for injury or death
lnterlocel Agreaeient 4 Pepe 2 of 4
. ,r
of any person, or for damage to any property, arising out of or in
connection the activity conducted under this Agreement, based
solely upon the negligent or intent'^ra~ acts or omissions of the
indemnitor, its officers, employeeu, agents, subcontractors or
licensees. Otherwise, each party shall be responsible for its own
actions and the cost associated with defending itaelf or satisfying
Any such claims, losses, damages or judgment filed against the
party.
7. Authority to Enter Agreeaent. It is agreed that each party
is authorized by law to perform the functions specified in this
Agreement and that each party is making payments under this
Agreement from current revenues.
6. Fair Cospensation. It is further agreed that the amount of
payments to be made under this Agreement are deemed by all parties
to fairly compensate each party for the performing of the services
or functions perforred under this Agreement.
period A4ditional e i of the s Vermer tub Agreement
grinder by provides
the e City of Denton•
The parties may agree to allow additional periods of use under the
same terms and conditions, provided that the City of Gainesville
may adjust the compensation payable by the City of Denton if said
consideration is in the sole opinion of the City of Gainesville
found not to be fair consideration for such use. In that event,
the city of Gainesville shall notify the City of Denton as to
consideration to be paid for any future use.
10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the
laws of the State of Texas.
11. agreements between r the npartiesi with reuspect contains
to t the t ansaction
contemplated in this Agreement.
12. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2)
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of
which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
13. Attorney's Fees. in the event of litigation regarding this
Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneyrs fees and costs.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Agreement on the following dates.
EXECUTED BY THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE, this the tiny of
1996.
Intarloeal Apraawrnt
Pape 3 of 4
r9e i. c Y~
f
1'.
CITY OF GAINESVILLE, TEXAS
BY JIM J HA HER, R
ATTEST:
RI TA GRA , IT ECRETARY
EXECUTED BY THE CITY OF DENTON, this the day of
1996.
1
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
c
BY:
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: I~~~~.0
J
Ci%k4V 9MlMYRLCL.AN
:nteriocel AQr"wnt Page A of 4
f
k
Agenda No. - 3
Agenda Item
CITY COUNCIL REPORT Date-
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: September 3, 1996
SUBJECT: Correcting Legal Description Applicable to Ordinance 96-103
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval.
SUMMARY:
Ordinance 06-103 adopted an incorrect legal description for property other than what was
being zoned. This ordinance adopts a legal description for the property being zoned.
Ordinance 96-103 had to do with a tower site PD detailed plan (attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
Council approved 96-103 on May 7, 1996. P&7, recommendation, public hearings, and
notice are not required for this type of correction ordinance.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
1
Ted Benavides, City Manager
Prepared by,
i
i
'Robbins, AIC
4FrH.2
Director of Planning and Development
Attachments:
1. Detail plan.
2. Ordinance.
AMOOBU
f
Location MoD
I' • 2000'
1 t
t
►rgnd I' utiNty Easement
7
Edef~nT SW
r } A!le►► E[ffTenf
Fr ~
1
TOWER ADDITION In • 100'
LOT L BLOCK 1 PTpaN 50' 1
n q ACR[[ , ACef1e ell[ U1Ly
7 E«eleenf ►T
' lperele M UR401
I I I r r
' I PROPOSED TONER
r I I r r i
0
4 r Buadin, Elnele►e~ 1-
r 100 7115'
h e or r n
-
1 - c: ilKe+e •i
E Ao,,e, `a-- N
I [ ~ I A«,adrML._.ar.I__aD nTet,I
14 Wr Cw4A N I4 ell, to 0"Iq TO."
IgT[h
Teeer D"Ir ►IMeA 6nrIT Mer ergo v
e.«N 4MI/[Y/fY-!!!-[ e7e•M! 14Mre i
• IIwM• rMe eMlenll to AltAl•A-!!!•[►t
o.«n Of of DWI"
ft E«I 11o" Hr«I
pwlK T..« Telo1 DETAIL PLAN
CITY OF DENTON PREPARED BY; ENGINEERING/ TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TOWER ADDITION
CITY HALT. WEST Lot 1, Block I, 10 Acres
Drr•A B7: ►.N.W, wo o ao !oo Too Gideon Wark[r 9urT[1 ABrlr[[f 1330
DENTON, TEXAS 76201 CAec►e[BT: RNW. APr.r z9, 1996 Cif one eoanfT a+denlen, Tom
oil goo
r
F
lnr Yfq p r]
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCES
85-59 AND 96-103 BY APPROVING A CORRECTED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
APPLICABLE TO ORDINANCE 96-103; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas applied for an amendment to
Planned Development District 42 (PD 42), established by Ordinance
85-59, and for approval of a detail plan for a 10.00 acre tract of
land located therein near the east side of Mayhill Road, approxi-
mately 1,800 feet north of Treatment Plant Road; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 19960 the Planning and zoning Commission
recommended approval of the requested zoning amendment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the zoning amendment was
in compliance with the Denton Development Plan, and approved
Ordinance 96-103 to effecc. the change in zoning with respect to
said 10.00 acre tract; and
WHEREAS, it was subsequently discovered that the legal des-
cription attached to Ordinance 96-103 contained a minor error; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the error was minor and
not material to any zoning uses allowable on the property, nor to
any prior decision to zone or rezone the property, and that
Ordinance 96-103 should be further amended to correct the legal
description attached thereto, NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I That Ordinance 96-103 is hereby amended by
replacing the legal description attached thereto with the legal
description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1.
SECTION II. That the provisions of this ordinance govern and
control over any conflicting provision of ordinance Nos. 85-59 or
96-103.
SECTION III" That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached
to Ordinance Nos. 85-59 and 96-103, showing the amendment herein
approved.
1•
rea odt
!3E
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall bec,)rne effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1996.
i
t
BOB CASTLEBERRY,
MAYOR j
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
BY:
{
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
y
M
F
1
I
EXHIBIT
(10 Acre Tract)
L that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the
ity and County of Denton, State of Texas, in the Gideon Walker Survey,
Abstract 1330 and being part of a 84.8193 acre tract conveyed from D.J.
Anderson to the City of Denton by deed recorded in Volume 2431, Page 843 of
the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the most northerly northwest corner of said 84.8193 acre tract,
said point lying in Xayhill Road and on the west line of said Gideon Walker
Survey;
THENCE South 010 31' 31" hest along the west line of said survey a distance
of 131.96 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE South 870 52' 38" East a distance of 132.74 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING said point also being the beginning of a curve to the right whose
radius point bears South 02' 07' 22" West a distance of 288.38 feet and has
a central angle of 350 23' 440;
THENCE southeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 178.15 feet to a
point for corner, said point being the beginning of a curve to the left whose
radius point bears North 370 31' 06" East a distance of 337.33 feet and has
a central angle of 35' 30' 270;
THENCE southeasterly along said curve an arc distance of 209.05 feet to a
point for corner;
IENCE South 870 59' 21" East a distance of 284.43 feet to a point for
corner;
THENCE South a distance of 195.01 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE South 200 00' 00" West a distance of 528.61 feet to a point for
corner;
THENCE North 876 37" 00" West a distance of 500 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 000 38' 22" East a distance of 15.26 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 796 04' 24" West a distance of 1.18 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 04• 00' 52" East a 4istance of 384.83 feet to a point for
corner;
THENCE South 834 50' 05" East a distance of 22.08 feet tc a point for corner;
THENCE North 040 13' 40" East a distance of 45 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 88. 39' 38" West a distance of 30.52 to a point for corner;
THENCE North 020 37' 32" East a distance of 367.74 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING and containing 10 acres of land.
1/02/96
ASSO0632
a
1fA.s
F
r
Y.
Agenda No.- q16
Agenda Item 5
oale - 3 9le
M
L
LLE000'r
WY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 E McKINNFY a DENTON, TEXAS 78201
MEMORANDUM (817) 566-8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
DATE., August 28, 1996
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides,
City Manager
SUBJECT: Economic Development Sales and Use Tax Task Force
During the August 27, 1996, City Council work session, you nominated the
following 11 people to serve on the Economic Development Sales and Use
Tax Task Force:
Tom Harpool William Luker
Joe Alford Roy Metzler
Derrell Bulls Bill Patterson
Dorothy Damico Ellen Schertz
Alton Donsback Bill Utter, Sr.
Neil Durrance
Along with these nominations, you agreed that each Council Member
would appoint an additional three (3) people to serve on this task
force.
You will recall that Council established the following charges for the
Sales Tax Task Force: a) investigate, evaluate, and make
recommendations concerning the proposed use of the sales tax; b)
evaluate the advantages of a 4A, 413, or a combination of 4A/4B sales tax
election; c) determine the amount of the sales tax levy dedicated to
economic development; d) make recommendation as to when the election
should be called; and e) promote a 4A/413 sales tax election if that is
their recommendation. A motion was made at the August 27, 1996, Council
meeting for the Sales Tax Task Force to submit a written report no later
than October. 29, 1996. That date is a fifth Tuesday and not a meeting
date, therefore, the report will be due no later than November 51 1996.
Attached find a resolution in support of these nominations to the task
force for a total of 32 members.
Ted Benavides,
City Manager
ABB00481
"Dedicated to Quality Senice"
yf
4
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDJNG a 215 E. MCKINNEY s DENTON, TEXAS 76201
MEMORANDUM (817) 566-8200 @ DfW METRO 434.2529
(.O,Lwk~(d j /YriQ~ `f7~it
2 J
wQQ~1~, c~ c i,c,(z~ /Vto
DATE: August 28, 1996 Ctigti~c ecPv ~1 y1) JTO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides,
City Manager U
SUBJECT: Economic Development Sales and Use Tax Task Force
'r
During the August 27, 1996, City Council work session, you
nominated the following it people to serve on the Economic
Development Sales and Use Tax Task Force:
Tom Harpool William Luker
Joe Alford Roy Metzler
Derrell Bulls Bill Patterson
Dorothy Damico Ellen Schertz
Alton Donsback Bill Utter, Sr.
Neil Durrance
Along with these nominations, you agreed that each Council member
would appoint an additional three (3) people to serve on this task
force. 1
You will recall that Council established the following charges for
the Sales Tax Task Forces a) investigate, evaluate, and make
recommendations concerning the proposed use of the sales tax; b)
evaluate the advantages of a 4A, 4B, or a combination of 4A/4B
sales tax election; c) determine the amount of the sales tax levy
dedicated to economic development; d; make recommendation as to
when the election should be called; and e) promote a 4A/4B sales
tax election if that is their recommendation. The Sales Tax Task
Force shall submit a written report to Council no later than
November 5, 1996.
Attached find a resolution In support of these nominations to the
task force for a total of 32 members.
Ted Benavides,
City Manager
"Dedicated to Quathy Service"
I
d
E,
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING CERTAIN PERSONS TO AN
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALES AND USE TAX TASK FORCE TO EVALUATE, MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS, AND TO PROMOTE A SALES AND USE TAX ELECTION FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby appoints the following 32 persons to serve as an
Economic Development Sales and Use Tax Task Force:
Joe Alford Dr. Derrell Bulls Dorothy Damico
Rev. Alton Donsbach Neil Durrance Tom Harpool
Dr. William Luker Roy Metzler Bill Patterson
Ellen Schertz Bill E. Utter, Sr.
SECTION 11. That the City Council hereby charges the Sales Tax Task Force with
investigating, evaluating, and making recommendations concerning the proposed sales and use tax
election for economic development, including, without limitation, evaluating the advantages of a 4A
or 4B sales tax election, the determination of the amount of the sales tax levy dedicated to economic
development, and making recommendations as to when the election should be called. The Sales Tax
Task Force shall file a written report containing all of its recommendations concerning the sales and
use tax election to the City Council not later than November S, 1996. The Sales Tax Task Force
shall be charged with promoting any 4A or 4B sales tax election the City Council calls.
SECTION 111. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .19%.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
i
F
_ t M Cx1G
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: L11 ~Y"rvL
C:IWPDOCSIRESITASK.RES
Page 2
e
!Ri, N3
9
']<tiGa
G
4
Agenda No.
3
. Agenda Item
Dale
MY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BOIL DING e 2 f 5 E MCKINNEY s DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(817) 566-8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 28, 1996
T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides,
City Manager
SUBJECT: Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc.
Resolution for Ex Officio Members
During the August 27, 1996, City Council meeting, Council wembers
nominated the following four (4) people to serve as additional ex
officio members of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton,
Inc. (EDC):
Ted Benavides
Fred Gossett
Chuck Carpenter
Bill Patterson
Attached find a resolution appointing these four 4 1
EDC board as ex officio members. ( ) People to the
Ted Benavides,
City Manager
aeeoo~eo
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
F
.
E:\NPD0CS\AES\£DM0rF.US
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPOINTING EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS TO
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMuNT CORPORATION OF
DENTON, INC.; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, both Article IV of the Articles of Incorporation and
section 4.02 of the Bylaws of the Economic Development Corporation
of Denton, Inc. ("EDC") provide that all members of the City
Council shall be non-voting ex-officio members of the Board of
Directors of the EDC and the City Council may appoint up to five
additional non-voting ex-officio members who shall serve one year
terms, and which could include the City Manager and one volunteer
head and staff head of the Denton Chamber of Commerce; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the EDC has recommended
that the City Council appoint certain persons as non-voting ex-
officio members of the EDC; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION I. That the City Council hereby appoints the
following persons as non-voting ex-officio members of the Board of
Directors of the EDC:
Ted Benavides
Fred Gossett
Chuck Carpenter
Bill Patterson
SECTION II. That the City Council has found and determined
that the meeting at which this resolution is considered is open to
the public, and that notice thereof was given in accordance with
the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Local
Government Code, chapter 551, as amended.
SECTION IV. That this resolution shall become effc,ctive
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
M
E
i
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT ?L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
I
I
I
Page 2
r
F
Y
npenda No.
A!9 A Item I
Nalkmall 1501 Ae"SY'lvanll Avenue N.W. n'lte ^3~
6Y 11 Ifll6Y y LJ tMyue Washington. D.C. PnLWnI
L Y Y of 20004 Glpcry S Gamma
CNlee (202) 626-3000 1 . Coturn" Curd
Fax. (202) 6263043 Pus!Wce Pnndanr
9 Ma^S Senwada
August , 1996 Counu Momoor. Oua"a Col G0ir
Second i P,Jdenr
MEMORANDUM SnmJ o Nee
Cq "Man", PN4debh4 PomfYNalua
unilwara P,m PtiPanr
cAmNn LO p6a a,
o: Covr¢rhroman. al Large Allanle
City Clerks of Direct Member C404.
Eracun,r areckr
From: Donald J. Borut, Executive Dire od gldJ BOmI
Subject: Voting and Alternate Voting Delegates, Annual Congress of Cities,
December 7-10, 1996, San Antonio, Texas
DUE OCTOBER 11,1996
The National League of Cities' Annual Business Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday,
December 10, 1996 at the Congress of Cities in San Antonio. Under the Bylaws of the National
League of Cities, each direct member city is entitled to cast from one to 20 votes, depending upon
the city's population, through its designated voting delegate at the Annual Business Meeting. The
table on the reverse side of this memorandum shows the breakdown of votes by population
categories.
To be eligible to cast the city's vote(s), each voting delegate and alternate voting delegate must be
designated by the city using the attached form which will be forwarded to NLC's Credentials
Committee. . Thus, the designated voting
delegates must be present at the Annual Business Meeting to cast the city's vote or votes.
To enable us to get your credentials in order and to provide your voting delegates with proposed
National Municipal Policy amendments and proposed Resolutions prior to the Congress of Cities,
we ask that you return the IVORY copy of the completed form to NLC on or before October 11,
19%. A pre-addressed envelope is attached. Upon receipt of these names, NLC will send each
voting and alternate voting delegate a set of instructions on registration and rules governing the
conduct of the Annual Business Meeting.
To assist your state municipal league in selecting delegates to cast votes on behalf of the state
municipal league, please forward the !BLUE copy of the credential form to your state league office
and keep the WHITE copy for your records. A list of the state leagues is enclosed.
If you have any questions, please contact Lesley-Ann Rennie at (202) 626.3020,
CC: Executive Directors, State Municipal Leagues
loll Pr"wM poi Will Neon, Moro, Orlando. Orionis , SNMM Jern..,Mryor, Nlnark, NOw JH1f, a Cathy Plgnolesa. COUnwlvi mxl at Carpe Denr,. Colorado • Onaeoror Koran
Andersed, Mara, s mnaroMa. M,nnesoa , Clanrxa 1. Anthony, Mayor, Sounl Div, Fi", , Ken lpahuP Counalli a' Largo it COY Meloun a ooorloy eeakwwlth, E.ocuPra
DuMa, MaasemWena MunKrpol A, soc4lron . Laa 11akeiy, Ci Momper, Morora, GMOna , Eesesla L. elFnlanaMp, COY Councn Pol,oanl. Inm,npnA,h A4tan,A , LueBla C. 64 Mayor
i to a Y .a Alvin P. Ou~en6 Ma,P uk~oou,A at a u- John Penrod, 61y Co."d P ePda,l. Carol oAnpclo,, Cacom Imo Poli [all 0,&,go No. Ilqu,u. Counce MoroseLp'ry- Co ly
California • elan Plnae4hm, Eroeohra Dueclpr Apoamorl of Waah,npron Cities , pool Ilallnaa, Mayor. Port Wayne md.py . JSMI C, Hunt, Councdmomter clad urp Well
Virginia . lNtp La.raMS, Aidannln, Wauseu, Waeoam , CMIMapnu K. IkKarMM, Enema D,raelor Lospool Pella$ Mule,l • 11i Marren, Solid al Ad,ree Paila^!
Louyrll4, Kentueky , David W. Mode, Mayo, ePuml Tarp , Kuhr M. Morris, Moral 54, Marto, Top , William P. Murphy, Mayor Wood. mq., IN, of a Thomas C. Owens,
Cones President oyoMry Park, Klnpa , David L Perry, Or., Mara Pro Tom, Pismo. Texas a 1010"I J. Cuinn, Encuhra Direct, Irdima Alloeaaon or Gun old Town, , Aud
1cAlonkv. Mira, GA$ DAli Oregon . Larry L 1c huh, Councilmen, Anrleoga. FlOrrda , WlneldA Ieenaa, Mayor Pro tem. R;- I Mir Souln C,ouna • Judy F,guaon Ihaw.
Co.ncrl'wan/n, 81"N y Walloon a JCNPn F. slnkisrla, Maror, Lore Pal . hill • Joseph A, beet. fa,cuara Duector, Tanna,pa Mm,r,pa, Loapua a Malian 1. Taleo, Cor,nur„omn
Phlladalpha, PennsyNAna a Retard C. The"Naid, Cour¢I Member, Games JuMicy, Coorado a William E. Thornton, Mayor. San Antony Tali, • John R. Thuna. Lec m.re D,12611
.FX
South DOW
vair. 0141 o:" NO Laeral Oov,nmaMS - Charles C yovoy, Coymomor Soslon a Maa~chusanIom 1ol1 elTmanoa o~fRi¢a ire Dnlacm ocwg A ,a.tal u"u~pPwLO.po r.. ❑eru•w D' for
Pocyclod Pap,
r
d
r
44Ada No.
. Agenda Item Asfi&mz
Date. fd-
CITYOF_DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIP.iL BUILDING DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TELEPNONE817.566.8309
Office of the 01y Secretary
MEMORANDUM
DATES August 30, 1996
TO: 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/nominations:
Cable T. V. Advisory Board - Council Member Cott has nominated Jim
Gwilliam.
Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board - Council Member Young has the
nomination of a master plumber.
Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board - Robert Courtney has resigned.
This is a nomination of a mechanical engineer for mayor Miller.
Traffic Safety Commission - Council Member Beasley has nominated
Charles Ridens.
If you require any further information, please let me know.
Jena er Wagers
Cit Secret ry
ACCOOOF4
'Dedicated to Quality ,rvice"