HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-07-1997 r
r
.r '.<~hL~Y%Ww1~P1~.' e~.~YYINLM~Y7.TCur~.-.~ - `~ZW~i \}4~YbP>L~3~ I• ~n^
•dh
r
City Council
Agenda Packet
January 7 1997
f
1 S I M
1 r
1 t
F r I~ i~C ij n
r 1.'a
r' r.t raR'S }fi
Mix
t
97-001
AGENDA Agenda No.
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL. Agenda Itf, 'f
January 7, 1997 Date
Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, January 7, 1997 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 TLIE 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 TLX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074
j
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesdr,y, January 7, 1997 at 7:00 p.m.
in the City 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 allegi•ince to thee, Texas, one and indivisible,"
2. Consider approval of the minutes of October 15, October 22 and October 23, 1996. I~
3. Citizen Reports -
A. Report from Mickey George regarding a neighborhood concern.
B. Report from Larry Bailey regarding late hour alcohol sales.
C. Report from Anita Bruno regarding late hour alcohol sales,
D. Report from Mike Reid regarding Fry Street.
E. Report from Pat Ragsdal,; regarding late hour alcohol sales.
• • •
PUBLIC HEARINGS
4. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 15.831 acres from Planned
Development No. 2 (PD-2) to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The site is
located directly east of Bell Avenue at Coronado Drive, extending north past Cordova
Drive. (The Planning and Zoning f;ommission recommends approval 7-0.)
a ~l4 .
• ~.I • f ' F~ ,~T ~ ~ 4 v:.y t 1 1 TTTT ^
;.;.r»,rr'•:tritk+!]F4Its
, aii
City of Denton City Council Agenda
January 7, 1997
Page 2
5. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 136 acres from the Single Family 16
(SF-16) zoning district to the following zoning districts; Office Conditioned (O[c]),
Single Family 10 Conditioned (SF-10[c)), Single Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7(c]),
Planned Development (PD), and approving a detailed plan for that Planned Development.
The select property is located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection.
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-2.)
6. Public hearing to consider an ordinance for a specific use permit to allow for a child day
care center (day nursery or kindergarten) on a 6.2178 acre tract located in the
agricultural (A) zoning district. The property is located on tha south side of McKimxy
Street, directly south of Bellaire Boulevard. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval 7-0.)
7. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 0.23 acres from the General Retail
(GR) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject i roperty
is located on the north side of Scripture, between Lovell and Bryan. (The Planning a,O
Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-1.) 4
8. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning Lot 3, Block A, of the Replat of Lot
3, Block A, of the Teasley Mall Subdivision from the Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning
district to a General Retail Conditioned (GR[c)) zoning district. The subject property Is ;
located on the south side of Londonderry Lane, approximately 200 feet Bast of Teasley
Lane. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0.)
9. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district to an Office Condition l (O[c]) zoning district. The subject property is
located on the east side of Teasley, approximately 500 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian ,
Miller intersection. (The Planning and Zoning Cnrnmission recommends approval 6-0.)
10. Public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 169.391 acrei from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) and Single family 10 (SF-10) zoning
districts. The subject property is located on the cast side of Teasley, approximately
1,000 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommends approval 6-0.)
VARIANCES
11. Exaction variances to Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks; Section 34-114(11) L`
f concerning cul de sac lengths; and Section 34.124(e) concerning drainage design criteria. S
This 304.97 acre tract located northeast of Brush Creek Road and Highway 377. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0.)
ail"
.M,,yy,v~u T..:a,.. 3 k*✓:ix,"s'1 d~ `'Ty r X
•
•
,r
City of Denton City Council Agenda
January 7, 1997
Page 3
CONSENT AGENDA
Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on
the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City
Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the St<3ff 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 cation of the agenda. Detailed back-up information is attached to the ordinances
(Agenda items 12-20). 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. If no items
are pulled, Consent Agenda Items 12-20 below will be approved with one motion. 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 tlxn be considered before approval of the Consent Agenda.
12. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of
materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid !1961-Street Maintenance Equipment
Renal)
13. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of
materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #1965-Transit Vans)
14. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of
materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #1974-Annual Bottled Gas & Cylinder
Rental)
15. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
services. (Bid #1983-Family Health Care, Inc.)
16. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
services. (Bid #1972-Spread Spectrum Microwave Link & Radios)
17. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of
materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #1975-Bore Crossing)
18. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to extend an interlocal agreement with Denton
County to authorize participation in various Denton County Contracts for the purchase
of various goods and services. (Bid #1968-Police Sedans)
19. Resolution approving an interlocal ambulance agreement between the City of Denton and
the City of Lake Dallas for ambulance services.
' . _ . . .....~^.-..~T'~!~~..~+,:+:,r F ti ~'~t ~y}{ F' { + i3,~E r 4~ ~'y~ r Y~ IV S+ y C V..
_ a ya~ Us ~ J ~,'k'~, o Y {w 13 ~ r L ~ 4f~e ~ ; ,
'q1 4~1 Y'if y ~ ~ I 1 ( TN I f .
r ~ I ! y i s r.
r
' ~d i.~ tr t• ~ tint i
t
t
1r * 1
City of Denton City Council Agenda I`
January 7, 1997
Page 4
20. Resolution approving an interlocal ambulance agreement between the City of Denton atxi
the City of Corinth for ambulance services.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
21. Ordinance annexing and establishing temporary agriculture "A" zoning district
P classification on a 11.24 acre tract located south of Robinson road mod cast of Nowlin
Road. (A-74) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) E
22. Ordinance prohibiting parking on the south side of Oak Street from its intersection with
the west curbline of Williams Street and continuing west for 100 feet. (The Traffic
Safety Commission recommends approval.)
23. Appointment of a Council Memb:r to the Audit Comminte.
24. Nominations/appointments to Boards and Commissions.
25. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
26. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items:
A. I.egt'J Matters
B. Real Estate
C. Personnel
D. Board Appointments
27. New Business
This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas.
28. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting:
s
• A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
t
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE So- 551.074
i
_.,.,:.r z_ 3'Y _ i. ( r F a '<L3 r1 t~':L.4 r ~ •1~'} r,°°~ ,
k.
4
Y
f l Q
r'
'
.
,
,
y, Y _r• a Y(;r
a.
6
City of Denton City Council Agenda
January 7, 1997
Page 5 i 1
s
f
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of
the City of Denton, Texas, on the _-day of , 1996 at o'clock
(a.m.) (P.m.)
i
i CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE ~t
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-S&RELAY-71A SO THAT
A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH
I'HE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. mayX,
ACCW356
i
CT,`
,
4
ki{
{
y
40
~ - ~,y.~1 p.:-" } 'ti »s,r ''1(~' '"'SS"uxkT `-al~ ,`.;i" I~T~.1~~ r~'..
' ' 7 1
~ :Y f! I 6 )
,
e r ! ~
i
,
. S
® - .1 r
( E
,
i
it r ' ~
S r, q?a• a Or 1A e n ~~A {.,Y4 N'~"e} d..
Q i L ~Y'Yac ro} s ~~w 4~.'µ~( ,f'~r a.i ar
Now&
!fir'
4 \i
w I ;
Yf v
CITY OFDENTON TEXAS MUNICIPAL SUILDINO k DENTON TEXAS 76201 ~ TELEPHONES 17.5664"
Office of the City Secretary
' `
Yi:
r,
f;
I.
k }
I _ f f isf D
M E M O R A N D U M
r TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council ;
G
FROMs Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
DATE: January 3, 1997
RE: Information Agenda Item 03 - Late Hour Closing
Attached are two pieces of information regarding late hour closing. ~Ix
One i& a letter hand delivered by Margaret Johnston and the other =4
is a memo from Sandy Bailey regarding statistics on late hour ¢
closing
a
YL
• GS'w t {
e
i'
e 1
{I f 1 1
M) ~
W.~.l+SJ nl1,1 C ! 1
1lffii Y
'Dedkafed roQUdify.Sen*fo s, t k1r~8' a ~r t * 1
?I~ s r
•
•
s
Gtr. r~ _ _ a2-~-~-•v ~
-e04 i
_ x
J
_ ,:.r.. raw y......»....
•
s
VOC
i
•
7'- 7
•
•
i
Ae~
- ~ ~ "~-i`-`ems-•~`,
top t,
...ate Q- u-s-~`Q-,C~J • Gt'`.a°
e
S~
I
CIO
A100
.fie..-.C,ucc...►,~s ._.•r~,..- Est _ ~.c-~-yt - - sc.,.,~•-...
1-4./.
' r i o: ~ to r~ it ,Z e'
t r 1 t v 4 i y T., h{I
r I" c/yT~IR Yi r~~~I ~i u~rrw V e ' )
, ! M {17~!lj oil; r'+!` i, gt rr'
',r! Apr t I. ~ rt I R) 4 'p~ ry 1l
!t! ~ ~d3 ! p ifI i ~ F Ri' r s
1
1
1.
x
%
1
. , 9 fed
:.A~~x ~._.r...+. u~ ~.,iw.v.'..: ..o :w.+L+~r..w....~.:.1.iw.l~.rwl6Yh~D~'lIM1Y7~f~__ Yi.~ ''~i►~IO`Y:: i.`
f
I
Mtmorand, in ~
CITY OF OENMM TEXAS DEPARTMENT Of POLICE
Date: 1 N13/W
To: Honorable Mayor Jade Millar and Couneemembera
CC: Ted Benwidee, City Manpw
From. Mkheel W. Jar, Exewdve Dhdw of Pubtk Safely
Subject Leta Hour Pwmdnp Oats ,
t
Atwhed you wilt And a copy of a report pi"m by Sandy Bailey, S-dst caF Seevk" Sjttervlw. 'h t' n
report conWns comForative den for the fast twelve amthe of dr "lak hour permMoll" period
14
I wil I be diacuefie0 thin daa with you at the Ism 14,1991 workaeaaim t
n..
MWJ
.r
r
r
[ 1 .
S
R Yl'
I f
r
901 L MICKOIW OTAQT :WTI I DEMT KTRXAk 70010 1 x' 1 e ,
mm NMFI (017) NM101 RAIL (017) MTON
41,
r
. ~ ~ (fit tr ~ ~ +
al ~ ) y,~l Yc I
~ r< 7
~ L 1 f ^n
),1
r ' 'r )t + t Y ~ ~ ~ SAn 1 V ♦ 9 4~ Yf ti.c ~~~y n
i h~ f 1 'v r 41 rY ti iE n ~ V 2i err rt~r~~~^~ 'tyt .
' ~ V r is ^4+1+14 v ~ Y ~ r i 1 L y S`ip n'~"a N prtNt" 'lo vY lv+
:~a'. .J,.....w4'Y:J'..'YCiLtrs.lw - .rl . ti, ,~b,tL'~~,Vr+•a i~R..~wl~`ww `W+'-'ll`•+Ir~i+i►etY'1~~a., 4. t_r. t.~i. _ k'_ 4taa
1t r
,r
Jv;
r
5.
MEMORAMDUM
Y
TO.
Mite kx ExecW Dinemt d hMk Sday
FROM Sandra Bailey. Ra cde SupwAm
DATZ: Nawmber S, i96 SUawn L-ma Time Leah I" U*w S" 7
r~ a
Prize to larmuy 16, 1996, low Claw %a@ tetltrired la eeop eervist ak" 601
esoee M miQdiY (l em m
S*NdNy dllw3aadey 00010i OWYl AAme that dale, tie COC'time dood lo 2 em, some dM a oak Lou
`
after le detaraia tie sgo of tble cbmiA l beve pnpaeed tke reacted ethos aoatp K* alosbokdeled aedvigr d k
befw* tad aAer tie ordinsoe chm4p The rise 5aame 1 Deed Mn {•I AS tin l•15.96 tad t• 16.96 tiro 10.31
Umiq bees dale, the cbarr aompre m* 290 deye prier to ad of the ties deep s '
tThee dome aw seem to be s eipdont crop Istai ft. Tee sejer dlebrera eeeeae q bs i. Lisa dYtritatioe . x~i ` ,I
eepeeWly in
reset Pak times eeea lobs" *M@d to a Ww dit wkioh eoiaoidee wii the laser club hours ~
It should also to soled teal tine say be a epw& towns br Ibe deraame is alooboi,atmd ehedm 1 that h
can iK egribaed 10 hwaaeed ea its b dolor sk" ooue"Oft by eisoa eose ter is 1993,
If yar aed any mome iDtormatb4 Pisses >k tr know.
f
r/1
Saarkss alley
t ReWde Sepervlsor 4+ ~ 'k t
~ Y t
' f~v4 f 1
i T I ry
;y' {y~~~:~ ~ ' V V V t
{hy~ " I +S
~y A+4~ i
A • t
~r 4 1'4 u ) f ? r 1
bit S'r7, yl'4 ti?)~C ♦;,41
rypj ,y 1
4 ~If fir, if ee lk,
r
n
" ^ e} J pK' l y ~f K SS is t~Tt~ t 1 y, ~.t -
s +
.
r„
r ~ f tip,; 4 ~k t r~~ " h*f`• P ' .E i t +
i ,
ry
h w pY sir K 1 I'^Y¢±txL }ir .YS rL C° ~t+ a>, y~, ~,rL~`~yc~~<~'(JA.~ ''V"~5 {
" r} y p.(~ h,.1Y ' i5 y L O K V y d~ ~5~~~'V v Y ~ ~ E t 1 .
Y;' l H r iP Za I~{{g`]~
♦ , r ~7fy~'jv
• '1 r~X a ~r~~,: CJ 'p ~'•k..~'+:lw~ `r6i~r'~3 Y`, ra a°a"t
. ,.r. ..,a.Lnrti.xMiRMtiiGr~.dFUrJ~iAlNbAr~ c°'sY + + +
Grd
o S
f
1
La-A 1 1 ~
Y AkwAOI-Ftaiatao Af1aMa
A r
,t r r ,
LIVV{O(e p~~ .~J
Aft rrRNfR 1l J : L
Choy
C-hmw CAMP
2
Y^
12am to 90 •77.1%
1~m 10e 104 •7,7%
j tam 0 129 128,7% t
awn 77 u 1e,2~ K ` +
4w 21 20 -4.4%
4x1f
bam 7 14 too.0li
dam 4
6 26.0%
3T- 6.5%
e; l
ii bam 7 3 0.0% ' r s
gam 3 3 0.0%
t0am 4 6 0+0%
ttam S 7 40.0%
,
t 9
s •44. t~
lom
4 S 1 f ~C
27 t8 - 4
20 24 20. "M 30
-10.0% °r r r
7 28 7s 76.6% "
37 37 0.0%
46 w e. ~
t az so •7.2%
11 90 •6.0%
2.0%
~•`a i L t ~ t
(~yf w~ i
>a
r i
+
a
14
,
~ a 1
,
{
.1 k
A.~ fc •5 {I b.~ , x aT- i Y ` } Qs ,1r~ S Ayyaj a
, ~ r n , ,At l~ 4 1 r !',6 ~a}~ 1'~T.~a t
Ni t j
1 ~r.. `*~fi'• ~wwMr"'d,142{ p; ii~YS~i~Sr{i Yy ~+.4r h 1z7~ FMS Y ~
.,.r.•.u:,dsJM,:aui.',rNO-T1liktllYMaMarw,w~rv...aw..~...+.: sir * a
'y
t ~ f ~ L
Afooho&,RoMod AwJftfa
t
„
How Be** A $r Perm*
040ming Ch Cn~ • Ch
13am $ 5 0.011
Ism L e 50.0%
tam e 5 •1e,7%
Sam 3 73.3%
0 ~
5 m 0 0
bam 0
Tam 0 p
Earn 1 0 •100.0% v f ,
Own 0 0 A
10" 0 O 0.0%
11am 0
1 1 0 •100.0%
1 prn 0 p
2pm 0 1 t
3an
1 1 0.0%
] 1 ff ;
1 2 100.0% `
apm 3 3- 0.0%
7 4 1 -7'5.0% 1 s
3 d
E e Eo.0%
1 7 e 14.3%
ri1 7 5 .e%
53 Se S.T% w,` it
2 r
x
~~y~N^a ar r J
2 ~
u~
y ~
[ Y
Papa 1
Tel: a3 rxYs ~y )t ~\~aV~ ~ " •i r~
rYlwWtutlIYW5YW4Y 'Fi _ ~1!#.
„
,
¢w~lh
1 ~ ~ t ♦i~ l~ u' jP , '4
w1n1t Y$7yd~.! 1 eWfir q ±lY YfffJ7~~d54 d£ 5565tJ zx
lie
'F5 i 7 L.,~f~nL lCJyC ,}J v NF , ~ A "3 S.t F ~ P
MoM&Ralalad CKWOna
HOYf E!(Od Mar Parma
C Chaim
12am - 3d 44 21.4%
1Mn 59 44 •23.4%
2Mn 21 24 14.3%
Sam 0 2 aF
4am S 4 -2010%
9Mr1 0 0
gam 0
0
lam 0
gam 0 0
gam 0 0 $f~~ r
10" 2 2 0.0%
11am 1 O •100.0% r'
12pm 2 2 0.011 af,,,,
t 0 •100.0%~ '
0 3 f4
som 4 S
4 t •73.0%
2 2 0.0%
S _ 4 3,1.3%
_ 22 0 •100.0% ;
i
f 29 10 44.3%
lipm
30 7.1
qs~;~~r 1 ~ r
290 162
a
rA
♦ r
Y Yy4 r~ `~5
o ,
i.
Ppa i
f ~Lyy~'~ r.f Ay Y T~ ,~Rr~q a I . o •
x1111 ~11, ~Y's~+~s1 ~ ♦ ,
~AdKr~derl J
S
t 1
t, 1 bA ~..1 ( 1AI~Y,i e c JX w~ S• /e ww A b) iir?e~rtT7rk
i
fturbwaa
t
FlOCIf Befan Agar PaR1Mt
Ch&VO
C C
a
Id
12am 65 E6 •22.4% ~
Ism
67 70 4.5%
tam _ 26 52 05.7%
Sam 36 32 •15.6%
4am 24 I6 •25.0%i
Sam 10 15 50.0%
Sam 11 10 •16.7%
lam 13 12 •20.0'K
bam 14 22 $7.1%
gam 24 27 12.5%
loam 26 24 0.0%~
ltam 15 26 4.0%
12prn 20 30 50.0% dl i
1 27 34 26,6%,;
2PM 30 33 10.0% p " 4
40 44
_ 46 51 10.9% w t •
36 44 •20.0%
56 56 _ •3.4% ` y f
7 00 11.4%
93 •1.3%
162 9.7%
1 own! 97 112 15.5% x
11 100 N •5.0% t 1
1
v* r ;
1 1 11211
4.4%
1 .
• YL
4~f [ }
4 F •i
1 Y.
1 y~
1 1
4
1, 5 1 J
r ti"
r
ry 'S
iti2,ti~ 1'~ 1✓~~;;r r f i~S"~ "r" ~s1r q+i~
i v 2 E + 3.4Y J
1` 1 4 ` vi i Yt x° c ( '4'°-a n UL}'t qr~p rd~S e
`d~`f •'11 y1k~l' a'Yy~~wS'` ~~~1 ,T!"4w.~ . 1 • r~~/ 'F
,..1vuarrralrt&i. 1.rri.wb.+awawi~aii.rd.4.:Jww~...., *::17k5c*_
s
PAY WW DMu banam
~
yy Yt
* , 1
rNM Aft rWCM
41~
cmnp
M.
12am 599 450 •23.9%
537
- lam 106-24,6%
tam 740
Um 1
4M 67 90 40.4%
Sam 38 7b -7.9%
Sam 37 24 •27.3% xR " 4
lam 39 41 Tr r ,
Sam 77 50 922%
gam 47 56 19.1% ~4r r 5 I~
10am 4 46 0.0% 3~ r
-31. 1
AAAA- 12pr 84 .5%
1 90 97 -3.3%
101 91 -12 0% r t i
111 119 4.5% 9
4PM t
175 131 -283%
t'
157 142 --9.8%
iT
193 194 •4.7%x.
u
f -42%
25 1 2.0% 3 ~,~r a
owl 347 316 •9211• "
1 b1 •11.7% Ix +
11 b70 4 -19.0% t , '
far7
4939 41.2% str',
3 r
idli t ~41
7
~rr~r 4, t Y
bs~
R {
f , Lb ty
BAs
E6
~y
l~
Si
I ~ ` r 5n
! If 1, ' • r t I r
r4 ' ~ e
7 R,
tir r , r yr +r )2~,1
. _ 1 t , y~4 y i+
.
` ~ IAA~rr t ' dw4 N}~p v w: Of/t •
J tl~N i>IS fi4~<r ~p ~-0 dti
" e t~•i, f y r}u~S .q 'i r ti v zY fl r' + s
+ a ~ ~Yti 4 ~f1 r gS` ° J k m ti~F~~~'~ i'•kY~Y ~~L r~$ a"'8'~~'~'N°5 ~Yry"
yr. 1 ~ L r ~ r:'k N~(~,H~ e•. Y .3^73 7<7' f~}y'~~~ri . _ .:~~'~»kL S~llf:a~aAMOra~.M~A',x~rai s.e.' ..Nw.«+..f i._ ~:a * _r..~.g"~
.~h~.~~.~... a.k'4.i4.i~ ♦ ~.1C.e-1. ~~~1.:1",~~d~, • ~ ,
~e
Yr i
~y~ Y
OWIAN**
Y 4
f 1
y
14+iti .
} E{ 4
n y
HOUR Be" ARar P~ 4 a
Oftkming :h c Chmna
12am $3 25 -52.8%
1 am 35 77 •2.6%
tam {S 36 153,3% }
Sam 8 12 50.0% F4 .
4ari 6 3 60.0% r 4
Sam { 1 0.0% ;
eam 0 0~
lam 1 0 •100.0%
dam 3 2 •33.3% i
Gam 1 i 0.0% ; a
loam 1 1 0.0%
11 aT 1 1 0.0% Ft
f 2 1 -50.0%"
f m 2
1 •50.0%
2pm 1 3 200.Q%
S 3 10.0%
Y
4 2 60. ; Nm
3 3 0. f P
4 4 0.0%1 f
7 17 57.1%
12 12 0.0%
12 13 8.31E l~ .r r
1 16 11 •38.6%
PI f 23 23 0.0%
221 206 •6A% fir
~fr t
yea . A 4
hlfir t .Y ' 4'
4 y I r
4~~5~^`•i F j+ r
• L
i •
w. lrl
2a r 4
U Pp61 g
K~~..•u_i.,.~ur ~ P s, {~YS& ~ ~ r,: ' ~x -r~~~ ~r ~ G~.i ~r^ Y ~ 7J
1-
}
~M .
1 r ) ~
J ~ d ~ r;, i 1 S\ J; 1 i •h F
1 1 ~ le Y '
•4
i i ~rIJ .jr AJ~~'~rL;),Y{lR/~~tn ~{~♦r~i. ~2f 17~~~~if 5t~l~~r y~y~~ a.~. i. i 1
A y a }11 i 53c zLr„~, fimt".f; JF} ~r'k <f.\Y'~`yll,e~7<~y f~^1„`eR
"it~F". •i~•gA}~ry
f~
r
8ufp14f144
w x'
r
Hour B4fon AR Aan»nt
Cho"" chw
12M 1! 7 •61.3%
14m _ 11 14 27.3% Y
26fn 1! 14 -0.7% ;
34m 10 5 •20.0%a
44m 0 ! -15.7% <
54m 5 3 40.0%
Sam d 12`rjw `
74m 20 1 i •20.!!6 aY' ~ i
r
31
104m 24 20 0. ~i 7,
lism 21
1 31 23 •32.1% t r r,~ ,l
1 25 24
an r
• 43 23 •45. . ; ~ i
N 32 -30.4 r3j+ '
4PM 39 32 d5.5%
37 36 •2
29 34
7 0 f7216l} j
1 4.2%~SMfI
50.
1 ' i
18 17 -5.5% y1q 1,
12 -25.0%
451 •15.3% Yr~
• ~ r
CIS, f
M f~Y'c r
~4 hk Y~tl •Cr.l Y:. 1
'Aid
I m/m,
.
i
I'
. -:`k . ,::wig'!1:•w'?s'i1°,i7F~'.^,t~s&st.^riam.ns.,..i.... _._~___...,.,ws.:r,ucR+mM/~b~filLffl~§tH?i'i'71kf►ri~l4rNtl!w.
Agenda No. 7-
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Awidaite/m -
October 15, 1996 Dated.
The Council convened into a closed Meeting on Tuesday, October 15,
1996 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Nall.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles,
Cott, Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Miller
1. The council considered the following in a Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered a settlement offer in GTE Southwest Y,
City of Dent4iL gt al.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 -
1. Considered adoption of an ordinance approving an
agreement between the City of Denton and Wal-mart
to provide for the payment of cost of condemnation
of a stornwater drainage easement.
2. Considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
payment of the $79,461.98 judgment in City pf
Denton v. John Karvouniaris.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 15,
1996 at 7;00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles,
Cott, Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: Mayor Miller
1. Fledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the Rudience recited the Pledge of
• Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of Augvst 9 and
13, 1996.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked that the date of the minutes of August
9th be corrected in the header.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the minutes as corrected.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger
"aye", Young "ayo", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock presented the following proclamations:
Make A Difference Day in Denton
National Pharmacy Week
National Arts and Humanity Month
.
PS v
_ ,•+~rw.-y....;~~.~~f~ ;s ' l~ ,t ; 1 , "i a y r1 a „~.S ~ ~ , ~ti~r'~ ;,1 ~ e;;d S ~ 7 ~ J ,
'.'~,':.,}...l.Ye.^,r.`\lar.e.a........ .,~♦w--y}Yae^~~:3~'f'A~'lC~tiy~rt
♦ r. r r.. u.« m.. Yrr.. b" 4d ~~L \.~F J rI~ T}Yr'A?Yf Y
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
♦
Page 2
3. Citizen Reports
A. The Council received a citizen report from Fran Miller
regarding "Make A Difference Day".
Ms. Miller stated that last year was the first effort for thr, City
to participate in "Make a Difference Day" and 4,842 residents
worked on projects and really made a difference. This year "Make
A Difference Day" was October 26th which was the same day as the
UNT Homecoming game. There would be many activities associated with
the UNT game including stickers for those who participated in a
project to allow them into the gave free of charge. There would
also be many independent activities taking place such as food
drives, garage sales, visiting the elderly, doing yard work for
elderly, landscaping projecte, a blood drive, etc. She suggested
Council do a project as a uric. She suggested a partnership to
landscape a flower bed in front of the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
building.
B. The Council receive-9 a citizen report from Todd Palermo
regarding City owned parking meters adjacent to UNT at Avenue A and
Hickory. "
Mr. Palermo was not present at the meeting.
C. The Council received a citizen report from Ross Melton,
Jr., regarding litigation against the City and the open Records
Act.
ii
Mr. Melton indicated that he had been having problems with the Code
Enforcement office and had filed suits against the City regarding
those issues. The City had refused to answer his questions
regarding the suits and the City Attorney was stalling on his open
Records Act requests in order to obtain a delay in responding to.
his questions. He felt that city did not believe in jury trials.
1
i
D. The Council received a citizen report from Dessie Goodson
regarding SPAN and the Ctty of Denton.
+ Ms. Goodson stated that the revision of the SPAN routes was a joke
and only hurt residents. One route did not stop at Denton ,
Community Hospital any longer and only stopped at Denton Regional
Hospital. There were many apartments in the area and she asked why
the City was not serving the hospital. She went to the Law Library
and found that she was eligible for Lifeline services which was _
• available for persons of all ages and asked why she was not told
that she was eligible for the service. she still did not have an
answer why three individuals had a low4ar utility bill than one
individual had. f
E. The council received a citizen report from Teresa Haynie
regarding safety on Spencer Road.
J
II "`~~y^hJk ~ ~ ,'gi'n i4i} _ J ~q tr i i
Wwy+-.....~wJ
•
_ . r; e. ..,:r., y.+V23:37`6i-•%:?r~fNYw~.iTi.4~SiC"1{°~Yiv.+e,:.... _
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 3
Ms. Haynie stated that she was concerned about Spencer Road east of
Loop 288. There was a hill there with no lane markers in the area.
Speed on the street was very fast, there was no guard rail and no
shoulder on the road. There were no speed limit signs on the east
side of Spencer. She was concerned about school buses on the road
and the increased traffic due to the new Wal-mart store. She
suggested marking the road to help traffic.
F. The Council received a citizen report from Leroy Barber
regarding lane markings on Spencer Road.
Mr. Barber was not present at the meeting.
G. The Council received a citizen report from C.B. 6 Vernie
Wilson regarding safety on Spencer Road.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was on Spencer Road very often and very
often met cars in the middle of the road. There was no shoulder
on the road an,; no guard rails at the ditch of the road. He had a
video on the area for the council to view.
Ms. Wilson stated that she and her husband had lived in the area
for many years. There had been problems going on to Mayhill Road
and Spencer Road from the area. She had called the police many
times regarding the vehicular problems in the area and felt that
marking the lanes of traffic in the area was very necessary. She
had discussed the problem with various city officials who indicated
that the road was a rural road. With the addition of new stores in
the area, the read was no longer a rural road.
H. The Council received a citizen report from Frances Cannon
regarding safety on SpQ:;cer Road.
Ms. Cannon stated that she appreciated the markers which were j
placed on the road but they wero still difficult to see during the
day. The traffic was worse since the new stores were built. She
asked that the City mark the lanes of traffic on the road for
better safety.
•
Council Member Young stated that he went out and looked at the
area. He did not see the markers at first as they were very small.
He asked if the area could be marked, speed limit signs installed
and the high grass cut in the area.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that vehicle traffic was
• counted after the first request. Last January the count was 864 • •
and now it was 1219 with an increase of 300 vehicles. Spencer was
considered a rural or estate section which was different from other
types of rural roads. There was no standard for marking lanes and I
the city was moving away from marking the lanes with paint due to
the EPA requirements. The City could look at shortening the
distance between the reflectors.
•
. ,t seed-: 8:,';e:n.,ca.a..w,.r ,r ..r:T..arrCS YitiCJ9fa',~1~' "6~R., /yYesn•l
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 4
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that a speaker card had been received
from Catherine Johnson who was in support of the previous speaker
comments.
4. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing on the status of the
community Development Programs.
Lousia Rodriguez-Garcia, Program Analyst, stated that the purpose
of this public hearing was to receive comments from the citizens on
the status of the projects. The projects currently being worked on
were federally funded. During the 1995-96 fiscal year, the City
spent approximately $2 million on different projects such as
housing, public services, public facilities and improvements such
as playground equipment, and the rehabilitation of three non-profit
facilities.
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
No one spoke during the public hearing.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered an
ordinance to rezone 1.0362 acres from the Multi-Family-1 (MF-1)
zoning district to the Planned Development (PD) zoning district
with approval of the detailed plan for a private dormitory. This
tract was located on the south side of Prairie Street,
approximately 350 feet west of Avenue E. (Z-96-034) (The Planning
and zoning commission recommended approval, 6-0).
Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated that
this was a detailed plan for a 78 unit dorm. A private party was
working with the University of North Texas on the proposal. one
provision of plan was that the University of North Texas would
provide off-site parking for the residents. Not all of the parking
would be on the private property site. The Planning and Zoning
• 1 Commission looked at all policies applicable to the project and
felt that a disappropriate share of intensity be allocated for the f
zoning.
i The Mayor Pro Tem opened the public hearing.
Tom Hanahan stated that he was the architect for the property. He L'
• provided information regarding the site plan and a color rendering • •
of the project. The proposal to the University was a private dorm -
J which would be privately operated. There would be two students per
room and some single residences. There would only be students at
the dorm and the University would be responsible to place those
students. The University was working with the developer concerning
parking. There was an agreement with the University so that the
University could purchase the dorm in the future if the private
company no longer desired to keep the property.
.
•
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 5
Council Member Beasley stated that there was quite a bit of
discussion regarding parking during the Planning and Zoning
commission meeting. She asked about the agreement with UNT for
parking.
Hanahan stated that the issue of the parking was not with their
project but rather with the physical plant employees parking on a
currently vacant lot. A neighbor was concerned that onto the
project was started, those employees would have to go to other
places and a concern was that they would be in neighboring
apartments.
The Mayor Pro Tem closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-227
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM THE MULTI-FAMILY 1 (MF-1) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATIOA' FOR A
1.0362 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PRAIRIE STREET,
THREE HUNDRED FIFTY (350) FEET EAST OF AVENUE E; APPROVING A
DETAILED PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Cott seconded to approve the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye=,, and Hiles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance amending Section 34-41, 34-42, and 34-43 of the
Code of ordinances to provide a new procedure for development
contracts eliminating the requirement of a payment bond and a
S performance bond; and to provide for a one year warranty on public
improvements from the date of final completion and for other
• conditions as stated herein. (The Planning and Zoning commission
recommended approval, 7-0).
a Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a
streamlining of the current procedures. One of the now required ?
bonds would be eliminated which would make it easier for i
developers. ti
The Mayor Pro Tem opened the pubic hearing.
i
No one spoke during the public hearing.
r:
The Mayor Pro Tom closed the public hearing.
rcouncil Member Biles stated that funds placed in escrow would not
be released until after the expiration of the one year warranty.
1
1.
A4 1 ~ 1 ` I ~3
r
I
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 6
City Attorney Prouty stated that the requirement of a payment bond
and maintenance bond was not necessary and could be eliminated.
There was a slight risk of liability with no payment but this E
should be in compliance.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-228
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 34-41, 34-420 Ai) 34-43 OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO -ROVIDE A NEW
PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS ELIMINATING THE
REQUIREMENT OF A PAYMENT BOND AND A PERFORMANCE BOND; AND TO
PROVIDE rOR A ONE YEAR WARRANTY ON PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FROM
THE DATE OF FINAL COMPLETION AND FOR OTHER CONDITIONS AS
STATED HEREIN; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. Consent Agenda
Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
ordinances and all of the Consent Agenda items as indicated. On
roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock 'ay,,', Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
and Biles "ayn". Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid 01953 - Fiberglass Street Light Poles
2. RFSP 01927 - Billing and Collection of Ambulance
Fees
3. P.O. 070304 - Davis Water & Waste Industries
B. Contracts
• 1. Denton County - Library Services t
k .
6. Consent Agenda Ordinances`
A. NO. 96-229' /
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
M CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE. OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.1. - Bid 019531 5.A.2. -
RFSP 01927)
B. NO. 96-230
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR -
PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM
f ~ til ~ 1'
.r
• . , • " 1 ,r • i i I ,a~6 y , I!''. rj V 4 1 ° , T: f 'r r i i w
.Ms.....t.• . . n +i .r •I t b' .h. 't 1. prY
11
- . . .r.....- ,..:ep,eb^1Rttl /4 ilCd4~J4Muht7yr:►~tir.a/,...
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 7
ONLY ONE COURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW
EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE
BIDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.3. - P.O. 070304)
C. NO. 96-231
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE COUNTY OF DENTON FOR THE
PROVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
7. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance annexing
a tract comprising 29.115 acres, located approximately 2,000 feet
east of Geesling Road and north of Blagg Road; and temporarily
classifying the annexed property as "A", Agricultural District. r
(The Planning and zoning commission recommended approval 7-0.) A-
73
Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development, stated this
was final action on the annexation. There had already been one
vote on this annexation and this was the second reading of the
ordinance. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommend
approval. Six council votes were needed to approve the annexation.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-232
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 29.115 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 20000 FEET EAST
OF GEESLING ROAD AND NORTH OF BLAGG ROAD; TEMPORARILY
CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS fA10 AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$20000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
• Beasley motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young `I
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
i B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance annexing
a tract comprising 96.78 acres, located north of Mingo Road and
west of Cooper Creek Road; and temporarily classifying the annexed
• property as "A", Agricultural District. (The Planning and Zoning •
Commission recommended approval 7-0.) A-72
The following ordinance was considered:
~4, 4i
i
~ - i x Y'.. :x. t . f w:f'.'. 1 ".r .n ..,u YAT~~'Z'."~.'FIW.}.'.4,~1 fY. I~SyY~~i'~.[4R'Y=~~A1~!+LTIi" 4
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 8
NO. 96-233
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 96.78 ACRES, LOCATED NORTH OF MINGO ROAD AND WEST
OF COOPER CREEK ROAD; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED
PROPERTY AS 'A', AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTING DATE.
Krueger motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
the guidelines for the Rental Rehabilitation Program and
eligibility criteria; and authorizing expenditures in excess of
$15,000 for projects meeting program guidelines and criteria.
Barbara Ross, Community Development Administrator, stated that this
ordinance would approve the guidelines for the Rental
Rehabilitation program. A portion of the cost would renovate
substandard properties.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-234
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
APPROVING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM
AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS
OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND
CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger 10aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
• D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
guidelines for operation of the City of Denton optional
Reconstruction Program and eligibility criteria; and authorizing
expenditures in excess of $15,000 for projects meeting program
guidelines and criteria.
Nancy Baker, Housing Rehabilitation Specialist, stated that
• adoption of this ordinance would approve the optional •
Reconstruction Program guidelines and expenditures in excess of
$15,000. The guidelines conformed with the regulations of HUD for
the expenditure of federal home funds.
The following ordinance was considered:
tf
~.VMMa..-...L Yx~w.Y}1M :M: L
n law;
.
♦ . _ . . . , F , . . . . ♦ . . . ♦ . , . . , _ . . . . :TAY 21''4%x-k~14:~~`tC t mnnou
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 9
NO. 96-235
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON
OPTIONAL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA;
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS
MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote,
Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye",
and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving
guidelines for operation of the City of Denton Homeowner
Rehabilitation Program and eligibility criteria; and authorizing
expenditures in excess of $15,000 for projects meeting program
guidelines and criteria.
Nancy Baker, Housing Rehabilitation Specialist, stated adoption of
this ordinance would approve the guidelines for the Rehabilitation
program and eligibility criteria.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-236
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON$ TEXAS,
APPROVING GUIDELINES FOR OPERATION OF THE CITY OF DENTON
HOMEOWNER REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA;
AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURES IN EXCESS OF $15,000 FOR PROJECTS
MEETING PROGRAM GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing assignment pay for Fire Department employees in the
classification of Captain who were also assigned to perform the
duties of EMS Program Manager.
r
Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, stated that accordii.g to civil service
law in order to place an individual in an assignment position an
ordinance had to be adopted. This was not a nave position and the r
salary was based on a Human Resources formula.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-237
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF CAPTAIN WHO ARE ALSO
y
u.wt 1 1
r 5:t'
i
x r i,
:..:.r..r.kl4is9,ii!41aW31~.dJ84ib'WOV~bO.RIaisxoe ..~w...'_.. _-........i.k.An.r_vCS1iM1YiiAKIFtlA~itl4'yMA`~w/w~
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 10
ASSIGNED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF EMS PROGRAM MANAGER; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Krueger motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 96-170 by reducing the interest being condemned from
a "fee simple interest for drainage improvements" to a "drainage
easement interest".
City Attorney Prouty stated that Council previously authorized an
ordinance authorizing condemnation on .069 acres of land as a fee
simple interest. This ordinance would reduce that interest from a
fee simple interest to an easement interest. It also further
authorized the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to execute the agreement
between the City and Wal-Mart to cover the cost of condemnation.
4
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 96-238 j
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 96-170 BY REDUCING THE F
INTEREST BEING CONDEMNED FROM A "FEE SIMPLE INTEREST FOR
.
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS" TO A "DRAINAGE EASEMENT INTEREST";
MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
8. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting
an investment policy for funds of the City of. Denton.
• Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that Council had reviewed this
s` resolution at a prior meeting.
L } 'J
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R96-061
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FUNDS FOR THE
CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Cott seconded to approve the resolution. On roll I ;;y r,•
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young E
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously. I
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution t
recommending that the Denton Main Street Program be entered into
k l q
y n rlr v`'; .r i2 r''i r'1 T°+'F.M V., p~A`~.'u'f {/.k1;, r$ ? yl .,1 t'ti he,
s'N~7Iti i, '~Itt r r F ~ E .YL E. ~tiL;•r'r' n,~.
r
' it
L'... J:.,:....:..~',: .f:.S a:..'~A..w~.... v.~..rn..ai."M,1!;6di.M+`tRSdY^?7iLlIQQSLO.►t21,!Se~w+wr
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 11
the Great American Main Street awards.
Jane Jenkins, Main Street Manager, stated that this was the third
year for the City to enter this competition. The first year the
Denton Main Street Program was listed as an honorable mention. Last
year the City was not recognized.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R96-062
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE DENTON MAIN STREET PROGRAM
BE ENTERED INTO THE GREAT AMERICAN MAIN STREET AWARDS; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. on roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution
consenting to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the
Upper Trinity Regional Water District necessary for the
construction of the Regional Treated Water Transmission Supply Line
for the City of Sager in the City of Denton.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this
resolution authorized the Upper Trinity Regional Water District to
exercise the right of eminent domain in case there was a need to
acquire any right-of-way necessary for a water line between
Exposition Mills and Sanger.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R96-063
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON G'
CONSENTING TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN BY
THE UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT NECESSARY FOR THEi
• CONSTRUCTION OF THE REGIONAL TREATED WATER TRANSMISSION SUPPLY
LINE FOR THE CITY OF SANGER IN THE CITY OF DENTON; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
f
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll ✓
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", and Biles "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. _
• •
9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
City Manager Benavides did not have any items for Council. +
10, The Council considered nominations/appointments to the City's
Boards and Commissions.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock nominated Allen Nelson to the Building Code
_____.•r.r+!±r'*n1"MWAI¢M u_yi.~ ,..J. tLl~l•Aaebitrt><S. - 'T
3'! 3 1 ` R'rp'. ' ',g,6 +~s' i .d7 ; ~ i~ y t r" r 4 v
1 ~ i 1~ r" r t o IM'+~R7'Jf.d ,1, s~'r V rty'. IF' x i,✓ rC'~4 w y, t~z~ m f r I i 1 n ~
R 4 ''+SF ♦J ~ I i i 3 be! d {y~~d4k.~j3
s~ F•' ~~"i #s 7~'# r x ii N,.~3
.R i~C ' C r
9 r
C '~y
3~R4+4!
t
_ 1T~,Ip~ rep r
F d
IF I
IF
S vy C ' rt~2
y t #IrA I~s~ a
` r 4 t , ~ v e~ y I o} 1 ~ . . s l 4~`}, y7,S a n ~ 1 'y •
, r li; ! C J N. 1+, e(31n a 4s,~1 4w1~ i
,r{~h' .,y.,~,~yy~y~y..yy.. (~,,A~..L~n~r yi.~': illA 5V1 ~~r 4.][ •.JM..z.'.._~ iiiy j$~,
•.v~u.•..'4rr~~~Ti~TVllii•TY.fYY0lIA~i'~YJY~oRJ0~MbLrW1~.1 J.L.1 ~irM ~
Y S
=u
! I.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 15, 1996
Page 12
Board.
a
11. Vision Update
There was no Vision Update at this meeting. i
12. There was no official action on Closed Meeting Items discussed
earlier.
13. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas:
i A. Council Member Young asked for a discussion regarding
markings on Spencer Road. t`.
lY .
B. Council Member Young asked for a letter to the Railroad
about the good job they had done on the tracks on McKinney,
ay
Hickory, Sycamore and Prairie Streets.
C. Mayor Pro Ten Brock asked for an item on the October 10th
agenda regarding projects for "Make a Difference Day".
%
14. There was no continuation of the Closed Meeting from the
earlier session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9t00 p.m.
y
t.
t ,
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR PRO TEM
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS f '
JENNIFER WALTERS r n~'R! r i ,
gg • CITY SECRETARY *~gJ
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACCO0347
)i ',J 1 PIS >
k
p 1
( C
1
x r~~
MINE
f
~.r i;.~ i•:e n I,..,.. o.PS.,~d o.aaras.xrtw e~cy..
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 22, 1996
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, October 22,
in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: ;Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott,
Krueger, and Young,
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock
1. The Council considered the following in closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered settlement of GTE yt1W2*t Incorea ated
vs. City of Denton, et a-j.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday,
October 22, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott,
Krueger, and Young. r
ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tex Brock
1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the payment of the $79,461.98 judgement in city of Denton vs. John
Karvogniaris,
City Attorney Prouty stated that this ordinance would approve
payment of the judgement in this case which was a condemnation case
including jury award plus interest from the time of the original
award. Staff was recommending approval.
The following ordinance was considered:
96-239
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT OF THE $79,461.98 JUDGEMENT IN CITY OF DENTON V. JOHN
KARVOUNIARIS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hiles motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. on roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Cott 'lays", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
0
2. The council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing
the Mayor to execute on behalf of the City of Denton a settlement
agreement and release of all claims with GTE Southwest Incorporated
relating to the settlement of the cases styled GTE southwest
Incorporated vs. City of Denton, et alp, and City of Rusk, at al,
vs. GTE Southwest. Inc. and the city of Denton. Texas et al..
complaint against GTE Southwest Incorpgrated before the PUC.
.r j
1
,+).a.'r.`iiW 3i 3:L1`ikt"a+lN+'Vio:al:aa rr.".an u...... ............".enti:a.vritle9GNts'tffi1N+!'Jh4ra~51YFC5C6'4.'!V?S,VSi v:waCity of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 2
City Attorney Prouty stated that this ordinance would authorize the
City to enter into a settlement agreement with GTE Southwest, Inc.
It completely settled and resolved both the suit which GTE had
filed against the City and the suit which the City, along with
twenty other cities, had filed against GTE. All of the twenty
cities in the coalition had approved the settlement agreement. The
cash payment section indicated that the City would receive
$1,255,649.76. Of that amount $979,368.76 were past franchise fees
which the settlement agreed would be paid to the City of Denton by
GTE for all past franchise payments which were not paid. $205,147
included the current franchise fees which were suspended when GTE
filed suit against the City. GTE was to pay the City $125,000 per
year under the current franchise and the $207,147 reflected those
suspended franchise fees payments plus 44 interest. There was
$71,114 which represented an advance payment of reasonable
compensation for the use of the City streets not included in the
other amounts. Out of that, only the $71,114 was eligible, ;
depending on what GTE decided, for pass through to the customers.
On November 5th and November 19th the Council would be considering
an ordinance which approved a right-of-way agreement with GTE.
Under that right-of-way agreement, the Council would set an access
line charge that would set the future franchise fee payment for the
use of the streets.
The following ordinance was considered:
FO. 96-240
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS WITH GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED
RELATING TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CASES STYLED GTE SOUTHWIS ,
INCORPORATED VS. CITY OF DENTON,ET AL., AND CITY OF RUSK`S
AL. VS. GTE SOUTHWEST. INC. AND THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ET
AL.. COMELAINT AGAINST GTE SQUTHWEST INCORPORATED BEFORE THE
PUC; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
r: Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Notion carried unanimously.
Following the completion of the Special Called Session, the Council
0 convened into a Work session to consider the following:
I . The Council received and discussed an update from the Airport i
Advisory Board. 0 0
Rick Woolfolk, Chair-Airport Advisory Board, presented an overview
of the operations of the Airport. The Airport had two new tenants
in the last eight months. The FPA continued to work with Denton
for opportunities for the Airport. The first race at the Texas
Speedway was sche3uled in April and would probably impact the
Airport. Projects for next five years were included in the agenda
back-up materials. There was a need to begin considering the
j ql a:
-
_yl
'O , t EI Pa •f it a x'. i r
r
.I r
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 3
purchase of additional land for an extension of the runway. Other
future projects included exploring the possibility of obtaining
reliever stat'.rs for the Airport.
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, presented three
areas of consideration. Economic impact dealt with a five year
strategic plan, fuel flowage, new leases, an antique fly-in, and
the Texas International Raceway. Infrastructure improvements
included Lone Star Gas, the painting of the City owned t-hangers,
new entranceway signage, terminal building enhancements, and an
overlay of interior roads. Issues associated with the Airport
included whether to be a reliever versus a general aviation
airport, State versus Federal funding, the legislative agenda,
marketing/public relations, and intergovernmental relations.
Council Member Young asked about the status of a fire station at
the Airport.
Portugal stated that that would be a discussion for a future
meeting.
Council Member Young asked about security at the Airport.
Portugal stated that there had been only thirteen incidents at the
Airport since 1991. It was felt that security was not an issue at
the Airport. More fencing could be done if needed.
Council Member Young asked about the impact of the racoway on the
Airport.
Portugal stated that staff was contacting other airports in similar
situations to see how the races impacted other airports.
I. r
Council Member Beasley asked about entranceway signago at the
Airport.
Portugal stated that the sign would be a monument type sign at the
intersection of the Airport.
• Council Member Krueger asked about marketing/public relations. What # r
would Denton receive if an individual flew out of Denton to Waco or
Dallas.
a r,
Portugal stated that Denton did not have landing fees at this poilt
in time. A tie-down fee could be charged if a plane were left
overnight. Primarily the benefit to Denton would be the exposure
to Denton and Denton's corporations. If a plane were coming for
maintenance etc., there would be the possibility of a fuel
purchase.
i
Mayor Miller asked about the time frame for determining a reliever
versus a general aviation airport.
YI '
1 . I
H
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 4
Portugal stated that the Airport really needed to be one or the
other. The Airport Board was currently seeking information
concerning the two designations.
2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding a curfew ordinance in the City of Denton.
Mike Jez, Chief of Police, stated that in July he forwarded a
report to Council on a curfew enforcement program. That report
examined current and active programs in the cities of Dallas,
Phoenix, Chicago, New Orleans, Denver, North Little Rock, and
Jacksonville. His report found that 73% of the United States'
largest 200 cities had a curfew ordinance. His recommendation was
that if the Council wanted that type of legislation, the
legislation not be considered unless it were done with perspective
of a comprehensive community program including a dedicated curfew
center for those violating the curfews; staffing of those centers
with social service professionals and community volunteers;
intervention in the form of referrals to social service
professionals both for juveniles and their families; procedures for
repeat offenders to include fines, counseling or sentences to
community services and recreation and job programs, anti-drug and
anti-gang programs and hot lines for follow-up services. The
recommendation for a task force would be for it to be multi-faceted
with various members of the community involved.
Council Member Cott felt that there was a need for something like
this in District 4. He wanted to look at the cost for such a
program and would like to be involved with the proposed task force.
Council Member Krueger felt that this should be a budgetary
consideration for the future with all aspects of the proposal
looked at. There was a need to enforce such an ordinance and not
just pass such an ordinance. He felt more information was needed _
with specific numbers for a budget on this item.
Council Member Beasley stated that if this were done, it would have
to be a community effort. She questioned how the COPS efforts
• would have an impact on juvenile crime.
Jez replied that the COPS program performed multiple tasks to .~J
address juvenile issues.
Council Member Biles felt that a juvenile curfew would present more
legal issues to solve at this point in time than the good it would l
• do. He suggested implementing current resources rather than ,a
starting a new project with an artificial time line.
Mayor Miller felt that curfews were necessary at times, but that `
the current numbers did not support instituting a curfew ordinance
at this tine.
r
Council Member Young felt that the numbers were down for a reason
due to the programs the City and DIED had. Denton did not have a
d
4;QIKZ'l f r n
2E OV r~ Z iI q " ~ } 1 fy - 1c ~
ANN'
•
a.. .;o c.w•••uxr8,vi'rts: Y'u iihrvVb'IIS.tAv:A~:ex,-~,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 5
large number of bad teenagers. He was in favor of a curfew, but
the City did not have the resources at this point in time. He felt
there was a need to monitor the numbers and support the current
programs.
Mayor Miller stated that the consensus of the Council was to
continue to monitor the situation. Additional legislation was not
needed at this point in time.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding an update on the infill policy.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the City
had numerous locations around the City which developed without
water and sewer. over the years those citizens had asked to extend
water and sewer lines to those areas. A concept plan had been
developed for Council to consider.
Jerry Cosgrove, Engineering Administrator, stated that the present
policy required developers/owners to pay the actual cost of all
water and sewer main extensions, lift stations or other necessary
facilities required to serve their developments. The one exception
was the development plan line program which was for specific types
of economic development. It provided that the City could extend
water and sewer facilities to industrial prospects, to
commercial/retail prospects meeting certain conditions and E
corporate headquarters. The primary purpose of the proposed infill
policy was to promote compact growth. The projects must promote
public health, public safety, economic development or service to
economically depressed areas. Funding for the proposed police
would come from unused development plan line funds. The proposed
policy for residential infill involved existing residents within
the city limits; projects would be on a first come-first served
basis; the city would pay 100% of the cost upfront; the citizens
would reimburse the City 251; if the citizens cost exceeded 90% of
on-site cost, then the project would not qualify; and a connection
fee would be established for those citizens who chose not to
participate. Commercial aspects of the policy included that the
• project must demonstrate economic development potential; projects
must be interior to I-35 and Loop 288; staff would identify the
area, the Public Utilities Board would recommend the area and the
Council would approve the area; developers would pay 1001 upfront
with the City reimbursing 301 of the cost; and for funding above
301 an economic development ordinance would be developed. Legal
aspects for the infill policy included municipal funding
0 limitations under state law to finance residential and commercial ~ •
infrastructure extensions and mechanism under state law to levy
assessments and provide repayment of on-site and off-site
improvements. Residential limitations on funding provided that if
the policy only provided for subs tzatially equal service, it may be
a violation of the constitution. The infrastructure must provide
for economic development or a public purpose. Municipal funding
limitations for commercial projects included infrastructure
provided economic developx.ent, up to 1001 funding by the City and
• ry~~A~Yr.r-r~~~ • ,
1
Vpry . A.14'
MUM
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 6
up to 30% funding required no project bidding by the City. Three
types of repayment programs were studied. one was a formal process
with a public hearing and force participants in the program as
opposed to a voluntary program. A second type of repayment
program was a public improvement district in which a taxing
district would be created for each development. A third type of
repayment program would be an assessment by a contract between the
City and the homeowners. The Public Utilities Board had two main
concerns. one was the basic concept of utilizing existing
ratepayer monies to fund infrastructure extensions for those
taxpayers who have chosen to develop their own facilities. The
second concern was the legal limitations under state law to use
public funds for infrastructure extensions.
Council Member Cott asked if this would be considered a gratuity.
Cosgrove stated that if some public good were involved, it would
not be considered a gratuity.
City Attorney Prouty stated that there were three possible ways to
assess a portion of these costs to the homeowners or to businesses.
The most risky was the general home rule authority. In order to
have a valid assessment there was a need for a mechanics lien
contract which must be recorded prior to the start of the
improvements. It was recommended to use either Chapter 402 or 372
of the Local Government Code.
Council Member Young stated that under the home rule provision, the
City would pay 75% and the citizen pay 25%. Under the other
options, the citizens would have to pay the 25% all at once or
could they work out a payment plan.
Cosgrove stated that under Section 402 of the Local Government
code, 90% of the cost of on-site improvements could be charged to
the homeowner with the possibility of a payment program. Under a
public improvement district, the charge could be made either
through taxes or charges.
a Council Member Young asked how the sections on Mayhill would fall ,
in the proposed policy.
Cosgrove stated that in most cases, these areas would meet the r"
public health standard. It would be difficult to do both sewer and
water for that reason.
O City Attorney Prouty stated that a commercial project would be
easier as it could be indicated that it was an economic development
project. It was not easy to do that with residential property. -
Council Member Biles felt that there were a number of issues which
still needed additional information. He requested the applicable
law relating to the three funding issues; rules for the
administrative publication; more discussion on the funding
opportunities; how the connection fees would be calculated. If
_ I l ~F ~ K~t`,` I 1,? q'.3 ''y i ~j r r .,"r }{:y 4 6 ~
l..l✓l.n.iit
.n 7v• ,tip a \W ~
hY+lMy'11~~7 - F: _ ry ~'1. ~y. ay"aTr .5*, 6`p~ i +r .fig F5 rMy'w'F
NMI , I
w a,6"
are r,
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 7
there were a corresponding rate increase, would be it shared by all
ratepayers. He needed more information on the commercial infill
projects both interior and exterior of Loop 288 and 135. How would
commercial projects be dealt with outside those areas.
Council Member Young asked for more information on the provision of
funding as a health hazard/emergency basis where the City could do
90/10% funding.
Council Member Krueger asked why the Public Utilities Board was not
in favor of the proposal.
Cosgrove replied because of fairness and limitations with State
law.
Council Member Beasley felt that more information was needed inF
certain areas. It must be fair to the ratepayers as well as to all
in the city.
Mayor Miller stated that the consensus of the Council was to
receive more information and consider it again at a later date.
4. The council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction with regard to the proposed annexation of 11.40
acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. (A-
74)
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that the 11.40 acres were
located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin road. It was not
currently accessible to any of the City's streets. It did abutt
Corinth in this area. The owners of the tract had applied to the
City for annexation. There were two ways the fiscal impact study
was done. One was to study the marginal costs for providing
services to the site. It was found that City services could be
provided, based on current budget, at no additional cost to the
City. The developer was proposing 32 single family homes on the
site. The second fiscal impact study was for the long term costs
and benefits. If the area were annexed and it was developed as
• planned, $17,000 would be net over a ten year period. staff was
recommending approval of the annexation.
,n
Council Member Beasley stated that there was no read to this
z property.
Persuad stated that there was no road currently accessing the
• property. The developer would be providing a connecting road to
the area.
Council Member Beasley asked how the City could provide services if
there was no way to get to it.
Persuad stated that at a later phase there would be access off
Robinson Road. In the short term, the City would have to go
through another city to g9t to the tract.
q.
il 50
aiv.i;-4y,.7.;'i'+iA $r,~~1`L~a:k Y4Y.1LRiW v. r. .gyn. .__.,n...a+wYl.ei10[~Wi1 ~Vieg6~.+tdlsl~lfl~"/Yf WAI IaT~.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 22, 1996
Page 8
Council Member Young asked about water/sewer at this time.
Persuad replied that there was sewer and water near this site. The
developers would be responsible to provide water and wastewater to
the site with a possibility of connecting to the existing lines.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to proceed with the annexation.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Young
"aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
5. The council received a report and gave staff direction
regarding nomination(s) to the Denton Central Appraisal District's
Appraisal Review Board.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the
District had requested nominations to the Board. Four terms were
due to expire on December 31st. There were two individuals on the
Board who lived within the City of Denton - Rolan Laney and Wallace
Batey. Both of those individuals were eligible to serve another
term.
Council Member Young nominated Jane Fulton.
DuBose stated that all nominations would be forwarded to the
Appraisal Board. Council could make as many nominations as it
wished.
Council Member Biles nominated Rolen Laney and Wallace Batey.
Mayor Miller stated that the three nominees would complete
applications which would be forwarded to the Appraisal Board.
6. The Council held a discussion regarding possible Council
projects for "Make A Difference Day".
} Fran Miller reviewed possible projects for the council to consider.
s Council Member Beasley stated that the Key Club would be working on
their adopt-a-spot which was next to the Council's spot. She felt
that Council should work on their spot. She expressed concern
about doing their project due to all of the homecoming activities.
Council Member Krueger suggesting cleaning their adopt-a-spot on
another day rather than Saturday.
• •
' Morgan stated that it could be done on another day if necessary,
possibly on Sunday.
Council Member Krueger proposed to participate as a group on
Sunday afternoon to do clean their adopt-a-spot.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
• 4 1 yr
_ ' iAlr
v i
r M ry r aT k i ,"ta,F~ '.`A f f/ r d ; E r
r I~t
'4 r
w f r
r'
r MrV' 1.
S r A`,.
~ ~ 1 , f * 1 P'.Jr t ! ~ if SF.~ '!<< ~ Mai\.A` 1
[ 3eA^. ,r t tirf~„.^L 44r ~NV~ Y ~,~~i.K rw,~l ~'I~Ii~fs Ar~Y^^Ia r~ 17it Gi {~`,45~ % ° V'.~ 4Edy 7'AA+, ~
, r 5• yr 1 ~ t }„'irk ~p J 7 A ,5 1 k j ~;{,~^~~?~~i,+,, ~y`}F
o t
5} ~
✓raJ
city of Denton city council Minutes
October 22, 1996 ;
Page 9
1 ,
tilt +
r.
Yr. Ir'
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A,
i
,.rt
JENNIFER WALTERS time`
r
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
7
ACC0034A fti
rIw
++Rt
gS~rr F .r
`tiiV ^Cr r
A .I:
4 r
r,
f>
A`M 1' 1 1 I ' ~
' r+'. t r l e
i11 :f 1 I.
5~ V
~r
I~ v ✓
l+
e r
1
I ~ 1VL
Y. a w~ r`y x,
Jill 11111 illilill'illillillilll~ll
1'' r
lid,
, / 1 r
3, .
J~ .,,s~ r t
u.^sadSOLMi~~~rY ~.lw[Y211bY[illMave F`OnY~+.raa-r..`',.~.~..w..r.www.4w.rwYin•~WwY4L~4'Yiw.uw:. .r-.1
In
' i
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES k
OCTOBER 23, 1996 k.
The Council convened into a joint session with the Denton Independent School 4
District Board of Trustees on Wednesday, October 23, 1996 at 12100 noon at the
Radisson Hotel.
PRESENT: Mayor Milled Mayor Pro Tom Brocki Council Members Beasley, Cott,
and Krueger.
ABSENT: Council Members Bile$ and Young
1. The Council held a dlscuision regarding Denton ISD Bond Projects and
City of Denton CIP Projects.
Dr. Albert ThoL perintendent of Schools, presented a time line for
approval of th s projects. He reviewed plans for A new middle school
and the constr schedule. The focus would be on middle schools for
renovations or. detailed proposed renovations for the present middle
schools. He suggested working together with the City on long range planning
# for the future.
,t
Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Re:reation, presented a schedule for the
process of exchanging land for the middle school in South Lakes Park. A
public hearing would be needed regarding the exchange of the land. The
Planning and toning Commission had approved the exchange and the City Council
would be considering it in the near future. This had been a long process with
many entities involved.
Council Member Cott expressed concern regarding the school basso leaving on "
Londonderry. He suggested an analysis of traffic going to Dallas in the
mornings so that school traffic would not interfere with traffic going to C '
Dallas.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manag-r, stated that most of the school traffic would ' y
be in the area after the rush of traffic going to Dallas.
Mayor Pro Tom Brock asked about the acquisition of prop*,ty from Acme Brick.
Dr. Thomas indicated that that was still in negotiation.
i '
Council Member Beasley stated that the new ball fields at Evers and at South
Lakes would relieve the pressure in the City for now fields. She questioned if
those would be funded through the CIF.
Hodney replied that the CIP had two related projects. The South Lakes project
would be practice fields.
r
Jerry Falbo, Trustee, asked about the time frame for building the bail fields.
f Svehla replied that the need for the fields w wld dictate when they wo4:ld be
S built.
Curtis Ramsay, Trustee, asked about the removal of some of the larger trees in
the area where the school would be built.
Hodney replied that the City had a tree digger and as many treer, as possible Ir J
would be transplanted.
Both the City and the nISD agreed that this was a win-win situation for the
clticens of Denton.
With no !urther business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
JENNIFER WALTERS JACK MLLEATWO tom- 1
CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
A00003ST
S't~ ~f~ r f
e +fl~• I` ! v }~S r r C 4
1 . ~ y+. h . / r ~3 ff ~'d S~µ f ~ ~„11~d„ K Jl P ,..r ~ R [ ,r ~
c ~
1
r,...,,.......+..L'.amw4..4i.,-.srv.n.c.m...r.: Lraw.oM,.~w.w.R.a~rwn.mxi.«..
C1 T I ZEN RF PO2r Agenda No,J "Dl
Agoda Item - k o
i
L"T '.SAN%jpray M"? CVT12L-1JS glFc. T cbN(-VytNk^f) w1Vtt:"l) liw
t)kl,J oN t% Ct%JNC\L C"OSE 1•u Ff~iR'1v01`~Y\c 1ic~vrlb CtvrSS PtNO
6p(nS kw-o C DO f1US1NFSS . ~VF -ro +1S u3lLk )oN M7 Nk1Git1c)(L9AOn 1S
(SOvN6 ID num T'o' c vsJSVEYLSI~ of No(LTA il~+ As PrN4 7V c1t~of OkNlo►J.
-Wv, V).4\VI`,6rSL/ of fLrA IQCov 1S Ars NN O CuniZY.14 11N~ PAgTgo'YL
IN m"I C qll Of We'M%) IQ$06"G(MtGW% AS A f 1T? cIrIIt%M 1v% tttUsfN'M
PrnvockTT, U,isj PosIr0N IN 1-ts TAtTPVLaPP0sIIIVN-M Cary a20+n++t+vct
.9(~-01~}, plE'A'S4 c0>•JSVLT vJ\~1 Z1+flC FiJLLUWIA1f. IN4+v+gvMl.S
- v \cE • P (Lk-S+nt~JT fv2ADmIIJiSrRATniE RtfAIRS,ff~t'~ Pa.E. + 565 -2y?'1
U.V\C-k•P(Lk51(V lFva STVf)%E*jTPFFPMllL> +f)f2.'3~FS)Twp21'~SbS y909
v,rJ.T, cl-rlE-fo>^ P°L,ct ~>;'R+C 3AtKSON , sbs-3ooo
C%-v%VCn•+S Po+t RbrE-i}S 1S AN INlFoftrnAl. APF►L1PMON) of SOC1A\. GRO%jM,
uk-161;fSOfZH00fl gSSOGIoMTJN%) RPARTMEE T PrwO fbc-A< %ESTWN kSSociA,oNS+
C\wfLC1iFS SrvOL~JT G+tOVPS fSuSINSsSM~CT1/wamrcN ETC. wWo IMVV- CumF
IofeV-rftM -to sb+tJ W\TIj 1,0M C%,Tl CW\k^F O> POL\t\T ANO v,t,3.T. to AFPER\. C\7r1
bfLUltJPfNt£ 9b•d\L}, A SIM1\0vn ortmpoft f-rc LuAS PPrSS1» I►v 19-19 An,o IN
,JSj1 CI.-TI-Zk•NS c"%t TOGE~lyE^fL-to WUfCK f ft \1S Rk'('FA%..
AS q r~rl~vP WC Fk~l '11Y1j~' 'lll~ PRSS'AGE Gf OftO. Jfo-0\y •11115 PP1S-1• '
`~tr-Frrt fSS A"SRff:~ 15SvEM 1S VN~uSTIF1ED~ 1lovakvE'R~PfISS~R6~c PrS i\f1uS+N~SS
KSvEe IS uM%\jtc-SlNT3web. wF W\s "1 To PG++JT OUT INY; IN 1))A% INST+kNCF
f~U} {►JESS CAIN GOES 11aQE"ED CONFL\LT W-%TM ►Jk16N f10R1lv00 QuP&\T o f LIFE
\SSvES~ IN "illPl'C~ ~tl t2+w\p StA911rCS 1N0\cf A SY11FT of AtTI 1 F2orA
AP(zt)xi mm-o. r 12.M%)N%r,*T'T0 2k-M. COWS+Qk tJc- \1h}T SOME of S
p+cTw+T j \S of•-Sku uo\Sie RpL,gTM TA\S FRe-S Atwit IAio\t+grES
INTOLLk-ftR+ILE nlScovmj SINCt 1-Prx PA)IINfe c-1T12E-NS kRE f ON(. 41STV(Zskb
+rv TYrF421'wmES. QE"V%eAV of,,Vhs oftOINPrNCE WovL)o St trN iKT of
cO++r\P~1SS+oN o%a T At oprmv CiF 1 A* 6 E-JMW4 ul CovNC►~ -iowPmr) lVo)sE
AffE~T Nk1'.rlf~o21iv~4S. Fog CaNa\rtr+,Alloea eo►ar4+eT
' • +1'\PY2GA2ET SbNNSON - 382.5~3Eo
9Y\IKl PrNO CEL1A 2k"FD• 38b•O~}35 ~W0fL1C'• 382.5513
' J
o()V+oVSL7 U.N.T'.aINK OE'r TOT c-HNQEWES 31Fi4 - 1-At+E ctitiC-K)S
CfRktR-Tvo%N lNkt, NO\S~E NV15Po4QE t:o►JckMNS W%T1i9N "rte Nk16HQ(jQHaoP3,.
~lacE12 CeimckmNS pRtE P~-2ti;NNlf11, ANC) SI)k00-) N)Wr 16NOMM. F02
• "kmPlx . ulTI LhNNOT R"PoN%%gL7r bIC-pyk. WIl'A PL`flSlilti'f~JT y • -
9(Ltq tirnS~V1UlAT+o*JS Of Lkw) Svc1i Pr% 1'nWO{I•-IN•f OSStiSSON ay
16Nf rt+Nf. Sl>C PfLUfsLk hNQ VATvCNO+N(, lYm 1'19JftS'1,VfMr rsA•RS e.PrN ST A4 '
oPt't.1. IF 7~~ C-ME~()LtgSE coNTPftr 3t^FF U\.AtMEN C'T6\RS AA to1•IO,L\c.
S~VLfLRVtir Cbrv+tMISSIOfV~WNO IS TVA ONLY %'Nr-OrLU,-MSNY NrW"T Fu(L-I)
IN T1+f1S COVN'_y PrN0 ASK I~I wl 1 SMES 'fU 1Y\INGRS ATtE (3'1Nfe
MifNSf~tTb'0. 1jC CP'1J (l fWAtft-0 oN -Nresb% ~•$P.v►~, o2WV3)Nk'SOA'yS
P"ROrv. $-12NOdN RT 565-8670. ~ II
~Nr~~DI. , yy
I~fr N A1..'- ~t
•
, i
rx ~
a w. .nra ...u ~-.•~wWn.s+u _r.r~.u.,ua _yam.... _ ~i.w..n.....ran.Jl~'nMldu.awL:
~ i
Uniy__L.+ of North Tel" Memonndum
Chief of Police
November 27, 1996
To: Mr. Fred Pole, Vice President
Administrative
From: Eric Jackson)
Re: Impact of Late ours Ordinance 4 1"
As I mentioned during one of our weekly meetings, Mr, Mickey George has contacted me about
the impact of the late alcohol hours on the campus. The information he is requesting is public
information, and 1 will be providing it to him. However, I wanted to provide the information to
you before releasing it to W. George. The table on page three is an analysis of artats in the
Fry/Mckory Street area by this department, before and sfter the adoption of the late hour's
ordinance.
The first comparison is the total number of alcohol/drug related arrests in the am for fiscal yam
hour's ordinance became effective in January 1996 or in the
late
1996 (Row A)The
1995 and
,
sixth mouth of M:, '.Me ordy 6.5 roonths remainad in the S aul year a4.a, t:a c,;d1rju" took
effect, the number of alcohol related arrests increased IS peroetut' While this is s cottoett, the
information that concerns me most is the information contained in Row B. The number of alcohol
related arrests in this area between September I, 1996 and October 30, 1996 was 100 percent
more than the number of arrests made between September 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995. It
other words, we arrc tad twice as many violators in two months of Fall 19% as we did in the
entire fall semester of 19931
Another interesting comparison is Row C. Afrests after 1:00am increased 500 percent in the
anther two-month period. That is, we have arrested six times the number of offextles in two '
months of 19% that we did in four months of 1995. Row D slows the percentage of the total
' in 1995,19 percent of our arrests occurred after
made during these periods. ;
number arrests
• ! 1:00m So far in 19%,56 percent of our arrests have occurred after 1:00am. Thst is a 195
percent inaaue in alcohol related uruu after 1:OOun.'
fi .=t
O •
'It is sppropriw to tau: these are caswdY arrests ally. Citations for minor in poneuion or odw crimes
sssoci stall with alcohol Consumption are not included in this data, bur there is every reason to believe these bweued u
well.
'-N Be" time frame twe is 0100 to 0500.
_.,~._~.t_=- mo'w` _ . -R °y i 4 ~IQ~~'h~`Fr ~l 1 e 'f-.n~ ~ ? t f
~ r tty K{f 't,'s P'~S 'ru ~°~;.i'r1"~, ,~'~,Wti4;J.~'`,Y -~i i~l~f r,: x~. .
• c t r't,`. ~,d , w U-4 4D L," ~s r ~3f i 4
t'tr . fi 4 ~i t. FidE
Y
t
t 1
-
t
r f
r f ~ ~ V .1> > S',~r r~ ~ 'r~~'i ♦Y ~ eel ' +
W. Pole,
Page 2
November 27, 1996
Row E compares all UTests made after 1:00am, regardless of ann. As the table shows, the total
number of arrests after 1:W m increased 282 percent during campu" periods before and after
the sdopBon of the We hour's ordinance.
/ rl
This comparison dearly shows that arra'tt activity has increased since late consumptions hour
the statistics do not show is the incase in activities other tha arrests in this
took effect. Who
ares For example, Tuesday, November 26, 1996, our ofilow were called to UBW Denton
oftiOM with a large crowd and muidple fights at dosing time. The incident occurred at • bar that
` attracts the larsest crowds, ard hu one OHM poorest records on controlling illegal consumption. ;
1 Imme&at* agar that situmiON the officers had to deal with part of the crowd causing a
,
disturbance on Lot S0. Doatmaaing on the instances Eke these is not Posanbk, but my feeling is
these problems have WaMW.
,t
While the numbers we are dealing with we small, I feat they show the impact of this ordinance on
this campus and the surrounding community. Extending the alcohol consumption hours inaeued
the late roght activity that auroun& the bar and dub state. Cons%pM ly. U1V7' Policy officers
are required to devote several addidoal hours M&ly to pond" the portions of the campus near
the Fry Street arcs. This prevents them fiom patrolling the low camps, and delays their '
response to on campus calls., AddWonally. the tocrased atxivity on our parking lots in this arc
r
increases the risk level for the university.
bile i am not s6wating the University support Any PAS P the , I
do believe the ord'uratco had a negative impact on our elrvirorrnatt and the safety of our students.
Also, we do not have the hncury of selective enforcem d u the City hat. The Crty hat no
obligation to individual citizens. This is dear under case law. The Un ivardty on the other hand,
does have a responsibility to the People we allow on campus. If the Iste hour's ordinance rra+wns ;
in effect, we will continue to experience s drain on our resources that was not thane before
" January 1996. `A ?
y 1~ t I
f P+ : 7~n • ~ ' l
lf .
1 '
k
1 .
n.~ 1
1.
r:
t 4 . _ 'n , r 1 y~ a .M 4i ' ~ ! Y 1N ~ r'~ °C.I.f 'C y.J. '*(lr L
A a y * ty k i y ~ if a TI t Ya 3Za fj r R ~ 1 i •}1t „ t. t r i[i[ pr . ~ e<', ,
I ! t . t' ; rap a yr I
5i ! !
^
~ t i, SI RI I"~~ r \r
fir' r Y ' ~~e~;, '1 P
v7K i, r s° I I ~1 ar r ~
r r'*rq r+ r Spa-y `p ` i
' I 1 i yl •j~ r r 11 r r ~2y~.~ X Q
r ^ ,arr),.1r T! f.I ~,#~i r, ~+A~I j'Gt+~'yy„~T}}p S~r;Z}
r y4 It a t, r l to ia! ~ R% I t 1V,,; l r i l t}.a a iT I f;. 1'a eI
t P a;+ r r 3 d i S t SCI[Iv M 1., r~ +1' 4y
..f rtr [n xi;4~f IS> f~1.•, ~ }.~~~~ty { LL A},y 'hf Y~rYhr ~ ♦
-s~
~I tS
x 1.,
Ir ' ~ 4
- ~t t, .1V !
W. Pole.
Page 3
November 27, 1996
M1.
tCa
Comparison of Arrest Activity Before and Alter bvkmmdsfim of Lta Hods:
Fbp1 Year FOW Yaar Percart f'~`
1995 1996 L'hnge'"; ,
A TOW Arrests 66 16 1 S ' ,
B Fall Arrests' 16 32 loo
C Fall Arrests AW 0100 3 l i S00 t1~ t
i
19 S6 195
D X of ToW Arrests after 0100
}r
E All Arrests after 0000 11 42 2112t>
9.1 through 10-31
y*~~ rn+Y r It .
1 ~ eje L
1 rFY95 figure total arrests horn 090195 through 123195. FY% figure ftm 0901% through
103196."fie t'.>
2. See We 1. '
~i ~ e r L
rr ;
I ~lA~ N C t r y "11, /
•w a ~
era, '
M~l M-11 I mm"
X35. a,t. Iz
' - . tM~eP523Lt3G.~iJPL'~`.4`~L~'+M'Ci!•3bwl~KTAbA'!1 '
V* low, CITY COUNCIL REPORT Agenda Ho. ~17-- oe) I
Agenda Ite 71907
TOS Mayor and members of the City Council Date_ '
FROMS Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 35.831
acres from Planned Development No. 2 (PD-2) to the Single-Family-7 (SF-7)
zoning district. The site is located directly east of Bell Avenue at
Coronado Drive, extending north past Cordova Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (7-0).
SUMMARY:
r
See Planning 8 Zoning Commission report.
BACKGROUND:
See Planning 6 Zoning commission report.
PROQkA%(S, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
i '
Prepared by:
G. en ost, ASIA
Urban Planner
•
Approved:
Rick Svehla ;
Deputy City manager
~_,.yrs~2-~_.~-, ~ r, } • ' r I.n y ~ L?a•i ~y+♦r4~Ib;~ y.laf 1 ! ~ l (c ~5
ti~.u al ~ Fp,r~::~y~'M ~ r /fir ~r i~aM `+c ~l~ xY t,~ J .rJk ~Fn>.K „l '`1 41d ~ art},+~ rn. S ,.,f7 s~`
•
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMISSION REPORT
Tos Mayor and Members of the City Council
Proms Planning & Zoning Commission
Date January 7, 1997
Subjeot: Z-96-050
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: City of Denton
215 E. McKinney
Denton, TX 76201
Owner: Various
Actions Request a change of zoning from Planned
Development No. 2 (PD-2) to Single-Family-7
(SF-7).
Location: The site is located directly east of Bell Ave.
at Coronado Dr., extending north past Cordova
Dr. i
Surrounding Land Use and Sonings
North Single Family-Seven; residential
South - Single-Family-Seven; undeveloped
East - Single Family-Seven; residential
West - Planned Development No. 2; single-, two-
and multi-family housing
D9ntOn Development Plant Low Intensity Area #25; (1641
'allocated)
&PLUTAL INFORMATION
The site is currently zoned Planned Development No. 2, which
allows residential use according to an approved detailed site
plan. However, no site plan was ever submitted or approved. The
area was platted into single-family lots (all over 7,000 square
feet), and has developed accordingly. If the zoning change is
• approved, there would be no physical change at all to the lots
or the street alignment.
BACKGRODND
The original Planned Development, instituted in 1970 and
a
-...TT ,:may n..r. .R'i :'1u Sip
%
ATTACHMENT 1
amended several times since, provides no development
regulations, such as minimum lot area, setbacks or lot width. E
Fortunately, the development took place according to Single- r
Family-Seven zoning standards.
A meeting of the residents and neighbors was hold on November
11, 1996, to explain the proposed rezoning. There was no
opposition expressed. On November 13, the Commission voted to
initiate the zoning case, thereby negating the fee.
NOTIFICATI01i
120 notices were mailed on November 27 to the 59 property
owners within the site, and to the 61 owners within 200 feet of
the site. At this writing, five notices have been returned in
favor of the renoningt none in oppositioh. In addition, six
telephone calls have been received which can be classified as
favorable to the rezoning.
~LYS,ifl
POLICY COMMENTS significantly somewhat consistent
Inconsistent Inconsistent
e
A development should The 15.61-sae site, as low
not exceed Its allocated Intensity, k alocstod 949.66 '
intensity trips. The site Is already
developed however, so no •
additlonal Intensity Is needed.
Site plan control within No sAe plan; the homes are k
1,600 it of low-denalty currently in place 1
residences • 1
Input into plarvwg by Neiyhbortood meeting held and
neighborhood opinions Sought
associations and movils
'r
Sufficient green space, lot use Is skeady In place.
recreadonat facaTidea and Open space Is nearby,
diversity of parka is •
provided
RECOM"NDATXON
s
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this
r request.
i
ATTACILIM TS
1. Location map.
2. Ordinance.
3. Draft P&Z Minutes.
l ,
3
u.cr~. y f , r 1'tlri a}p t`~'tr J `r `l/• M 1 tf' ,~i+ a,,,.~ . , i n J r r h fltY 5 t~ ~ +
• _ y.r. ..7„ 4 f, r .d N, 'F11c i n1~.~ ~,f; y,H j.l~>>,~ ,F', i~Jryr,'s_~ ,ik y,t a t, t+s r
~,;.i a yy 13 „A s~7 r 'I ' .n l~iFt~ ,rL rl
1t Y~` b T r , , •a
i
r !
}
r
' r Y
,
J•a'^ ' f %
V~
Lr
_y„ .....wc xccr..vuv~aw~Kwor.Y.u.+d...~....~. _~._..a ,atj~ T ~ j~ ~3..ai.r~.MryJn•iVrrlr~~....'r~,Lp '
- e ! E{I
_ e12 ~ eie ego 7eo1 71M
low ivy
Ian
e~ ~ ~ er Al ■ ' , '
• DRIFTWOOD TRAIL - a
20
614 Ste 84 01 1 704 720 721 11e
7a 716 7u '
4 11
1 w_ 1~
_ CHISHOLM TRAIL 11
WO 1020
60 60~ 12 sic no 1 5 700 ~M4 12 716 720 ~
924 ■ -
_ -1
f 271 1
■ so
v 114
.ee 90,
t _
2eoo ~ ~ ~ , '
2b01 z,
• ~P
r
_ 2100 816
life
d'~y
116
1. 1 PIS 74 a ¢
NJ • ~ 2120 ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2421 _ '
~P
711
1 ~ 7W
' ~n Y:',;. w 5-~". A;~+{}'~ krtifi#. 1i,• ~,I ~1j ~'~~~i'~`y~4' lt~.:~lf! Ali 1
A A'
• • •.II.VMN~f `
•
•
2-96-050 ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
PROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 2 (PD-2) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY 7 (SF-7)
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 15.831
ACRES OF LAND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF BELL AVENUE AT CORONADO
DRIVE, EXTENDINGNORTH PAST CORDOVA DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas initiated a change in
zoning for 15.831 acres of land from the Planned Development
Number 2 (PD-2) zoning district classification and use
designation to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district
classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the requested change in
zoning, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this change in zoning
district 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 15.831 acres described in Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby changed
from the Planned Development Number 2 zoning district
0 classification and use designation to the Single Family 7 (SF-7)
zoning district classification and use designation under the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II. That the city's official zoning map is amended
to show the change in zoning district classification.
• SECTION III. That any person violating any provision of
• •
this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not
exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance
is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective
fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City
Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this
5 k
V.~.:~wl!ygl'x-L.,~iu.,u.d.'u..~.' . ..-.ewM •~y `.A1fn iMibi'N[5GSy}.~....,; ~
r
3
..w.~...~.w+rr.xxrudwuwaa+e.uar r<.r.i .r....... _ 5.,.~~.t~._,._.wd~N..+i~.~ri1.•rrrr r~y-
t
ATTACHMENT 2
ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle,
the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten
(10) days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the day of ,
1997.
i JACK MILLER, MAYOR
c
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY
i ~
r i,• ,
BY.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: i
- f tik .
,
,e
t
r
0
t-
PAGE 2
' . 14tF_~-' 77
;
't ` 4 r•:.i 1 5 r; k~1~4 t, 'd
.a,,j V- Fly , e 1 r+Y4 r~'n ~;Y
~
•
f
' 1 1 I ~ 1 v f n,l. .
M 1~
1
.
.
.
t
.ti r YP 1
~ rr
♦Y
, i
L 1 L jr A , I
a s r awti N e r ~j d a Z'~ ° , q( as 6 ~Y+r }e.'
i`+ v 4.yr,~ 'l'~ '~1a y1` r la 1`, r x v 4 Yh.~~ ~ a
,I.~YL~Iw.ckY,ti•~`a ravhr„~Vrua~YUa MWwdww.~..r.rr..u LL1i.aa Y2Rr~i ~~Mr. I~r. a / ~Y~l'w~~'i... yi.
A`JACHMENT 2
"EXHIBIT A"
ALL fist cwtaim lot. !meet w psmd of had lying sad being, titastod to the City sad
Conrty of Denton, State sf Tesas, Is tb J. tarter Ssrray, Abtratt Namber 266 and
befog more psrt4a4ry described as hlkm: , a '
BEGINNING st the nvibcad corner of Lot lay Nock A adti,e Thomas Place
Addkion, an adMm a the City mad County of Deobs, droves by plat teeorded Is
volume 9, PW 16 of *L Plat Records of Datan Coswib, Teaar
THENCE ?Korth 69° 97,32" Wet s distance of 1,00413 tat to s point for twewer, ; .
saW point belag m the west right-af-way Mae of 6eil Avenue;
THENCE Nor & 410 41' 00" Rag slew the wed rig"-way of"Aves" a
digasa of 751.24 feet to s point for tornen +
THENCE %Wk W 42120" Cuts dbtasce of 741.42 feet to s potst for corner; '
e i t
f THWCS Soeith Or $21 IS" Wet s distance of37SA9 iaf to a petit for caner;
r „
MUM[ Sontb or JV 3Q" Lao a distance 0314.3! feet to a pdst form ma
~r . r >
THBNCZ 9om& Or 15' 46" West a dkokw* of 157,41 facet to a paint for wrser, said
,y e- the _ until
point befog is yW'~m1r Ilse ofCereArils Drive; r S Y io i 1 F `1
THENCE North W 46' 49" Watt along the south rig"my of coca mb Drives
dWir~as of SS.t7 feet to s pelt tar corner; k '
TH9NCR tomb Ole IV 27" Wed a didsnee 0214.63 Beet to the POW OF
BBCINNBYG ntl contalalsg 15.631 acres of lsod. '
7Y,tigtwri l"m r ~ J1
L
4'
j v 1• , 1 1
1 , r
1 • $ J
t ~ 1
YY
r
n
a•
j 7yA d ! 1
. a '':J, f f} ^R ~Yl,(17'^ r1s}I n ii~~~e4
1,
and
t '
ATTACHMENT 3 RA T
P&Z Minutes ~ December 11, 1996
DO Page 9 '
VI. Hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning of approximately 15.831 acres from Planned-2 (PD-2) to
Single Family-7 (SF-7) zoning district located east of Bell Avenue at Coronado Drive, extending north
past Cordova Drive. (Z-96-450)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Yost: This is a clean up, we are rezoning this from PD 2 to SF-7. The PD called for residential use
and it does not define the term residential use. There were a hundred and twenty notices mailed out and
we did not receive any replies in opposition. Staff recommends this rezoning.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of this petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? .
We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommnwl. approva! for 7-96-050.
Ms. Schertz: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7-0)
VII, Hold a public hearing and consider the preliminary and final replats of Lots 3R-1, 3R-2, 5R, and 4R-2,
Block B of the Donna Del Estates. The property is located on the south side of Del Drive, between Riney
Road and Donna Drive.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: This is a 1.974 acre tract if land zoned SF-16. The surra,^ding property is also zoned
SF-16. Public improvements associated with this replat include dedication of a utility casement along all
street frontages. Water and sewer is available and it will be the responsibility of the builder to extend
lines to the lots. We mailed out thirteen notices and we received one reply in opposition. State law
requires that we send out notices to everyone within two hundred feel and within the subdivision. There
are no variances associated with this repiat. DRC recommends approval.
• 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. 1
Mr. Cochran: I move to appiohe the preliminary and final replats of Lots 311-1, 3R-2, 5R, and 411-21
Block B of the Donna Del Estates.
z
Ms. Ganzer. Second. r
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7-0)
Ten mim~te recess at 6:47 p.m.
8
'14
1 '
L I
r q'
~ r, 1 aMrltur'~1
, 1 r f F f. 1 .
.
r
.
w \ p r Rr'v,1 t\'.
t• s 1+ , a r 4 E~° Y~ ,
' , r jr~29r ~ y 1y I1 i "'r~ r .~I ~ ~.I y fJ2~}PN~ .
t , 1 , T y F ! 4 n . rr f , klcp,„3~< ar•~r r~t, .t l~' 4J .4~ r l "
1
Agenda No. q1~00 k
Agenda
Item
Date
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
l
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordnance rezoning 136 acres
from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district to the following zoning
districts: Office Conditioned (O(c]), Single Family 10 Conditioned (SF- " -
10(c)), Single Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c]), Planned Development
(PD), and approving a Detailed Plan for that Planned Development. The
subject property is located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller
intersection.
i
t ~ 4
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (5-2). ;
SUMMARY
Written opposition has been received from property owners within the 200 foot notice '
area totalling 25.78% of that area. The 120% Rule' Is In effect for this case, which will Fyn
x
require a supermajority vote of the Council to approve. t~
BR y err
BACKGROUND:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
t I
FISCAL IMPACT: `
s None.
{ f~• .
a .r I~
A
' ,w.+e-_=. , :1 •a•7':. rM Udi •eyf Y".',l~Ti. "•i' ~K~M1~~~~~I +~iV ~dtiY7+=~f~r ~`•rv
t 1
4ACIN
r i t t J r r ~rJ
, ~ ! r a + it y{
J 1 t
' ow ~ re r~ ! ~ r rr 4f Jet YJ~f 1~' f~~°~ ~ 1 F}p
.•rtv:t...l'.Y,.Av~iHiww~Awui~►a.,r.,.~..1.J....:W:..:{!a~:t14
"L.t.. iy
l A`
r.
Please advise if I can provide additional information
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager \
k
Y 1
Prepared by:
r r. ,
1 y 1 a L 1
J 61
Walter E. Reeves, Jr., AI
Urban Planner
Approved:
r ,
00 AA
Rick Svehla .
Deputy City Manager
a
Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. ; tr
• Attachment #2: Ordinance.
4 Attachment #3: Draft minutes of 12/4/98 P&Z meeting.
rf
~p y
Ilk
. ~Jr.m_.__= ~ 7~fM,~i~ °rtr , l•l}rr r. x~Yy ~ W.' 1 °~45" iY'A °SY a1 j~
k, ad
•
I r
ATTACHMENTI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: January 7, 1997
Subject: Z-96-036
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Mr. Jake Hersman
225 Stonecrest
Argyle, Texas 76226
Owner: Hersman Development Corp
Same as above
Action: Rezone 136 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district to
the following zoning districts; Office Conditioned (O(c)), Single Family 10
(SF-10), Single Family 7 (SF-7), and Planned Development (PD), and
consider the detail plan for the Planned Development district (Attachment
Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Lillian Miller/Teasley
Lane, at its interst;,tion with Teasley Lane (Attachment 2).
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: PD-153 & Agricultural zoning, vacant land, single family residential
use, and Thomas Egg Farm.
South: SUP 192 (Sundown Ranch).
East: PD-20, vacant land.
West: Office Conditioned (O(c)), PD-16, SF-16, & PD-87; vacant land,
single family residential use.
Denton Development Plan: Low Intensity Area #77 (155% allocated).
•
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The subject property is currently unplatted. Public Improvements involved with the plat
process include: dedication and construction of public streets throughout, sidewalks,
extension of water and sewer lines, drainage improvements, & fire hydrants. !
• BACKGRQIL ` •
The subject property has been rezoned several times. Approximately half the sub;ect
property was originally placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district by Ordinance 69
Page 1
NOMINEE!
o? y
A
"44 Zft-j;
I
ATTACHMENTI
01, which adopted a new zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton. The
remainder appears to have been absorbed by the City in two separate annexations In
1974. At some time between 1374 and September 4, 1984, the property was rezoned
from the Agricultural zon ng district the Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning district.
September 4, 1984
The property is rezoned from ,he SF-10 zoning district to Planned Development 19
and a concept plan was approved for a mixed use development consisting of:
Single family (10,000 square foot lots)
Single family (7,000 square foot lots)
Cluster housing 0 6 unitslacre
Cluster housing @ 11 units /acre
Multi-family (390 uni's)
General Retail, Office, Park and Community Facility
August 19, 1986
The Council approves an amendment to the PD-19 concept plan by increasing the
number of single fa.ni;y 7,000 square foot lots.
15 acres from cluster housing (120 units) to single family (7,000 sci t.)
30.39 acres from single family (10,000 sq.ft,) to single family (7,000 sci t.)
28.53 acres cluster housing (314 units) to cluster housing (339 units)
January 22, 1991
PD-19 is again amended by adding approximately 1.5 acres of this PD to PD-16 (fire j
station, library, retail shopping center).
July 6, 1993
The subject property is rezoned from PD-19 to SF-16 and an Office Conditioned (O(c))
zoning district.
NOTICE
There have been two public hearings on this property. Thir;j (30) notices for the
October 23, 1996, Planning and Commission meeting were mailed on October 11,
1996. Thirty (30) notices for the Decembe, 4, 1996, Planning and Zoning Commission
special meeting vere mailed on November 22, 19%. All opposed responses to the
two mailings havo been used in the '20% Rule' calculation (duplicates were not
counted twice). As of the time of preparation of this report, 25.78% of the property
within the 200 fcot notice area had written responses in oppusition to the request -
(Attachment 9). Beazer Homes may withdraw their opposition. If they withdraw the
opposed percentage will drop to 12.78%.
- Page 2 M
i
i
ATTACHMENTI
ANALY$IS
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area
Development Rating VS Poky ;
POLICY COMMENTS e'a"s"'y s."s."sr CaM 1"
hoor"tee "MwWee
To be oonslstont with the Plan, a Allocatod Intensity. 8,180 Intensity trips.
development sbould not exceed Its Proposed Intensity • 6,055 in"ry trips (1)• x -
aAcutod Intensity, Proposed Intensity • 6,728 Intensity trips 12).
Strict site plan control within 1,600 Low done y residential use wltih[n 1,600 tat,
fat of oxi song low density No site plan prcgosed. Not being proposed x
residential. as a PD, oondltions are being attached to
address speak site design Issues.
Traffic doslgn to ensure that Multi- Proposed ofka seas have frontage on Uplan
Family or Non-Residantal uses have Miller. Whether socs ss Is possible for s8 the
access to collectors or larger acreage Is queslknablo. X
arterials with no dared access
through residentlal stroets.
SuRaient green space, racrostional landscaping will be required as per the CiVs
laclfihos and diversify of parks are Landscaping. Screening, and Tra
provided, preservation Ordinance. A 25' bwterya rd Is x
proposed for the ORae Conditioned zoning.
Other open speed is proposed as an ameNty
associated with 8e plat, but la.~l proposed
as part of the rezoning.
,
Input Into planning by nelghborhood Two nelghborhood mootirgs wan hold on - -
ossodebons and councils Is October 8, 1996, and on November 20, 1996. x
encouraged.
Neighborhood sarvlce center Total proposal oornmaraal acreage along
concentration Lillian Miller Is 4.42 acres, oxcluslve of the x '
Brady Office Conditioned zoned property.
Maximum allowed by M Denton Development
Plan would be 3 acre.
Nonresidential u, mile separation The obke portion of the proposed `
dsvelopmenl Is slightly more then 2,000 beet x `
from the Southridge Center, and adjacent to
i
an Ole) or" b the south.
Any form of continuous atrlp The office portion of this proposed project is
commercial development Is strongly considered strip commoraai development X ,
discouraged In or near low Intensity -
areas
Page 3
is r:'
•
t
V
ATTACHMENTI
LIIBan Millar Specifle Ana PoPo4s, Ghmn tile prominence of de South East Planning Arse and the thoroughlaro nolwo* h
ulat sector then are "to bs pressures to locate high to moderate htsnsity tend uses along Teasley Lane, FM 2181, Lkllm
Miner Parkway, Hobson Lane, 1a5E, and between Loop 288 and LMaan Abner. Thew pressures are likely ho increase as FM
2181 Is developed as a primary arterial and extended further south to ultimately conned with the DFW Airport
The poi y of IAIs Plan therefore Is to rest. d the further Intrusion of high and moderate intensity lard uses In tins arse. United
neighborhood saMces and high dens'.y housing consistent with the standards for a low Intensity area, are not prohidted. The
Following spocific guldonnes are required
The neighborhood dsnallyAntensity The proposal confome to tie maxlmum .
standards should be closely Intendy of the 0anton Deveopmont Plan. X .
monitored and vigorously
Implemented.
Restrict curb cuts to Teasley Lane, As presented In tie proposed preliminary plat,
FM 2101, L An Miller, and Hobson ,.oosss WIN be requested to Union Minor by the X .
Lane, us" In the proposed olfas cond'rtloned tonhg
district.
r
Residential subdlWalons should be The proposal Is consistonl will this
generally designed so houses do not raqulrament
face onto major thoroughfares.
These should access onto local and x ,
mnector sheets,
Through traffic to DFW. NA
Other Polktfi
l
Diversined housing patterns. t -
Housing concentration Proposal helps diversity housing In area x I
Transition between types & density Proposal transitions to higher densityln center k I`11
Trans portstlon dsstgrl Higher densAy has access to collector street x 1
ProV"m for Lansportation modes Nol applicable
e In Osi c:.!t a lon can rte two ways:
246 SF-7 lots X 10 tripslunit = 2,460 Intensity trips
110 SF-10 lots X 10 trips/unit = 1,100 intensity trips
89 PD lots X 10 trips/unit = 890 Intensity trips
4.42 acres O(c) 52,000 sqp rt,/1,000 X 15 t/dlga = 780 intensity trips
4.706 acre 0(c) from Z-93.10 = 825 intensity trips
• The reason the 4.706 acres is Included in the calculation Is that this property was all
part of Z-93-010 and was used to allocate more intenshy than would been allowed for
the 4.706 acres (825 vs 282) than would otherwise have been possible without the
additional acreage.
•
i • •
r
I i..
Paged
x
Wool
K
%
1 ~ i s htcr ~ ~r 11 +y,~7{~>r`~ 1.t'~ iy" r ,':'~>j r.~l ;fit.
PON
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
The second intensity calculation approach is as follows:
69.3 acres SF-7 X 42 trips/day/gross acre = 2,910 intensity trips
44.1 acres SF-10 X 301rips/day/gross acre = 1,323 intensity trips
89 PD lots X 10 trips/unit = 890 intensity trips
4.42 acres O(c) 52,000 sq. ft./1,000 X 15 t/d/ga = 780 Intensity trips
4.706 acre O(c) from Z-93-10 = 825 intensity trips
This proposal is inconsistent with a number of policies of the Denton Development
Plan. When a proposal is not consistent with the Intensity Policy of the Plan, the Plan
provides an alternative for assigning more intensity or amending the intensity
designation of the Plan. For cases such as this, the Plan Is silent on alternative
approaches.
In a situation where the Plan does not provide guidance the approach being used by
the Commission is to try to Identify what is causing the inconsistencies with the Plan.
In this case, with the exception of the site plan policy, the inconsistencies are caused
entirely by the proposed 4.42 acres of Office Conditioned zoning. The Policies this
proposal i; inconsistent with include: site plan control, neighborhood service center
concentration, separation, and strip development. Absent guidance from the Plan, the
question becomes one of possible mitigation of the problems. The recently approved S
zoning case south of Red Lobster helps provide guidance on what is acceptable as
mitigation when faced with inconsistencies in this area
Attachment 3 is s recommended list of conditions for the residential areas.
Attachment 4 is a recommended list of conditions created on the basis of ti,q recently
approved rezoning of land owned by First State Bank of Denton. There are some
differences betwaen the two lists of conditions (no prohibition of windows on second
stories, no limitation on amount of square footage allowed in second floors, 70% brick
or brick veneer roquirement, e1c.). There are two additional conditions designed to get
the parking behind or beside the buildings, and providing additional trees along the
Lillian MN%rls sa>>ey frontage. The idea with these conditions is to give the feel of a
trot) fined street with what appear to be large houses.
• MBJor Issues
Traffic
One issue that surfaced at both Planning and Zoning Commission public hearings was
the traffic issue. The applicant has been working with the staff on a preliminary plat of
the property, with the Intention of bringing it forward after the rezoning process is
completed. Based on the latest proposed preliminary plat, there would be 445 lots.
• The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation handbook, shows an • •
average trip rate of 9.55 trips per unit of single family detached housing. At full
development, under the current scenario, trips generated by tho s'r+gle family
Page 5
- - ..~.`vmxr,. ` r` ' j iyi4,trk.c,Y_ ~.uA .yt~ i+ r n`T t _ i
i
•
:mot.
{r
l '
f
ATTACHMENTI
development would be estimated at 4,250:. The handbook also gives an average trip
generation per 1,000 squara feet of general office space (Attachment 5), 829 for a
50,000 square foot office building. Thus, a rough estimate of the total traffic impact of
this request at current proposed buildout would be 5,079 vehicle trips. Including the
already zoned O(c) district would increase that amount approximately 829 for a total of
5,908 vehicle trips. Attachment 6 is a copy of the City's traffic count map in the area
of the proposed rezoning.
The Commission instructed the applicant to submit a traffic study (Attachment 7).
That document was submitted and reviewed by both the staff, and the City's traffic
consultant. Except for some minor typographic errors, the staff concurs with the
results of the study,
Parka
Another issue that was raised Involved parks and recreation areas. The Parks and
Recreation Section of the DDP (Chapter III, Section F) stales as follows:
The plan recognizes the need to provide adequate parks and open spaces for
the citizens of Denton for leisure activities and to enhance the quality of life.
The general concepts and policies are intended to provide guidelines for related
land use planning and preparation of a more detailed master plan for parks and
recreation.
This section then goes on to recognize the need for neighborhood parks (5.10 acres,
open space, community parks (30 acres or more) and greenbelt/linear parks.
Unfortunately, the City currently has only a voluntary park policy. Mr. Hersman has
approached the Parks and Recreation Department about using i 'open space' as a
greenbell/linear park. Mr, Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, has spoken
with Mr. Hersman, and 'in concept' has agreed provided Mr. Hersman supplies details
regarding design and construction, escrows an amount sufficient for malntenance for
ten (10) years, and the system of small takes and open space is approved through the
plat process (almost all of the area involved Is part of the drainage system of the
property) There are still significant issues to be worked through on the proposed
drainage, thus, any presentation of this area as being part of the City park system,
now or in the future, is premature. However, bearing all that in mind, the area under r `
consideration would total slightly over 14 acres, exceeding the 5-10 acres of a E
neighborhood park. {
Density
i ; A final issue presented at both the October 23 and December 4 meetings Is that this y
i is `high density' development. The Denton Development Plan (Chapter Ill, Section C)
J defines housing density In units per acre as Low (0 - 5), Medium (6 • less than 12),
Page 8
it I
` .r f" d'< ^ tq tta f Wk,s-"~~~ ci r } t';'^ra• } ,X ^i uY ➢~A+.u?1r r r ' 4x,~~2.: -Y L;J
s
ATTACHMENT 1
and High (12 and over). Additionally, as low intensity areas are assigned 60 trips per
day/per gross acre, and as Appendix A of the DDP assigns a trip generation factor of
10 trips per unit for all single family residential development, the Plan accepted density
for residential development in a Low Intensity Area is actually a maximum of six (6)
units per acre. Appendix A also recognizes an average level of development for the
City of Denton of 4.2 units per acre in SF-7, and 3 units per acre In SF-10
(Attachment 8). The current proposed preliminary plat has a density of 3.37 units per
acre (445 units/132 acres). As a point of reference, the Southridge Estates
Subdivision (directly to the north) has a density of 3.05 units per acre (134
units/43.999 acres).
Detailed Plan Requirements.
1. Acreage. The acreage in the plan as shown by a survey, eert'rfied by a
registered engineer.
Provided.
2. Land Uses. Permitted uses, specified in detail as determined by the l
department, and the acreage for each use. 1
Provided.
3. Off-site Information. Adjacent or surrounding land uses, zonings, streets,
drainage facilities end other existing or proposed off-site Improvements, as
specified by the department, sufficient to demonstrate the relationship and
compatibility of the district to surrounding properties, uses and facilities.
Provided.
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. `
5. Buildings. The location, maximum height, and minimum setbacks for all
buildings, and If nonresidential, the maximum total floor area.
• •
Provided. '
Page 7 J
4
I°h 'V
v' 1 tF t ~ L/ '1 ~1 ~ ~ • .,gFhC r~✓ "Xi~'11` , tta a ~.i v{bl V: v rn '1J r Y'ar,M.~ft Et J' Y
i",. t y,i e
.r, .S n°,1~r,
i
Ja r•
ATTACHMENTI
6. Residential development. The number, location, and dimenslons of lots,
the minimum setbacks, the number of dwelling units, and number of units
per acre density.
Provided.
7. Water and drainage. The location of sit creeks, ponds, lakes, floodplains
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.
Provided.
9. Trees and landscaping. The location of all protected trees and a landscape
plan as required by the city's landscape ordinate.
Provided.,
10. Open space. The approximate location and size of greenbo% open,
common, or recreation areas, the proposed use of such arses, and whether E
they are to be used for public or private use.
Some proposed, labelled as common area.
11. Screening. The location, type, and size of all fences, berms, or screening
features proposed between diffsreM land uses or adjacent properties.
None.
12. Signs. Location, type, and size of all signs regulated by the City's sign
ordinance.
J
No signs are proposed. ,
13. Sidewalks and bike paths. Sidewalks or other Improved ways for
pedestrian or bicycle use.
J 'f i`
• Provided. t ;}i • •
Page 6
.r
i
a~1",.' .'.xni' NQUW`~401~1
A +
F Y
- r
a.
C
a
f
T: r3
ATTACHMENT I
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission finds that the Vat of conditions for the Off lee Conditioned district
addresses and mitigates the inconsistencies between the proposal and the Denton
Development Plan. Further, the Commission finds that the conditions proposed for the
Single Family 7 Conditioned and Single Family 10 Conditioned portions of this
rezoning adequately address any inconsistency with the site plan policy. Therefore, s'.
i the Commission recommends approval of a rezoning of the subject property to the
following zoning districts; an Office Conditioned (O(c]), a Single Family 10 Conditioned
(SF-10(c]), a Single Family 7 (SF-7 (c]), and a Planned Development (PD), subject to
the list of conditions In Attachments 3 & 4. The Commission also recommends
approval of the detailed plan (Attachment i) for the Planned Development district.
w k
ALTER NATIVES
1. Approve as recommended
2r Approve with additlonallother conditions.
3. Deny.
4. Postpone consideration.
ENCLOSURES (T
1. Proposed detail plan. r
r
2. Location map. i
3. Proposed Residential conditions. c
4. Proposed Office conditions.
5. General Office trip generation.
6. Traffic count map.
7. Traffic study. ,
8. Table from Appendix A, Denton Development Plan JE
9. '20% Rule' map. z4 ;
F A^
• 'Tr~Y J rr
k. W 1 ~
"~}]et1 i 1 k yt ~i r'
a+rt ~ '
Page 9
~ J ra a s'': r ~
J
. Yy 4rµ e+~.,
Boni!
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCIOSUR E 1
5• • e
• r „L,
r . . l t
f ~ f 1 ~ 1
9
r
f
OIL
I
331 1 11 is
jai
0 Am
1 ~ t-- 111 • i~~ r r• r r r• r. r~ ~ t ;
(ry1 a r [ i'
Owl
•
i
•
..f
i
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE2
O,
f 4
I S ~ ~
i I r ~ ~ 1c
ti• a I I
dighl
nil
oil
Ctd
ri I I r1•~ o
00 1 I
a,
Y S Y Y Z N 2 P-. I \ ~
I
e I ~
J
- zlu
Nil
Lb- o ,
~ I u u W u u u 7
Z N N Z i S N
- ~6 4r ~31~IyS~74
•i fi~
" m
Y • I
O .
Jk ' y 11W),11111111, ail 2~~ • V
M yY]aT'ay a]]aw,]a>],:1, V a ]]4J7] O
~Q{ i i N Z N i i i i i i N N N N N M i ••f i i N i i i i M N i i i i i t i /.5
t ~ ,
k ' i . <a 5 v r s a .a F. "'r u.a; • !'`L6 ,~y+}XeL RTl .
:':t Si 3.rtJaaYiaM+.~W+.waraww.wi,wr~..eL.-::~.. w 1 . .x,.77 CC"' ..:1.+~+..~`+...k.:~:...,-1`::: ~ v.o- tr, .R+
v.
ATTACHMENT1
ENCLOSURE 3
Recommended Residential Conditions
1. Concrete driveways. t ,
2. That all roof surfacres shall have a minimum 5-foot to 12-foot pitch or slope on
the main structur3 and a minimum 4-toot to 12-foot pitch on the garage or
porches.
3. That the minimu-n air conditioned habitable living area of the main residential
structure of east. lot as measured to the outside of the exterior walls, but F Fl
,
exclusive of porches, garages, patios and detached accessory buildings, shall
not be less than: PD zoning - 1,450 square feet, SF-7 zoning - 1,600 square
feet, SF-10 zoning - 1,800.
i
4. That the total exterior wall area of the front of each building, Including the first
and second floor of each two-story building constructed or placed on a lot, shall
be 100% brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry, and the total
exterior wall area of the entire first floor of each building constructed on a lot
r;hali be a minimum of 80% brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or
masonry.
5. Each residence shall have a private garage suitable for parking not less than
two (2) but not more than four (4) standard-sized automobiles. Each gsrage ,
shall be attached to the residence and shall conform in appearance, design,
and material to the main residence.
t
4
yl".
1 ~i yC.iM Y ' e e ,
, i v
Mill
d
.5. r
. n S .vim -
_ ....asa.: wlaa,..! ry A r 4.~..{~ •.~.:-.`.'.a2...L.~'... r-•» h4"4~~~.a..5. ' ,
,
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 4
Recommended Office Conditions
1. That the only permitted use Is Offices, Professional and Administrative.
2. That the total floor area for all buildings constructed on the 4.4 acres shall not
exceed 52,000 square feet.
3. That no loading docks shall be permitted.
4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of not Jess than 70°/a
brick or masonry veneer, with 100% brick on the front of each building.
4 S .
5. That no 'off-promise' signs (as defined by Section 33.2 of the Code of
Ordinances '4 the City of Denton, or its successor) shall be permitted, x'
6. That no direct off-site lighting shall bel purnitted• w
1 7. A "bufferyard" measuring fifteen feet (151 wide, and comprising four (4) canopy
and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred linear feet (100'), shall be J Y
installed along the property line(s) of the 4.4 acres abutting residential lots.
8. That the maximum building height shall not exceed 35 feet.
p 42/
9. No Individual building shall exceed 7,500 square feet.
10. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof surface may have a slope of
less than 301%.
11• In addition to any streetyard landscaping required by the Landscaping, p
Screening, and Tree Preservation Ordinance, an additional tree per every 60
feet of frontage along Lillian Miller Parkway.
12• No parking will be allowed In the front yard setback of any building along Lillian;
Miller Parkway. r
J
f
I
y r
r~r
3
trfM t'i'J G.
t r
i ~ J a'~4 t'n lh r ,
• of i.t.yf
Y4
..........ri.:..aei...,r.w.r...~Y>vs,w+.+raw:~...~~.......~.....i-.~....w,...-..+:w.........v.:'.-.... :~..ti.......,...._a~..~uw :sL ~t
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURES
L
Table 4: General Office Building Tr 1P Generation
Vehicle Trip Ends (I'Wb-Way Volums) Per 1,000 Square Fast Gross Floor Ares
t)erlved FromTrl Generstion E ustions
1,000 Square Feel Average Weekday A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour
Gross Floor Area Vehleie Trip Ends (1 Hour BOHM (1 Hour Between
7 and 9 A.M. 4 and 8 P.M.
Flats Volume Flats Voium 9 Volumes
32 10 24.60 246 320 65 2.88 67
25 19.72 493 2.80 111 224 112
60 18.68 829 22? 190 1.87 187
100 14.03 1403 1.90
1 327 168 911
I 200 1185 2389 .84 SAO 420
300 10.77 3230 1.50 450
Big
400 9.98 3964 1.40 661 1 "
600 9.45 4723 133 885 122 700
800 9.05 5432 128 773 1.17
700 6.76 6125 124 871 1.12 781
800 or more 8.46 120 1.08
Source Numbers
193.207, 2t2. 217, 2477253, 257, 2280, 2828799, 295,1297.298, ,4W.301, 302, 803.904, 321.
322, 323, 324, 327
I
1
M • L•
,
942 buff to OI Yrarlpo+selion E a ~s
Tdp Generadon, January 1991
y. 1~. rl'.~~' '•4n :r.~.P, A SIb Y,.a ~ 9 }4'~s
a .~i
•
0
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 6
1 746
ii_ 16035
11117.
W,b
21 .IIY
WIJf au,w[II • IY•r1.
y Yus to 376
18493 \ + 4"
. d
too
• D t G0.0C 11 fA1./10.l
1y• FJ
,IFfle/t al ` 7438 1
29 a
I • t,
1~ t' • ` by
i M &ifl L
t Z
„YfY„ r+''I' ,
s //r Y Yt,l 4 12072
Imat
cl. f E l~ f t t'4 N. 4
ww /m ald bf.+C,M t~
/
f eal tP. IYf / i tYAwW c I
E5 11", 11
60
Ifq !rw ,u
40
121"83"'
N V
If1Y/ ` •
lu /1
I I \It 4 ►p+1 Yr
",%Iftl al. it 1
its
/
-MiZ
d
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 7
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
The Lakes at Hunters Ridge
i
Denton, Texas
t -
Prepared for.
i
Hersman Development Corporation
r
Prepared by:
i
Jack Hatchell & Associates
Plano, Texas
November 1996
y
<r. .
M fdr
1y`M
1g 1
r r YY' z~~~~ ~ r .lU r n ~r
. uws_ ~ ~ f r ~~j.`..,,~ r ~iw~.~ ~~r~ .7N'r ~ n g ♦ ` ' -G4yCr.' r.
~ ti 4 C if t`
"
0A.a.v:.t.,.:-......._..a+.rua„",.y,,y.......,....»i....-..-..~i._....W _...._......M.~.:.._.`S~"f~ n.__bj. ~tia'Y..r C~ 4.».~r.Y~__... ~'•~"..'i.i+
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
3 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
i
1
140.39 Acre Tract
The Lakes at Hunters Ridge
Lillian Miller Parkway at Teasley Lane
Denton, Texas
j
Prepared for:
Hersman Development Corporation
Prepared by:
Jack Hatchell & Associates
Plano, Texas
November 1996
For Information Contact: {
111
Jack Hatchell
P.O. Box 260119
11 Plano, Texas 75026-0119
(214) 424-1368
J
~.i.
-a,ri~ f i 1
. Mee 1
.
r
r
' P r ! : , + F4 ' F ~ 'd a f < Y 1 In ar;,'(~.~rryh~ ~N .
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE T a
CONTENTS Pace
1. INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
2. AREA CHARACTERISTICS 2
3. SITE CHARACTERISTICS 3
Trip Generation 3 =
4. PROJECTED TRAFPIC VOLUMES 5 t
Existing Traffic Volumes 5 3
Projected Site Traffic 5
Projected Total Traffic 5
9 n b . r r;.
S. CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS 10
Intersection Capacity SO
Results of the Analyses 10
6. CONCLUSIONS 12
APPENDICES
Capacity Analysis r,
itP
1
t+1
Mtr {
1
z
f ,
_ b
3
j t
Z~qr
~ FiYd r..t , .
«z
rn
t, C.o-r ~ 8
_
•
w .
^r. f.
P 4 k .
Pa
;t
I
A a ~
' -rs-tit:' , Ttr.~ ~y~~ h ~ ~~i:i i Y,•~~~ M1~
K r. ~s ♦ ! 'w+' P 'tae `~~-0.: Tti""~i ' v1T 'aG ~7LPtri~rl~...o•~ ~ t > y ' t
r
t n 1,
f:•
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 7
:s
LIST OF FIGURES PAM
1. site Location 4
2. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 6
3. Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 7
4. Projected Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 8
5. Existing Plus Site-Generated Peak Hour Traffic 9
LIST OP TABLES
1. Trip Generation Data 3
2. Intersection Capacity Analysis Results 11 k
s
e'
{ t,
fFt 7 '
4
J~ S
1 I
«t
A
"NO
r
It •
!
a' w .T ~ - 1; "k~'i s Ord r< „y~ h , r ~ ~ 1',~~~r, r~F ~ ~ ~ , y
.
. "fie. . ' F a s 4 ° arz t
a
!
M1
.
, J
yyJ
f', ♦ 4 lhl
x
ATTACHMENT 1 t.
ENCLOSURE 7
1.
IHTROWCTION
Hersman Development Corporation is making application to
site plan approximately 140 acres on Lillian Miller Parkway
t at Teasley Lane to develop 475 single family lots in Denton,
Texas. City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission has
expressed concern about the proposed development's traffic ;
impact on Lillian Miller Parkway and the intersections of the
IH 35 Frontage Roads and Lillian Miller/hoop 288 and has
requested the developer prepare a traffic impact study. To
comply with this request, Hersman Development Corporation has
retained the services of Jack Hatchell 6 Associates to 5c
prepare this study. y
Purpose
This report assesses the impacts of anticipated site-
generated traffic for the proposed development on the area
roadway system and the intersections of Lillian Miller Parkway at Teasley Lane, Lillian Miller at the IH 35
Southbound Frontage Road ISBPR) and Loop 288 and the IH 35 i
Northbound Frontage Road (NBFR). Level-of-service is the
standard measure of effectiveness used by transportation
engineering professionals to identify such potential adverse'
impacts. The three intersections identified above were
selected for analysis because they are the intersections that 1
will be most impacted by development traffic. + I
Background information relative to the site, study
methodology, findings and conclusions as they relate to the
,f
area roadway system are presented in this report. P
r3 pA\V +
R `
~ J
uf.
' ~r dr
1 !
SIC ur
xW $ V
r
r ~ 7K Aa c+,
f
4 > Ir P iF w.'.( i M1 <f ~Y Srr }ti t`i.kt 'x xjjy.
.v+,.:I a..S..twyrpyYyyy.µ -rwL:.w y . u 7 g ti, r~ rT~'1
asir'
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE7
2. ARLA CBARACTSRZSTICC
The area of Denton surrounding the site of the proposed
development is partially developed. Property to the north
and west of the site is developed as single family
residential. Property to the south and east is undeveloped.
I Lillian Miller Parkway and Teasley Lane provide direct access
to the proposed single family development. The main entry to
the proposed subdivision is an extension of Teasley Lane.
This proposed entry roadway is proposed to extend east in the s '
future and connect with the is 35 SBPR. Teasley Lane and f'
Lillian Miller Parkway are both four-lane divided
thoroughfare streets.
fk
r
• ~~x
N`
aYW
J s
~f a
as ~
ry
f r
~f YY e
I
s Y 11~ 4. , ` ~ ~ ( I ~ ` .
Y-
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE T
3.
SITE CBARACTSRISTICS
The proposed 149.?9 acre single family development is _
bordered by Lillian Miler Parkway and Teasley Lane, as shown
in Figure 1. These arterials provide direct access to the
property. IH 35 is located in the vicinity of The Lakes at
Hunters Ridge and will provide major access for the develop-
ment traffic.
Trip Generation
Traffic expected to be generated by a parcel of land is
primarily a function of the use of that land. The volume of
traffic associated with any development depends on the
proposed land uses and their densities of development.
To determine the expected trip generation of the
proposed development, a nationally recognized and accepted
standard published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) entitled ~D Generation. 5th d Lion was
used. This publication states trip generation rates and
equations for varied land uses based upon actual surveys of
those land uses. Land use and intensity, trip rates and peak
hour and daily trips for projected land use and proposed
zoning are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
TRIP anzRATIon DATA
Trips
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Dsily
Land Use Units Rate Trips Rate Trips Rate Trips
Single Family 475 0.74 353 1.01 480 •9.55 4,536
92 Trips in '312 Trips In
260 Trips Out 169 Trips Out
k
f•
3
- - _ #S .
1 • r~kW'~gs: [~~~bu7•. 3. . 'k AM i'~*~~'"K Y'. ~^rta t! 7 .9 ~~r) ~•rr a a s~" ta~_
"
•
Act,
.
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
N
~P
w
SITE
i
T YI,N
L.
t
,
Y
• •
i
~y
YZWWA 1 BITS IAMTIM
4r
JACK RKTCML Z ASSOCIATSB
• „ +.","x7 'X' T a~ , 7..~: y t~•',H
r U, ~ s w f t t •Y < } r , i♦ e ,.~4y~K{4y6r {Y1(C. r
ATTACHMENT I
ENCLOSURE 7
4.
PROJiCTXD TRAFFIC VOLU=S
Traffic volumes expected to exist on the roadway system
are a combination of the existing (base) traffic plus the
traffic projected for the proposed development.
Rxisting Traffic Volumes e
f Peak hour traffic volume counts were made at the
! intersections of Lillian Miller Parkway at Teasley Lane and
a
r
the intersections of the IH 35 SSFR and NBFR at Lillian
Miller and Loop 288. These traffic volume counts are shown
in Figures 2 and 3.
j Projected Site Traffic W
The traffic projected to be generated by the proposed s
development is based on Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITS) trip generation rates as shown in Table 1.
a.
Directions of approach for traffic entering and exiting .
the site during the peak hours were determined based on the bf
locations of employment centers, retail areas and schools.
assignment of the site generated traffic to the roadway links i
and study intersections is shown in Figure 4. i
Projected Total Traffic
Projected total traffic for the study intersections is
the combination of the existing traffic plus the projected r
site-generated traffic. These projected total traffic
volumes are shown in Figures 2 and S. 1 n ~
r
j
r
4
f f
5
yw
~~wkyrr.ksaWwl~M
r
_ w.ta..+.. w..'.,..iS,.»..♦.w.w..:r......~.r.. ..r _~.....4 .r' ~.....,i-.u.Tt3°-... L ~~s;.~ . . ri.1W~ .tu! a{i iY'~ 3i
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
Lillian Miller
79 173
(138) (262) N
EXISTING
194 (157) h
91(186)
r
`I
100 350
(120) (302)
79 173 55
(138) (262) (183)
EXISTING PLUS SITE f
Street T
159(99)
19.1 (157)
65(42)
23(78) 20(12)
91(186) ,
Legend
XXX a Base Volume
a+; t'
(XXX) M Base Plus Site
Volume
100 350 7
(120) (302) (26) a
Lillian Miller
PIWU 2 ZXIBTXW PUK FOUR TRK"XC VOLMMI
JACK WiTCNNUt i ABSOCIAT38
vo'
J r, El
.n ~~y~ f yr,.! . K vy fe 4V1 k Cr. r 19 ✓~1.
4.1 00"
y
ArACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 7
IH 35 NBFR d
"i
N
Loop 288
276(394)
341 (297)
748(938)
835(624)
t
i
}
147 161 325
(2101 (522) (3t l)
119 74 329
(225) (144) (497)
Lillian Miller
298(407)
679(562)
597(741)
• 6565(125
r
r'
Legend
XXX - AM Peak Hour
(XXX) - PM Peak Hour ti
IH 35 SBFR
FIOVRE 3 nTSTnW PEAT SOUR TRA6"IC VOLMINS
QJAM MATCX= i ASSOCIATES
2
" x`~k'~ r„ W'rx n x iP`., ' ~ ur i 1}~';~Ytl2 ti ~ Ny.: ~ a"jtfh
J
mv Gi.
• ;Ik-
i
~r
1
..,,,~.eermu~m+aM1acesew¢.ef~MeLersur,.elauln14~4wrM4a.l~d..u..:..,;~.tw.. ti.~ir.+:rT.a~.~w`...:.i.:S~M1i_ {r'-r=E 91e''d{?'~~1di~~1f"~ro.~~i~.~t 4'~'~
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 7
I r4
=1
x~
VP' t
SITE '
Tf Y LN
TVS I} J H ,
i
s .
1 r • 1
Legend o
XXX . AM Peak Hour
(XXX) a PM Peak Hour '
PIOURE 4 PROMTED PiAR HOUR BIT=-OZUUTZD TRA"IC '
• xk ,
QACX HATCHELL 4 ASSOCIATES
,.ti ail .
f ~ yy
r~ 1 J
e
Au t• ; .
..w Nr.c•w»'.e.aAra-wn.raiw.waweu i_ u,...~._~-i y 4.,: A r_...' ~i ~.:..~?3 G.r ...._ILPt....~ ~ F' Y=K r
ATTACHMENTI
.
ENCLOSURE 7
IH 35 NBFR
4
N
7
LLoop288
276(394)
367(314)
763(989)
F 862(666)
Y I
{
I
183 161 325
(331) (522) (341)
128 74 329
(255) (144) (497)
Lillian Miller
313(458)
732(626) ,
597(74?)
{ 130(226)
W
Legend
3 XXX . AM Peak Hour
(XXX) . PM Peak Hour _
i~
IH 35 SSFR F
A.
FIGm 3 =ISTnW PLUS SITE-UMMATED PEAK EOOR TRAFFIC
JACK UTCMML i ASSOCIATES
%r
~ S ~:.IY..w, ..M1 ~.''~lr rr av~~`hit h.';Yi /~i~eRAY -i ~ yry ~K S.~r~A *J,i,~:~yxi( 0.yy~~i..♦
C4 F dA "}ry A' 4 F r ~ r• Alt M'j ➢ ! t~~y..
•
s`
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 7
5.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
An analysis was performed at the three study inter-
sections to determine the demand, capacity and level-of-
service (LOS). Level-of-service is a qualitative measure of
identifying how effectively traffic flows at an intersection
or along a roadway link and is defined by categories A
through F. LOS A represents very good traffic flow with
little delay, LOS F represents highly congested conditions
of traffic flow.
Intersection Capacity
Intersection LOS for signalized intersections is deter-
mined by average delay, in seconds per vehicle, experienced -
at the intersection and is a function of the volume, capacity
and amount of green time allocated out of the cycle length
for each movement at the intersection. Platoon arrival
characteristics are also considered in determining the delay
and LOS at an intersection. Capacity is a function of the
number of lanes, the type of movement and the make-up of the
traffic in that movement. The methodology used in this study
for determining capacity, delay and LOS at an intersection is
outlined in the 1994 Highway Capacity Hanual MCM). Capacity
analyses were performed at the study intersections using
Signal 94, a computer program developed to emulate the
procedures outlined in the HCM.
Results of the Analyses
The results of the capacity analyses, shown in Table 2,
indicate that the three intersections will operate at LOS D
or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hour.
The intersection of Loop 288 and the IH 35 Northboun3
Frontage Road is shown to operate at LOS D+ during the
afternoon peak hour, Restriping of this approach (NHFR) to
provide dual left-turn lanes will improve the level-of-
service. Dual left-turn lanes currently exist on the IH 35
Southbound Frontage Road.
• Future plans tali for the extension of the main entry
into the proposed subdivision to intersect with the IH 35 • •
Southbound Frontage Road. This future extension coupled with
the use of Teasley Lane to travel south from the subdivision
to access IH 35 should help reduce the impact on IH 35 and
10
~r
•
r
%
~ 4 - t v ~ rv ~ t G a~S W M'5,~. ~•w r,s I~Y~y ~~r
1f ~4 ~ 1 ayl r r p 1~~ an
,.....r~-.«,.o,.m...l,..,.,.r:.. > r y -fi ~ ~p p ra a ','j~;~ ~6 „~"w%Iw~ 1 ~.y'•' t •
r'
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
the Lillian Miller/Loop 288 intersections.
Table 2.
INTIRSICTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS
1
f Existing Existing + Site
Location V/C Delay LOS V/C Delay LOS
A.K. PEAT. HOUR
Teasley/Lillian Miller 0.26 9.4 B+• 0.41 16.0 C+
Lillian Miller/IH 35 NBFR 0.57 12.7 B 0.58 12.9 B
Lillian Miller/IH 35 SBFR 0.55 13.2 B 0.57 13.4 R
h
P.X. PZAE HOUR r;
r Teasley/Lillian Miller 0.29 9.1 8+ 0.50 17.0 C+
Lillian Miller/IH 35 NBFR 0.84 28.6 D+ 0.83• 25.8 D+
i Lillian Miller/IH 35 SBPR 0.66 15.3 C+ 0.70 16.7 C+
S
* With Dual Northbound Left-Turn Lanes
y4 • I
7A
X411 ~.q r
1 • c I
~y 1
p CP 7 r.+. r
1F$` f a. n
~1YY1 ~
1~I•ar J ry
C11
j1 1 1
t
ry ;h1,r
3a .
a. w
CT c p Kt ~1 I ti!jl'y kvrL.Y`W!ir+y .ti. .x 7v:r 'Yi {w.r 1
A •
f.~l
r• ~ is a 4 t P i h~ 1 t ! i r. ~Y ~n rS,.
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE?
f
6.
CONCLUSIONS
E
In conclusion, the existing street system can
accommodate the projected traffic from the proposed
j subdivision. Restriping of the IH 35 Northbound Frontage
i Road at Loop 288 is recommended to provide an additional
left-turn lane to accommodate existing and projected left
turns.
1 ti
i
c i
1 I
Y ~
d
i ;
} l
r'
i
r
h,
12
W 't My%~~~ B yi
✓v { c
F 7`~ '!<<ii1 i
r ~
• d. ~'s S . .xtL $ a W ] ti of "f Y.. H r ,v,2 1,~,r r.
r J• Y, ^3~ , Ai UY }~'`lf w~/'b ~~.~'~P~ ki?~v ' Y ~ ~~'''~L~ ~ r y~~k~~.',
j= .
4M~
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE?
,r
i
APPMTDIx
r'J
t
41~ N 1 I 2
, ' / dK'R ! sK v.°} ~ Al r 1y 4.f'[ ~Y ° ,n ~'v v . p V ~ , a4
r c.t~~!'.,.~~rJV' r •'a M 4~T r X 'C Jfa . kl va f~ , %>y`y'}a Ir ti. r.t ir? t',
uKi, 4~T,rt,n,i ,:1~4.
I
•
ATTACHMENTI
I
ENCLOSURE?
(ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
:APACITY ANALYSIS 08:38:32
'EASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER AM PEAK EXISTING
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC3V1 L1.43 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .26 Vehicle Delay 9.4 Level of Service B+
;q 31 Phase 1 ! Phase 2 ( Phase 3
~t/tt
* t
/I~ ~t t w
V
w w titt
Aorth + +
4 * + +
,
v * + + V
G/C. .211 G/C. 235 G/C= .355
G= 12.6" G= 14.1" Ga 21.3"
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R- 4.0"
OFF- Ok OFF-27.7t OFF-57.81
C. 60 sec G- 48.0 sec x WOW Y=12.0 sec • 20.01 Ped. .0 sec a .01
Lane IWLanesl Regdg/CUsed I QCn(vph)R4Hivolumel v/c I DeClay S I90ueuel I Se N Approach 14.0 B
--===xxa=asacexaasasaasaavavsawa u=vuv=vwsava=rrsawae=vv---v-v-s=v=v=avv==s=r ,
TH+RTJ 24/2 1 .111 1 .251 1 802 1 892 294 1 .330 1 14.0 i*B 1 93 ftj
i
r ~ =eaAip=Fa=vaeh=-araaemaaaaaww=aa=w=ear=aaauaw-w==o=a==wa=w==o = u6iu=sB-a:=wa=au
I ZLFTI 24/2
I 81 *B+I 72 ftl
.096 .227 11327 1402 I 111 .276 I 14.6
I..
W Approach 8.0 B+
a==araeaoe===ea axaaaaaavv uaavsarsaaa=svavvvvvvv=rs.vvvvssv-wa-wvwaevvs-=vaavv ~ ~
LT 112/1 I .164 .372 11596 1658 I 216 I .328 I 10.4 I*B 114 ft~ _
HERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 08138:41
TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER AM PEAK EXISTING
i
r ~
~~w, ?~P ♦rk Y I} 4 4 ~ ~~*~1~~ ~,~i 'r ° I ~ "v'r a.t~
,A U
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE7
wzsm N TIA 11/12/96
'AI-ACITY ANALYSIS 08:47:04
'EASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER AM PEAK WITH DSVELOPMENT
3rGNAL94/TRAPAC[VI L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int M 1 - TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .41 Vehicle Delay 16.0 Level of Service C+
;q 66 Phase I I Phase 2 I ii see 3 4 Phase 4 I Phase 5 Phase 6 f
!f/if
f + + +
+ + t +++4
4. <+4++
v
A +fff v
forth + • f> art+>
I + + + " • +i+f
• + + + • • v v
G/C= .142 G/C= .000 G/Cs .207 G/Cm .243 G/Cr.000 G/C= 142
G= 8.5" .0" GO 12.4" Ga 14.6" Gm 0" G= 8.5"
Y+Ra 4.0" .0" Y+Ra 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+Rm ON Y+Rr 4.0"
OFF- O4 I OFFm20.94 OFFr20.95 I OFF-48.2t OFF=79.11 OFF-79.1t
C= 60 sec Go 44.0 sec ■ 73.34 Yr16.0 sec a 26.74 Pedm .0 sec r
Lane Width/I g/C f Service Rate l Adj I I HCM I L ISO4 Max
f Group Lanes Reqd Used I OC 1v;)h) aB volume v/c Delay S CUeue
N Approach 15.5 C+
:x==x=a==a=aa=caaac=snaaaaaou aoo Oman= aaaoos soma amoraroesoomoraaaaaroorO unmoor
I LT+RTI 124/2 223 698 2/1 1 .0
67 I .159 I 208 I 2793 81 I 267 I .238 I 1is i 6.9 I C+I 496 8 ftI
211 2 1I
i
S Approach 16.3 C+
saes=aanaaOarasrsaruorasrerermav uaarresrrrrrrrsaroeamerarorrraarrraarasaaaarO ~ ~
TH+RT1 24/2 141 223 733 829 419 505 159 *C+ ft
1 .098 .159 I 208 281 I 111 I .395 I 17.7 I•C+I 179 ftI
E Approach 16.9 C+ - • +'1
J y aasamamsaam=aamaaaasaaa.===rarrrvaranaaramrrirrrrrrrrfl4frrrrrrairrrrrrrrmrrrrr
I LT+RTI 122/2 1/1 I .0089 37 I .259 I 3419 72 I 444 I 2203 9 I .065 I 117 2.7 I B+1 272 ft
5 ftI
W Approach 15.6 C+
=asasOexOaeaaaaaaaararrrrrrrrrOSana usoar urrearooorrrrrearrmerrorrrrrrrrOrrar 47 . TH+RTI 12/1 1 .1064 64 I .259 I 3422 86 I 4520 59 I 2133 16 I .42SS
71 I 14.8 I•B+ 135 ftj
w
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
iERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
_APACITY ANALYSIS 08:47:19
rEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER AM PEAK WITH DEVELOPMENT
3IGNAL94/TEAPACEVI L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .41 Vehicle Delay 16.0 Level of Service C+
Sq 66 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 E Phase 4 Phase 5 ( Phase 6
f!/►►
w
f + + +
/I\ +
v
w w !f!i v
north c+ + •
+ 4 + + ! ! !f!i
! + + + + ! v v
G/Cs 142 G/Cs 000 G/Cs .207 0/Cs .293 01Ca 000 G/C. .142
Gm 8.5" Gs ON GO 12.4 Ga 19.6" Ga .0" Gs 6.5"
Y+R= 4.0" Y+Rs .0" Y+Rw 4.0" Y+Rs 4.0" Y+Rs .0" Y+Rw 4.0"
OFF= .0% OFFm20.9% OFF=20.9V OFF=48.2k OFFa79.1% OPFm79.1%
C= 60 sec G= 44.0 sec a 73.3% YsI6.0 sec a 26.7% Peds .0 sec w .O%
Lane Width/ Regdg/CUsed I Service v/c I Delay I S I90ueue i
N Approach 15.5 C+
xxxevanaxex xavvaavmwwawwwaawmamwaamma aasasmoaaaamawawoo now owwowwawomomma a rwav ON
1 I LT+RTI 124/2 223 2/1 .067 I .154 I 2698 1 793 1 1 371 08 281 267 .238 I 1is I 6.9 I C+I 496 ft
8 ftl
y •
? S Approach 16.3 C+ r
Lj vavearavmxsaaawwswraarwacomma: as wassmr uaw uawaswwawswwraaaasaawwwraaaasaaawaaw■ i'
11g i TH+RT 24/2 .141 .223 733 829 419 .505 15.9 +C+ ]37 ft
z I LT 112/1 .096 I .159 I 208 i 281 i 111 i .395 17.7 i+C+i 79 fti
y !
• E Approach 16.9 C+ r d
xaavvavaav.aaaaa:wu masaru wwruaawrw usransoswsramwrarawmorw uraawmwewosvwsmwr '
I TS+RT 22/2 .089 .159 419 517 203 .393 17.5 C+1 72 ft
LT I 11/1 i .037 i .259 I 372 I 444 I 29 I .065 i 12.7 i B i 25 fti
W Approach 15.6 C+
a:aaoasmaaxoamasa oawwawuwawrmsmwswawrw wwwmaswawsamwwawaesasrmswm•msrswwrramaw '
TH+RTI 12/1 I .164 i .259 i 386 i 459 i 216 I .471 i 14.8 i*B+i 135 fti
37 ~ ~ r y~y~A
Y r rtt Lo -r S ~Gr b "~L I
~ aNd'+~~ Fi . A z .l+~ r. ,'`d ~ ~~t ,-{p ~Y ~ i'rQ •~~l~te n„ s~
~Y~Mrv!~ ti 3, ? dr~~ h,8 ~o7~JZ: 4 ~t q r y
aal+
.;r
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
ORSMAN TIA 11/12/96
,APACITY ANALYSIS 08:56:27
PEASLRY/LILLIAN MILLER PM PEAK EXISTING
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation•(v/c) .29 Vehicle Delay 9.1 Level of Service B+
33q 31 1 Phe3e 1 I Phase 2 1 Phase 3
C * k ,
k k
v ^
^ ^ ►kAk
Sorth + +
+ + +
v*+ + v
G/Cx 216 G/C• .315 G/C• 269
G. 13.0" G* 18.9" G= 16.1"
Y+Ra 4.0" Y+Ra 4.0" Y+R. 4.0"
OFF. 04 I OFF-28.3t OFF*66.54
=
C- 60 sec G• 48.0 sec a 80.04 Yr12.0 sec 20.04 Ped= .0 sec 04
LGane roup 1WLanesI Reqd /CUsed I @Crvvphice lumeI v/c I Delay S 190ueueXl
N Approach 11.9 B
ea*axaaxasasessaeassaas=aa=aaasassaas.e uavssseeassssssra=sserasr==rsssasssaaas _
y TH+RT~ 24/2 .]61 .332 k 1100 1172 46b .398 ( 11.9 ~kB 131 ft~
S Approach 6.7 B+
xaaaeaa=sasaasss=essasa ossssaa ua=rasass Ursa a ■tu essau ■arsss■uas.as usuu 1 - '
Tit 24/2 .122 .615 2290 2290 353 .154 3.7 A 57 ft
LT 112/1 I .113 I .233 1 338 I 412 I 133 I .323 I 14.7 I*B 1 86 ftl
r J
s. W Approach 8.6 B+ _
• ev.memeaaaasx sesasassassa==eu==asaaa=tas.ssssss:::es ~rr.rsss rn=aa=aasrs=r aaaa■
175 .568 666 900 207 .230 4.9 A 75 ft
LT 112/1 1 .138 I .285 I 433 I 505 I 174 I .345 13.1 I*8 I :05 ft1 ar
t
ti
HERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 08:56r35
TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER PM PEAK EXISTING
38
r ~ w'k ^ i s ~ Spy `rx fi
y • y. r. i 7Q~i~' . z ° y Sri ~ ~".vY Tt."br / i~kh rF `.v~ - t r
L yr . „l. .rte w"m M~+ Ci !4 ~r+ u' /.1 ot,.
5`;J.~ .f S f4n r1 c~-At ~ fir, >v,1,1•1 r>. rt: k3 `ird'fS~.,
J4 P -
.'Y.,ire,....mw.rm.en.rw......Wr...•...r.._u.................~..... ~ .
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
't .
ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS 08152:10
EASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER PM PEAR WITH DEVELOPMENT
IGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.4) - Capacity Analysis Summary
ntersection Averages for Int # 1 - TEASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation (%.c) .50 Vehicle Delay 17.0 Level of Service C+
q 56 Phase lPhase 2 Phase 3 -Phase -4----Pha--„_--E--Phase-6--
~
c -
+ + + + + +
v v
forth +
+ + +
+ + + v v
G/C= .221 G/Ca .000 G/Ca 182 G/C= .177 G/Ca OGO G/Ca 154
G= 13.2" G= .0" G= 10.9" G= 10.6° Go .0" G= 9.2"
OFF- 4.0" Y+Ra 0" Y+Rv 4.0" Y+Ra 4.0" Y+Ra 0" Y+R. 4.0°
OFF Ok OFFn28.7k OFFn28.7k OFF-53.0 I OFF-77.9k OFFa77.9k
C= 60 sec G= 44.0 sec a 73.3k Yr16.0 sec a 26.7k Ped= .0 sec - .Ok
Lane IWLanesl Regdg/cUsed I Service Rate Ad B
*9 IVolumel v/c l Delay I S I9Queue l
N Approach 17.0 C+
ana==aa=aaz=ann=aa==a=ssasamaw= seezasassmeas usessc:aaaasaasmseaaz=naaavaaaesss
LT+RTI 124/2 2/1 I .1142 70 l .2199 598 37 l 346 l 4696 20 l 2396 26 1 .5569 38 I 16.3 I+C+I 1134 ft
45 ftI
S Approach 16.3 C+
ac=vacaaa==a=assassasracansanaaarrau vasaasasssasrsass sssssa:asae:assaaaarrssaa "
TH+RT 24/2 .134 .199 630 730 388 .532 17.0 C+ 131 ft
l LT l 12/1 l .113 l .237 I 346 I 420 l 133 l .317 l 14.5 l 8 l 86 ftl
• •
saaaaasesseassaaa t~.
• -EaApproachavazcesraaaa=sasasrrscssesca rer■rsaassassaaraaaasac16.6 C+
TH+RT 11%1 .027 .193 257 i 3548 30 l 119 l .056 l 15.0 l C+l 262 5 ftl
-
W
Approach 17.9 C+
=aaancaenaeaenassevaaaaeaa.atese.aassaaa rasssses uasaseraasacsaaaaaaaaaaasesaaa
LT+ATI 124/2 2/1 l .1322 8 l .1171 93 i 267,1 3568 42 l 1309 74 l .5544 09 l 17.5 I+C+I 1108 ft
18 ftl
sti .G
> > > i s. 5 ~l M C A 1 ~
0
ATTACHMENTI
.
ENCLOSURE?
ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS 08:52:24
EASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER PM PEAK WITH DMLOPMENT
IGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.43 - Capacity Analysis Summary
ntersection Averages for Int # 1 - TFASLEY/LILLIAN MILLER
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .50 Vehicle Delay 17.0 Level of Service C+ i
'q 56 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6
►/ff
2 * + + + * •
• + + + f •
v v
forth + ff+f>
+ + + f~f*
+ + + v v
a'
G/Cx .221 G/Ca .000 G/Cm .182 G/C= .177 G/Cm .000 G/Cm .154
Ga 13.2" G= .0" Go 10.9" Gm 10.6" G= .0" Gm 9.2"
Y+Rm 4.0" Y+Rm .0" Y+Rm 4.0" Y+Rw 4.0" Y+Rm .0" Y+Rw 4.0"
OFF= Ot OFFm28.7V OFFw28.7t I OFFw53.0 I OFF-77.9t OFF=77.5%
Cr 60 sec GO 44.0 sec m 73.31 Yw16.0 sec w 26.71 Pedm .0 sec a .Ot
LGroup IWLanesl Reqd /CUsed I Service v/c I Delay I S L 190t Max
N Approach 17.0 C+
axsec aaexeezeaeewamasawrsewasaaaaawwwaaameaeeasemeaseaaeeeeaeaaaaaraaaaeaeaaaea
10 LT+RTI 12/2 I .170 I .237 I 346 I 420 ~ 226 I .538 I 16.3 I*C+I 145 ftl
g •
S Approach 16.3 C+
fi az=z=z=im=="am=awwaawmmweameaYa=ewswwemwmeasewaweesewa eaamammereec waeaafeeatuw ~ ' ,
TS+RT1 124/2 234 1 299 630 730 388 532 170 1 ft
2/1 I .113 .237 I 346 I 420 133 I .317 f 14.5 B+1 186 ftl
i
• E Approach 16.6 C+
seesme ea xeasaaawwwcasammaavaaaaaweeaareweswaewsermwwwmmwwmwmwwwrmeeeewuwaaeu■ y ~ ~ ± ~
f
I TFI+RTI 122/2 081 271 451 S49 1 1/1 I .027 .193 ( 257 I 330 119 I .0321 58 I 15.0 C+I 262 ft
5 ftl f
W Approach 17.9 C+
xeeescs=z eeeeeaewmaewmaswwwewaamawmesmawwaawwwa wwesewwewmeewmmmmwawsawmaaaawewr 122 I TH+RTI 124/2 2/1 I .138 .1171 469 93 I 267 I 3568 42 I
1309 74 I .5544 09 I 17.5 !*C+f 1108 Et
18 ftl
a y
F. [ t J a v 1 Y v C~ r.^ > •
~ ~ ~ ~ t r,~t~~ 1 y~~'.5'7~{ at.•k.l NcP ia~;2 .j- k~,xR 1`~..\1 a 2~ .iV t
L: i'b5`' u:'• ~La. l~~- r~~~ ~ farr~~eJ ~k:~d' ~f~My,y~}.y, ~TI,~~~A,'.w5 r/ }
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS 09:33:19
ILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR AM PEAK EXISTING
IGNAL94/TEAPAC[Vl L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
ntersection Averages for I,nt # 3 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .57 Vehicle Delay 12.7 Level of Service
q 13 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
•/aa
/i~ ~aaa+
aaaa
lorth ► a>
+ a a
G/C= .229 G/Ca .267 G/Ca .304
G= 13.7" G. 16.0° Ga 18.2'
Y+Rm 4.0" Y+Ra 4.0" Y+Rr 4.0"
OFFm .Ok I CFPe29.0 OFPa63.Ok
C= 60 sec Gm 48.0 sec a 80.0k Ym12.0 sec a 20.0% Pedw .0 sec a .0%
Lane lWidth/
Group I Lanesl Regdg/CUsed I SC~(vph)R03 IVolumel v/c i Deay I S I94ueue l
S Approach 16.7 C+
:=m=masmve==svwwzsazvaaeevvwavrrrvaervavvwavwwevvvavwvvarwuvwrvrawvaaavvawerw
198 .246 733 823 567 .689 17.3 aC+ 180 ft
l TH+RSI 12/1 l .131 l .246 l 361 l 435 l 163 l .375 l 14.6 l B l 104 ftl
•
6 Approach 14.9 B
azxa===ema=xxaxxaareagaaecaaaraawwraawewewrrearaawasvwwreaswaeetaawrerwarrrrerr
} TN l 24%2 l .'204 l 320 l 1441 507 251 49S 13 2 l 1194 l 873 l .731 l 15.4 laC+l 2144 50 ftl
.259 320 114 '
•
W Approach 7.5 B+ •
=xxazscm=amcaa=aaveevxvrrawaravarveavmvavavvwawecavaas rvvvwrrarvavvwwwevva uau
TH 2412 ti
222 .654 2438 2438 728 .299 3.4 A 106 [t
l LT l 12/1 l .229 l .284 l 430 l 502 l 330 l .657 l 16.6 laC+) 199 ftl
HSRSMAN TIA 11/12/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 0103:29
• ~-ram--. • ra . ;•s
r ~
t
. f
ATTACHMENT( 4
ENCLOSURE 7
3RSMAN TIA 11/12/96
OPACITY ANALYSIS 09:36:26
ILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR AM PEAK W/DEVELOPMENT
IGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
ntersection Averages for Int 1+ 3 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .58 vehicle Delay 12.9 Level of Service B
?/13 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
( +f
A
orth c+ *
+
+ ♦ +
G/Ca .224 G/Ca 274 G/Ca .302
G. 13.4" Ga 16.4" GE 18.1'
Y+Ra 4.0" Y+kv 4.0" Y+Ra 4.0"
OFF= .0} ( OFF=29.1W OFFa63.1%
C= 60 sec G. 48.0 sec a 80.0t Ya12.0 sec a 20.01r Peda .0 sec a .0t
Lane (Width/I g/C I Service Rate l Adj I HCM I L I90t MaXI
Group Lanes Reqd Used ac (Vph) 08 Volume v/c I Delay S Queue
-
S Approach 17.2 C+
aasvveaexcaeveevaevavvvaaavvvvvvvacevvvvvvvvvvvvvvavvaaavavavvvvevvvvvvvvvvvva
Y TH+RTI 124/~ IL98 241 715 606 567 2/1 I .156 I .241 I 352 I 426 I 203 I .477 I 117 8 5.5 I+C+I 1182 30 ftI
B Approach 15.2 C+
" vaccxx=evasaa=oc=aaaalataaa=aaaaaaa=f aaaf avaaaaaaaaaavafaaaf =aaf =aaaa=aasaaaaa ,
2SI 497 13 2 B 144 ft
RT 12/1 204 319 439
h TH 124/2 I .263 I .319 11114 11189 I 890 I .749 I 15.8 I+C+I 256 ftI
W roach 7.5 B+
Approach
~ ~ ,veceppe aaemaavavva=aavvvvvv vavavavvvvcvvvevvaavu aavrrvu uvvv3 vvvu uvv112vfu o ~,~J
24/2 .234 .659 2457 2457 777 .316 .t A t `
LT 112/1 I .239 I .290 I 443 I 514 I 349 I .679 I 16.8 I C+I 209 ft
IERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS 09136:37
4
~ e 1 ~ t
.a J v P~' t~ .rJr y
1 • n {3``32- ✓ t .v~: ~ ii t; r ~'....Z 'x~~ji,~.h x4 ~n ~"Ai ~ l'$t tQ y x J . ?
i
ATTACHMENT1
ENCLOSURE 7
BRSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS 09:39:25
IIT,IAN MILLER/IH 35 MBFR PM PEAK W/DBVELOPMENT
IGNAL94/TEAPAC(Vi L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
ntersection Averages for Int 0 3 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .84 Vehicle Delay 28.6 Level of Service D+
q 13 E Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
- -
orth +
f +
+ • ►
G/Ca 284 G/Cv .226 G/Cr 289
Ga 17.0" GM 13.6" Go 174
Y+Ra 4.0" Y+Rv 4.0" Y+Ra 4..0"
OFF- .04 OPPa35.14 OFFm64.4t
Cm 60 sec Gm 48.0 sec a 80.0t Ym12.0 sec m 20.0V Peda .0 sec m .Ot
Lane ( Width/I g/C Service Ratel Adj ! I HCM I L I90t Maxl
Group Lanes Reqd Used QC (vph) ~S Volume v/c Delay S Queue
S Approach 33.3 D
aaaaaaea¢zaasasaiaiaeaeirervivaiiraaeesiarrviaarvvviiisavaavvvrvaaaavvsasaiiva
TH+RTI 124/2 324 2/1 I .250 I .3301 01 l 4978 62 l 15058 32 113066 68 11.6008 92 l 139 6.7 l*C+l 217 ftl
• - - - - - H
E Approach 36.4 D r 1
RT 22/1 319 3eavamaaaavaaaaeaamsasaaasaamaaaaaaamaemrriiimaiiiiriaitsai tatrariaaaaaf aasaa■ •
TH l 24/2 l .329 l .3306 418
06 l 1063 l 1141 11154 11.0903 11 l 39.0 l•D+I 338 ftl l
W Approach 15.6 B i +
TH 24/2 292 599 232 4S1 ` eaaaeaaaemeza¢¢¢¢ammazmmmaavvraavaaiasasaaeaiasivvaaaveramaavavviaesiariaaaaia
LT 112/1 l .272 I .243 12356 l 2430 l 1408 l .949 l 39.3 l•D+l 2170 ft
60 ftl i
ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY ANALYSIS / 09:39:35
7~ `x j iP e
41
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE7
:ERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
APACITY AM%LYSIS M45:57
,ILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR PM PEAK EXISTING
!IGNAL94/TEA?AC(V1 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
:ntersection Averages for Int N 3 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR
Degree of Saturation {v/c) .79 Vehicle Delay 22.1 Level of Service C
Iq 13 ( Phase 1 ` Phase 2 Phase 3
+4++
A
~ 4..t
forth c+ •
+
+ •
_
G/Cw .285 G/Cr 224 O/C= 1;295"
G. 17.1" G. 13.4" Gr 17.5•
Y+Rw 4.0" Y+Rs 4.0" Y+Rw 4.0"
OFF- .04 OFF-35.24 OFF=64.2%
C= 60 sec G- 48.0 sec r 80.04 Y-12.0 sec r 20.04 Pedr .0 sec w Ot
Lane width/ g/C Service Rate Adj HCM L got Max
I Group I Lanesl Reqd Used I OC (vph) GE lVolumel v/c Delay I S l Queue l
S Approach 25.3 D+
fvvvva acscvwmmv-ra anrwvvarrravrcrlrraarmrrrrimrrrrrrrrrr>tvorrrrrrrrvrrrrwrmvrvr 9S1 1 { l LT+RTI 124/2 310 2/1 I .174 I .3002 2 l 4980 1 65 15059
1 35 1233 i .436 13.2 I*H+l 137 ftl
E Approach 28.2 D+
RT 12/2 319 a:mea sessrvrms:raarrsrsssrsnwrrwcrorcasrrrrrrrrwcrcraarrrmssrrrsccmrcwrrrwwrrr: . ; 256 ft
} TH 124/2 I .314 l .3308 08 110420 68 l 11487 6 110438 94 I .9699 55 l 27.9 I*D+l 319 ftl
a 12.4 H t
w Approach
azaz mazmwswws_wrsawca rccmcrssacrcccsmurrswawacrcsr ssrarrsrcramcraeeesrrcwswis
598 974 437 16
I LT 24/2 I .256 l .2
40 12351 12425 I 379 I .892 I 31.1 l.D+l 243 !tl
I
HERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS ~[fl 09:46107
7r }
} ~r 4 Y,
I . .n 'a "'r.~Ykr ~.rp•. yK:
K
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE7
TERSMAN TIA 11/12/96
91PACITY ANALYSIS 09x52:35
A LLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR PM PHAK W/DEVHLOPE WT W/DUAL NBLT
;IGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.43 - Capacity Analysis Summry
:ntersection Averages for Int # 3 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 NBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .83 Vehicle Delay 25.8 Level of Service D+
3q 13 ( Phase ]-.~--Phase -2--~--Phase -3--~
^
i
forth +
+ • •
+ t
.
G/C= .275 G/Ca .231 G/Cv .295
Ga 16.5" Go 13.8" Gw 17.7"
Y+Rm 4.0" I Y+Rm 4.0" I Y+Ra 4.0"
OFFw .04 OFFm34.lt OFFw63.8;
Ca 60 sec G. 48.0 see m 60.0% Ym12.0 sec 20.0% Pod= .0 sec a .0%
LGane roup I LWidth anesl Regdg/CUsed I OCr(vph)R08 atelVoluAdjej v/c I Delay I S J9Queue j
S Approach 30.2 D+
smnaaawvaxawaxxaxes..namvaav saaavveaanasvvammvvmavaaavawawmvewvwemmvvvvcaaaww
I TH+RT1 124/2 2/1 I .2310 50 I .2291 91 I 4939 44 11515 113007 68 I .715 I 17.7 I*C+l 22301 f ft!
H Approach 32.7 D
a:w wasemmzaawmwwasmsvzaae avvvaaaavvvvawavmovavsvvvvvvvevevavvvwavvvmvvvaw vmmar ~ ~ / ~TH ( 24/2 .329 I .312 1084 1161 1154 .994 I
34.7 *D'I 335 ft~
I j
W Approach 13.9 8
~ saxexzxa vas ca vaaevawaveamammwvamavvaamaaaaaaaav vaavvvvvwwawmaewaawavavv•waavaav 24/2
006 1 LT 112/1 .272 I .2609 47 123268 64 1 2438 1408 .9444 4 32 I 36.0•D 259 ftl
HERSMAN TIA 31/12/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 09:52:45
y 1y 1 1
' Yr:..I \~.yJ_ }4•"/ 1'~ ..~.}21)N Yt 1MY~~"~~~~ [ Y'.. ~ Ir ~~~N 1 II !~)L I
r ;~C m
:.wc,...........ra.......r,.,....w...:.~.a............~.............-»~.+.....~.._a ....f.s ; s..1..c _,~u!a..+_~r~'~'4'~ .~.~re~»
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
ISRSMAN TIA
APACITY ANALYSIS 111/14/1/14/46
95
ALLIAN MILLBR/IH 35 SBFR AM PEAK EXISTING
;IGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.4) - Optimum Phase Timings
3g 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
~r/++
+ r +
v ►r•r
v
f forth r•••>
v
G/C■ 213 I -G/C-282I O/C- 306 i
" G. 12.8" G. 16.9" as 18.3" 1
60 -
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R■ 4.0" Y+R- 4.0"
HERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 19t21s26
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SSFR AM PEAK EXISTING
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary ,
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .55 Vehicle Delay 13.2 Level of Service B
Sg 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3 1 ~ 11
rr/rr
G
T • " +
r V •••r r;
A V
North
V Y
G/C- .213 G/C■ 282 O/C- 306
G- 12.8" G= 16.9" G- 18.3"
Y+R- 4.0" Y+R- 4.0" Y+R- 4.0"
OFF- .01 OFF-28.01 OFF-62.81
C- 60 sec G- 48.0 sec 80.01 Y-12.0 eec 20.01 Ped■ .0 sec - 01
X f,,
0
i
•
J
He, _
n.•R„s::vn n+w.»,..eYxea.......,........,........~,_...._.__.-~-.,.....-__..._......~._.,_.~~__.......~......-.._L.:i.L....~...a....._...
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
LGane rolip IWLanesl Regdg/CUsed I OCr(vph)ROE IVolumel v/c I Delay I S I9Queue
N Approach 15.9 C+
xexaasexxeaaxeaaaa asav now aavaaa aavvaaxav-saws...sass-asses-aasaaaaaaamvvcaavss
LT+RTI 212/1 169 4/2 I .135 I .230 I 7115 8 l 8388 12 I 3214 77 I .4552 64 I 15.5 I•C+I 1139 ft
22 ftI
E Approach 1110 B
uaaasaaaaawasavmmsasaaaaasasxaxs
aevae-avaavaaas 2-1-9 670 8 1249 331 265 30 92
LT 124/2 I .220 I .298 11976 11056 I 683 I .647 I 14.9 I•B 1202 ftl
W Approach 14.0 B
caaaaaaav-avsva-m evessesaaaaas-sasaavs-sasavs-tasssaaasesasaa-savvsasesasaaaaaa -
RT 12/1 - 079
41 f TH 124/2 I .238 I .3322 22 11126 112510 00 I 7972 2 I .6141 60 I 14.3 I•B 1226 ftI
-
HERSMAN TIA ' 11/14/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 19:21:37
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR AM PEAK EXISTING
3
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC(V3 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .55 Vehicle Delay 13.2 Level of Service B
Sq 12 1 Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3!
as/aa
a • +
T
y aa+a
v
North
1
G/Cm .213 G/Ca 282 G/Cw .306
G. 12.8" Gm 16.9" GM 18.3"
` Y+R- 4.0" Y+Rm 4.0" Y+Rm 4.0"
i OFF-,Ot OFFa28.0t OFFa62n8t
- t°
•
C. 60 sec G- 48.0 sec a 80.0E Ym12.0 sec w 20.0t Fadw .0 sec ■ .Ot • A
l LGane roup WLanesidth/ Regdg/CUsed I mCr(vph)RSate 8 IVolumel We I Delay I S I9Queue l
N Approach 15.9 C+
aacaaYCaaaava--v-vvavaaassassa as ees-maveesasuavaa-a-asaaas-aaesa-aa-aaaaa■aeav
• .~~.lt4F ~ j ire Y~. ~ i, o v ~r ~ 't. 9,~•~'6 ~l~t" yp.'~,~ ~1 Y" V
MM'M±
,..._a.revel...rrrdrw.n.wswa.re+..ws...-:~ - ........•..:r:.....,L::..........~..-,....-..r........,:...-....:...._ • . 1:'._ s ~ a ra i y..
ATTACHMENT I
ENCLOSURE 7
iERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
:APACITY ANALYSIS 19:23:37
',ILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR AM PEAK W/DEVELOPMENT
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC{V1 L1.41 - Optimum Phase Timings
'q 12 Phase 1 I Phase 2 Phase 3 )
+ r +
• f +
v rrrr
v
forth rfff>
v
G/C. 213 G/Co271 G/C. .315
60"I G■ 12.e" Go 16.3" I Go 18.9"
Y+R. 4.0" Y+Rm 4.0" Y+R. 4.0"
-
iERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
:APACITY ANALYSIS 19:23:47
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR AM PEAK W/DBVELOPMENT
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC)V1 L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Suam:ary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .57 Vehicle Delay 13.4 Level of Service B
Sq 12 Phase i Phase 2 Phase 3
z ar/aa .I
♦ + +
f + +
V fARr s ;i.
k V
North arfa>
V
G/CM .213 G/C- .271 G/C• 31s
G= i2.s" G• 16.3" G. 1
Y+R. 4.0" Y+R. 4.0" Y+R. 4.0" '
OFF. 04 I OFFN,28.09 OFF=61.8t
C= 60 sec Go 48.0 sec se 90.04 Y.12.0 sec ■ 20.0% Ped- .0 sec .04
~ ~ ry P t>~.
i f `4v M~ i r F s r y i
• r,~ .j 4,~~~~ N p ti~.x~ ~A",v~i~ h, Rr1iSr'~~ + a, v' ~ Sp v
;
mom
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE?
Lane
Group Width
Regd9/CUsed I Service IVolumel V/c I Delay I S I9Queuexl
N Approach 16.1 C+
aaaa¢C3aaaa3aaCaCaaafiiaaaCiaaaaaCaiaviamaia¢saaaiaai aaeaaaiisaxaisiassvvxvit¢a
TC+RTI 242 1 224 577 172 C+ 1 /2 I .135 I .230 I 720 I 814 l 377 I .463 I 15.4 IaC+1 122 ftI
E Approach 11.3 B
eazaa3a3zzaeaaeaaaaavievaizeasaaasevazvv iasaaaiaazaaziaa saasaaaazxaavaasaivai
1248 348 274 3.1 A 97 ft
12/1 228 670
LT 124/2 I .220 I .288 11936 11019 I 683 I .670 l 15.5 IaC+I 205 ftI
W Approach 13.9 B
saaaaaaazazasaaaaaa3am¢xavaasaaaaesiv3siu saesiaaivsaeaeeaaaaassizviaiaiiziiiaa
RT 1211 132 .332 461 .526 144 274 21 3
TH l 24/2 l .254 I .332 11165 l 1237 I 854 I .690 I 14.4 la0 l 241 ftI
HERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 19,:23:58
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR AM PEAK W/DEVELOPMENT
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[VS L1.41 - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for int. 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .57 Vehicle Delay 13.4 Level of Service B
Sq 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 ` Phase 3
a a +
v ♦aaa
L v
North "'aa>
G/Ca 213 G/Ca 271 G/Ci .315
Go 12.8" Ga 16.3• Go 18.9
Y+Ra 4.0" Y+Ra 4.00 Y+Ra 4.0•
OFF- .0V I OFF-28.0 OFFa61.8k i
Ca 60 sec Go 48.0 sec a 80.01 Yi12.0 sec i 20.0t Peda .0 sec i .04
Lane Width/ y/C Service Rate Adi HCM L 90F Max
Group l Width/ Reqd Used 16C (vph) OB IVolumel v/c I Delay I S I Queue I
N Approach 16.1 C+
"M==ama zaav mans azaaaa as aasaaaiieraiiasiaiz as/aGa aisaaziaiieaaaaasaasviaasiiiaiii■
t ~ 1~ ' f 4
r
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
i
iERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
.'APACITY ANALYSIS 19:28:27
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAR EXISTING
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC(V1 L1.41 - Optimum Phase Timings
Sq 12 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 I Phase 3
f•/ff
F • +
1J v
v
North faff>
v i
G/C= .305--G/C. 282 -1 G/C= -213
- -
12.8•
60"I G- 18.3" G= 16.9" G.
Y+R= 4.09 Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0"
9ERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
:APACITY ANALYSIS 19:28:37
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAK EXISTING
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC(Vl L1.4) - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) _.66 Vehicle Delay 15.3 Level of Service C+
4 Sq 12 I Phase 1 I Phase 2 I Phase 3
'F of/ff
1 + + +
{ f + + a
v r. a.
i
v I
" North ffaf>
' I a+aa
G/C= .305 G/C= .282 0/C=122813
G= 18.3" an 26.9" G= "
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4..0"
OFF= 01 OFF=37.21 OFF=72.1R {
C■ 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.01 Y=12.0 sec 20.01 Ped= .0 sec ■ .01
~ yy , ql ~
LF , .?!y IFF. + r Y + A F+ n n ! ~1 ~ n ~ C w r $1~ w~ . ~ r~~' "
` 0
is • r
ii
...wr.,-_y.~.,..r.~.~e ay.s~.a+urcrov>.++..+.rxw..-..~..w......-..,:.,.-...r............-.._....~ n, ~'7 t ~ ti'.,~
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE?
Lane
Group jWidth/ Regdg/CUsed l 6Service C (vph)Reate s lVolumel v/c Delay s 19Queue l
N Approach 15.0 B
a saaaammaaaaaa=aaaaa=as=a=c=:==s=eraat==r==as■ae=a=a=:as==a=aaa■==aaaaa=sa==a•
T
IT 185 H+RT1 212/1 322 4/2 l .189 l .322 l 1477 l 1544 410 l 569 l .500 l 1179 2.8 l*B'l 1235 63 !tl
B Approach 13.6 B
ra amsa=me=sa u==rarmara u==a=======sra=a=aasm==~~aaa=a■■=s==ssa■=aaa■■===aaaaa= -
12/1 282 578 1048 1077 A52 .420 5.5 B+ 161 ft
LT l 24/2 1 .265 i ,299 l 979 l 1059 l 848 l .801 l 17.9 l+C+l 251 ft
W Approach 18.7 C+
ra aaa=aaaa==ea=s■==saaa■raaaa===aaaaaaa==ar=aa====s=ea==::=a=a=as==eim==a=aass=
RT 12/1 TH l 24/2 l .2129 03 l .2229 29 l 7292 59 i 8363 54 l 6139 55 i .767 l 19.4 l.C+l 213 ftl
iERSMAN TIA 11/14/96 -
:APACITY ANALYSIS 19:28:48
,ILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAK EXISTING
'IGNAL94/TRAPAC[V1 L1.4) - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .66 Vehicle Delay 15.3 Level of Service C+
3q 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
*/a♦
Y
• forth
v
i
G/C. .305 G/Ca 282 fl/C■ .213
G■ 18.3 Go 16.9 G= 12.8" /
Y+R= 4.0" Y+R= 4.0" Y+R■ 4.0"
OFF= .04 I OFF=37.24 OFF-72.1% ti
C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec = 80.04 Y=12.0 sec a 20.04 Ped= .0 sec a .04
Lane Width C Service Rate Ad HCM L 904 Max
i Group l Lanesl Reqd Used l ®C (vph) !E lVOlumel v/c ( Delay I S l Queue l
N Approach 15.0 B
aaaasassa=eaaac======s===aa=aaaaa=aa=a uasa•■===■_====■a=ssss==a==a===a==m■=a==
r w V 1
f 2 s'+ i n, j n ~ I • 9 ~ r ~ ~ ~ ^ f4{ ~r`Fyb A ~ ~ , ~ 1 ~ ~ rc
2k. ~T@'~1~
No J
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE?
HERSMAN TIA 11/14196
CAPACITY ANALYSIS 19:25:52
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAK W/DEVBLOPMBNT
SIGNAL94/TEAPAC[V1 L1.41 - Optimum Phase Timings
Sq 12 Phase 1 I Phase :2 Phase 3 .1
R+/++
r a +
v aaaa
v
North aaaa>
V
I- G/C• - 310 -_--.268 ---G/C.. .222_-
60"# G. 18.6" I G• G/C. 16.1. 10. 13.3"
Y+R. 4.0* Y+R= 4.0* Y+R■ 4.0"
3ERSMAN TIA 11/14/96
:APACITY ANALYSIS 1906:01
LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAK W/DEVBLOPMBNT
3IGNAL94/TEAPAC(Vl L1.4) - Capacity Analysis Summary
Intersection Averages for Int # I - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturatiol (v/c) .70 Vehicle Delay 16.7 J.evel of Service C+
iq 12 } Phase 1 Phase 2 1 Phase 3
R►/RR
v area
i
v ,
forth
. v
• ~ .
G/C• .310 G/C• 268 G/C= 222
G- 18.6" G. 16,1• G. 13.3'
Y+R= 4.0" Y+k. 4.01 Y+R• 4.0"
OFF. .0w OFF.37.74 OFF=71.14
C= 60 sec G= 48.0 sec • 80.04 Y=12.0 sec = 20.04 Ped= .0 sec ■ .0%
• n.•:V..4i,. ,i . .\,n.~l ~'~'1 ry ti~1. ~li~ ~l Yyl^ kA 4v ~W tf^ J . dale ~v1 ~1 ,t:
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 7
Lane
Group lWidth/I Regdg/CUsed I Service IVolumel v/c I Delay I S I9QuWeuel
N Approach 15.8 C+
:mva.vaavraavmm.ammcmwwmamrmmerrmaoamvammmvmvvmmmmmmvammmma:maammmammmwsmrrmm
TH+RTI 212/1 304 4/2 I .189 I .3327 27 110484 84 11157 I 5443 69 I .492 I 12.6 I*B+l 162 ftI
8 Approach 14.8 B
' m.rmvaaamraamuvmrrrraarwmwaavmmwamravwaswwwecvmmwvmvmmmvmm.aervarmwmmmvaama• 477
183
LT 124/2 I .265 I .284 11923 11006 I 848 I .843 I 20.0 I+C+I 256 fti
W Approach 20.3 C
.
•ammaammmw um:uar
a2D4w' s239 307 mm m378umr25luaa66....1 Samaa. C+ ..161 w .
-RT 12/1 ft
TH 124/2 I .222 I .239 I 796 I 890 I 731 I .821 I 20.8 I,C 1235 ftl
MRSMAN TIA 11/14196
2APACITY ANALYSIS 19:26:11
M,LIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR PM PEAK W/DEVELOPMENT
- Capacity Analysis Summary
iIGNAL94/TSAPAC(Y1 L1.41
rntersection Averages for Int k 1 - LILLIAN MILLER/IH 35 SBFR
Degree of Saturation (v/c) .70 Vehicle Delay 16.7 Level of Service C+
;q 12 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
+ + +
v
v
9orth
v `
G/C. .310 G/Cm .268 G/C• .222
j G• 18.6" _ Gm 16.1" Gm 13.3"
Y+Rm 4.0r Y+Rw 4.01 Y+Rm 4.0"
OFF. Ot I OFF-37.7t OFF•71.1{
• Cm 60 sec Gm 48.0 sec m 80.0V Yml2.O sec ■ 20.04 Pedm .0 sec a .0k _ •
Lane
Group I WLanesl Regdg/CUsed I OCr(vph)RGEelVolumel v/c I Delay I S I9Qu'eue
N,Approach 15.8 C+
zzazzemmr.azaaaams ammamamravmmvmmmmvevvarweamrsrmmmmrwwwavmvvmmmmaasaavmvmavsam
n i,'
• .i h~A3 gtib; a' 1 'rlq A fy, re A4 ti ~•~y~ PI-M x8 q!?yi ~"~,+4
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 8
3.0 A STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR INTENSITY CALCULATIONS.
3.1 Trip Generation .
Iateasi.ty 'is measured by, the number of .vehicle trips that are
attracted or generated by a particular development'in trips per day
per-acre. Ct/d/ac). The average trip Sena ration 'rates by land use
category given in Table- I have been adopted after reviewing trip .
generation rates published by the Institute of Tramaportattom
Engineers CITE), the Arizona Department of Transportation and
local/regional data.
Since the average trip generation rates are aced to measure the
loteasity of land use8 In a particular area, average trip rates are
referred to- as 'intensity trips' and the atea is called as
'intensity area'. The standard methodology for intensity
calculation keeps track of the trips ' generated by existing
developments end potential future developments in the various
intensity areas.
The Plan designates three types of intensity areas vith specific
intensity allocations in trips per day per acre. Low intensity
areas ace allocated 60 t/d/ac. Moderate activity centers are
allocated 350 t/d/ac. The major activity canters have no limits on
the number of trips generated by load use developments,
Accordingly, an analysis of intensity for a development is a major
activity center is not done.
TABLE IS TRIP GENERATION RATES BY MU USE CATEGORY
Land Use Trip Generation Average Level Average'
CateBorl Factor (per unit) t of Develo eat Tri ■/Acra
Single Pamil SF-16 10 Trips 2.0 units as 20 .
Single Family SF-13 10Tri s 2.3 units ae 25 -
Single Family SP-1 10 !rips 3.0 units ac 30
Sin le family SF-7 10 Trigsts ac• 42 '
Mobile Homes 10 Trips' 8 units ac 80
'
Duplex 10 Tri & 8 units fu
`
Multi-flail MP-L 8 Tei a 12.3 units ac JL60
Multi-faati MY-1 Tri a -2T units ac 200.
Institutional 35 Tri -1 000 s " 2.439 ■ ' sc 85
Industrial 6 Tri -1 s 17 ■ sc 105.
Office Gov■rameat 15 Tripa-l 0 sa 23.33 s4 ac _ `
Come reial Letail r60 Tri -1 000 ■ 10 83 s ao 6
• Parks
• • i
i
t
09620 _ C(//
•
•
all
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 9
Z-96-036
•m
st°
M4
• e1r
1 w°
1417 tl1
r"
>ro1 ~
wt
• Total Area -50.75 acres ~ SITE • +
(Area requesting rezoning not Included)
Area Opposed -13.09 acres or 25.78% Area Opposed
ss 1
~ Q+ n ~5 v; r~1jf ~ r~nt N4 l -a 4 Y tid.+~h+-n+.nsw. .ate 4.;na a?xc, M u 'S M 'r.. der ^G:
• Z-96-076b
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
IN ZONING FOR 136 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE
INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY FROM THE
SINGLE FAMILY 16 (SF-16) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (0[c]), SINGLE FAMILY 7
CONDITIONED (SF-7[c)), SINGLE FAMILY 10 CONDITIONED (SF-10(c)),
AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATIONS AND
USE DESIGNATIONS; APPROVING A DETAILED PLAN FOR THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT THEREIN LOCATED; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Jake Hersman, on behalf of Hereman Development
Corporation, owner of the subject property, initiated a change in
zoning for 136 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning
district classification and use designation to the Office Condi-
tioned (O(c)), Single-Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c]), Single-
Family 10 Conditioned (SF-10[c]), and Planned Development (PD)
zoning district classifications and use designations, and submit-
ted a proposed detailed plan for the area requested for planned
development; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the requested changes in
zoning and submitted detailed plan, and
WHEREAS, the City Counci:. finds that this change in zoning
district 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 4.4 acres of land described by Exhibit A, attached
hereto, and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby changed
from the Single-Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district classification
• aad use designation to an office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning
district classification and use designation under the comprehen-
sive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to
the following conditions:
1. That the only permitted use is Offices, Profes-
sional and Administrative. z
2. That the total floor area for all buildings con-
structed on the 4.4 acres shall not exceed 52,000 -
square feet.
3. That no loading docks shall be permitted.
ggy7
0
ATTACHMENT 2
1 1
4. That the front exterior walls of all buildings
shall be constructed of not less than 1001 brick
or brick veneer, with 70t brick or brick veneer on
all remaining exterior walls of each building.
5. That no "off-premise" signs (as defined by Section
33-2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Denton, or its successor) shall be permitted.
6. That no direct off-site lighting shall be permit-
ted.
7. A "bufferyard" measuring fifteen feet (151) wide,
and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8)
understory trees per each one hundred linear feet
(1001), shall be installed along the property
line(s) of the 4.4 acres abutting residential
lots.
8. That the maximum building height shall be 35 feet.
9. No individual building may exceed 7,500 square
feet.
10. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof
surface may have a slope of less than 301x.
11. In addition to any streetyard landscaping required
by the Landscaping, Screening, and Tree Preserva-
tion ordinance, the owner of the property shall
plant, as necessary, and maintain one additional
tree per every 50 feet of frontage along Lillian
Miller Parkway.
12. The owner shall not designate or authorize any
area for parking within the front yard setback of
any building along Lillian Miller Parkway.
• SECTION II. That the zoning district classification and use
designation of 69.3 acres of land described by Exhibit e, at- 1 `
Cached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is changed
from the Single-Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district classification
and use designation to a Single-Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c))
zoning district classification and use designation under the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas,
• subject to the following conditions:
1. All driveways shall be constructed of concrete.
PAGE 2
i
}
1 l:
•
•
ATTACHMENT 2
2. All roof surfaces shall have a minimum 5-foot to
pitch main structure
foot to slope on the
on the garage aOr a
mum Pitch or
mini
porches.
3. That the minimum air conditioned habitable living
area of the main residential structure of each lot
as measured to the outside of the exterior walls,
patios not to less
but exclusive of p°buildinas, shall
' detached accessory
than 1,600 square feet.
4. That the total exterior wall area of the front of
each building, including the first and second
floor of each two-story building constructed or
placed on a lot, shall be look brick, brick ve-
neer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry, and the
exterior wall area of all other exterior walls on
the first floor of each building constructed on a
lot shall be a minimum of BOW brick, brick veneer,
stone, stone veneer, or masonry.
5. Each residence shall have a private garage suit-
able for parking not less than two (2), but not
more than four (4) standard-sized automobiles.
Each garage shall abe attached to the ppearance, design, andimateriald
shall conform in app
to the main residence.
SF i0 IIi. That the zoning district classification and
use designation of the 54.1 acres of land described by Exhibits C
& D, of the subject 136 acres, is changed from the Single Family
16 (SF-16) zoning district classification and use designation to
a single Family 10 Conditioned (SF-10(c)) zoning district classi-
ficatio-, and use designation under the comprehensive zoning
ordin.:..-s of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following
conditions:
•
1, All driveways shall be constructed of concrete. `
2, All roof surfaces shall have a minimum 5-foot to r
12-foot pitch or slope on the main structure and a
minimum 4-foot to 12-foot pitch on the garage or
porches.
• j
3. That the minimum air conditioned habitable living ~ •
area of the main residential structure of each lot
measure ive of the outside of the
porches, garages, e patios randlls,
but exclus
PAGE 3
S Q ~
u
I
ATTACHMENT 2
detached accessory buildings, shall not be leas
than 1,800 square feet.
4. That the total exterior wall area of the front of
each building, including the first and second
floor of each two-story building constructee or
placed on a lot, shall be 1004 brick, brick ve-
neer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry, and the
exterior wall area of all other exterior walls on
the first floor of each building constructed on a
lot shall be a minimum of 804 brick, brick veneer,
stone, atone veneer, or masonry.
5. Each
able for residence shall less thanitwoe(2), but snot
more than four (4) standard-sized automobiles.
Each ggarae shall
in la abe attached to the ppearance, designs and residence and
material
shall
to the main residence.
sFC_rtON Iy. That the zoning district classification and use
designation of the 18.3 acres of land described by Exhibit E,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is hereby
changed from the Single-Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district classi-
fication and use designation to a Planned Development (PD) zoning
district classification and use designation under the comprehen-
sive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, and the de-
tailed plan of the described 18.3 acres, attached hereto as
Exhibit F, is hereby approved and adopted under the comprehensive
zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texasuasubject3t 1theof
following additional conditions, Imposed
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas:
1. All driveways shall be constructed of concrete.
2. All roof surfaces shall have a minimum 5-foot to
a a
to 12-foot pitch main stcture
on the garage or
mum pitch or
mini
• I
porches.
i 3. That the minimum air conditioned habitable living r J
area of the main residential structure of each lot
as measured to the outside of the exterior walls, but exclusive of porches, garages, patios • detached accessory buildinga, shall not be less
than 1,450 square feet. • •
4. That the total exterior wall area of the front of
each building, including the first and second
floor of each two-story building constructed or
PAGE 9
f I:~i ~w ` fig ti~ls lts Icli 7 > >I .Y ~.r iF
I'I, i 1 v~~ ~ fit. i J. y a
'jj
:71M
'
l
VIM t`
.v iLU .1. ♦ .r. u a~~a .n rv u-,nwrwu wn.-,..r .~.r... . i.. i _ v j ~
1
ATTACHMENT 2
placed on a lot, shall be 1004 brick, brick ve-
neer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry, and the
exterior wall area of all other exterior walls on
the first floor of each builiing constructed on a
lot shall be a minimum of 804 brick, brick veneer,
stone, atone veneer, or masonry.
5. Each residence shall have a private garage suit-
able for parking not leas than two (2), but not
more than four (4) standard-sized automobiles.
Each garage shall be attached to the residence and
shall conform in appearance, design, and material
to the main residence.
SECTION V. That the City's official zoning map is amended
to show the change in zoning district classification.
SECTION VI. That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
violated shall c constitute a separate provision anof this d distinct ordinance offense.
That this ordinance shall become effective
ES CTIOS VIII.
and the City
passage,
fourteen (14) days from the date of its
Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordi-
nance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the
official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10)
days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the day of , 1997.
I
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY
t.
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
ATTORNEY
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY~
BY:
PAGE 5
i
6v d F
~ 4 ~ k~ t t . ~(s l ~ 't# `lid i S' .rru`5 r ° 'ti y 6 y
1
, . r f' t yv. 1
m 1%
I
,
i
~aa'r
e~r;r,hl
. .,.';<e.,u~ ribuf.':yieCdi'LYi~.iw.~w. ..~'.-.~..r.r~i..E.f.►..,~ W'"~';- S.Y ;ri
ATTACHMENT '2
EXHIBIT A
FIELD NOTU
Mre" (NO°l N
4.4 Ace
Heim e0 thu condo bt, tract or pond of Ord rAttated h the IoM Mot3owao Strmy, AbatraA
Number M. &b S. F. R ynoldt Survey. Abtrad A m6w 1634, tb H. Lw& &rrvey, Abamd
! Number 769, the M. B. A. A P. AR Co. Survey. Abind AAmdw 930. and the L Fl As &Wm.
} Abtrad Number 421, City of 0w&m Deatoe Coady. Tom, bdm pad of a am oe0ed
140.6445 non tract of lend deateibed U a deed to Herrmn Dsrebptmttt Carpaatiat (Henetrn) ~ .
fecorded in Vokoee )453. PW i47 of tb P" Propany Rom* of Dw*m Ceu*. Toe, and . .
~ ~s mac perdattrly deac3ed r Polbwa:
pnMt on the veal Ina of acid Horseman toad, add point bdq on lb and rilM- a r .
BEGINNING at a
raatd
oRway Ina of LSGan bGlr Perkwq (so foot A.O.W.1 and from w" pow a 1/2' reb
'
M tb eortkwrt corner ahtdd Hettatrrt easel berg N 30.0715' IL 91.09 took
s,
THENCE s 600149' 18104 act to a
per:
TO ENCE S 14'49'05' W. 143.17 fad to a point; a e
THENCE S 43'2736' W. 29200 ad to a point:
THENCE S 10'072{• W.136.77 ad to a point {a r
f
THENCE S 06'SS42' W, 140.97 ad to a pole;
THENCE S Ol•OCI S' 8,190.12 FW to @ paint
TH ENCE N 1623754 W, 250.00 fed to a point on lba and 4%"&way so of Lm" Mft
h&"y and on the wet inn of add Hwrnr tnd, Wd pobd b ft In a cove to Oe W.
THENCE NodumoAy. metbdttp alert' the cad riSAt-f way an of boot Mw Parkway
and she wet Ina of add Haemae Iran and wick die me ofaekl ow" bvbtl a radkr of 940.00
act, it ow&d a%% of 31'0726, wtm dtord brie N 1483039' B. 513.76 net, an are kVb of
320.10 ad to a point; '
TH ENCL N 30'071 S• 4 461.99 feet coatinuir { aktoj the cad tfpAlof wq &n of LIYan
Mllkt Parkway and the wet ion drill Humm trod to doe POINT OF BEGINNING rid
contatbtj approdortdy 4.4 erne o(1aad.
i
top + ~
~ I
nU++ r 111
~~tK
RECEIVED
Nov 22 10
s. a
I1 r bq }et 71~z .
♦
I 1 Lek
N
r.~utu
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHBR B
FIELD NOTES
SF-7
69,3 Aam
Baia v the certain lot, mead or pawl of bed AwW In tba Jobe "owu Survey, Abaaad
Number 797. On S. P. Reyaolda Surat', Abroad Mm bar 1631, the B. Iwrria Sunny. Ab*m
Nuoba 769, the K 13 P. Q P. RR Co. Survey, AbdW Numbw 950, ad flee L PAW Survey.
AbAmci Nuobar 421, Cry of Daatm Domm County, Twti b ft pat of a catok aSa6
140.6925 WN tnd of bud daaar'bW In a dmd to Hama Dwovkpow Corporation Oiwa )
recorded l Vokmw 3457, Pw 847 otdo Rnl Property Reoordr of Do" County. Tsar, a l
bms maw patiairly dewy W m fobwc
DLGMING at a IR' tuber iiwd d the and wwl omoa dmW Naas Werra, add poll
baiq m tba ad rWg-ot--way In of Ilan MMw P--kwey (80 tad R.O. W mid plat WV
also On aarrbwaat comer of flan i lp EMata. Phw 1, m W"" to the City otDadaa
County, Tarawa, Dowd" to the pid &Mdnoadad lnCabiad IC, Pap 391 dmM Wert Reoerda
of De aoa Camty, Twq
TNZWZ N 19'3074" E, 216.13 fad alms the aortb Tm otoW Haamarr teat wady aoulb
IN of Sovabtid a Bddm to a poirk
THMCS S 00'0926" I, 10.11 Ad to a palm;
TIMCS S 520024r 14 211.44 id to a point;
THiNCi N W'5074' E, 1060.0o Std to a paid otarvahna of a era to the eoic
o(470t M' lard bran S 6603M, Q I",M g iat~ Mof 2".00 60. a 00FAM W*
yb ot205.27 hot b a
p
THI;NCR N 46'S3'Ir E, I93.p Ibd b a poK.
THZXCC N 61'33'Ir E. 46.57 foA to a polo Is a era b tba Wt
THRNCE Smoleaddy, wbb *9 arc atadd are bpi% a redo of 125.00 id a oamrat w*
of 90'0041', wbw drwd bean S 00",MW E,176.79 Rw, u ere Myth of IN-% id b a
P".
THENCE S 45'0950' F, 30.00 fed to do polo of arrabre of a are to the eqK
THLNCS SwAhmAerty, with the are of acid era hall a radius of 150,00 fed, a amid aqk
of45'00'1 S', where chord beam S 22.17410 E, 114.82 Sd, u ac k%* of 117.13 fod to a
4o~*
• THLNCZ S 00'0975' E, S 134 fw to it point;
THENCL S 89'5025' W. 311.00 feet to a point r
TH ENCL S 25'5290' 1, 90.02 fed to a paid; l
TH MCC S 11'3I'l2- F,120.96 fat to a paint
• THLNCE S 12'4921` W,143.78 fort to a poll; • r
r
hp2of3 RECEIVED
CEC 16 lm 6
~ur+xwc 6 olihm0~i1EN1
Jde 3 •1.. S, r '.cy Ay t~ y. 6 al ``~`~A 'ti a , t
Y~~'+t~~a,~;;.~~,~
r
J
1
.
j' 4
S it i ~i ~ M pr Y e'.r 1 ":1 ! y (~'NI LFf ,+~}~•'`r
.....n.w.~.«..:...t.r....w...w:w..~....;.. 11~......~..r..~ 3._~.~ L~!,.u$l ±t.Y~~>1:i~'"L.•~NI~WLbI
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHBIT 9
THMa 8 DO' I04 ' 8.30.00 fed to a pokat;
TUMM S 19'4971• W. 40 1.88 hd b tW p *j of mvaWa or$ o an b tba bik
TBRNCIC SabbwaMay, WM the an of Wd am br ft a ab'w of 1000.00 hM a am*W
64* of 23 IMO. AM dwii ban 8 71' 1313' W. 401.42 Ant, r ro IWO of 405.19 he
to a poiag
TNENCIC 8 66.MSE W.435.00Ibr to • pokar
TW9KCi S 23'23'25' 6.340.09 W b a point;
T88NC9 N 19'49'31' $ 996.391bat b a pob t.
TBICNM S I I' 16"39' E. 101.91 bM b a!OK.
TSMIX 8 64'3076' $143.90 iat to apart;
TN37tCi 8 a'23'u' 8,14138 60 to a point;
7'88NCZ N a606'S9' 8, 436. I S Ml b a p0jK
TW= 81 s4359Y 8.363.15 Met tb a POW a da aobd No of aU Nenr08 '
por bdq a d Nab It" Ste arch bttol oflad iarW 4I &W to ~ ~
l.3Wa Cat w d
moor I it Vakara I lS% Pra 4a of da Daal Reom* of Dauab Cm*. Tart
THBNCS N n42ns' W
i tlr and 1108 ofaak4 Q* joi l bat *m de 9" M1w ofaai/ Narar a ant nab
Ind to a TURM N 01'00'1!' W.1001301* b a point
TNINCZ N 06'sT4Y U. 140.97 hil b a pebK
,TRVWC N 10.0713' $136.77 tad to a po K. h
TNBNCL N 42621'36' $ 29200 Rat b a poK.
TBEf RM N 14'4MI $ (43.871kM b a point;
TUM N EO'01'19' W. IM04 Ant b a point a 04 40 tiebtof•Wq 11aa of lraa bar
Pwkwm
T11iNCL N 30'03' I S' $ p.013a1 abq tk eat tipkt~war 308 of Liiaa A811er Parkwq b
tba POINT Op sLCCNNING 086 mwA bb apr=hmtay 69.3 mm a wd
S
y ..r
! N l .
' i • L '
r y
J1~~~ n~t 21.
F,•4 ~`A 1" n M~ S i ~ ~ 111 i ♦
_____Q„~. .?,e, .y.. ♦ L ~ieT'{;.'f e",'fyirF '4)~$ ~;fer~ r.4~ I~ ,~i ~~~xQwrfyl 8.r~~,J tM1~~v l'~yM~:~
- 1
•
1 .in .-~...}•.I.).i «Vnfv..J ~ff.a W~v.3Y tea. ugwvv.s.a.M.......~.u--a..y~_.w.....~._~•..-~.~.~.-...-arm-~r~~ r.
ATTACHMEN1 .2
EXHIBIT D
' F1ElJJ ro27rs ,
SP-10
01.9 Acres
all thu certain lot. (aced or puaJ Bland irtwled in the Jobu McGowa Strvey, Abstract
Number M. the S. F. Rey"& Survey, Abetted Number 1634, the H. I.ewla Survey, Abetted I Y
Number 769, the M. 8. P. Jt P. RA Co. Survey. Abetted NumW 950, aced the J.lydter Surm.
Abetted Number 421. Cay of Dmlon. Dduoo Coway. Teas, being Put ds =Wo Wed
14o,m am tnd of WW deAr7A is a deed to Herman Derdopmert CwPorsf*G {1lrwu6l)
reoorded In Volwoo 7433. P&p 147 of the Real Progeny Records Of Dmtoa Couky, Tone, and
bd%more parkululy MAW u follows:
BEGINNING at a In' rebu round at the nonhrst corner laid Herman tract, rid POW &W to DVW It Hsidoty~
A r dw eoor~ded mawag O&M of
pW2=tole 17o(ftp.WP Rmrr
MD., iinVohmro2%o dDatw Cowdy.
TeaaK
THENCE S 00'20'30' W,1 74 feel &q the to W of mW Hume tract to a In' reber
found at the $wheatt ewer thereof,
TH ENCE N 11'2395' W (itecwdX 46161 feat Blom the south In laid Herrera trail to a
Pofar
THENCE N 15'3591' W. 36311/5 feel to a point;
THENCE S 11'06'59' W. 431'ii Ibd to a pout:
THENCE N 21'4671' W,14). 2 fed to a pack;
V
THENCE N 00'!099' W, 604.444 fed to it M:04
THENCE S 19'493I' W. 206.35 bd to a pdk;
THENCEN00,1099'W.30: 4toaP K
7sIEnCr N 11'4991' l', N3.ri fed la a paiak
1 THENCE N 11'S l'i 1' W,120.96 fat to a point,
THENCE N 25'53W* W, 90.02fcol to a Paint;
THENCE N 19'5M' 8, 10.00 4 to a point;
THENCE N (10'0935' W, S 04-4e1 to the pork dcurvahre der curve to the Id1; '
THENCE Northwtderly, with the arc chid arve btvla{ a radar 0( 150-00 fad. t oedral /
ar44 445'00' I S', whoa chord bean N 11'3747' W,114.12 feel, as arc teach of 117.{1 feel
to a Polk; _
• THENCE N 45'09'50' W, 30.60 fed to the Polk dowvah a der curve to tier A ~ • •
THENCE Northeasterly. with the arc d aid curve W4 it radtn of 125.00 fed, • oettral 000 -
of 90'0091', whore chord bare N 00'0'140' W,176.79 foot, so arc W%Vh Of I%-M fed to a ~
pointo crei amwm ,
Fate t d2
(d~ i •a
* t` 4
-Iva, 11 ~11,1 I,
r.
•
pan •
+ 1 1 .a~+~'Gtf t ~fl f.
~•nib(.r"~Y.WY~M1ONLWM~riWI1MYY~wYaMfuewWrYWwM~t~huM rMr ' ~+ime.iwi~~Niri~
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT D
TIWC.lC NatMade iy. with tM am of rid oons bn* a red'ar o(100,00 foot, wbm dwrd
bon N 2241072' a 76.54 be4 w arc larrtk of 71.34 hd to a Paint as tM 004 ho d rid i
Hannan track
THOC C N 0'5074' K 319.68 tier to a SH' rebw kW It 1M aort1nr17 sortbort mw
Lhow& rid poird beat oa tM wod In of a owio tract of load deearbed h a end to 1. kL
Thom s mWW In Vokrme 293. Pop 134 of rM Dad Reoorde of Dooton County, TsnK } +
Tu9mcc 8 0094541' $305.91 fed ear as at In of rid Henmm trod and ttm wed in
of rid Thomot traet to a I121 mbw 8rmd at dw wj"vd omm 6woot
f'
TUMClt N 89'4971' 6. 1013.45 fee *mg am* be of rid lim as toot and iM South
be ohed lbomaa tact to tM POINT OF N*LNNM ad aoddain/ app radium b 38.9
non of land. i'
l Lt
Pep 2 of 2
y
t r~
e i a
Y t . ~ ,r
7 N
Yx rv
1 I ~
.I
r a ~~f. y~ Sa'1 c y 4mv C R.
J
A' .
gig
•
•
,
:.:.fu.Sam.LZerc~wa,aairwa•Hrc4+a~r..r.wr.,rer.r.:w....~:, ~.:....T....:..« ti ~i:....d..
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHMff C
x
y.
Pala Notes
SF-10
! 33 Aaw
eiy r tlrt artafa bal, tort a Drat of bead A atad b tV loba bbNOowaa Abet
NwabSr 797, dr l F. RgwAh Srvq, Abwm IU&w 1634. do & Lwb Ab*"
NNNaabar 769, tba b! 8 P. A P. AIL Co, b nq. ,P,%Ww Nratbw 9f0. mW Ay 1, MW
Abamrt Nnabar 471, Qq dDWW% Daaloa Cam*. Tsar, b ft pa da oat& MW
140,691! Son WA of bad dbawW b a dad b lMwaa Dawdopo d Caparba (lbraaNr)
raoordad t• VObM 7431. hp 147 of tba Ilaa1 fN"oiy ltam* of Daaba C4rrq. ToaK eW
1 bdq ton f4~b dwalal as NbSS
KCINND4a a pY as Iba aaaab IN daSid Nraraa mast, INN w" a 1/2' mbar Nod at
IM Mwk Sant &Wwfbwv Z 11NSWW W. 2N, i7 hit
{ TNVKX N S1'3074' B, I6Tl.l6 Nat a1oNq tba awtb ISa of aSbt Ilrts• 4441 q a Paiat Y a
am" to tba e#A; a '
MZWX Saaiwmk*. wbb do ro ofndd mw br*j a nit of 100.00 bt, a SaNtral
&%%of44'ff96', wb m ckW Inn f Z2.9073' W, 76.54 6K M ar0 W%* of7S.34 Nat lo
a poir;
ttl><NCS a 61'srlr W, 4437 Nae a aPoiNg
12107 1< 946'3P17• W,11141 NR b0 a P W la a am to 6014
Ti JMI Hoe*womb , %A"w orwd am WAS a nit of 930.00 Nat, aaaaral
Salo of 47'aW, wbos *W bsn N U"3M W. I "M Nat, w w lams ~27 be
b a Poet;
TBZNCZ S 19'!074" W,1060.00 Nat b a pdap
ToLNCt N 32'OT17' W. 2!144 Nab to a Pobt
TWWM N 00'0 A' W. IQI I Nat do POINT M =GINNING W oo"ft
apprordnbdy 31 SarK at Yr,
1 ,f
i
~I -
r
Pw2of9
Q r ~
J
RECEIVED
C E C 15
>y96
. ry 7~ f } ~3 s y ~ •cy..
~r~ai.., T~Y My~af~Y t JWj
,
r
t
. ~..5•>tess'.rR.e'vsc[6t~ian.erLS<s4trsyr:l~rl~+Mw..~rsrav.ewer>w...r...+ - '+.r-..
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT E
FIELD N0773
PO
I1.3 Ana
Beial aB"certain tot, tractor pared of land situated Is the Seha McGowan Survey, Abstract
Numbs 797, the S. P. Reynold Survey. Abstract Numbw 1654, She B. Lewis Survey. Abdract
Number 769, She bt E P. A P. All Co. Survey. AbRnd Nwbr 930, mod tbo J. Haber Survey.
Abstract Numbs 421, City of Dorton. Dadra County. Tau, bebg part oft eartain aged
140.6913 6m tract of lad 6eaaibed H a dad:o Haman Davdnpmant Carporadom Qiawrm)
reowded io Vohmre 3433. Pale 147 of the Real Property Records of Datw canny. Tau, and
j boar/ more partradarty descried as 1bSowL
BEGINNING at a poet Oom which a 1120 raba Mrmd at the aoudiew corner of amid Hawtm
t tract bm%N U*M9' Q 436.11 lad. S 1343 S22' F, 36315 SM smd S g'23'13' Fr,
464.61 fist;
THENCE N p'23'3S' W,142.It fed to a pods;
TH MCC N 64'3026' W.142.90 fed Ica POW;
THENCE N 11416W W.101," feet to a point;;
TH CNCC S 19'49'31' W, 9%.31 fed to a point;
THENCE N 23'137.5' W. 30,09 fed 10 m point; r
THENCZ N 66'367 S0 F,435.00 Poet to tbm pond of atvabn of m oxw to the rl j ,
THENCE Nortbmierly, with the mro of mmid awe hWq a n dlae of 1000.00 Met, a antral l
artlis o(13# 17W, whose d wd bean N 784310Y 1; 402.42 Met, as mn;"d of 403.19 Poet
10 a poll;
THENCC N 19'4971 • E, 6N,43 6d to a pokC
%
THENCI S 00' 1019' 8.604.44 fad tc s poke
THENCE S 21'4192' Q 143,72 Met to the POINT OP 6CGINNING and oonwWre
mPptoabWely l l l acroa of land
'c
r
a~
Pap 1 d2
RECEIVED
e a >996_;~
Nov
DOWMAENt
..,.-~+~'•^.-;may.- _.,~Tj . ~ y >.YI~ a -'iT' a1'~ ~ ~t ~ ~j r'}1~ ,,'F Y 1, ki f
T ♦.e r yt 2 ,.Z 8. C n .r d'1'ra
r~ fr Y~ 5.~~A'rt
•
•
ATTACHMENT 2
EXHIBIT F
I )I Is 11 1 If f
FIi j ~ It ~1 rl L ~ rj 1 ! ~ ~ Z ~ - -
all. 1•R ! [L [t [ L IR I li ~ i r,
II
it r• • • n r• I~ • ~ It t.~[EI I~ ' ~ ~ i
~fl~lfll~r
it
~srr r} i ~ I ,
i E.Ictcc I ~
job - I I I H ! I f
IIIof I III !'ICI ~i OR
I
{
!I I Ii I
r i 1 1 • (~lif 111 ~rLr f~ { y~- ~
;iji
rl
rI Ertl t► ~i ~ ~ , t
PrtI f 1
its JIrl;L
I 1 r it - - r•.---
~I ,.}1 1, -
PII
Jill ,I
I; I 1{,
p r..
1 rrrrrr I F M
t i
1 ~
6
•
r
•
' f
ATTACHMENT 3 -
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
~oilAF'r
December 4, 1996
Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday,
December 4, 1996, and began at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney.
Present: Mike Cochran, Carol Ann Ganzer, Guy Jones, Rudy Moreno, Bob Powell, Ellen Schenz, and
Barbara Russell.
Present from Staff: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Mani.per; Mike Bucek, Assistant City Attorney; Walter Reeves,
Urban Planner; Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation; David Salmon, Senior Civil Engineer; Chris
Rodriguez, Secretary.
Meeting called to order at 5:05 p.m.
1. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 136 acres from the Single Family-16 (SF-16)
zoning district to the Single Family-7 (SF-7), Single Family -10 (SF-l0), and Office Conditioned (0(c)),
and a Planned Development zoning districts. The subject property is located on the east side of Lillian
Miller/Teasley Lane, at the intersection of those two streets. (Z-96-036)
Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: I am not going to spend another hour like I did last time, you have the backup. Briefly
I'll go over some of the things that have been changed since last time. In the PD zoning area the
minimum lot size has gone from four thousand square feet to five thousand square feet. There is SF-10
zoning along the fence next to the Beazer Addition. Additionally Mr. Hersman has included some
proposed conditions for the residential area, that is Attachment 3 in the backup. These conditions are
number one, free standing single family residences only. Staff isn't going to recommend this particular
wording. What it basically does is prohibits somebody from having a shed. 1 don't think this particular
condition is necessary. Condition number two is for concrete driveways. Number three is that all roof
surfaces shall have a five foot to twelve foot pitch or slope on the main structure, and a four foot to
twelve foot pitch or slope on the garage or porches. Number four is that the minimal air conditioned
habitable living area of the main residential structure of each lot as measured to the outside of the exterior
walls but exclusive of porches, garages, patios, and detached accessory buildings shall not be less that
one thousand, four hundred and fifty square feet for the PD area, sixteen hundred square feet for the
Single Family-7 area, and eighteen hundred square feet for the Single Family-10 area. Condition number
• five, the total exterior wall area of the front of each building including the first and second floor of each
two story building constructed or placed on a lot shall be one hundred percent and the total exterior wall
area of the entire first floor of each building constructed on a lot shall be not less than eighty percent
brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry. And number six is that each residence shalt have
a private garage suitable for parking not less than two and not more than four standard size automobiles.
Each garage shall be attached to such residence and open to the front side or to the rear of the lot and
• shall conform in appearance, design, and material to the main residence. We did do notice again on • •
November 22nd and based on the responses that we received for this notice and the previous notice there
total percent that is opposed is 7.6 percent. The twenty percent rule will not be in effect at this time.
A traffic study was requested and that nas been submitted. I in going to let David Salmon discuss that.
Mr. Moreno: 1 don't understand cortrition number five.
P~i
•
i
•
P&Z Minutes II
December 4, 1996 "
Page 2
Mr. Reeves: It is a little bit unclear. What it means is that the front of the buildings will be a hundred
percent brick, stone, or masonry. I have talked with the consultant and they understand that the wording
is a little unclear so we will have some better wording for that.
Mr. Powell: On condition 3, do we have to say that it will be a five to twelve pitch, or could we say that
it will be a minimum of five to twelve. Is this going to get in the way of someone having a steeper pitch?
Mr. Reeves: It might. It would probably be better to say a minimum.
Mr. Salmon: As requested at the last meeting when we heard this, the applicant has submitted a traffic
study. It was prepared by lack Hawhel and Associates of Plano. The study was conducted assuming that
the only entrances to the subdivision would be off of Lillian Miller, which of course in the beginning will
be the case. This study doesn't take into account the factor that at some point in time the collector street
that will run through the middle of this subdivision will have a connection to the 1-35 service road. With
that in mind I would like to go over a few of the numbers with you in terms of additional traffic that will
be generated by this subdivision, particularly at the intersection of Lillian Miller and Teasley, and the
Lillian Miller and 1-35. Starting with Lillian Miller and Teasley, the expected increase in traffic at that
intersection Is about thirty-three percent over what Is there now, which is a significant increase in traffic,
approximately three to four hundred additional vehicles during a peak hour. We will be visiting with the
developer during the platting process and I believe that is already aware that we will probably be asking
him to participate in the construction of a traffic signal at that intersection, which will more than handle
his additional traffic at that location. Moving to the intersection at Lillian Miller and 1-35, the consultant
is projecting an increase in traffic at that location of five to eight percent. Currently the traffic numbers
at that intersection during a peak hour are right around twenty-five hundred to three thousand vehicles
per hour range. This would put it closer to three thousand to thirty-five hundred vehicle trips in a peak
hour. Again you do have an increase in vehicles there, proportionately compared to the existing traffic
that is already there you are really only talking about a five to eight percent increase in traffic. Also at
that intersection there is a signal, we have put in the turn lanes, and have just about used all of our right-
of-way. Arty additional traffi; improvements at that location would not be a simple th?ng to do. To sum
this up, traffic is measured by what we call "level of service." The consultant did level of service
calculations based on what the proposed peak hour is going to be. At the intersection of Lillian Miller
and Teasley the traffic without the traffic signal could be expected to go from a level of service B to a
level of service C. That amount of traffic does reduce the level of service at that intersection, however
• the level of service at Lillian Miller and 1-35 is currently at a level of service D. which isn't particularly
good, however even after this development occurs in its entirety it would still be at a level of service D. r '
So the increase in traffic does not change the level of service for the intersection, the traffic isn't j
particularly good there now and it certainly isn't going to be any better after the development is there,
but perceptionaly it is riot going to be any worse than what is already there because the volume of traffic
is already there.
• • •
Mr. fahran: How do you determine something like that?
Mr. Salmon: Level of service, it is a pretty complicated process, one that we do not normally do In our
office. It Is a combination of the number of vehicles, and the amount of delay each vehicle can expect
to have at that intersection. For example, instead of the average vehicle during the peak hour having to
wait five minutes io get through the intersection, maybe they have to wait five minutes and twenty
•
' i
•
P&Z Minutes L
December 4, 1996
Page 3 URAI ~ i ,
seconds. Five minutes is probably too long, five minutes and twenty seconds is longer but it is not that
much more than what they are already waiting.
Mr. Cochran: Do you know what the space in time between the levels of service is?
Mr. Salmon: I doo t know what the factors are. By the way, we also gave this study to the consultant
that we u3e for o v.- ow,i traffic studies and he did concur with the numbers and tM methodology that was
used. So we feel confident that the study was done correctly.
Mr. Reeves: The IaN issue that I want to talk about is the parks issue. As you are aware we have been
working with Mr. 4ersman on a plat of the property. It does include a common area that runs through
the development. As you will note in the backup he has contacted our parks department about some
future date having this as a linear park. Mr. Hodney is here from the parks department and he is going
to cover that.
i
Mr. Fed Hoi ney: One of the potential problems we have when new subdivisions are built is that no
additional park land or recreational facilities are constructed to add to the system to absorb the additional
demand when new subdivisions are installed. The Denton Development Policy currently in place
essentially steers us in the right direction which is to find ways to add additional parks and green space
and recreational facilities as development occurs. Of course as you know we don't have any exactions
to enable us to do that and so what we rely on is simply negotiations with developers. This developer for
example could decide not to add those kinds of facilities and we don't have a lot of recourse since it is
a voluntary dedication policy as opposed to an exaction. He has chosen to do a green space and some
facilities as amenities for his subdivision. The only other issue that we face is when those facil ides come
on line, is it something that the city maintains through its general fund budget, or is it something that the
developer, owner, or homeowners' association maintains? What has been proposed Is that for the first
five to ten years the homeowners' association, the developer, or the owner will continue to maintain these
facilities on behalf of the subdivision and hopefully after that time the city would then be In a position
to take on that additional maintenance responsibility and those wsociated costs. 1 personally feel that a
five to ten year window is an adequate time for us to garner resources to prepare for growth in this area.
Mr. Cochran: In this rive to t.n year period that this would still be under their control as far as
maintenance goes, would it be styled in such a way that the public would have access to it during that
• time and would it be considered a public park?
Mr. Hodney: My conceal is that it would be styled as a public amenity, although there may be a legal {
question here that haven't quite resolved yet. My understanding is that essentially it Is going to be
a public improvement, a public facility, but it will be maintained by the homeowners' association or
daveloper. It is mainly to service the subdivision that is being proposed. ,
Mr. Reeves: There is one other item that I need to speak about briefly. At the last meeting there was
concern about density of this project. The current preliminary plat that we are looking at has & density
of 3.3 units per acre. In comparison the subdivision directly to the north has a density of 3.03 units per
acre. They are fairly close. Finally there was also some question about the minimum lot sizes, my
calculations show that the proposed Single Family-7 lots, of which there are two hundred and forty-six,
have an average lot size of eight thousand, three hundred and nine square fat. The Single Family-10
7l
,rt
61- Mao, I hm,sikA
•
. r r L 1 err!'%. L:il 0 nA.. u':., .n n:e.... .,r...n....,
P&Z Minutes
f
PDegee December 4, 1996
lots, of which there are one hundred and ten, have an average lot size of eleven thousand, seven hundred,
and sixty-six and a half square feet. And finally the PD area, that has eighty-nine lots, has an average
lot size of five thousand square feet. The staff is recomtrauding approval subject to the conditions that
are listed for the office area as well as any that you might be inclined to include for the residential area.
Mr. Cochran: 1 have a question about the park land. You mentioned that there would not be any parking
provided, will there be any way for the public to access that park?
Mr. Hodney: The best way to answer this question is to balloon this in that there will be a number of
other developments at some point in time. What is being proposed right now will take care of the
immediate needs of that subdivision itself. It is more of an internal service, but conceivably what can be
done here is that this subdivision and its public facilities can be connected with the developments around
it to form a system with each individual subdivision's needs, that it individually generates being met, but
then all of them being tied into a larger system so parking doesn't have to be accommodated in each
subdivision. It can be accommodated perhaps at a central location.
Mr. Cochran: My concern is that the City of Denton will be providing a valuable service to this
subdivision through maintaining this park land and I just wanted to make sure that the citizens could have
access to it.
Mr. Hodney: If it becomes a public facility then all citizens %ill have access to it. It is only a question
of where you access it. That is more of a systems question that we still have to work through.
Mr. Cochran: On the traffic study, did the figures you used assume that one hundred percent of the
traffic would be going toward 1-357
Mr. Salmon: On this panicul: r study they did make the assumption that a very small percentage of the
traffic would be going south toward Old Alton, but they did have most of the traffic turning north to 1-35.
During a peak hour they showed a hundred and fifty-nine people turning north and they have twenty
people going south.
Mr. Jones: Did I hear you say that there would be aiather exit out of this subdivision that would hook
up to 1-35?
s
Mr. Salmon: Currently on the city's collector street map there is a collector street that connects the
intersection of Lillian Miller and Teasley to 1-35 somewhere south of the mall. This subdivision Is
proposing to build that collector street all the way through the length of the subdivision and ther. at sorry.
point when PD 20 develops they would be required to make the final connecr;aa over to 1-35. /ill
indications are that there will be a collector street built in PD 20 that will connect to the I-35 service road. L'
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. Jake Hersman: My narne is Jake Hersman and 1 live at 225 Stonecrest In Argyle. I do want to
address some of the things that we have learned from 11w previous nutting, the neighborhood meetings,
and the phone calls that I have received from concerned citizens. There will be a hundred percent brick
on the front of the buildings that will face Lillian Miller. There will be low pedestal lighting, strict
7a a.
•
P&Z Minutes q~ i >
December 5ber 4, 1996 ~ ~rl
signage control, landscape buffer out in front, parking that doesn't exceed the fre•nt of the building, and
side and rear parking. I think overall it will be an attractive look for Lillian Miller and serve as a good
buffer for the residential area behind it as well. That is what our neighbors in Hunters Ridge will we,
and I think they will be very pleased with how that appears. The average square footage of all of our lots
is eighty-five hundred and eighty-one square feet which is four hundred and eighteen square feet smaller
than the smallest lot in Southridge, which is probably imperceptible to most of our eyes. There were
numerous concerns about what these homes were going to look at. Last time we talked abrdt a product
range of a hundred and twenty-five to over two hundred thousand dollars. If we had based that all on
deed restrictions there was some concern over whether that would really happen and that is why we went
to the trouble to make the residential essentially conditioned as well by having the conditions, that Walter
showed you earlier, actually on the plat. The intent was to insure everyone that those homes will
essentially be as big or larger than what is presently proposed for the Beazer Subdivision. The eighteen
hundred square feet on the SF-10 exceeds what their minimum requirements are by two hundred square
feet. Our SF-7 is cxacdy the same at sixteen hundred square feet. The PD product is a little smaller, that
is what that is designed to offer, homes for a different group of folks that don't want yards. Concerning
the deed restrictions, I have never done a project where people built the minimum. They always exceed
the minimum to a degree. We went from four hundred and seventy-five to four hundred and forty-five
homes to address some of the density issues that they were concerned about. Concerning the lakes and
drainage, we nave spent a lot of time on that and worked with the city engineering department and our
consultants from Las Colinas. I think we have come up with a wonderful plan. There is a thirty-six
inch culvert pipe that is buried underneath this green space area to the south of the collector road, that
carries all of the average rainfall, all of the yard runoff in a orderly fashion throughout the project. We
have over five acres of lakes north of the collector road. The lakes will have a hard edge with sidewalks
all t,'r way around. There will be park equipment and there will large open areas for play. Every aspect
of the subdivision will have access to this park without having to cross fences or go through someone's
backyard. Should PD 20 ever develop that property then two things will happen. One is that the
collector street goes through and will connect to 1-35 and the second is that Unicorn Lake may become
part of this park system. That would give us over twenty-five acres of a linear park system that would
be wonderful for the City of Denton. We have divided the subdivision into four phases. This Is probably
a six to eight year project. The first phase is a hundred and fifteen lots. We have made an effort to
address the concerns of our neighbors. I want this to be something that Denton will be proud of.
Nis. Russell: I have a card from Don Frasier to speak in favor.
Mr. Don Frasier: My name is Don Frasier and I work with the Irwin Realty Group. The basis for a
strong viable economy is a good supply and demand. Currently in the Denton housing market the supply '
for housing stems around the SF-7 and SF-l0 sire lots. Overall Denton as a community needs housing
developments that harmonize with not only the trends of future developments but what is existing around
it. I think lake has done an encllent job in trying to adhere and make this development hamwnize with L. _
• what is around it, yet bring to the market what there is a demand for. I am familiar with several of the • •
projects that Mr. Hersman has done in the Argyle area. They have all been very successful and are
considered to be an amenity to the community in Argyle. We need to take advantage of a good loco
developer who has a sincere Interest in the community and wants to build a quality project to the area.
Mr. Fred Gossett: My name is Fred Gossett and my business address is 600 S. Elm. I am here to speak
in favor of this zoning request. 1 am keenly aware of the emotional aspects of this Issue, however from
73
~C
1, r
S
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996uJ
Page 6
a purely logical standpoint it is just that and nothing more. This is rat a school issue, it is a zoning issue
and the fact that houses usually bring school children should be a concern of the school district. If the
proposed zoning request does not significantly violate the Denton Development Plan, adheres to Code,
and also City Ordinances, and after study from the staff is also recommended it seems to me that this is
a perfectly legitimate and proper use of the subject property. Request for conditioned office zoning along
Lillian Miller will serve as a suitable buffer between Lillian Miller and the proposed housing community.
Since it will be screened appropriately from the residential neighborhood 1 would think that it would
protect the proppsed neighborhood rather than have housing being built abutting a four lane boulevard.
Some fear that thr, pmgiosed project will cheapen the neighborhood. I believe 1 heard the same concerns
when the Trendmaker subdivision was going through the zoning process. Now everyone seems to think
that the Trendmaker, or Beazer subdivision as it is now known is great and so do 1. I do rat believe tike
some that the proposed community wi:l bring pW iy values crashing down, and cheapen the
neighborhood. I am not aware of any properdv; that were devalued just because the Trendmaker project
was approved. I am very fortunate to live in an area where custom estate homes are located very near
more modestly priced homes. To my knowledge the property values in our community have not been
affected in any way. Inciden.411y these people are very good neighbors. Since the average value of
homes in Denton is approximately seventy thousand dollars it occurs to me that this project will serve to
bring up the overall values. I fine it extremely difficult to imagine the housing in the proposed
community will do anything but enhance to diversity of neighborhoods In the City of Denton. It would
be extremely neat if all the future housing built in Denton was two hundred thousand dollars and up and
all situated on large expensive tracts of land. Frankly with one of the lowest per capita incomes in the
whole metroplex, Denton can ill afford to be so exclusionary as to suggest that one hundred, twenty to
one hundred, fifty thousand dollar homes will not be compatible with the neighborhood. As a t.roperty
owner of both residential and commercial property in the immediate area 1 hardily support this proposal
and would ask the Commission to vote in favor of the petition with the conditions to which the petitioner
has already agreed.
Mr. Jesse Coffey: My name is Jesse Coffey and my address is 3513 Granada Trail. 1 live within one
and one half mile of this proposed development. 1 supported this at the last meeting and 1 still support
this. We have a group of people in Denton who say that we need a sales tax to bring more business to
Denton, We have a group on the other side that say we don't need it, that we have public servants and
people who represent the city who are glad to have new business in town. Now we have a local business
man who is trying to do some business. 1 think it would be a good idea for the two sides to come together
• and approve this without any further delay.
Ms. Russell: I have a card from Mr. Wade Harris, he is not here to speak tonight. He is registering his
support of this project with conditions.
r:
Ms. Virginia Williams: My name is Virginia Williams and my address is 2730 N. Elm. I have lived in
• Denton for the past thirty years and my family has been Denton residents for the last eighty years. I • •
definitely have a vested interest in the City of Denton and future development here. i would not support
any project that I thought would be detrimental to the residents surrounding this subdivision. In fact 1
absolutely believe that this development will be a great asset to this area. I have known Jake Hersman
and the other developments that he has done throughout the area. All have been quality projects. This
is a developer that lives here. He cares about Denton and the surrounding area and he will still be here
when the subdivision is completed. We need Jake, a local developer, who will carry the responsibility
14
Z I
•
i
•
P&Z Minutes FR 5AR Al'
December 4, 1996 Page 7 of putting in a first class subdivision from the start to finish, instead of a rretroplex, or an out of state
developer who will be gone when the development is finished. According to a,e most recent North Texas
Survey, Denton has the lowest inventory of available homes in any area in the metroplex, besides
Gainsville. We desperately need this type of rice subdivision with sixteen acres of green space
surrounded by lovely homes. As far as the smaller lots decreasing the value of the Southridge homes and
the other subdivisions in the area, the smaller lots will make the surrounding homes on larger lots sell at
a premium. We are already seeing this effect in the marketing of the homes in the area right now.
Ms. Ann Brown: My narne is Ann Brown and 1 have been a resident of Denton for sixteen years. 1 am
a professional educator and my children are grown. I am looking for a home and I have been looking
for one for nine months. : now live on Londonderry and I selected art apartment in Southridge because
for the sixteen years that I have lived here I have wanted to live in the Southridge area. 1 have had three
pruperties, one was a hundred acres, one was seven acres, and the other was over on Ector in the older
part where the tots are large. 1 am now looking for a specific home. My Realtor has shown me forty-
seven homes and finally said that 1 needed to build a house because 1 have not liked anything that I saw.
I don't want to build a house. What I want to buy is a very nice property, approximately twenty-five
hundred square feet, I would like to spend about a hundred and fifty to a hundred and seventy thousand
dollars, but I don't want a lot. I don't want trees and leaves and all of that. I am looking for something
that is not in Denton. 1 would like to endorse this project and wish that it would speedily get started and
1 am very interested in some of the first (tome, that are completed and I will wait until they are
completed. 1 know that 1 can't be alone in my search. This is precisely what I am looking for and 1 think
you will find other middle-aged adults that have grown children that really want less home responsibility
but they want all of the quality and square footage of the kind of homes that we have in the Southridge
area.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in favor? Our first speaker in opposition is Mr. Richard
Bragg.
Mr. Richard Bragg: My name is Richard Bragg and I live on 2537 Natchez Trace. I live In the Beazer
Addition. I am tvt opposed to a good solid development but 1 am concerned about the traffic. The traffic
study says that it is a D at Lillian Miller & 1-35. I drive there everyday. The study only took into
account Mr. Hersman development, it didn't tL:~ a into account the Crown Oaks development or any other
development and that is going to affect the traffic there. If Mr. Hersman would compromise and go SF-9
• or SF-10, which we have in our development than I would accept it.
r
Mr. Bill Claiborne: My name is Bill Claftme and my address is 820 Smokerise. 1 have two objections, '
one is the perpetuation of commercial development on Lillian Miller, and the second Is the density and
the intensity with which the PD region of this proposal will throw into the area. Is single fancily detached
housing an appropriate land use for this property? Obviously I think that we would all agree that it is.
• Is the land use of the PD consistent with the surrounding area? The answer here is no. Is the office area • •
r consistent with the surrounding area? The answer is no. For those three reasons I ask you to vote no to
JI this petition.
Mr. 3rennan Gourdie: My name is Brennan Gourdie and my address is 713 Lafayette In Southridge.
I attended a meetinc with Dr. Hersman which included about thirty homeowners from the area and by
the end of that meeting I think everyone was in opposition. Contrary to what he stated I don't think there
-
~M.
•
•
_ S
11
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 J~ rS u
Page 8
was a very favorable response to what he had proposed. Three of the main reasons that they were against
this is because of the high density, the impact to the roads and the schools, and we also tried to negotiate
an increase in lot sizes and he wasn't willing to do so. A couple of things have been mentioned in the
traffic study and it was pretty much done in a vacuum. It didn't consider any of the o~xr proposals that
are in place and ongoing such as the office zoning down by Red Lobster, Crown Oaks, and a couple of
the other recently rezoned properties. According to the Denton code, Section 34-114 (4)(a) it specifically
ca11s out that when the property is at full development that adequate capacity will mean a level of service
C as defined in the latest addition on Highway Capacity Manual. Already we are at a level of service D
and it doesn't include a lot of the other developments that are going in. One other point that I would like
to make is that the five thousand square foot lots with the fourteen hundred square foot minimum, you
talked about the asking price starting around a hundred and twenty thousand dollars, 1 find that hard to
believe when you calculate the average cost per square foot. It runs in the neighborhood of eighty-five
to ninety -two dollars a square foot. That would be paying a premium over a custom built home over in
Southridge. I don't think you are going to get the kind of people who are willing to invest in such a small
lot for that size home.
Mr. Roland Vela: My name is Roland Vela and I live at 729 Ridgecrest. 1 have been there for thirty
years. I have a great deal of concern about with what is happening with our neighborhood. The land is
now zoned SF-16, nd if you change the zoning you are going to essentially double the impact. There is
also an additional development that is coming before you tonight for the property that is adjacent to this
piece of land. We are not looking at only one piece of property. We are going to end up with a very
congested neighborhood. 1 read the traffic report and on figure 1 there is a contradiction. On page 6 the
base volume is 350 trips and then the base volume plus the site increase is 302 trips. If you look at the
rest of the figures on that page and on pages 7 and 9 you will see exactly the same thing. Conclusions
drawn from the data is wrong, or invalid, We knew three years ago that the intersection of Lillian Miller
and 1-35 was over subscribed by a factor of 2.5.
Mr. Mitchel Turner: My name is Mitchell Turner and my address is 2118 Stonegate. I am a
representative of the Greater Southridge Neighborhood Association and as such I object to this hundred
and thirty-six acre petition because of the eight violations to the Denton Development Plan that are
included in your backup material. Four of these are very significant violations, the other four are less
significant. I am going to address the office conditioned portion of this petition. There are three
violations concerning the offic, coning. This office area does not pass the one half mile separation
0 policy. It is right next door to'Ar. Gossett's office zoning to the south. Secondly, if it did pass the
separation policy it vi: iates the three acre size policy which is in the Plan. Tbirdly it violates the strip
commercial deve!.-pmt:-.;. ! ?relit ve that the city government has a responsibility to protect the policies '
of the Iknton Development Plan. I also believe that the city government has a responsibility to protect
neighborhoods from undesirable development. In addition to those three violations of policy 1 have four
other reasons why I think this should be denied. First of all if I lived across the street from this
• development 1 would not want to see solid two story office buildings running from the intersection of • •
Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller all the way down to Southridge Estates. That Is two tenths of a mile and
I wouldn't want to see that particularly if I had been told when I bought my lot in Hunters Ridge that i
across the street would be a SF-16 development. Secondly there is enough office zoning on Lillian Miller
already. There is thirty thousand square feet on the First State Bank property just south of Red Lobster
and Mr. Gossett has office zoning on his property at'reasley and Lillian Miller. We already have eighty-
five thousand square feet of office space zoned and approved on Lillian Miller. Those two properties are
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 9
about the right distance apart. Neither one of these properties have made any sales yet and I wonder how
the office market is at the present time. More office space is not needed at the present time or for the
foreseeable future. According to the current report from the Chamber of Commerce, the City of Denton
has a hundred thirteen thousand square feet of office space available right now for sale or for lease. This
five acre zoning request will add to the traffic problem. If it were developed as SF•16 it would produce
two hundred vehicle trips per day. Developed as office it will produce seventeen hundred and fifty
vehicle trips per day. Because of the policy violations, because office zoning is undesireable for the
neighborhoods, because enough office space is already zoned on Lillian Miller, because an abundant
supply of office space is now available in Denton, and because this would add to the traffic problem on
Lillian Miller I ask that you deny this petition.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition?
Mr. Alan Wasserman: My name is Alan Wasserman and my address is 1524 Hunters Ridge Circles
Those of us who chose to live there did so because of assurances that were made concerning the land
across the road, 1 chose to build in Hunters Ridge based on assurances from Mr. Hersman, Mr. Mabry,
iid Mr. Gossett and that the lots there would be sixteen thousand square feet. We are now talking about
the HersrnanlGossett/Cott business section on Lillian Miller that parallels where I live. Why do we want
all of this business section here? Those of us that live over there don't want it. The question that 1 want
to raise is that if you go through the intensity area 77, it is of interest that all of the new developments
are adjacent to this or down the street and they are not added in intensity. 1 have also talked to the
Appraisal District abdut what happens when you have a whole run of businesses next to homes and I am
telling you that there is going to be property devaluations. My major interest Is to not allow all of this
office zoning on Lillian Miller.
Mr. Cochran: I want to point out one thing, in the rewrite of the Development Plan there is a move to
throw out intensity areas.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Would the peti+Ioner care to make any
remarks? We will close the public hearing. Are there any final remarks?
Mr. Reeves: There is one item that I forgot to call to your attention on the detailed plan. There is are
a couple of notes that contradict each other. There is a note that has a minimum dwelling size of twelve
• hundred square feet t.`tat conflicts with the fourteen hundred and fifty square feet that is a later note on
there. Should there be a recommendation of approval I would just ask you to include a condition that the `
note for twelve hundred square feet be removed.
Ms. Russell: 1 have a question about the traffic report. We heard comment! made that this traffic report
is not valid, would you address that?
• • •
i Mr. Salmon: On the page that was refererxed, figure 2, there Is a typo. There is a legend on the bottom
J left hand comer. Instead of saying base volume and then base plus six volume it should say A.M. peak
and P. M. peak. The numbers that don't have parentheses are A. M. peak hour traffic projections and the
numbers that have parenthesises around them are numbers that are proposed P.M. peak hour projections.
The number that was sighted, 350, is the expected number that would be there during a morning peak
hour and 302 directly below that is the number that would be expected in that direction during the peak
7'1 1
~II
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 10
hour in the afternoon.
Ms. Russell: This has been shown to the people that the city would typically use and they concur with
the figures that we have?
Mr. Salmon: That is correct. Obviously they didn't go out and redo all of the traffic counts, but they
took a look at the methods that were used to do the ralculations and looked at the projected traffic
numbers that were being used for the subdivision and felt that they were reasonable and acceptable.
Mr. Cochran: How do we resolve a dilemma such as intensity at corners that are built out with raw land
near it? I guess you have two choices, either enlarge the road or not develop. What policy have we
followed in the past?
Mr. Salmon: There is a lot of vacant land near the intersection of Lillian Miller and 1-35. Obviously
there are going to have to be some improvements made at that location. The types of improvements that
are needed are things that are going to cost millionns of dollars, they aren't the types of things that cost
in the five thousand to fifteen thousand dollar range Ciat we are normally talking about when we discuss
intersection improvements because you are talking about purchasing additional property, property that
already has buildings on it. From the staff viewpoint, a development that adds another five percent to
an intersection that is already bad and is going to cost millions of dollars to fix, what do you ask them
to do? There is nothing they can do proportionately that would have any kind of effect, or noticeable
effect at that intersection.
Mr. Cochran: The reason I asked about the scale on the standards for the intersection was to get some
kind of a grasp of whether we were in the D plus category or the D minus category, where we were in
reaching the F category which is a failed intersection.
Mr. Salmon: 1 am not a traffic engineer and I don't know that information. I understand that the
applicant's traffic engineer is here and he might be able to answer that question.
Mr. Svehla: Mr. Cochran, if 1 can maybe address the first pan of our question, I think the other things
that staff does and cities typically do, planning departmems and engineering departments in particular,
is look for other routes. We have talked a little bit and David mentioned the collector street going back
• out to I-35. Obviously if we get that as development occurs, :-nd the only way you will get that Is to wait
for development, unless Council and the general public sees fit to M^nd tax dollars to build those. The
other issue is that you look for other kirds of routes that are already in the Capital Improvement Program
such as the spur for Loop 288 on the north side. When you do that then the capacity of Loop 288 and
1-35 changes because you won't have some of the through traffic coming from the north or east side of
I-35 then the whole capacity of the intersection Is going to change and obviously your levels of service
• have a chance to change. You do it in any number of ways if you can in the intersection and then once •
you can't in the intersection anymore then you look for other routes, or other ways to shed some of that
load.
Mr. Cochran: it puts us in a difficult position having to make a decision on the assumption that someone
will figure it out.
F
P&Z Minutes if December 4, 1996
Page 11
Mr. Svehla: Yes to a certain extent that is true, but 1 think you have more than an assumption in some
or these instances, you actually have Capital Improvement money out there to buy right-of-way for the
spur, you have discussions with TXDOT, and things of that nature to implement the very things that we
are talking about. If this development is developed then you have a good section of the collector that
would be an outset to 1-35 ultimately being built.
Ms. Russell: I believe that was in the CIP program to go ahead and start purchasing right-of-way for the
spu r.
Mr. Salmon: I would add that we have been working with some developers south of I-35 and have been
getting some right-of-way reserved for the southern portion of the loop. 1 think that is stoning to come
together.
Ms. Russell: Any other questions of staff?
Mr. Vela: I would like to point out further in the report in figure 3, it says 276 A. M. peak hour existing,
and then it has plus site generation and the number is the same. This implies that there is no increase
from the site and there are many other figures that show the same thing where you have the existing
volume and then when you add the site there is no difference in the number.
Ms. Russell: Could we have Mr. Hatchel come and discuss his report.
Mr. lack Hatchel: My name is lack Hatchtel and my address is 1216 Balboa Circle in Plano. I apologize
on the first figure for the error in the legend. In answer to the question that is being raised right now,
if you will look at figure 2, he was referring to the right turn, in other words as you are coming from the
west on Loop 288 to turn right to go north on 1-35. Naturally since this subdivision is on Lillian Miller
back in the other direction the only traffic that is going to be going to this subdivision is going to be going
straight through that intersection. There is no traffic that is coming out of this subdivision that is coming
from the west and turning right to go north, they are coming back home. That is the reason that there
wasn't any increase in traffic. 1 think you will find that in all of them. You can see the straight through
volume increases. The traffic that increases at the intersection is only the traffic that is coming out of the
subdivision and either going straight, or turning left or right, or coming back to the subdivision.
• Mr. Svehla: We were not able to include the traffic study in the packet because we received It late We
have had our consultant look at it and we feel comfortable with the numbers and the methodology. That i
is the industry standards and those are the formal methods that are used in the field to generate this kind '
of a report.
Ms. Russell: Are there any further questions of staff or comments? ti
• •
Mr. Piwell: I would want to make sure that any motion Includes the conditions as they need to be and
not necessarily as they are written. There is some confusion in these conditions on attachment 3.
Number 1 says single family free standing residences only, somehow that has to be changed because
obviously there is going to be a garage or shed built. And also on number 3 you probably don't want to
tie them dowr to one roof pitch. We need to go over the conditions carefully.
• -Y • ti, r:Y~ k ' < ` Itil w /1 r0 A'4' J~ q~ry'-4r{,~` + 7 .
wsr,
r
•
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 r
Page 12
Mr. Cochran: On condition number 6 the second sentence needs to be clarified. There may be a comma
missing.
Mr. Powell: I would like to take a ten minute break.
Break at 6:35 p.m.
Reconvene at 6:50 p.m.
Ms. Rus: °It: In looking at tht residential zoning cc nditions on number one the free standing residences
only, the Code would allow for a garage and an accessory building so it is not necessary to have that
condition. On number 3 all roof surfaces shall have a minimum roof pitch of five to twelve foot, and
under number 5 on the third line where it says 100% insert brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or
masonry. On number 6 on the third line it should read each garage shall beattached to such residence,
open to the front, side, or to the rear of the lot, and shall conform In appearance, design and material to
the main residence.
Mr. Herrman: The intent is to mitigate fears that there would be vehicles all over the street. We wanted
to ensure that there would at least be two car garages and that there three options for the front of the
garage. Th-re will be a garage and there won't be any parking in the street and that was the intent.
Mr. Powell: If 1 can offer an alternative each garage shall be attached to such residence and shall
conform in appearance, design, and material to the main residence.
Ms. Russell: Also Mr. Bucek has Called my attention to number 3 where we have inserted the minimum
five to twelve foot pitch or slope on the main structure and a minimum of four foot to twelve foot pitch
on the garage.
Mr. Moreno: 1 look at some of the other streets in Denton such as E. McKinney going out to Camp .
Copus and it looks just like it did twenty-three years ago when 1 moved to Denton. When I look at Loop
288 from the mall to Hwy. 380 it looks just like it did when I moved to Denton. I am talking about the
street itself and not what has been built along it. Speaking of Hwy. 380 going east, it looks the same as
it did twenty yeary. ago and yet the fatalities out there are now starting to rival those fatalities of Lake
• Lewisville. I am concerned that Lillian Miller and Teasley are going to look the same in twenty years.
The traffic is a real concern when 1 look at this petition. There are still too many Inconsistencies with r
the Denton Development Plan. I am assuming the Denton Development Plan is supposed to be our
constitution in a way, and yet we try to find ways around it sometimes. I haven't seen a significant
enough effort to compromise on this petition and I will therefore vote against it.
i
• Mr. Cochran: 1 appreciate the words of Commissioner Moreno. 1 have some problems with this too as • •
j 1 did last time. This is one of the most difficult decisions that we have to make up here this type of
Ji decision pitting neighborhoods against people who own land and have rights attached to that as well. 1
have listened to a lot of arguments on both sides. There are several arguments from the neighbors that
1 don't necessarily agree with. The real issue is the Denton Development Plan and whaher it means
anything or not. It is a bond that we have with the community. There are just too many categories in
which this is in conflict with the Plan and on significant issues. I will vote against this with some
F4
%Mac
^ ::~lir.~n.+yaw..w...:a.1.......~...~.....w.-..-_..e.~......._._...-.~ .
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 '
Page 13 „ 16 ;
reluctance because 1 think what Mr. Hersman is proposing is a reasonable neighborhood and a quality
project.
Mr. Jones: Can we look at attachment 47 We have not talked about the office conditions. The first one
is number 4, I think has been changed from seventy-five percent to one hundred percent?
Mr. Hersman: That is a hundred percent on the front and seventy-five percent overall
Mr. Jones: And number 11 says that in addition to any street yard landscaping required by the
Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance an additional tree for every fifty feet of frontage along
Lillian Miller will be recommended. Does that mean that the recommendation can be ignored or does
it have to be followed?
Mr. Reeves: If you are interested in doing that then you could just mark out everything after Lillian
Miller.
Mr. Jones: The last thing I have is number 12 where it says that no parking will be allowed in the front
yard setback of any building along Lillian Miller. What is the front yard? Is that what is facing Lillian
Miller?
Mr. Reeves: Because this is an office conditioned request the basic level of requirements are those frr
the office zoning district. In the office zoning district the front yard setback, the setback along any street
frontage is twenty -rive -five feet. So this conditi n is saying
0 o that there will be no parking Y as you might
normally see in any office development. What you will see here with the combination of condition I1
and 12 is a building with landscaping in the front and the parking will be on the side and behind the
building.
Ms. Russell: Let's talk about Traffic a little bit. We have known that Lillian Miller and 1-35 is too small
for a long time, if we do the spur for Loop 288, that is going to relieve that and there is money in the CIP
program to start purchasing that, so that is a reality. That will help on the north side.
Mr. Salmon: That is correct. That will remove a significant amount of traffic when it is constructed.
0 Ms. Russell: Are there any plans to widen the road under 1-357
Mr. Salmon: There are no current plans to widen that particular intersection and 1 think that is one of
4 the reasons that we have been pushing so hard for the spur. {
Ms. Russell: If and when this collector street that goes through this property and it gets to PD 20 ti
0 that would rather significantly relieve the traffic flowing toward 1-35 also, wouldn't it?
Mr. Salmon: We]] I think it is safe to say that almost anyone who lived in the proposed development as
well as possibly when PD 20 develops and was going toward the south towards Lewisville would most
likely use the collector street. Otherwise they would be going out of their way to get to Lillian Miller
just to get to I-35. 1 think once that street is complete, the portion of traffic that the traffic study says
would be turning north on Lillian Miller and going to 1.35, a significant amount of that would actually
r .r .
<_..r, r ` .t . t xtC, 5ja a .d "~f y i x •.r
a.x iry6~.. t„! 9~A3 xwl,'l r2n fir" n ai
1 `451
I IMF
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 i
Page 14 r'.
use the new road.
Ms. Russell: 1 can remember a time when Southridge had almost one way in and one way out and . .
. someone said that in the event that you have traffic you seek alternate routes. With the widening of
Teasley it would be a fair assumption that people would use that more to avoid that intersection at I-35.
Have there been any study since that street has been opened up as to what how the traffic has increased
on it?
Mr. Salmon: No there have been no traffic studies or counts.
Ms. Russell: 1 would guess that it has significantly increased because 1 know when I am going toward
that intersection I will rum off because I want to avoid that intersection,
Mr. Svehla: I think Teasley is probahly another example of what David talked about too. You have to
;emember the cverpass that was there at Teasley. It was two lanes underneath and it is now four lanes
wide with Texas U-turns underneath it also. That kind of intersection work is what David was talking
about, that is the other kind of improvement that you could make, and that would be simply that you
rebuild the whole overpass and when you do that we start talking millions of dollars. Any time you touch
a freeway you not only deal with TXDOT but you deal with the Federal Highway Administration.
Mr. Cochran: We have been making some assumptions that there would be a collector street going across
PD 20 to I-35. What kind of assurances do we have that this would get built?
Mr. Salmon: Like the Denton Development Plan, our Thoroughfare Plan is a plan that we are supposed
to follow. If someone comes in to develop that piece of property and it shows a collector street through
it then staff is going to tell the developer that they have to put a collector street through the development
and connect onto 1-35.
Mr. Cochran: What is PD 20 zoned for?
Mr. Salmon: It has mixed uses, I think it has some. light industrial and multi-family.
Ms. Russell: I recall when we were talking ,bout the property out east and they wanted to do away with
• the thoroughfare seeing the need that we did for that thoroughfare we said to keep it and they were
going to see about aligning it differently. It would seem to me that whenever this thing comes about
whoever is sitting here will see that there is a street that dead ends there and that they could open it up '
to 1-35. There would have to be some pretty sound reasoning not to extend that collector street.
Mr. Powell: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 136 acres from SF-16 zoning
• district to the following zoning districts: Office conditioned, Single Family-7 conditioned, Single Family- •
l0 conditioned, and Planted Development subjwt to the list of conditions in attachments 3 & 4. The list {
of conditions in attachment 3 are hereby changed to eliminate condition number 1. On condition number
3 to note that the roof surfaces on both types of buildings call for a minimum of 5 to 12 and 4 to 12 pitch
or slope. Condition 5, the first sentence shall read the total exterior wall area of the front of each
building including the first and second floor of each two story building constructed or placed on a lot shall
be 100% brick, brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or masonry and the total exterior wall area of the entire
r ~4
•
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 15 first floor of each building constructed on a lot shall be not less than 80% brick, brick veneer, stone,
stone veneer, or masonry. Condition number 6 shall read as follows: each residence shall have a private
garage suitable for parking not less than two but not more than four standard sized automobiles. Each
garage shall be attached to such residence and ;hall conform in appearance, design, and material to the
main residence. Attachment 4 shall be changed as follows: number 4 shall read the exterior walls of all
buildings shall be constructed of not less than 70% brick, brick veneer, with 100% brick on the front of
each building. Condition 11 will be changed as follows: In addition to any street yard landscaping
required by the Landscaping, Screening and Tree Preservation Ordinance an additional tree per every fifty
foot of frontage along Lillian Miller will be included. 1 also move that we recommend approval of
proposed detailed plan for the Planned Development district.
Mr. Jones: Second. I would like to say that there is a lot about this that I like and there are several
things that 1 don't like. The problem is in Denton, Texas as 1 see it, whenever you have a housing
shortage, no matter where you put a development of this size there is going to be traffic problems because
the infrastructure is just not there to help carry the kind of load that this kind of a project will produce.
At the same time we have a problem with market conditions, people don't want to live out in the middle
of nowhere and that is the only place we could build a subdivision this size that you wouldn't traffic
problems. People don't want to live in the middle of nowhere, they want to be near stores and shopping
and transportation. This looks to be probably one of the better chances to solve a lot of those problems
and even to some degree in the future some of the traffic problems. Even if this was a straight SF-16 the
problem is still going to be huge because of the next development and so forth. People naturally flow,
even as bad as the traffic might be, to the point of the closest route. We have a unique situation in
Denton, Texas, we have population growth, we have the growth out of Lewisville, Flower Mound coming
this direction, People want to live here, they want to live next to shopping centers, transportation centers
and this is going to happen. When this city was built and laid out we didn't think this would happen but
it is on us and we have got to deal with it. Denying things because it is going to create a bigger problem
or just going to continue a problem is not the way to deal with it. You take what you like and work with
what you don't like and hope to make it better.
Mr. Powell: 1 wou!d like to point out that one of the things that I like best is the office. It is a buffer
and if it is built they way the conditions are stated I have to assume it is going to look something like the
offices that have been built over the last three years on Carroll Blvd. I own property right behind those
and I think the concept of having offices mixed in with residential is a good thing. We need to find a way
• to build buildings that add to the tax base but that don't add to the school district.
Mr. Cochran: The real question is the traffic, the problem is not going to go away but by rezoning this
e we will be increasing by a degree to which I don't believe it can handle it. Mr. Hersman has a right to
develop this as SF-16 which is what it was zoned presumably when he bought this property.
• Ms. Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. y
Approved. (5-2) Opposed Mr. Cochran and Mr. Moreno.
Ms. Russell excused herself from the following case due to a conflict In Interest. Ms. Russell left the
chambers at 7:30 p.m.
[I. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning
it
I
• is . +..i y
~..wy--y.~-►+! r psi ' ' I
I. 1
•
Agenda No.
Agenda Item
Dare 217
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance for a Specific Use
Permit to allow for a child day care center (day nursery or kindergarten)
on a 6.2178 acre tract located In the Agricultural (A) zoning district. The
property Is located on the south side of McKinney Street, directly south of
Bellaire Boulevard. (Z-96-042).
RECOMMENDA N:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request (7-
0) at its meeting on December 11, 19%.
SUMMARY:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGROUND:
i See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
{
PR GRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Respectfully submitted,
t R
Ted Benavides
Prepared by: City Manager a
i
D nna Bateman a
• Senior Planning Technician
Approved by: f'
~ ) e ri
J C
Rick Svehia
Deputy City Manager
Attachmen' 41: Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
Attachmdot a~. Draft C-rdinance.
....___-+~.-.........~....,r_ S 'l:,w ♦ pY" 46y x'lM'kis4 1* l J 4 l
• ti fd'eI
'Z4" '614
di 1 4' YWWX&~
r
^;:.1, 'xrs,+.i a'xw«.,.r•vmac.x6.:^.e.tA.:C,trti+.YS'SifX?1L"i,-•d^iYikY.SUMS:LFtfQlq~A.~lt~MV71WS11ctM.VYV.r'•ws•
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
Planning and Zoning Commission
rGENERAL Mayor and Members of the City Council
January 7, 1997
Subject: Z-96-042
FORMATION
ard: Joseph & Jennie Sainah
913 N. 7th Street
Sanger, TX 76266
McKinney Street Baptist Church
P.O. Box 961
Denton, TX ?6202
Action: Request approval of a Specific Use Permit to allow for a
child day care center (day nursery or kindergarten) In an
Ageicultural zoning district.
Location end Size: The subject property consists of a 6.2178 acre tract located
on the southside of McKinney Street, directly south of
Bellaire Boulevard.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Single Family Residential Use, Single Family -7
South: Single Family Residential Use; Agricultural
East: Single Family Residential Use; Agricultural
West: Single Family Residential Use; Agricultural
Denton Development Plan (DDP): Low Intensity Area (160% allocated).
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The subject property Is platted as Lot One, Block One, of the McKinney Street Baptist
• Church Addition. No platting will be required to allow for the proposed use.
SACKGROUNQ r
The subject property was zoned Agricultural with the 1969 zoning man. ,
In September, 1996, the applicant applied W a ground sign at 3000 E. McKinney Street. It ,
• was discovered at that time that the applicant was erroneously Issued i certiri,-a ; of
occupancy in November, 1995 on the basis that the day care center was a part of the ,
church. When it was discovan.d that the church had leased the building to a private
individual for the use of a d y care center, it was no longer allowed within the agricultural
Page 1
Z J
if
y
I NO
Z' al,
•
•
r..: .,:i:_ ..i .e:'.' . .<.•F :'.."('~yw S/J.,;. hn'".Iy'. arw+tcb.x ys"..~
i
zoning district. Chapter 35, Zoning Ordinance, of the Code of Ordinances permits a day
care center in Agricultural zoning only with an approved Specific Use Permit. The applicant
now requests a specific use permit for a child day care center in the existing structure.
NOTICE
Thirteen (13) property owners were notified of the request on November 25, 1996. Two
reply forms have been returned In favor, none in opposition, and one with the forwarding
order expired.
ANALYSIS
Section 35-112 of the Zoning Ordinance states that a specific use permit shall be issued
only if all of the following conditions have been found to exist:
1. That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or Impair property values within
the immediate vicinity;
McKinney Street Baptist Church is located on the property. The applicant Is
currently operating the day care center in one of two portable buildings located
on the east side of the church. In addition to the portable building, a small
fenced playground is between the portable building and the church. This Is used
throughout the week for the day care center and by the church on the weekend.
The nearest residence Is approximately three hundred (300) feet and the use is
In no way Injurious to surrounding properties.
2. That the establishment of the specific use will not Impede the normal and orderly j
development and improvement of surrounding vacant property;
The proposed use will not impede development of the adjacent vacant property
to the east.
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary supporting
facilities have been or will be provided.
All utilities are In place for the proposed project as well as the existing church.
• No new facilities will be required to support this project.
i
4. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking spaces provides
for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffi^ without
adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments;
The day care center will make use of the existing driveway and parking spaces t' •
provided for the church. Staff is proposing a condition to limit the enrollment to
52 children (the maximum the applicant Is licensed for). The typical trsfflc
pattern for a day care is for most children to be dropped off between 11:30 a.m.
Page 2
J
! ~ ~ fir- •
x
i
a
. • r
n.'~..'Y"YIEY1 Y~w5XL~'+7.v1l~~a'~d~Y~Aflf1J11'.l.Mna.w,lOM1Y~A:~Olil1~'iR . x. ~YY~YW~a
and 8:00 a.m., with "pick-up" being between 4:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. While then
will be some traffic generated by this use, It will not signifkently affect the
general public or surrounding properties.
5. That adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken to prevent or
control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration;
No odors, fumes, dust, noise or vibration is expected to be created from the
proposal. As stated, the portable building housing the use will be approximately
three hundred (300) feet from the nearest residence.
6. That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely affect
neighboring properties; and
Security lighting Is attached to the buildings and will not disturb neighboring
propertlee.
7. That there Is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and
compatibility with adjacent property.
,
The closest properties to the wool are screened from the existing structure.
Division 4 of Chapter 35 allows for additional conditions to be placed on the property that
the Commission may feel are necessary to protect the public Interest and the weNare of the
community.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) of this request with the
following conditions'
1. Care will be provided to a maximum of 52 children enrolled at the center at one time
as is currernly permitted and licensed by the state;
2. The center cannot make use of an area larger than 2,500 square feet; and
3. The hours of operation shall be between 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.
k
F,LTERNATIVES
e 1. Approve as recommended.
2. Approve with added conditions, ;
I 3. Deny the request. '
4. Postpone consideration.
t
ENCLOSURES _
1. Location Map. •
2. Specific Use Permit Site Plan.
3. Zoning Exhibit.
4. Draft P&Z Minutes of December 11, 1896.
Page 3
' i'~.• c' s., a ~ C r r ~ yid 'h y. ~.A '~'y ~ y{h,r, < ~;E 5 , <Y..' :~A' 1 },Y i{ S{. 7y c "C",
n4~K ~,,1".T.= Y.,~ /r Y .k
F'^ c d'rsrY•,af~.~~. f. .,i~t~.~ .rF4~~~Y. }Y 't~F~-N~qy`~ ti~ '4,
Ye ~ lHl ~JMy~.
r
e
1
vA i'
I s ~ A ' I < x i? ti 4 .7 d ♦ ~ ~ ~ S f k`f ~r iJ ~ i t~kt"
..~'.~vu~l.YL..A:YiM4"l4:MC3Y/.LdAW~t•Yi•~ f !~Y+ii~.
ENCLOSURE 1
KW 1~
160
Isom
C 6 94 ■
}
■ 1 284
250 201
f 2541 MO UCCA MOHT~
2Mi
1
6 1 186
2afls ~ . ■ ,
~'hso
■ f
205
2516 ti
t~
a
MC2m 1 106
!r
p f Q 2"
2520 8021 1
r `
i F
SIT
C
■ Y
2 f.
8124
f r.
81001 106 82001
8200 l
lr
1 111
0 800
Jr ! i o
1101 a ~M„' ~ ~ ,
i 0
r ~r
• r
n
a 0 L r
< O O
~?S
J
t l I yy
l f~
S ) 1( 1 J i
1i T
_ .•,s } d .ti p
J u
40.1 -
.:...~.ns]'a>]r.#•va~..r.........r...u~.rya.....+r_r+.....-...~._.._._.._.. ......u_._
ENCLOSURE 2
~I. CA
Jl 2
f
vQ
~ h r ~f r
a ! ~2L
I O1~t
3A16 38YI138 w Q
I r
IA 0
f f f l n r I f
W fy
r
',If>
m If uacsn
LOW
!1 vn fefllool-w he
WOO wmr
CO '
f
. ....r.L~.•,QeAi~'.~YdrI:~WMw.nwl.~eMiw+s+'NYSY~.•..~i r~rrw.sa.rtnwrn~rw.•-+~-_ru.-..~_r_...•r-..,a...u~r-•.rt:w.
ENCLOSURE 3
I
' 'p r •
I y 1S
' ~ I r ~ ■ ~
• • I ■ s
■
~ Vl C1 i ~ ' -
IL s
13 (Iwo
f ® I
IP
- 1 I L
I
r
II I
r f • tl i 1 /Y,~
a llLriias 3HL '
IF 10 sib,
n ahe f f]t~~'~fj.
t.0
i ~Y petit s , ~
r `
Uni
r
r ATE - I ~ f
i
rssrsasr
~T~M k]~kf~ n
1
•
r .
Z-96-17 SUP
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE
PERMIT FOR A DAY NURSERY OR KINDERGARTEN FOR A 6.2178 ACRE TRACT
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY STREET, AT BELLA€RE
BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL (A);
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Joseph 8 Jennie Sainah initiated a request for a Specific Use
Permit for a day nursery or kindergarten on a 6.2178 acre tract currently zoned under
the Agricultural (A) Zoning district classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the requested Specific Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Specific Use Permit is in compliance
with the Zoning Ordinance and Denton D,avelopment Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article III, Division 4, of Chapter 35 of the Code
of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, the City Council finds that all of the
following conditions exist:
1. That the specific use will be compatible with and not injurious to the use
and enjoyment of other property nor significantly diminish or impair
property values within the immediate vicinity;
2. That the establishment of the specific use will not Impede the normal and
1 orderly development and Improvement of surrounding vacant property;
3. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary
• supporting facilities have been or will be provided;
i
4. The design, location and arrangement of all driveways and parking
spaces provides for the safe and convenient movement of vehicular and
pedsstrian traffic without adversely affecting the general public or
• adjacent developments; i
• o
5. ) hat adequate nuisance prevention measures have been or will be taken
J to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration;
6. That directional lighting will be provided so as not to disturb or adversely
affect neighboring properties; and
,
Irl - •~i ` , "1
y. n
I
i
i
DIRE
7. That there is sufficient landscaping and screening to ensure harmony and
compatibility with adjacent property;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That a specific use permit to operate a day nurse.i y or
kindergarten is granted to Joseph and Jennie Sainah for a 6.2178 acre tract of land as
per the site plan attached hereto, approved and inoorporAted herein as Exhibit A
SECTION 11, 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 Ill. 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 1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
,c,6s ~r.eJ LtiT. r ri''N It + T,.y f f ~ M~.,rr Ji. nY , 1,.
,
, _ , t' r; v;yta y , ,Y'~ ~ .4 L4 r ' fir' v x
' fr"p~ ~{r' 3, Lei, , {y ~'.If ~ a;~ rft~f 3. it Y~.} q,<1 S,~ ~>aro ll.nA..
t t ;
r
.s
Goa..-a .................M ~.~.r.~.. a.....
ENCLOSURE-2
!t.
CA
y d
' vtr at~rim+'r
~n01wM ItAW F~'°°PK
r I'
91
+ ~l y~
! f tea.
A►' j
~ ~f a
1n18 34m138 U 1 z Z
b
l+ O
• x I f
tcQ.r
of
N
- - - - - - - - - - - t
YOgM A1,10
O IT
7f rft 1N +1-- 01
"am mwm 9 rnmr
It t
E~
wdv "WOW-0
l O kti
x
r
.nlVl~`'.'nava.rt M..n.h ........w,+.,~..w.~'.M.wP.a~.M.MKWYMIy`i1Me•d.1w4.tSMRlY+11.INV1o.~wwti-ar~u+y-r.-.~
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 3
December 11, 1996
Page 10
CRAFT
VIII. Hold a public hearing and consider a request for a specific use permit to allow a day nursery or I
kindergarten on a 6.2178 acre tract in the Agricultural (A) zoning district. The property is located on the
south side of McKinney Street, directly south of Bellaire Boulevard.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Ms, Bateman: In September the applicant came in and applied for a sign permit for the day care. We
found that they were operating a day care, that is itot amociated with the existing church, in an
agricultural zoning district. This is not a permitted use without a specific use permit and tha: is the reason
that we are here tonight. We sent out thirteen notices and we received two replies in favor. In order for
the specific use permit to be granted the design, location, and arrangement of all driveways and parking
spaces must provide for safe aril convenient movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic without
adversely affecting the general public or adjacent developments. Adequate nuisance prevention measures
have been or will betaken to prevent or control offensive odors, fumes, dust, noise, and vibration. That
directional lighting be provided so as riot to disturb or adversely affect neighboring properties. Arid that
there is sufficient landscaping and screerting to ensure harmony and compatibility with adjacent property.
Staff recommends approval with three conditions. Those conditions include that the care be limited to
a maximum of fifty-two children enrolled at the center at any one time. That is what the center is ,
currently licensed for by the state. Number two is that the center not be enlarged or make use of an area
larger than twenty-five hundred square feet. Their existing structure is twenty-two hundred square feet.
The third condition is that the hours of operation be between six thirty in the morning to six thirty in the
evening.
Mr. Jones: Why did you add condition number three?
Ms. Bateman: Those are their current hours of operation and they have an agreement with the church
for those hours.
Ms. Russell: Would the applicant care to speak?
Mr. Joseph Sainah: My name is Joseph Sainah. My wife and 1 are in charge of the day care facility and
we live in Sanger, My address is 913 N. 7th Street.
Mr. Jones: Do you see any need to extend those hours in the future?
Mr. Sainah: We are agreeable with the conditions and we have an agreement with the church. We don't
plan on extending our hours because the church has certain functions that take place between six thirty
and ten In the evening. r
;S
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to r
the petition? We will close the public hearing. Any final remarks?
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of Z-96-042 with the conditions stated by staff.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7-0)
r ~
i ~ a• ~ r ~ 3 y _ r " d 1 ~ ~ t'I " Iti '
C~' r M e.a'~ y, f rr
t r y,k{p
! r n.^5'`°`~a~~<ey~li' ~,3E1. x~ 7 r,~;:~e4r5'~rri s',-~~~i~,v'y'°•. ~~~r: r ~ ':t
s r r .n -k r ~d'~fd(~~.~r+'~x~ +l~v'Y-~ i1 .r t '+r .,q Igt : t 1. ; 'Jr
" , i t {i.° e al 7~w, a rt, s ro x cr F'' 1 t s ~ y
t s It -S. .'F, i}1y ~37~~ re ql i~P p M( ~~}Y V[1 , yrv rtljt~wl.~#I~M i, I . J .t , 1 iy 1. ! r v
tt
J i
i
1
r ;nN t s, a :i + f i,. f 4" r r VL r+c r , u~ ~i~Jq; i~ ~T ,r~
Agenda No.
Agenda Item
Date , r
i.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
i FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 0.23 acres
from the General Retail (GR) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7)
zoning district. The subject property Is located on the north side of
Scripture, between Lovell and Bryan.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission reccmmends approval of the request (6-1). 1J ,
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
rr BACKGROUND:
Written opposition has been received from property owners within the 200 foot notice
area totalling 35.5% of that area. The "20°/a Rule" is in effect for this case, which will
require a supermajority vote of the Council to approve.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFE D:
Not applicable,
FISCAL IMPACT:
None. t
art
• , FIB ,U
A .
r.
s
~ I r
i.,._.... fa.wc~_~~~.. -'r::.~ e.n... , r. ,:j~'~ t"'l r''''•r4+1'`f L, ~ < t 4 ~ ~r9~ y~C Ma w, r ) i.
f .y i v r.,l~ h t~'.~r ~ yA~+'r._ ~ ~ '4~ 8✓t..l. ~~x~y~r~<i i.4• v,
' • Ma t 7 1l~
1
r.
r r
I
i
1, .
.......~:K•WwK..biYtlaefwYwww.wl.w..,......««..a_...,.~r:..~+,.~.._._.y_... _.._i.._L eC..'> \ h~ti15, =I!'{-P
Please advise if t can provide additional Information
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Banavides
City Manager
Prepared by:
Walter eaves, r., Al
Urban Planner
Approved:
Ric (SIv; e h IDeputy City Manager
Attachment M1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
s',•
0 Attachment M2: Ordinance.
Attachment fl3: Draft minutes of 12/11/96 P&Z meeting.
• •r
xf x e w F
f
a,~a 1* A '~}r•]►. bY.7'{' iM'~!'~3 ~4.;d~'~S°'~~"~~:;T'f' W'a''+ I Mr#~~ k'r~uP ~0 1L~A~K~A,~ lei ~^yy~,
is r , , - /
.
ATTACHMENTI
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: January 7, 1997
Subject: Z-96-045
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Darrell & Linda K. McEvers
Rt. 3, Box 7dd
Canton, Texas 76103
Owner: Myron Hargrove
600 Mimosa
Denton, Texas 76201
Action: Rezone 0.23 acres from the General Retail (GR) zoning district to the
Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district.
Location: The subject property is located on the north side of Scripture, between
Lovell and Byron Streets, and was a day care.(See Attachment 1)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
LOCATION ZONING LAND USE
Nom: Gereral Retail SMgta family, medoat oMon/pharmacy
South: Office Modlal lob, rental health center
Ent Gerersl Retell Single family raa:dential, across Bryan Is faapitei
West Qeneral Retail Single fanly rnicienlat, across Local Y medial lab
Denton Development an: ow intensity rea e allocated).
SPECIAL INFORMATION
• The subject property Is a part of Lots 6 and 9, Block 7, Oak Grove Addition. No
permit is required that would necessitate replatting of the property.
BACKGROUND
The subject property was placed in the General Retail (GR) zoning district by %
f
Ordinance 69-1 which adopted a new zoning ordinance and map for the City of
• Denton.
Page 1
{
• ....a._._~ ~e t~'.i ~ lV i i i,, , ( wig k t v° f~ ~i r~s r r'. F ` 5ii • ~ d
,
r ~ r
•
a
i
fr
ATTACHMENT 1I
NOTICE
Fifteen (15) notices were mailed on Ncvember 27, 1996. Five replies have been i `
received, two In favor, three opposed constiming 35.5% of the 200' notice area.
ANALY I I
Denton [bvelopment Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area
j Dswloymsnt MEng VS Policy
E POLICY COMMENTS Mr°nw' so""
oO1"""'
e,e«rrre rovers
a
To be consiatenl with Ow Plan. a Allocated Intensiy " 13.77 intensity trips.
development shouts not exceed Its Propoesd Intensity - 9.64 Intensity trips. x
allocated Intensity. '
Strict silo plan control within 1,600 Low density residential use WiNn 1,800 fesL
Wet of existing low density No site plan proposed, Not being proposed x
reslden8al. a a PD. , .
Tralflo design to ensure that Will NA
Femity or Non-Resldendal uses have
saws to oc4ctors or Isryer y
arterial with no direct access s,
trough residential strests.
Sufficient green spew. recrestionaf Landrepfrp not required. No bufferyard
Willies and dwrsity of parks are proposal, x
prooded
Input Into planning try neighborhood No neighborhocd nesting a proposed
associations and councils Is x
encouraged.
Neighborhood service center NA
concentration i
NonresMential %mite saparabon NA r
Any lorm d continuous strip NA hk
r conmsrdal dowlopnenl Is strongly
Q;
fa dscourapad N or roar low Intensity
lr
f areas
r ~4 t
The Planning and Zoning Commission reoommands approval of this request (6.1).Y
fir: ~
t ,
Page 2
b _l
r~r
t
- 4 '4 x 4 x + S.. ~fi R£.rft~ fd rev t r a~$3 x~` y'c' .J e ' r
~ r~ F f+• 2,F ~irr e`?p~,k£N,y S,Y~ f t_ph'i er 3> ~4 ~ r y; r' r1
r Ni 1. 'Y '^i a' 'r{~we "i'Af ~,~`f/+toN, y •e
1{'~ }Y•l!.•~R.'Jr~ ~KK}~r.'
IY 'YIq ~ r r ryi a I
JL
Yr
1
a.
JF q d r ~~f 1 i ! ~f FFpF 'Y~.~ b'~HU ~j ~~~f.~~~.aay,(~7~,'}J~~O ♦ IP 3r ~~Lk~y~. t •(~~1t~'y 4• q
~i
1
ATTACHMENT II
r-
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approval a* roquested.
2. Approval with addit'wneVother cond;;'~,ns.
3. Denial,
N^
4. Postpone consideration. F
ENCLOSURES
1. Location map.
2. Surrounding zoning map.
3. 209'6 Rule map.
,r
„
' k rte
t
E
t 1
i
p
1LI
"r
r 1
Jr
~x Y rR L ` r.
~k M1
a
J ~ y I`
J
11
y ~ y
S IY ~ I r v{. L, A 1.
, tirr4
Page 3 , r
i*
f ~
i
o~ I>~?,~2 13111 e'a .rr Ir 1
~ a a
_`.__T._~._ r : ~9. fi.. ~ a,~ T a~'. 3q ~Lr r ~~e t'r ~f +f 4q.~r ) q-• 7 f7 i i rr ~ fr.
;1 r'i.wo d 1 iN 'k 1 •y+~ i , r' f v 4 7 L ,a 1 Y 1, k
9 t 5• ~ r e ) m~ ~ 'T,~1w>!fy, ~1 t~b~, ~ 3 ~'f ~ ~~yyqi..
r RC w , ~ .f'r r k~ °'}`r~` ,~r+tf"MM1 ?ti 5~}~L Y~.G { wJ7
a r u. 1 r r, a
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCIOSUREI
old
-96-QAM e , . ttl 111 , , r I T,Sol, 1007 1221 17 121 , 205 T,
,7
ZWT&F
'I
I
1512 Scripture
g;
1 - A_6WAY_-
°
I tt-171 131ad r1eo$271~~,~~ 207 1201
771 1 1701 i 16t6160e tfi 112 1fiW I aae 1fi0, I 3 ix0i
■ ■ f
' ~ q~, 7~ ~~e t x° ~ ~e ■ i ti is 1 oe ion oo ~ x e
R~ 189h xx
I
1721 0 - ! 2p pf . m1~ Im', E
14E,721 ]L':G ls1 ■ 1 120 t I 1129 13 313t 131 13
i
,aaog~e~■
t0~e ' 7ti lCy IL t 1 i~~+ 1317 1300112t~ Ixtfi~Ix10 120e J~`
1
to o
615 ' ~ 0 i~
' fi 0 1402 }
1..1 0 1 ' ■ - I I -
Pic 1102
2fi 11 - 1611 1404 1402
W __CONGAE
e1e ~1 S fi l i ~ 1o r
As ■
fi13~ W
1723 ♦ s - ~f I~_ IM14 _
` ,fi22 ■ file
• fi4 file G
■ i I JJe1x u
o s
4 r a1e au Z
e ■ Is S~ ZI ~x ■ ■ 3.20
`1 J 3u •
■e0 ate ■
• ate■ 010 ■ O 4D
2 ■ a07 11 -a 11 1
1
x 30 - eai►
~
7N
e _
7119 fi 1ffia 1171 t
LO
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE2
44
vs. -,a 11 ~i
ME.
9~ ° ~ ' it s el■ 4
m~
- F ml D%` $ + a m P
mill'? Will,
.
I
-el • III I N.
rF
a it emi mb
all i
za - ' all e I a
I Rol
► - 0 I
- I'
1
log
~i lul a 11M
Oil T. ff
I
V
•
II, dl
Go~~ S~I ~ II • s i
may.. }Il ~ ,
ILA
•
•
s
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 3
Z-96.045
~T.F_
1 1 61. 1512 Scripture { 1302
PANHANDLE
,721E0i0 911111 j J ~,21 - 0 - 1 161 51 15091503 142 4p 3 140911406 1401 ■26 132 131 131 1
21
1715 ~ ~ ■ ■
■
- ■ 7010 II 91' 1330 1300 1216
06 s15 II~ - f 0 14CQ
- -
17 UR
. nS ! 7 1 j61 1 p 1■ 1402
18 0 1 ■810 1402
1820 ,6,4 I 1404 +m 1402
516 521a
■
-5- uj 4t
0
600 II 0 14
1723 I r
li~y7 r ' Roo 6
1 ■
1623 ■
415 {r - 418
• _ 42 416 ■
' 4u i
■ 0 a
O
qN2 ■ ■ 920
I
9 318 ! 30 31$ •
316■
Total Area - 4.864 acres 300 ■sm 310
{Any fiquoNing n:onlllp ml INOW14 E ■ 307
Area Opposed - f ~ ~2 Area Opposed
_ 1.721 acres or 35.59k
®
1214 Site
-WM 7- -
-
• ~ 7
•
Z-96-045 ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE GENERAL RETAIL (GR) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION TO THE SINGLE FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.23 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED
I ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SCRIPTURE, BETWEEN LOVELL AND BRYAN STREETS;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Darrell and Linda K. McEvers, on.behalf of Mr.
Myron Hargrove, owner of the subject property, initiated a change
in zoning for 0.23 acres from the General Retail (GR) zoning
district classification and use designation to the single Family
7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1996, the Planning and zoning
commission recommended approval of the requested change in
zoning, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this change in zoning
district 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 0.23 acres described in Exhibit A, attached
1 hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby changed
from the General Retail (GR) zoning district classification and
use designation to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district
classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning
ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended
to show the change in zoning district classification.
SECTION III. 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.
''-4 SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective
fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City
Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this
ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle,
+-M r r
;f
l
JIr1j7 ,'77~•+Rit,•rfr„~ ~i
ATTACHMENT 2
the official newspaper of the city of Denton, Texas, within ten ;
(10) days of the data of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the day of ,
1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
j JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY "r
i
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: x
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
..S
BY
r'.
~3s f 1' 1 i i
p~' t
1 • •
PAGE 2
jo
£ .~w,.~v-==:= '7 ry^ -i.• Jar ^a.4. ~Fi. ~.ri.~Fv i H`G rf~~ G j~ ~i: }r 1fr :"~,J F,:
I • i
I
a'
,
~ .waoS.b[aaro¢>taoAlCr.Wdr+d.:+.'r.•.....SJ...i-r~«..5.:~.~e~.~J~..,~~._:.~5.+:_~...yl.-.rf'w. ~vJS~~~~iL..e~~j('~,yr 1L~~_ ~u
A
~ I
a,
L AL-bMCilTg?LoY
(
All that tettain lots t-not or parool of land lying and being
aLtuated in the City m.' 14ptaa, county of Denton state of Towng,
and being a part of L7is Now, light (e) xr4 Win# (9) in block ,
Number seven 171) as eh%" and daa(gnated on the Plat of oak nrove
` FO"M in the off Ice of thitQOm Texas,as of DDeenton Conneyl Texas i
i and Toro particularly described as folloral ;
M INNING It 2/3 feat loot of the Couthwat corner of paid let t
Number sight (s) of said wt wrove Aaditton, some Doing a point on ,
the mouth boundary line of said Lul. Nualws Eight, (a)r
T11CNC6 Worth parallel with the Root lino of amid lot Lumber eight
(o), ono hundred fifty (Lao) feet to a point in the North boundary
k
line of said lot kenber 21 lit (s), asv* 11*1n7 ix 7/1 feet foot of
the Northwest corner of said lot No. Eight (s)r
z
7))SWC)1 East Maing 9
{e}, s3 1/s net yysssl d t ~i No ~rt~eaie eorfn Tai i ~eatieNOrat illo°
Eight 181, and Northwext corner or Lot Rubber -Mine of said
Addition, and continuing east along the North boundary line of said
Lot Wuwmr King (!)s 33 1/3 fv„t, in all 00 s/3 feet for wui«i ,
the sane being if 2/3 foot Root of the Yartheaat earner of Let
Nusher Wine (9)1
TRUCS south paralkal w{rh tha last 11nw of nALA Int Nnnrhor Nlm%
(Q). nne hiirdr•d (I My (150) feat to a point in no Booth boundary
line thereof, n stake for corner, same being it, 2/3 toot fast of
the Southeast corner of said Lot Number Nine 19)1
TRSPCE Rest along thw Booth boundary lino of sa(d Tat NuafMr Wi11R
(9) at 33 1/3 feet its Southwest corner and continuing Vest in all
Aa 2/3 rest test and Hest by too feet Porth and "Uth, and being
the rest 3J t/a foot CC Lot Number Mina (9) in block Number seven
(7) at oak oxove Addition to the City of Denton, Texas.
'vsYr I
1
a
• r
BXNINIT "A" S;.
i
J 1
MBA Q p '
C „ M
r._..wr.rC~~'~'~ ~ It 4+'4 A~~`I IM'•4A`A .~~.~1•
S-
" n „bJ
r M t ~ S ,r . of ~ ,~•t'~, ~ ~
r l 03,
i
.
•
"
..,r 3iLll:]WF%Yt&~tilWrawaw.r.....-4..W....~.:.~,...~.._..._..._,._...._.-.,....w-_..~.....~....w~~~.-rr..`.+-r~...._.
ATTACHMENT 3
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996 !
Page 4 RA
not be extended to this property we are also recommending the variances for fire flow and fire hydrants.
The total cost of assuring adequate fire flow would be approximately eighty-five hundred, and twenty
dollars for a parking lot. In case you are concerned about the landscaping, there will be a one inch water
line extended on a separate meter to take of that. Staff recommends approval of these variances.
Mr. Cochran: How close is the nearest fire hydrant?
Mr. Reeves: It is within three hundred feet along University.
Mr. Cochran: 1 move we recommend approval of the exaction variances to Section 34-118, Sation 34-
116(e), and Section 34.1160 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton.
Ms. Schers: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7-0)
d. Consider the preliminary and the final plats of the Scott Addition.
+
Mr. Reeves: DRC recommends approval subject to the approval of the exaction variances by City
Council.
Ms. Russell: Will there be sidewalks?
Mr. Reeves: There will be sidewalks along the Gay Street frontage,
Mr. Moreno: 1 move we approve the preliminary and final plat of Lot 3, Block A of the Scott Addition.
Mr. Cochran: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7-0)
• IV. Hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning of 0.23 acres from the General retail (GR) zoning district
to the Single Family-7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject property is located on the north side of
Scripture, between Lovell and Bryan Streets, and is more commonly known as 1512 Scripture. (Z-96-
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. _
Mr. Reeves: We mailed fifteen notices and we received two in favor and two opposed. It is at thirteen
percent opposition right now. The subject property has been zoned GR since 1969. The structure was
used as a daycare and therefore it lost its status for a nonconforming use. The only way to use this as a
residence is to rezone it. This is consistent with all of our policies and staff does recommend approval.
Ms. Russell: is there anyone to speak in favor?
la
3u1d11~J~`v~rA~iK~.r.° t'J~ rif4i4 » f
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996 1-?~11 k
A Page 5 ,!t
Mr. Ronnie Hebert: My name is Ronnie Hebert and my address is 711 Apollo. The applicant is looking
at buying this house for his children to live in while they attend college.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor? is there anyone to speak in opposition?
Mr. Lawrence McClendon: My name is Lawrence McClendon and my address is 521 Bryan Street.
am with the McClendon Corp. and we own the property that is behind this property. All of the property
in this area is General Retail and if they change their zoning to single family, what will happen if we
decide to add on to our office building? Will we be required to do anything because this is single family?
Mr. Reeves: If they need a permit from Building Inspections then the landscaping, Screening and Tree
Preservation Ordinance would come into effect and they would have to provide a six foot screen.
Mr. McClendon: Will that change our setback requirement?
Mr. Reeves: There would also be a ten foot setback requirement.
Mr. McClendon: We are opposed to this change and here is our reply form.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition.
Mr. Svehla: It appears that with Mr. McClendon's reply form the opposition is now at twenty percent.
Mr. Powell: How is it that this was used as single family if it was zoned general retail in 19697
Mr. Reeves: Until 1985 the city had a cumulative zoning ordinance and you could do all of the lesser
uses up to what the property was zoned for.
Mr. Powell: What is to prevent this from being used as a single family residence.
Mr. Baughman: They would have to get a permit to do any remodeling inside the building and that would
be denied because of the zoning.
• Mr. Cochran: This was the same ordinance that zoned all of Oak street as multi-family. It seems grossly
unfair. It seems to me that their only opposition is that they will have to build a fence if this is changed.
Mr. Powell: I agree with Mr. Cochran. 1 don't understand why they even have to come here for a
zoning change. If the person wants to use the property for the purpose that it was originally built 1 think
he should be able to do that.
• •
Mr. ]ones: Why does the applicant for this case not have to be the one to build the six foot fence?
Mr. Reeves: The Landscaping and Tree Preservation Ordinance does not apply w single family
residential. The way the Landscape Ordinance is written it applies to everything other [hart single family.
It also offers the ability to come up with an alternative landscaping plan.
13
.
20z, ,
. 4'. ...13:win'..w:lc•mra,.n.,.,...... ~...........,.w+ w.ww....~ ...r ~4..~~......~._.~.~.. ~ .
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996
A Jr
Page 6
Mr. Powell: It would appear the Mr. McClendon would have to build a fence for less than fifty feet.
Mr. Svehla: There would also be a ten foot setback whereas in GR they could build up to the property
line.
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 0.23 acres from the General
Retail (GR) zoning do.. o the Single Family-7 (SF-7) zoning district.
Mr. Powell: Secorv
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(6-1) Mr. Jones opposed.
V. Hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning of Lot 3, Block A, of the replat of the Teasley Mall
Addition from the Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district to the General Retail (GR) zoning district.
The subject property is located on the south side of Londonderry, approximately 200 feet west of Teasley
Lane. (Z-96-053)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: The subject property is local A on the south side of Londonderry, approximately 200 feet
west of Teasley Lane. The property was rezoned in 1977 from Agricultural to the Neighborhood Service
zoning district. There were thirteen notices mailed out and we received five in favor and four opposed.
There is thirteen percent opposition at this time. At one time there was a convenience store at this
location. There is a pizza place there currently. This proposal is inconsistent with two out of the three
major policies in the Plan, separation and intensity. You have the list of permitted uses for GR and NS
in your backup. Staff is recommending approval of this request.
Ms. Schertz: Who is in opposition?
Mr. Reeves: The opposition is from the apartment complex next door.
Ms. Schertz: What are they proposing to put in there?
•
Mr. Reeves: The applicant is Roy Metzler and he is proposing to put a small restaurant in there similar
.
to the one on the corner of University and Locust.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
• Mr. Roy Metzler: My name is Roy Metzler. There will not be any gas pumps near this. 1 am planning ~ • O
on putting in limited seating and my main business will be catering. I also plan on having a bar and
wine permit, mainly fer the catering business. i spoke with the neighbors. I also spoke with the owner
of the apartment complex and they were afraid that my overflow parking would use their larking. I don't
think that would happen because I am only going to have a limited number of seats. 1, also have to put
up a six foot fence between this property and the apartments.
,,II
t t r . V. a ~ P' r ~ i e ri t ry♦ t r, , t ~ r`~ .
s'd°.4 -~~~a~~llrNi6. •3 1.1!'~~ifua~m+~~_',e.., tt ° i9 k jY 'tit~~i~
w L` .yi i~ Y ~ ~ p;: 1 u hfCrr n ♦v'' 1+ ? yj . I '
,1'•', I r ..i `rY ~ e ydy}3 k~e ` k t e Zyh e yi t~, 1 i
,
T!•
' T c e,~~' 'rd r~tvM r~ IZe~ r >3~'jt~i ..'7 r ErY' P ~ :w +~5~ ~4~ YY~r,+
+ ' f Cdr \ o,~y 1 ♦Sh e.w i.yr F R + r f.i
. > z a s
Apends No.
Agenda Its
Date
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMATp
TO: Mayor and Members of the C' Council
riy
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager y ,
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a pubiic hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning Lot 3, Block A,
i of the Replat of Lot 3, Block A. of the Teasley Mall Subdivision from the°
Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district to a General Retail
Conditioned (GR[c]) zoning district. The subject property is located on
Y' `
the soldh side of Londonderry Lane, approximately 200 feet west of bti
Teasley Lane. k'
+y~i
RECOMM2NDATION:"
x
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (7-0).
1 k ~ ~ yjl
SUMMARY: I~~e
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGROUND: t R
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. %
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: r
yr +
I It
f Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
1ti,Y1 I~' I
Nona.
r i.~ f s V
,2 A
,
r
r
11111111 &1 1 111~1" 1"
a . sr,ax- ~ 'I
a, r
,
t
i~
Please advise if 1 can provide additional Information
Respectfully submitted:
M
Ted Benavides
i City Manager
' r
1 .
~A
y~
Prepared by:
F_
Walter E. eeves, Jr., AICP
Urban Planner t ,
Approved:
Rick Srehla s
Deputy City Manager
g ,r•
Attachment M1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
Attachment M2: Ordinance. #A
x Attachment #3: Draft minutes of 12111/96 P&Z meeting,
Y ,
5 t4~
F ~
i`sv~„ ~h ~
A.
44 f
P .J.W.JKn:XSS.alu'J4\:.-enT.. I / ma r a r''.. i 1 , ~ I'%',
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Plann;ng and Zoning Commission
Date: January 7, 1997
Subject: Z-96.053
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Mr. Roy Metzler
3613 Dalton
Corinth, Texas 76206
Owner: Kathy Orr and Suzanne Fickey
617 Londonderry Lane
Denton, Texas 76205
Action: Rezone Lot 3, Block A, of the repiat of the Teasley Mall Addition from
the Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district to a General Retail
Conditioned (GR(c)) zoning district.
Location: The subject property is located on the south side of Londonderry,
approximately 200 feet west of Teasley. (See Attachment 1)
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
LOCATION ZONING LAND USE
WON NS/PD-46 A mixture d us", o1Ra, aoMoa, 8 mWa
t:OWN, SF-16 SaAhlaYaa Pak
EaC Office Danht oebo.
W»C Ganaul Ratan ApafllTlanta.
Denton eve oilmen an: ow n ens rea o a oca
SPECIAL INFORMATIO
The subject property is already platted as Lot 3, Block A. of the repiat of the Teasley
Mall Addition.
i I
BACKGROUND l
The subject property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district by Ordinance
69.1 which adopted a new zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton.
February 15, 1977 B
The subject property was rezoned from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the
Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district by Ordinance 77-08.
Page 1
I
3 '
i 0
AIM _ Anw+ 4 -`t sltr H.tr., n: ~.L T^.~,d~vlr
'MLZ
NOTICE
Thirteen (13) notices were mailed on November 27, 1996. Six replies have been
recilved, five in favor and one opposed. The opposition response constitutes 11% of
the 200 foot notice area.
ANALYSIS
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Area Z•96-053
Devetepment Rating Vs Popsy
POLICY COMMENTS skinmesrrs se ewhie c.rnee
emrMtes ►mraue
To be consistent with the Plan, a Allocated Intensity • 19 Intensity trips.
developrnont should not exceed Its Actual Intensity .205 Intensity I X
allocated Intensity.
Strict 0:e plan control VAlhin 1,800 Thera is rasidenttsl use wllhin 1.600 feet of - -
lost 0 existing tow density the project x
roaldantial.
Traffic design to ensure that Will. The property hes =*as to Londonderry
i;
Family or Non-Rosidental uses hove which a a oclloctw" street
aerie to collectors or tergw x
aAadats with no direct access
through residential str"Is.
Sulr4lont groan space, iocreetionof Any rodevetoperi requiring issuance of a
lacilibes and diversity of pairs are building pannit Will trigger landscaping as per x -
provided. to Lards, ping. Screening, Ind Tree
Prove rvatlon Ordinance.
Input Into planning by neighborhood No neighborhood meeting has been Mid. _
assodstions and councils Is x
encouraged
J
Neighborhood service center TM sib It 0.3t 8 acres, DDP allows 2 scros x
concentration with aeass to a collector fovN stroeL
Separation wtihin % mge of other noo-nseldw1W use. x
Any lorm of continuous strip FAsting strip antes. Not Applicable. t
p commndd bvetopmarl Is since yy
• discouraged in or near low Intenuty
f} an".
f Locown The property Is tecded approdm*Wy VV lost west of Teosisy two on Me soul i
aide al Londonderry. Londatdarry has been developed In a mbduro of Nth density
rookie nth, commercial, retail and oftia uses. j
Topography The alAJoo; proprty Is already fully dweloW.
Page 2
1 r rt, 4
l.i: r~yhte jt ~ p~ ~ •f .~rh 1!'h~i+~ ,p ~4~Y if M~4~ ~y
t S F4,
.L
i
i
•
l
I 1
i
M1
„
J y
..ii t elT~r(. a}~s ~r• a ^r4 F, e i jr . ~ i ti y 1 G r. # y vi,
....lcu.:lsa1V.:)ROGLIAO'1LLY~.\iAtlnieai+a~++ L.~....... :t~. rr1~~:~21~\
`i
rY
Land use In piaming area and North Is s mixturs of us". oHla, "rAc", retell, h is varlety of zoning
surmrdng uses. dahtcts,
South is Swwakes Pak in SF-16 zoning,
' East Is ■ dongst ofries and Teasley Lane. `
west Is apaNnents.
TEMMEMDAMON
The proposed rezoning is inconsistent with two of the three major policies of the
Denton Development Plan; Intensity and concentration. However, the property has
acted as a retail center for many years, including restaurant and convenience store
uses.
Attachments 3 is the use list for the Neighborhood Service zoning district. Attachment
4 is the use list for General Retail. Attachment 5 is a list of uses permitted 'by right'
In the General Retail zoning dist'd, but not permitted in the Neighborhood Service
°J
zoning district.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a change from the
Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district to the General Retail Conditioned (GR(cj)
zoning district subject to the following condition: `
1. That the following uses shall be prohibited within this district, in addition '
to those ordinarily prohibited by the General Retail classification, or any
other condition listed herein; Dance Hall or Night Club, Sexually .
Oriented Business, Gasoline Service Station, Licensed Private Club.
ALTER NATIVES
1. Approve as requested (straight General Retail).
2. Approve as recommended.
3. Approve with additionallother conditions.
4. Deny.
4. Postpone consideration.
r'
ENCLOSURES
1. Location map.
J 2. Zoning map.
3. Use list for Neighborhood Service. ,
• 4. Use fist for General Retail.
ri 5. Comparative list+
Page 3
4.p. r1 J r J v
DirlF1 ,
1
y ~il^ r.ty L J.
i
~IT• in ~ U 1 t r !a
r .
M 6M
ill
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSUREI
Z-96-053 ot4 ,Li' oq ;o
~y `iao2 j ' 9,v~.
4 01
1408 ft-ft !III mm pal
n 111 1200
401• 0 in
-~r•3=-~~ - 707
7400 = - _ `
400 490 _ ~(i - - -
600 d 800
750
-
620 r'
6 j,
I
. 0 ■ 170
820
18 1~ -
l ■ 1 *000
NUN ti l IFU 0 00
1 =r181 _ 1
616 so I I ~
• i #701 -
® 56 60 01 ®6 ~Is
001 0 00
t
r~:y
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE2
owl
II
W N I I
I I V~
C Il
I ~
r n
n
71
I
~Xi ~Y
o
}
Z:
tf5.
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 3
nNSn Neighborhood Service niatrict
PE ITT n uSESt
Primary Residential Uses
One Family Dwelling Restricted
Community Unit Development
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Educational. institutional & Spec Al-ILGAS
Art Gallery or Museum
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (Public)
Day Nursery or Kindergarten School
Group Homes _
Halfway Housu
Hospital (General Acute Care)
Hospital (Chronic cars)
Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature
:'Iblic 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 Inca ntal Usel
Accessory Building
Community Center (Private)
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Temporary Field of 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
Sewage Pumping Station
Private swimming Pool
Telephone, Business Office
Telephone Line and Exchange switching or Relay station "
• Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well
Recreational and Entertainmant Uses
Country Club (Private) with Golf Course
Public Golf Course i
Public Park or Playground
Public Play field or Stadium
swim or Tennis club
•
• va iy •S I 1 't . aF.
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE3
'INS+s Neighberheed Services District lcontinuedl. -
Transportation Related Uses
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
Retail and service Tne Uses
Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail)
Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup
Custom Personal Service shop
Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop
Florist or Garden Shop
Handicraft Shop
' Laundry or Cleaning Self Service '
Offices,.Professional and Administrative
Retail Stores and Shops - 4,000 square feet or less
Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health
Agricultural Tvne Uses
Farm or Ranch
4ERMITTFn USES KITH APPROVED SPECIFIC USE PERMITI
Educatioonal Institutional 6 Special Uses
Cemetery or Mausoleum
Utility. Accessory and Incidental Uses
Publi: Building, Shop, yard of Local, State or Federal Government
Radio and/or Television microwave Tower
Water Treatment Plant
Transportation Related Usna
Airport Landing Field or Heliport
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
• Retail and service Me Uses
Antique Shop
Cafeteria
y Mortuary or Funeral Parlor r
Restaurant
Retail stores and Shops - Over 4,000 square feet
• Agricultural Type Uses • •
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery
i
,
alo 1;
giij MwsY
I
1 E'' 4, f' e 7 qtr r Cb It 5 w~."Y' i
C
hl ~,:Ui~tI.td' i~
TL
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 3
uNalt Nailberbood earviaas Diatriot (centiauedl
YARD REODj$RMENT81
Front Yard: Minimum 25 feet.
Side Yard: No side yard is specified for non-residential use
except where a non-residential use abuts upon a
district boundary line dividing such districts from
a residential district or when the aide yard is
adjacent to the strest, in which event a ten (10)
foot side yard shall be provided.
Rear Yard: No rear year is specified for non-residential use
except where retail, commercial or industrial uses
back upon a common district line, whether separated
x by an alley or not, dividing the district from any
of the residential districts. listed,'a minimum of
S ten (10) feet shall be provided.
$E OUT RvauthTION8 e
Two ('2) stories, except that cooling towers, chimneys, KvAC
7 structures may extend to a maximum of 45 feet. "
AREA REaDLATIONBt
Floor area ratio, building coverage, lot size, lot dimensionst N
No Standards
BtIPPLEMENTAL Ea4LRTIONSt
1. Parking (Based on use. See Article 94-115.)
2. Signs ,
3. Lighting
4. Landscaping
5. Screening and Fencing
y\;
k
,ry
Y 5 \
c
71i y , 1
~ ~R~~e \ 1Y • j
y '
e 4 I; i 1 1
✓itt ~~~rr rA I r~ .
_ 1i'4 fi c y'~wR t1rh r1~~~S~4 C~'n a~yj1 e.p s~ y 4 ~ ( I,
b r'{1 :ry iAhSS.i"'i' ~°14 Zti~," Mi~~,~ f ~~~1 2.'~~~ ( R Y1•'e ~4Y•K
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE 4
11GRe, General Retail District
PERMITTED USESI
Primary nesident Uses
one Family Dwelling Restricted
Community Unit Development
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel
Art Gallery or Museum
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (Public)
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
Ni.rsing Home or Residence Home for Aged
Occ,.sional Sales
Park, Playground or Public community center
School, Private Primary or Secondary
School, Public or Denominational
School, Business or Sradc
Utility Accessory and ineiy3pntal Uses
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 Transmission Line and Metering Station
Home Occupation
• Off Street Parking incidental to Main Use
Off Street Remote Parking
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
Recreational nd .nt r ment Uses
Amusement, Commercial (Indoor)
country Club (Private) with Golf Course
Dance Hall or Night Club
Public Golf Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Play field or Stadium
Sexually Oriented Business
Swim or Tennis Club
Theater, Other than Drive-in Tvoe
- - V
•
a
t ,
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE A
'tart" General Retail District (Slontinwhdi
Transportation Related Uses
Railroad Passenger Station
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
Automobile Service Uses
Auto Laundry
Auto Sales and Repair (In Building)
Gasoline service station
New Auto Parts Sales Stores
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)
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 Seer and/or Wine
On Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wins
Licensed Private Club ,
Restaurant
Retail Stores and Shops - 4,000 square feet or less
Retail Stores and Shops - Over 41000 square feet
Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health
Aaricultyral Type Uses
• Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens)
Farm or ;ranch i
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery
PERMITTED USES WITH APPROVED SEECIE12 R-2ZEMITt.
Edecationa1- inatitu tonal 4 Special U=sea _
• Cemetery or Mausoleum • O
Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Cluy
Recreational & Entertainment Uses
...JJJ Fairground or Exhibition Area
Utility, Arses-gory and Inci ental Ltsea
Private Utility shop or Storage Yard
Public Building, Shop, yard of Local, State or Federal Government {
Sewage Treatment Plant l
Water Treatment Plant
lie,
r,
ATTACHMENT1
ENCLOSURE 4
"GRIT General Retail DistrUot lco ti_n U2A
Recrea}{anal and Enterta went U®ea
stable, Private club
Theater, Drive-in
Transportation Related Uses
Airport Landing Field or Heliport
YIsRD REOUIRF.HENTB:
Front Yard: Minimum 25 feet
side Yard: No side yard is specified for non-residential use
except where a non-residential use abuts upon a
district boundary line dividing such districts from
a residential district or when the side yard is
adjacent to the street, in which event a ten (10)
foot side yard shall be provided.
Rear Yard: No rear year is specified for non•:.2sidential use
except where retail, commercial or industrial uses
back upon a common district line, whether separated
by an alley or not, dividing the district from any
of the residential districts listed, a minimum of
ten (10) feet shall be provided.
HETOXT REGULATIONS:
Three (3) stories, except as follows:
in the districts where the height of buildings is restricted to two
(2) or three (3) stories, cooling towers, roof gables, chimneys and
vent stacks may extend for additional height not to exceed forty-
five (45) feet.above the average grade line of the building. Water
stand pipes and tanks, church steeples, dome3 and spires, and
school buildings and institutional buildings may be erected to
exceed three (3) stories in height in residential areas restricted
to two (2) or three (3) stories in height, provided that one
additional foot shall be addol to the width and depth of side and
rear yards for each foot that suet, structures exceed three (3)
stories in height.
• $UPPLEHENTAL• RFGUr.AT ON9e
• O
1. Parking (Based on use. See Article 34-115.)
z. signs
3. Lighting
4. Landscaping
5. Screening & Fencing
13 Y
t
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURES
Comparative List
Uses Permitted "By Right" In GR and not In NS zoning district
Hotel or Motel
Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients
Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower (SUP in NS)
Amusement, Commercial (Indocor)
Dance Hall or Night Club'
Sexually Oriented Business'
Theater, other than Drive-in Type
Railroad Passenger Station
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure (SUP In NS)
Auto Laundry -
Auto Sales and Repair (In Build ng)
Gasoline Service Station'
New Auto Parts Sales Stores
Antique Shop (SUP in NS)
Cafeteria (SUP in NS)
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (Retail)
Household Appliance Service and Repair
Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop
Mortuary or Funeral Parlor (SUP in NS)
Off Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine
On Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine
Licensed Private Club'
Restaurant (SUP in NS)
Retail Stores anu Shops - over 4,000 square feet (SUP in NS)
Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens)
Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (SUP In NS)
Permitted In GR with Specific Use Permit f
Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Ciub
Fairground or Exhibition Area
Private Utility Shop or Storage Yald
Sewage Treatment Plant r
Stable, Private Club
Theater, Drive-in
'Recommended as prohibitive uses by Planning and Zoning Commission
• t L •
t
I
1
j
- -
V x.714 fr` i MFI
1'ir , a , .n Y ' C h '~iv-Y''' ti~ '-`ttl 4k, i 1'•!oT i a.
•
Z-96-053 ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE (NS) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE GENERAL RETAIL CONDITIONED (GR[c))
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR LOT 3,
BLOCK A, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 31 BLOCK A, OF THE TEASLEY MALL
SUBDIVISL.N, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LONDONDERRY, APPROXI-
MATELY 200 FEET WEST OF TEASLEY LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Roy Metzler, on behalf of Kathy Orr and Suzanne
Frickey, owners of the subject property, initiated a change in
zoning for Lot 3, Block A, of the Replat of Lot 3, Block A, of
the Teasley Mall Subdivision from the Neighborhood Service (NS)
zoning district classification and use designation to the General
Retail (GR) zoning district classification and use designation;
and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 19960 the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of a change in zoning from the
Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning iistrict classification and use
designation to the General Retail Conditioned (GR(c)) zoning
district classification and use designation, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this change in zoning
district 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 Lot 3, Block A, of the Replat of Lot 3, Block A,
of the Teasley Mall Subdivision is hereby changed from the
Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district classification and use
designation to the General Retail Conditioned (GR[c)) zoning
• district classificaticn and use designation under the compre-
hensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to
the following condition: r
1. That the following uses shall be prohibited within
this district, in addition to those ordinarily
prohibited by the General Retail classification, L
or any other condition listed herein; Dance Hall
or Night Club, Sexually Oriented Business, Gaso-
line Service station, Licensed Private Club.
I
SECTION II. That the City?s official zoning map is amended
to show the change in zoning district classification.
~b
f:
_.,,,_,xr Sol"
r
.
j'
l
.
r
:
"
dt7M . a A r L
1 V Y \ 1 1 ~ r., c`'~ y S` , , ,i ; ' •.•t4 y w 1 f;A ry i yY. ?L h
J' .4
\.S..y.. t ~ . S Jr .r 1 ~1... 'r ~..:%.-~~L.l.~.:j.'~.'~~r!L.~Y'~/y% rJ
,t
ATTACHMENT 2
:i
SECTION III, That any person violating any provision of
this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceed-
ing $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is
violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective
fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City
Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordi-
nance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the
official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10)
days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the day of ,
( 1997•
n,
s
JACK BILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST: y
JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY
:
BY'
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Fr
F
BY f=
n ,
~ v
{y ~tz
,f
rh ,
PAGE 2 y
fb r M ^ ~ yyl ,~5 Fki i k' > tia~ya r'(1
'•..w.~.,--.-'~-. ~ "e f4„ r.'Wr
4k 4 r
S l !9
t,.
0
14
t
1
. ~~~..i"l .1lAMH O.IN.V~+.'w.-.....w-. ..-_.4..-... v...~.~...::+++.w..a~~..'.'..-_r _.--r.A...-t_...~'~_ ♦S~_.... .1~~`t.~21..
l
Exk16it i9-
z " N
,
qq~: _ ! a p.
A
i
tit
00
A
rr l ~ ~
1i N1 1 11
{ I it
• C
c
01~
LAI
S
x
'tin o / rj ,
• K~~~, Cr 'tC cr~r~~ ~ri~ ~.,'~',E rJ q 4, r¢~4~ l~; h. t`y~rn rr '~ay~
•
ti
ATTACHMENT 3
P&Z Minutes I]~ X51,
December ll, 1996
Page 6
Mr. Powell: It would appear the Mr. McClendon would have to build a fence for less than fifty feet.
Mr. Svehla: There would also be a ten foot setback whereas in GR they could build up to the property
line.
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 0.23 acres from the General
Retail (GR) zoning district to the Single Family-7 (SF-7) zoning district.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(6-1) Mr. !ones opposed.
V. Hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning of Lot 3, Block A, of the replat of the Teasley Mall
Addition from the Neighborhood Service (N3) zoning district to the General Retail (GR) zoning district.
The subject property is located on the south side of Londonderry, approximately 200 feet west of Teasley
Lane. (Z-96-053)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: The subject property is locate< on the south side of Londonderry, approximately 200 feet
west of Teasley Lane. The property was rezoned in 1977 from Agricultural to the Neighborhood Service
zoning district. There were thirteen notices mailed out and we received five in favor and one opposed.
There is thirteen percent opposition at this time. At one time there was a convenience store at this
location. There is a pizza place there currently. This proposal is inconsistent with two out of the three
major policies in the Plan, separation and intensity. You have the list of permitted uses for GR and NS
in your backup. Staff is recommending approval of this request.
Ms. Schertz: Who is in opposition?
Mr. R<eves: The opposition is from the apartment complex next door.
Ms. Schertz: What are they proposing to put in there?
Mr. Reeves: The r-pplicant is Roy Metzler and he is proposing to put a small restaurant in there similar
to the one on the corner of University and Locust.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
• Mr. Roy Metzler: My name is Roy Metzler. There will not be any gas pumps near this. I am planning • •
on putting in limited seating and my main business will be catering. I also plan on having a beer and
wine pemtit, mainly for the catering business. 1 spoke with the neighbors. I also spoke with the owner
of the apartment complex and they were afraid that my overflow parking would use their parking. 1 don't
think that would happen because 1 am only going to have a limited number of seats. 1 also have to put
up a six foot fence between this property and the apartments.
1$
•
•
r. ..z S.ai.'u!ut.,:, v,-...., v. W . x..n...r.w..• v............w.,..... ...._a.r..,..wr....~w.._._. .a.
P&Z Minutes f'
~7ber11,1996
Page HgAFT i
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to
the petition?
Mr. Gerald Mitchell: My name is Gerald Mitchell and my address Is 2575 Egan. 1 am the investment
trustee for the trust that owns the apartment complex. I have some opposition based mainly on the
parking. 1 was aware of the six foot fence requirement. At the present time there is a non-conforming
pica restaurant there and on Fridays and Saturdays we have problems with parking. Also with the school
going in there, 1 don't think that some of the GR uses belong thw close to a school. 1 know Mr. Metzler
and he Is an outstanding citizen. I think that it should stay Neighborhood Services.
Mr. Cochran: Your property is zoned General Retail?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, but we have built apartments there.
Ms. Gamer: Do you have signs on your parking lots stating that all others will be towed?
Mr. Mitchell: Those signs don't work. We were told that you have to give twenty-four hour notice
before you can tow the car and by then the car will be gone anyway.
Ms. Nedra Mitchell: My name is Nedra Mitchell and my address is 2575 Egan. We have gotten in
trouble with that in the past 1 talked to Mr. Metzler about his parking. It is really going to be a problem
for us. It hasn't been a problem with it zoned for Neighborhood Services because those businesses
operate during the day except for the pizza place. Mr. Metzler may not always be there and the property
will still be zoned General Retail.
Mr. Cochran: Can you think of anything that Mrr. Metzler can do?
Mr. Mitchell: The one that really bothers me as far as uses is the sexually oriented businesses.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Mr. Metzler would you like to speak in
rebuttal?
Mr. Metzler: The only kids that will be there are my kids if 1 can't find a sitter. As far as the school
• going in, you can't make any money having kids sitting around. Another problem with the parking could
be that it is being used by visitors to the apartments. 1
Ms. Russell: Is this going to be like the store on University?
Mrr. Metzler: It will be similar in nature but there won't be the convenience items. I also plan on putting
• the front door at the far end of the building closer to Mr. Tiliis' building. • •
Mr. Cbchran: Your neighbors are concerned about some of the future uses for the property. Would you
have a problem if we put some conditions on this?
Mr. Metzler: No, I would not have a problem with that.
j,L
•
P&Z Minutes A December 11, 199b Page 8 LI
4
Mr. Reeves: On the alcohol issue, the distance is three hundred feet from any school and one hundred
feet from any residence. That is ^xawred from the front door of the business out to the street, down the
street, and then to the front door of the school or resi&tce. The sexually oriented business has a
thousand foot distance requirement and that is measured as the crow flies.
Mr. Cochran: What is the parking requirement?
Mr. Baughman: The ordinance is one space per one hundred square foot or one space per every three
seats.
Mr. Cochran: How large is the building?
Mr. Metzler: The building is five thousand square feet.
Mr. Powell: Based on one space per hundred square feet then you would have to have fifty spaces. The
seating is limited by the parking.
Mr. Reeves: When Mr. Metzler comes in for his certificate of occupancy the parking will be reviewed.
Mr. Cochran: How is that parking figured?
Mr. Baughman: That is based on food service.
Ms. Russell: What you are saying is that we will make a recommendation on the zoning to City Council
and that the parking will be looked at when he applies for a certificate of occupancy. He will not exceed
the limit; of what is available or he will not get a permit. We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Jones: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone Lot 3, Block A of the reptat of the
Teasley Mall Addition from the Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning district to the General Retail (GR)
zoning district.
Mr. Moreno: Second.
• Mr. Cochran: Would you accept an amendment that would prohibit sexually oriented business, gasoline
service, licensed private clubs, and dance hall or nightclub?
Mr. Jones: I'll accept that.
Mr. Moreno: I'll accept that also.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the amendment please raise your right hand. Opposed
same sign. Approved. (7-0) All in favor of the motion as amended please raise yter right hand.
Opposed same sign. Approved (7-0
Vi. Hold a public hearing and consider a rezoning of approximately 13.831 acres from Plaw,fA-2 (PD-2; to
Single Family' (SF-7) zoning district located east of Bell Avenue at Coronado Drive, enending north
• ~ v f I, . y k .T J Y , c T
Y i f
r{P. ~y
5~ nit }$d 661
9 .G~4d.L..~...
i
.ewrvsarissw.._,__.~ le 1. _ r,. 4 1 x? ry h,f ~,`1.~t. ~L~S~i:.L:
Ageoda No. ' r70
Agenda Item 47
Date
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 4.004 acres
from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Office Conditioned (O(c])
zoning district. The subject property is located on the east side of
Teasley Lane, approximately 500 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller
intersection.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (6-0).
SUMMARY:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGROUND:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
FISCAL. IMPACT:
None.
•
r
r
F • 4
,{q } r
i','.
• w. ~w 1Fqg~~~y~y. d ^~y'.
i
. ..,..n.I.JUb,JS~wa.w...........~.a..~..:.~t.__.. ...t i ~ a, x. " i i":ii .r •..~.^."+u. .r :.'v. ~J7.1~?✓{n;3f3'
Please advise if I can provide additional Information
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Banavides
City Manager
a
Prepared by:
SA
alter E. Reeves, Jr., AICP
Urban Planner
Approved:
Rick Svehla
Deputy City Manager '
1
Attachment k1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
Attachment S2: Ordinance.
! Attachment M3: Draft minutes of 12/4!96 P&Z special meeting.
yY'a}•. i}
1 ~ .
S y
~`;l 1 4l w v e r ^=r ~ s G Y Nr r
s tot
•
a+: i•
ATTACHMENT1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
FTo:City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: January 7, 1997
Subject: Z-96-049
GENERAL INFORMATION
Aaplicant: Bob Shelton Enterprises
1901 Stadium Oaks Drive
Arlington, Taxes 76011
Owner: Lynn & Jerry Cott
3505 Teasley Lane
Denton, Texas 76205
Action: Rezone 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to an Office
Conditioned (0(c]) zoning district.
Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Teasley Lane,
approximately 500 feet south of the Intersection with Lillian Miller
(Attachment 1).
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: Vacant, SF-16 zoned land.
South: Vacant land zoned Agricultural, SUP 140 (mobile home park).
East: PD-20, vacant land.
West: PD-65 (single family residential and offices), PD-16.
Denton Development Plan: Low intensity Area #77 (15511/6 allocated).
SPECIAL INFORMATION
• The subject property Is currently unplatted• Public Improvements Involved with the plat
process will Include:
1. Dedication and construction of public streets throughout any proposed
subdivision.
2. Sidewalks L
• 3. Extension of water and sewer lines. • •
4. Drainage Improvements & Iire hydrants, f
i -
Page 1
.uF•{AF - r".s Y_'~,+~ ^t~Gji.vPr e ~,'4 1'~~ }~~}'.K~9~Y~'tdE~".~'~
•
ATTACHMENTI
BACKGROUND
The subject property is more commonly known as Sundown Ranch. The property has
an existing Specific Use Permit (SUP 192) for a horse training facility granted in May
1987. The property was annexed into the City of Denton by Ordinance 83-33, and the
property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district.
NOTICE
Thirteen (13) notices were mailed on November 22, 19%. Two replies were received
in favor, two replies were received opposed, and one reply was received without an
opinion. The opposed raplies total 6.5% of the land area within the 200' notice area.
ANALYSI
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysts Summary
Low Intensify Area
Deveiopment Rat:n7 vb Policy
POLICY COMMENTS "o'"°"+ s.e.err ewrera
swrrs.e f low
To be consistent with" Plan, a Allocated Intonsfty. 240 Intensity trips
development should not exceed Its Proposed bltansity . 075 intensity trips x
aliocaled Intensity. Proposed square foolaga • 45,000 sq, fl.
Plan square Wage -18,000 sq. fL
Over Intensity allocation by .11
Strict sit plan control wnNn 1,500 Low dsns:ty residential use MINn 1,600 foal
feet of i dsbng low density No alla plan pmgoaed. Not bong proposed x
rosidanb'al, sa - PD.
Trartk design to ensue that MuN. Prcposed ofrse area wil have access to
Family or Non-Residential uses have Toasty Lane, an arterial Wall straot.
access to coitciore or larger x
arianals with no direct access
through residential streets.
SuMc lent green space, rocreabonat landseaplrg wg be required as poi the We
facilrtlas and Overtty of pant Ara Landscaping, Suoodrg, and Tree
proOdd, Prosorvetion Ordinance. A bufferyard Is x
proposed. Additional landscaping is proposal
along Teasley Lars. PaWng is being
restridad to side and rear lc :stlona.
Input into pinning by nolghbofiood No nalghbonaad missing hold.
l
associations and councits is x
encouraged
Nelghbortrood service center Total proposed oonvnerdal aaeep abrg }1
• concentration Treaty Is 4.004 acres. Madmum allowed by x
the Damon Devefopnwal Plan would be 7
acres
Page 2
r t r r. ! 1 ~ t
•
ATTACHMENT1
Nonresidential % mile separation The office portion of the proposed
development Is wall within tS-trigs of other x
aon•residentlel development
Any lorm of continuous strip Not consistent with this policyy. I{
commarcial development Is strongly %
discouraged Ln or near low Intensity
areas
L1111an Millar Specific Area Polkiss. Gwn be, prominence of tine South East Plentng Area and the thoroughfare network h
that sector there are kkey to be pressures io locale high to moderate, intensity land uses along Teasley Lane, FM 2181, Wan
Miller Parkway, Hobson Lane, 145E, ant between Loop 28a and Lillian Wkr. These pressues are Rey to increase as FM
2181 Is developed as a primary P~terW and extended further south b ultimately connect with the DFW Airport
The policy of this Ptan therefore Is to restrict the further Intruslon of high an, moderate Intensity land uses In this area limited
neighborhood seMces and high density housing consistert wllh the standards for a low intensity area, are not prohibited. The
following specific guidefinss are required.
I
The neighborhood denaltyAntensily The proposal Is 181% over the maMmum i
standards should be closet' Intensity of IN Denton Devefopmenl Plan. X i
monlored and vigorously
implemented.
Restrki curb cuts to Teasley Lens, h b uftluown If aoceu will be pro osed from
FM 2181, U111an MRkr, and Hobson Teasley Lane. %
Lane
Residential subillMslons should be Not applicable.
generally designed so houses do not
face onto major thoroughfares
These should access onto local and
collector streets.
Through traffic to DFW. Not applicable.
In corwideMg the dlsproportbnate she Yloeatfon of Intensity, the PWfning and Zoning Co lmlulon and Clty
Council should consider the lollowtng Items, but are not Bmited to trees Items:
Adequate Infrastructure There will be a number of public improvement required with this proposal. A few of ,
tla major Muss will be traffic Irt+pacts on Teasley Lane, extension of water and sewer
seMce, drainage, fine proposed ccrnmardal development along Tsaslay Lane,
Unusual Topography The subject property has drainage tireel othar oonsidan8ons,
compatibitify This cunenty has an SUP approvod In May 1988 for a trawng perk for hones. Miss
! this eau is proposing a sift kr mix of uses as Z-96-0961 Be, underlying Zoning Is
Agricultural. This proposal is 181% over the maximum Intensity of the Denton
Development Plan. Additionally, tle proposal Is still s;gnf8canty Inconsistent wth a /
number of major policies of IM DD P.
The proposal of separate cases for the Office Conditioned and SF-7/SF-10 rezonings
does not allow 'sloughing off' of the disproportionate share of intensity proposed by _
! the Office Conditioned onto the SF-7/SF-10 area. After consideration of other factors • •
associated with this rezoning request, the Commission recommends assigning a
disproportionate share of intensity to this property. Further, the Commission finds that
Page
c.
to -ei;w
ATTACHMENT 1
the proposed conditions adequately address and mitigate the other inconsistencies
with the Denton Development Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (6-0),
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the uses described in Enclosure 3, shall be prohibited within this
district, in addition to those ordinarily prohibited by the Office
classification, or any other condition listed.
2. That the total floor area for all buildings constructed on the 4.004 acres
shall not exceed 45,000 square feet.
3. That no loading docks shall be permitted.
4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of not less
than 701/6 brick or masonry veneer.
5. That no 'off-premise" signs (as defined by Section 33.2 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, or its successor) shall be permitted.
6. That no direct off-site lighting shall be permitted.
7. A'bufferyard' measuring fifteen feet (16) wide, and comprising four (4)
canopy and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred linear feet
(100'), shall be installed along the east property line abutting the
residential tots.
8. That the maximum building height shall not exceed 35 feet. ,
9. No Individual building shall exceed 7,500 square feet.
1
10. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof surface may have a
slope of less than 300/c.
•
11. In addition to any streetyard landscaping required by the Landscaping, J
Screening, and Tree Preservation Ordinance, an additional tree per f
every 50 feet of frontage along Teasley will be provided.
12. No parking will be allowed in the front yard setback of any building along
• Teasley. 0 •
Page 4
..1 i. a. L! Si A, R"1~' ! x vl "..~j 1.~xlyY xe:. prr!.t~:bu..s
, i i v lJ. + l 3~ti 4ti 4~ r S'lr t yvk'~$g , ~ ~ r~}-~ [.i'W .,A 'C2 f .N s!f fk?~'~a ~"i'rf ~CreY'r ~'!~ir"tR :Cyr ATTACHMENT
I
ALTERNATBM
1. Approve as recommended. a
2. Approve with additionaVother conditions.
3. Deny.
4. Postpone consideration.
ENCLOSURES
1. Locat on map.
2. Surrounding zoning,
3. Prohibited use list.
4. Permitted use list.
f k
'F
1
F
r ,I 1
Pape 5
j,
. . ' 'i' t r c r,„..,, o F '~~~~i,"FO fa / ♦ ~ 7rr y`' ~,~I
• t
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSUREi
Z-96-049
Sundown Ranch •t°t ISM
-16P
I I
~ 111t
SITE 1011
r
1- 3301
1000
r.
i
t Itq. i
_ 30
~ l.: ° 1.00 IUD
I-_
of
0.
•
v> •
a INS
0 34"
t~1114 i• ~Ft mr
• ~{Itl off _;~I~Fv+Y*}y 'I
c„r - ,fir
•
•
ATTACHMENT 1
FNCLOSUHE2
I
ell
f y~
-if
Ile,
V
R coq
f
/IL _cb Q
f LL
i
till
41jS •'r rlTrr`•., r'r'~~'i,~1 `r~~l ~~i.p ~.1~ I, ~ H t li ~
< 0 1 t 1
5, +R""±; ~;J►f r/'\~ ( t`'~j~''t `r,~~"rlxF '~q-•~ - --ll 1 11_ -4 ±r ~ ~
1i r'• d rd• ~ ~ N ~{'d~1 Llr ~ R~ ~ ___Y I `Y~
l • '
t r • r t',
L
•.q >r P. `!':fir ~ d. ~i Q ~ Q 4 ~ 1 - l
~ dr ..4r V/ I • r'4 I
1 [ / r
~p ~ f ~?iY Sri ~,i 1 ~r~ ~~.._1~Ar ~I .1 ~t ~ r 1 •~~~~~r~
I. P M
I
,
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURES
List of Prohibited Uses
Z-96-049
One Family Dwelling Restricted
Community Unit Development
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (public)
Group Homes
Hallway Hous9
Hospital (chronic care) -
Public Library
Monastery or Convent
Occas)onal Sales
Park, Playground or Public Community Center
School, Private Primary or Secondary
School, Public or Denominational
School, Business or Trade
Community Center (private)
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Building
Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station
Home Occupation
Off-Street Parking Incidental to the Main Use
OH Street Remote Parking
Sewage Pumping Station
Private SNimming Pool
Telephone Lire d Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well
Counlry Club (private) with Golf Course
Public Golf Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Play Paid or Stadium
Swim or Tennis Club
Railroad Track or Right-ol-Way
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. Stale, or Federal Czovernment
Radio andlor Television Microwave Tower
Water Treatment Plana
j Airpod Landing Field or Heliport •
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
Cafeteria
Mortuary or Funeral Parlor
Restaurant
Scientific or Research Laboratories
r°
c
LJ
,
VI-1 r
, ri / P..+`•x..u ♦ M r. M
1 t 'fS.1.~ `y .,Yi 4.i~,ra1:,4.~rf~.r ~°t[~fY.~~•f.+-~'
....w~ro~u.i~•~..rsw'+?.....,..:.~. ,ter.. ~_~d__.a.., F71 !4.4
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE 4 y
OFFICE (CONDITIONAL)
C:
PERMITTED USES:
• Art Gallery or Museum
• pay Nursery or Kindsrpaftn School
• Ho*OW (Gen" Am" Cara)
Nature
• 1netMWone of Retigtas or Philanthropic
• • NuWmq Home or Reeidena Home for Aged
c x~slY. gyand Inrltl abl Uses
Acton" BuMdatg
Temporary Field e C « cdon office (Subject to Approvsl and Co" by euDft Inspector)
lele r.r
Retail and SerAc a 7y= Uses
• Offices, Profewtonsl and AdminletnoWe
• Studlo for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health r"
I
Ag kural ys llamas
• Animal Clinic or Hospital (No outside runs or pens)
f
'`y1
fE
ry} 4
h
• as i{ r.
Q `ti F~
[d f ~
01
k 1°7F,r
tom: , ~r
062MOtN0: ~ it7ffa h
fE.... ._-~,w.c .y •t I f•""vo- t;J;(ft(d'e:37+C i d` .1."~4,t ~ 'f'~ ~
•
~NI;
A
L-96-049
r
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 AN OFFICE CONDITIONED (O[C)) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4.004 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF TEASLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Bob Shelton Enterprises, on behalf of Lynn and
Jerry Cott, owners of the subject property, initiated a change in
zoning for 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district
classification and use designation to an Office Conditioned
(O(c)) zoning district classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 19961 the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the requested change in
zoning, and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that this change in zoning
district 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 4.004 acres of land described in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is changed
from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use
designation to the office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning district
classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning
0 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 B, shall be prohibited within this
district, in addition to those ordinarily t
prohibited by the office classification, or any
other condition listed herein.
2. That the total floor area for all buildings
constructed on the 4.004 acres shall not exceed
45,000 square feet.
3. That no loading docks shall be permitted.
c
~ ~ ~ ) i ~ f Y ♦ ri' ~ i ~ a rs, , ~ 3 t i r . t i "i ° i'~ ~ ula".
Er q
4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be
constructed of not less than 70% brick or masonry
veneer.
5. That no "off-premise" signs (as defined by Section
33-2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Denton, or its successor) shall be permitted
6. That no direct off-site lighting shall be
permitted.
7. A "bufferyard" measuring fifteen feet (151) wide,
and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8)
understory trees per each onq hundred linear feet
(1000), shall be installed along the east property
line abutting the residential lots.
8. That the maximum building height shall not exceed
35 feet.
9. No individual building shall exceed 7,500 square
feet.
10. All buildings must have pitched roofs, and no roof
surface may have a slope of less than 30%.
11. In addition to any streetyard landscaping required
by the Landscaping, Screening, and Tree
Preservation ordinance, an additional tree per
every 50 feet of frontage along Teasley will be
provided.
12. No parking will be allowed in the front yard
setback of any building along Teasley.
SECTION Ii. That the Cityfs official zoning map is hereby 1
0 amended to show the change in zoning herein approved.
SECTION 111. That any person violating any provision of
s this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not
exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance
is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective
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,
PAGE 2
l
• 4 ' ki $w '7
Y '
4
µ~e°
r._..._.....aK~0isgRY,iw.3wiw..w.w~....::. - .+•.`.~.+.4 .6.1:1:.1.x...1 Cu~'.'~.5.~.....~~~..^t~-.~~1~~iY~k
i
1
the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten
(10) days of the data of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,
1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR Q~
ATTEST: `z
JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY s~,ti a
..Fw
1
ry
BY: 41 '
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
r
4
gyC _ _
'ti
ik
p!
4k
tit+'F I
u r ~ '
F
0i
PAGE 3~`j : t
r
krf4y {xik.' 'x
1'
~ ...._snw1.<msu.su+w.«o.....L........:.,+~.a..-... ~...i_..~..~..,..~. 2L'1."
A:
~L
r
C exHierr a
JRA' :TRACT 21
e
All that certain tract of land situated in the J. FISHER SURVEY ABSTRACT
NUMBER 421, in the City and County of Denton, Texas and being ail of the
called 4.004 acre Tract Two, described in the deed from U.J. alascock at
ux, to Jerome Cott at ux, recorded in Volume 1157, Page 468, of the Real.
Property Records of Denton County, Texas, as recognised and occupied on the
grounds the subject tract being more particularly described as fgllowss r
BEGINNING for. the Northwest Corner of the tract being described herein at a
capped iron rod "set for the Northwest Corner of said 4.004.acra,tract, in-
the East line of F.M. Highway 2181
Ic
x THENCE South 88 Degrees 07 Minutes 04 Seconds Bast with the North line of
said 4.004 acres generally along a fence a distance of 374.45 feet'to a > -
1/29 iron rod found for the Northeast Corner of said 4.004 acrer same
being the Northwest Corner of the called 40.00 Acre Tract One described is
said Cott deeds
THENCE South 01 Degrees 32 Minutes 21 Seconds West with the common line of
said Tracts One and Two, generally along a fence a distance of 485.37 feet
to a capped iron rod set for the southeast Corner of said 4.004 aeres$
THENCE North se De real 09 Minutes 35 Seconds West with the 90sth line
thereof along the Northern side of a gravel driveway a distance of 347.97
feet to a cap d iron rod set for the Southwest Corner of said.4.004 acre
tract in the 'astern line of said Highway]
THENCE North 01 Degrees 04 Minutes le Seconds West with the Vogt line of '
said 4.004 acres and the-East line of said Highway, along and near a fancy
a distance of 405.39 feet to a capped iron rod set for tFsa baginni
curve to the left having a radius of 761.78 feed n9 of a "~r 1
THENCE along the arc of said curve an arc distance of $1.25 feet (chord
bearing of North 04 Degrees 07 Minutes 21 Seconds West a distsaee of 81.21 feet) to the ;
PLACE OF EEOINNINO and enclosing 4.004 acres of land,
les more or
s. r
k e'
k rY :J ,
1 i
r
Schedule sA (Rev. 1/1/93) - Prom►llgated Pa a 2~i„
Commitment for Title Insurance Valid Only If SehiSdog 8, C, D
Form 999 - She%t 4 j~--
And Cover Page A=Attachid
"'n'" ~ Y t +l. 5 ie +Y( v w° 4' ~'N+ fir.
- f. ~,dr .}'r-';r .t..3 n~"~*aelorryC 42,~je: x'14,
1
0..
E
Will ofP(ohlblt d Uses
Z-96-049
One Family Dwelling Restricted
Community Unit Development
Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (publ1c)
Group Homes
Halfway House
Hospital (chronic care)
Public Library
Monastery or Convent
Occasional Sates
Park, Playground or Public Community Center
School, Private Primary or Secondary
Schad, Public or Denominational
School, Business or Trade
Community Center (private)
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Buliding
Gas TransmUlon Line and Metering Station
Home Occupation
ON-Street parking incidental to the Main Use
Off Street Remote Parking
Sewage Pumping Station
Private Swimming Pod
Telephone Line d Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well
Country Club (private) with Golf Course
Public Gol Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Play Field or Stadium
Swim or Tennis Club
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
• 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, or Federal Government i
Radio armor Television Microwave Tower
Water Treatment PI&M i
0 Airport Landing Field or Heliport
Commercial Parking Lot or S ructure
Cafeteria
Mortuary or Funeral Parka
Restaurant
Scientific or Research Laboratories
Ito
~:.~-~.r.. ~'F~~ h h~ ~ i~ x ~ `H 4 t 4';, ~ ~ ~ ix ' J, 4 t"` ^ l ~ . 1 ~ Y~.~ ,
•
•
ATTACHMENT 3
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 DRAFT
Page 16
0. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning
district to an Office Conditioned (0[c]) zoning district. The subject property is located on the east side
of Teasley Lane, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Teasley and Lillian Miller. (Z-96-
049)
Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing.
Mr. P- -ves: 1 have to ?rologize, this was also supposed to have a case to rezone 169 acres xi residential.
That e : Xt happen because I missed the notice and it will be on the agenda next week. The case you
have tonight is four acres to be rezoned to office conditioned. I need to explain a rather technical issue
aswiated with the plan and the accompanying recommendation in the staff report. While in totality the
two proposals, the one that we just got done dealing with and this one, look almost exactly the same the
difference between them is that the case that we just finished with was all one big piece of property. This
is two separate cases, two separate stand alone items. One is for single family residential and the other
is for office and because of that, unlike on the previous case, the ability isn't there to sluff off the over
intensity that the office area is going to generate onto to the under intensity that is going to happen in the
single family residential area. They have to stand by themselves. So in this particular case while the
single family area is going to be under intensity as per the intensity policy of the plan, the office portion
that you are seeing here tonight is not, it is over intensity and there is no ability to sluff that off onto the
residential rezoning. We did notice on November 22nd. We received five responses, four in favor
and one opposed. That constitutes about six percent of the area inside the two hundred foot notice area.
The twenty-percent rule is not in affect. The northern office in Bent Oaks Addition is opposed. In your
backup you have the r licy chart and this is not consistent with just about every policy of the plan. It
is not consistent with any of the major policies of the plan, those being intensity, concentration, and
separation. It is not consistent with the density intensity policy of the Lillian Miller specific area. At this
point in time we do,i't know if there will be access proposed to Teasley Lane. As this is an office
conditioned zoning district there is an attachment in your backup of proposed conditions and they are
similar to the conditions that you saw for Mr. Hersman's project. There is also a list of permitted uses
attached and it is a pretty short list. It includes art gallery, day nursery or kindergarten, acute care
hospital, institutions of religious or philanthropic nature, nursing home, an accessory building, a
temporary field office for construction purposes, telephone business office, professional or administrative
offices, studio for a photographer, musician, artist or health, "I an animal clinic or hospital. Having
said all of that I now have to say that staff can't recommend approval of this because of the major
• inconsistencies with the Denton Development Plan. In cases like this in the past, staff has recommended
that these be done in a planned development and at this point in time what you have here proposed in
front of you is very close to being a development plan. The PD process is a three step process consisting
of the concept plan, development plan, and detailed plan. You can start the process at any point. The
significance of this to the process is that if this is approved at the development plan level then they will
still have to get a detailed plan approved and they will still have to come back before the Planning and
• Zoning Commission but there is no requirement to go on to the City Council because the development • •
plan will go forward to the City Council. If you are just doing a detailed plan then that would require
a recommendation from P&Z to the City Council and the City Council would have the final approval
authority. Ultimately that decision is going to be yours whether you feel that this needs to be In a planned
development or whether conditioned zoning is appropriate. Staff is recommending that this be in a
planned development. I was told that a traffic study has been done but staff has not seen it.
oil
•
i
•
Jv P
P&Z Minutes ~D R A FT
December 4, 1996
Page 17
Mr. Cochran: You mentioned that this proposal when separated from the residential portion would be
disproportionately higher intensity than it would be if the entire thing was considered. Can you give me
an estimate on how that might affect it?
Mr. Rees es: Jn page 2, the top comment, the allocated intensity for the four acres is two hundred and
forty intensity trips and the proposed intensity with forty-five thousand square feet of office space is six
hundred and seventy-five intensity trips. The hundred and sixty-nine acres of single family residential
is several thousand intensity trips less than what is allocated to it. Because of the separate applications
these have to stand alone and cannot be put together.
Ms. Schertz: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Mr. Brad Meyer: My name is Brad Meyer with Carter & Burgess, 7950 Elmbrook in Dallas. 1 am
representing Bob Shelton who will be the developer of the property. Mr. Shelton will be developing the
property and may also be a potential occupant in this office complex. Jack Hatchel is the traffic
consultant that you heard from on the previous case and he has done our traffic study. The reason that
we applied for these two separately is because we thought it would be somewhat simpler to look at the
two cases individually so we cou:d bring up all of the merits of each. We were hoping to be able to bring
them to you on the same agenda. To th-- north we have existing office conditioned zoning similar to what
w. are proposing. Across the street is the library and the fire station and then there are the two office
buildings at Bent Oaks. We thought that this would be a good buffer from the fire station, and the traffic
on Teasley and Lillian Miller for the residential area that we are proposing. There is a significant tree
stand between the residential and the office zoning and we think that will make a real nice buffer. A lot
of the office zoning that is going on is more linear and this piece is a little more square and we think that
will give us a little more flexibility on the layout of the buildings. We have looked at the staff comments
that have been presented and one of the main points where it didn't conform was intensity trips. We are
going to have residential also and we hope you will consider that. There is another provision in tk Plan
that calls for a maximum of three acres on office tract, by having fou, acres instead of three acres we are
able to have a bufferyard and more landscaping. We are going to do the came amount of development
but we are doing it on more ]and to make it less dense. There is also a clause in there about the strip
development and to avoid that. We are not trying to build a large major office complex, we are trying
to make these home style offices in an informal setting. We don't see this as being a continuation of a
large office park on Lillian Miller. There is also a provision in the Plan about having a sixteen hundred
• foot separation from a low intensity residential, our main concept is that we are trying to offer the people
that will live in the residential an opportunity to office in the front. There has been a big move for people 1
to work out of their homes and we think that we can attract people into the residential area by offering
them the office space that is convenient. We are proposing conditional office and it is consistent with the
other conditioned office that has been approved in the area. We are going to build home style offices,
seventy-rive hundred square feet will be the largest building that will be allowed. We are controlling the
• landscaping, the style, and the pitch of the roof. These. will be executive suite style offices. We are • •
trying to create a neighborhood office building. There is a trend for people to workout of their homes
and we think this will work with that trend.
Mr. Cochran: You mentioned that over three acres is a positive aspect. The floor to area ratio that you
are proposing, how does that compare to what it would be if it was three acres?
r 44
~r aa-.
•
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 DU RAF
Page 18
Mr Meyer: As far as 1 know the city doesn't have a floor area ratio in their standard office district.
Typically a floor area ratio for office development is in the 1 to 1 range, or the garden office type
development. That would give you a two story type office development. What we are proposing ends
up being 0.25 to 1. If we built the largest building at seventy-five hundred square feet with a maximum
of forty-five thousand square feet, that ends up being six buildings. If you put six buildings on four acres
then you will have one and a half units to the acre.
Mr. Moreno: Why didn't you propose a PD?
Mr. Meyer: The only thing the city gains with a PD is the site plan. It allows us a speed to develop by
not having to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the additional steps involved
in a PD.
Mr. Joncs: Will the developer maintain ownership or will they be sold off.
Mr. Meyer: Mr. Shelton has expressed an interest in building an office for himself.
Mr. Shelton: I would build them and rent them out.
Mr. Powell: If they were built and sold off, wouldn't the land have to be subdivided?
Mr. Reeves: Yes. If this was platted as one lot with six buildings on it, Mr. Shelton would not be able
to sell the buildings without platting them according to our Subdivision Regulations. This has a floor area
ratio of 0.26, Dale Irwin's project on Carroll Blvd. has a ratio of 0.29, the one next to Red Lobster has
a ratio of 0. 26, Jake Hersman's has a ratio of 0.27, and Fred Gossett's has a ratio of 0.27.
Ms. Schertz: I would like to hear from you traffic consultant. ,
Mr. Jack Hatchet. My name is lack Hatchet and my address is 1216 Balboa Circle in Plano, Texas. 1
did the traffic numbers on the entire development including the residential. The traffic numbers that 1
did were for the total package. The proposed office development will generate a hundred trips in both
the morning and the afternoon peak hours. The afternoon peak hour is by far the greatest peak hour.
The residential was figured at five hundred and twenty-five lots, and that will generate four three hundred
• and eighty-nine trips in morning peak tour and five hundred and thirty trips in the afternoon. The total
that I did the analysis on was the afternoon peak hour and that was six hundred chitty-one trips. I
analyzed the same three intersections that I did for Mr. Hersman's case, that being Lillian Miller and
Teasley, Lillian Miller and 1-35, and 1-35 and Loop 288. It did increase the level of service but it was
still remained at a D+ at Lillian Miller and 1-35. The computer program I use has the average delay that
you would have at an intersection. Between the different levels of service it increases about ten seconds
• per vehicle. In other words if you were at a level of service C and it went to a level D the it would take • •
ten seconds longer to get through that intersection. The level of service stays at a D for that intersection
but the delay per vehicle increases in the order of five to ten seconds. For this intersection a level of
service C is about a sixteen second delay per vehicle. When you get to a level D it is about twenty-six
to twenty-eight seconds to get through that intersection. In this case I assigned a little more traffic going
to the south. The whole theory of traffic flow is based on water flow theory. It is that water seeks the
path of least resistance. If 1 am trying to get through an intersection and it gets over crowded and 1 am
1a
r
i
....~.....t.1.'.,.4'rnw...r...r..........e..+...r..-.wr-..e......ur...r..........-......«++.-.:.L... w+.........u~r.... ~..~..W
P&Z Minutes f:_v ❑
December 4, 1996 JL! AF
Page 19 i
having problems then I will find another way to go home and I think that is true of everyone. What 1
have projected in this case is that more of the traffic will use Teasley and F. M. 2181, more than what
projected in the Hersman case.
Mr. Svehla: If 1 could add to Mr. Hatchet's comment, he said the difference was from sixteen seconds
to twenty-eight seconds of delay. You have to remember that is an average for all the vehicles. Some
of the vehicles will hit all the green lights and not have any delay, some will hit and have to wait for the
light to cycle, and others will have to wait the full amount of time.
Mr. Hatchel: Usually the way that I like to describe it Is that at a level of service C if you come to a light
aril it is red you will be able to go through the intersection when it changes. At a level of service D if
you come to the light when it is red chances are that you will move up when the light turns green but you
will have to wait another cycle before you go throt: ;h the intersection.
Mr. Cochran: Did you weigh Lillian Miller and Teasley equally on hoth of these projects?
i
Mr. Hatchel: Yes sir.
Ms. Schenz: Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this petition?
Mr. Robert Rayner: My name is Robert Rayner and my address is 1108 Dallas Drive, suite 310. Unlike
the case that you had earlier this evening, this property is zoned Agricultural with an SUP. There Isn't
a perception from many of the people that did not like the earlier tract because it was already zoned for
residential, in this case we had nothing to do but move up. I was fortunate enough to be In the 1985-86
land use plan, the Denton Development Plan, and there were some good points that were brought up when
that document was created, but that document also outlived its usefulness because one of the good zoning
case uses that I like is the conditional zoning. We didn't have that back in 1985 and 86. I am glad that
I am on the current Denton Development Plan Committee. Growth is coming and if we had been able
to get to the Denton Development Plan sooner we would have been able to address some of these road
issues and taken care of some of the problems that we are facing now. The availability of office space
that we have in Denton, there is office space in a retail center and then there is pure office. When you I
look at pure office it is not near that hundred and twenty-five thousand square feet that is available. There
is a need for office space. 1 think there Is a need for grade A office buildings and not the strip office
• centers.
Ms. Schenz: is there anyone to speak in favor? '
Mr. Bob Shelton: My name is Bob Shelton and my address is 1901 Stadium Oaks Drive. 1 am the
proposed developer for this tract I just wanted to elaborate on what has been said. We do plan on doing ,
• a first class devekrpiment there. We do not plan on having an access to Teasley Lane. We do think it is r +r
important for the residential development to have some office up there so we can provide office space for
those people that are wanting to office locally. It is becoming a trend and we hope that there are a lot
of people in our subdivision that would like to walk to their office.
Ms. Schenz: Have you tried this concept In other cities?
' l 4 i !!f l l 1t~
r C
'.~'X Y r~a~ t a1k l 9 ^ t n~g~ t'y1{J~': c,. ~d r?? '.,n ♦ ^'ti I
PI Minutes
December 4, 1996 i J~ 26 ~S, 4
Page 20
Mr. Shelton: No, we have not. We have been running numbers on it. We are doing a rather large
subdivision in McKinney and we did miss the boat by not putting some office within the interior. We
designed a large amenity center and did not Include any office. Our buyer profile is telling us that there
would be a need for executive suites within the subdivision.
Mr. Cochran: Flow much of the four acres will be paved and how much will be green space.
Mr. Shelton: I don't know what the parking ratio is in Denton. This is one of the reasons we did not
come in with a PD because we are not ready with a site plan at this time, we do not have building plans,
and we would like to come back at a later date and present the site plan and the building plans.
Mr. Jones: I own an office condominium space out on north 1-35 and not unlike your concept here. One
thing I would like to input, whatever the parking requirement is for Denton it is inadequate. We have
sorne situations out there where we have a dentist or a doctor and they have three or four employees and
then their patients show up and pretty soon there is no parking. The way that we deal with it is to make
the employees park on the .!reet and leave the parking spaces for the patients and customers.
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone else to speak in favor. I have two cards from people that would like to
speak in opposition. We will hear from Mr. Bill Claiborne first.
Mr. Bill Claiborne: My name is Bill Claiborne and my address is 820 Smokerise. Had you not
recommended approval of the previous case I think 1 would have had to withdraw my objection to this
one. 1 think the major reason for opposing this should be the propagation of commercial development
along Lillian Miller. There is seven tenths of a mile from the intersection of 1-35 to Teasley Lane. If
you look at all of the office development along there including the major commercial center in the Golden
Triangle Mall, 1 think we are throwing too much traffic along here. 1 think the office area here is out of
context with the idea of keeping traffic flowing down Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller.
Mr. Mitchell Turner: My name is Mitchell Turner and my address is 2118 Stonegate. I have several
objections to this. I have enjoyed for many years watching the longhorns grazing on the Rayzor property
on Bonnie Brae and 1 have enjoyed watching the horses on this ranch. I regret very much seeing these
disappear because 1 think they add to the character of the City of Denton. There has not a neighborhood i
meeting for us to view this. The main objection that I have is that it violates numerous policies of the
• Denton Development Plan. Some of the major ones being that it flunks the half mile separation policy.
it is just across the street from the Bent Oaks offices, it Is very close to Mr. Gossett's office property. i
It flunks the three acre size policy. It also flunks the strip non-residential that Mr. Claiborne referred to.
1 was interested in hearing what Mr. Meyer had to say. Thirty-seven of us spent over two years
developing the current Denton Development Plan and he rewrote it to fit his office zoning case here in
less than ten minutes. The gentleman who spoke about the traffic study also helped to rewrite the c
• appendix A task force that some of us worked on for a year after developing the Denton Development • •
Plan. 1 would also like to remind you that you have already zoned a hundred and thirty-seven thousand
square feet of office space on Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane. The hundred and thirteen thousand square
feet of office space that I told you about is pure office space. The Chamber puts out another report that
is office/retail, I didn't Include any of that. Because of the violations to the Plan, h-cause of the space
that has already been zoned, 1 don't see any need for any additional office si ace on this property and I
would ask that you not approve this petition.
•
P&Z Minutes t
December 4. 1996 Page 21
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Would the petitioner care to speak in rebuttal?
I have a question, you were going to bring the office and the residential together so that they would flow
together and offset the traffic and density issues but because one of the notices did not make it you are
scheduled to be before us at our next meeting with the residential. What is hard for me is that it does go
against the Development Plan and 1 am trying to understand the procedure and how it is being brought
before us.
Mr. Meyer: We were hoping to bring them together tonight but since the notices didn't go out for the
residential we decided to go ahead and bring the office before you tonight.
Mr. Svehla: There was an error made by staff in sending out the notices so you wili have two separate
cases on two different nights. It was our understanding that the petidoner wanted to keep the two cases
separate from the beginning, therefore you would have had a case for the office zoning and a case for the
residential zoning. The report you see for the office zoning would have been the same even if the
residential was on the agenda tonight. We treat them as stand alone cases because they chose to present
them separately. If they had only made one application for the entire site then you would have seen an
analysis very similar to the previous can.
Mr. Jones: If they had only made one application how would this chart have been different?
Mr. Reeves: On page 18 in your backup the intensity policy would have been consistent. The next one
would still be inconsistent and the next three would have been consistent. It would remain inconsistent
with the neighborhood service center policy and it would remain inconsistent with the non-residential half
mile separation policy, it would remain inconsistent with the continuous strip commercial development.
The neighborhood density/intensity standard would be consistent. 1 don't know if there will be any curb
cuts along Teasley. There would two thzt would move to the consistent and the rest would remain where
they are at.
Mr. Jones: If they had done one application for the entire project would staffs recommendation have
been different?
i
Mr. Reeves: Yes, we would have recommended the same thing that we did on Mr. Hersman's property,
except for the overall gross acreage and the fact that htr. Hersman has a PD in the center of his
• development that had five thousand square foot lots these are essentially the same case.
Mr. Cochran: 1 noticed that there was a neighborhood meeting tentatively scheduled which is listed on
our chart as being consistent and apparently it did not happen? ;
Mr. Reeves: 1 don't know if the neighborhood meeting happened. Whether they hold a meeting or not
• this one is always going to read consistent because we don't require them to hold a meeting it is just a
r
recommendation.
Mr. Rayner: We had originally planned for a neighborhood meeting on the Dec. 3rd. We will have a
neighborhood meeting on the Dec. 10th at Sundown Ranch.
Ms. Schertz: You have shared that you are part of the Denton Development Plan committee, is it my
,
1
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 22
understanding that along Lillian Miller and Teasley they are going to be encouraging this type of office
development?
Mr. Rayner: We have discussed this. The most current revised Denton Development Plan that has riot
been approved does not address this in the color code that we have. It has been discussed but 1 can't say
whether that is going to be done. It is being talked about.
Mr. Moreno: What are our responsibilities here? Are we to consider this application on its own merits,
or are we to temper it with what we think we know is coming next week?
Mr. Bucek: i think the biggest problem that we have is how we refer to the Denton Development Plan.
The Denton Development Plan and the Master Thoroughfare Plan are adopted by resolution and they are
just a guide, so you have flexibility to disregard if you think that there are other benefits that mollify what
is in this Plan. You have had your public hearing and you could table this until next week if you wanted
to.
Mr. Reeves: When a request is not consistent with the intensity policy of the Plan, the Plan outlines a
procedure that can be user! to either modify the intensity area of the property, or the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Council can assign additional intensity to the property in question on the basis of
some items that are mentioned in the Plan. On page 19 it says that in considering the disproportionate
share allocation of intensity, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council should consider
the following items but are not limited to these items, adequate infrastructure, unusual topography, and
compatibility. On the basis of those and any other considerations you want to make you can recommend
approval of a zoning that is not consistent with the intensity policy because there are these other factors
that warrant this intensity being assigned to the property. As far as the inconsistencies with the rest of
the policies of the Plan, I am going to refer you back to Mr. Hersman's staff report on page S where 1
say that when a proposal is not consistent with the intensity policy of the Plan, the Plan provides an
alternative for assigning more intensity or amending the intensity designation of the Plan. For cases such
as this, and in Mr. Hersman's case it was consistent with the intensity policy, the Plan is silent on
alternative approaches. Under a situation such as this the staff will try to identify what is causing the
inconsistency with the Plan. In Mr. Hersman's case, with the exception of the site plan policy, the
inconsistencies are caused entirely by the proposed 4.42 acres of office conditioned zoning. Absent
t guidance from the Plan the question becomes one of possible mitigation of the problems. The recently
• approved case south of the Red Lobster helps provide guidance and was acceptable as mitigation when
faced with inconsistencies in this area.
Mr. Bucek: All of those things that you are talking about are in the Denton Development Plan?
Mr. Rm-es: The intensity policies yes, the last statement that I read, the Plan is silent when something
• is consistent with intensity but not consistent with other policies of the Plan. My approach is to look at
what is causing the problem and is there something that we can do and apply to this case that "I help
address those problems? All of these same issues were there with the case south of Red Lobster, and we
have a set of conditions associated with that so that it was approved. That helps provide some guidance
when you have these inconsistencies like this.
Mr. Bucek: So whet you are saying is that we have the Denton Development Plan that is a guideline, but
~3
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996 aS tti ~r
Page 23
what you are saying is that the case south of the Red lobster perhaps set a precedent on how this
Commission was going to look at those.
Mr. Reeves: And the Council as well. Ultimately with this case we are recommending a planned
development, but the same issue is there with a planned development in that even though they would be
coming back with a detailed plan, at forty-five thousand square feet you are assigning more intensity to
this property than the Plan would allow. The actual square footage that would be allowed by the Plan
is sixteen thousand square feet, so anything over sixteen thousand square feet is going to be inconsistent
with the intensity policy.
Mr. Bucek: The problem that I am seeing is that if the Denton Development Plan is a guideline and if
they had consolidated these two cases together then they would be where the last case was. Is there a
vehicle that would allow us to say that this isn't a precedent?
Mr. Reeves: This case and the Hersman case are almost the same. The difference is that the Hersman
case is one application so that with the intensity you can sluff some of the over intensity that the office
area generates onto the under intensity that will happen with the residential area. This piece of property
because it is two separate applications, two separate cases, they have to stand alone by themselves even
though it is on the same piece of property. You have to remember that these are two separate
applications. So what you have is an office zoning case that looks very similar to the case just south of
the Red Lobster, even down to the recommendation of a planned development. The residential case is
a separate case and it consistent with every policy of the Plan except for the site plan policy and we are
recommending approval of that.
Mr. Bucek: If we table the case tonight can the applicant consolidate the cases at the next meeting?
Mr. Reeves: My personal feeling on that is that we would have to go back and do the notices for that,
because it would be a different case. 1 would like to comment on the parking while 1 am up here. For
office zoning parking is done at one per three hundred square feet so they would have to provide a
hundred and fifty parking spaces. That would be about one acre of parking. Roughly half of the tract
would be buildings and parking. Also no off premise sign will be allowed here.
Mr. !ones: Can we postpone the decision on this one until next week until we can see the residental
O portion. Even though they are separate they still have an influence on each other and that whole area.
Can we just table it until our next meeting and then vote on them separately? r
y..
r Ms, Garter. Can we look at the residential first and then do the office? -
Mr. Reeves: If you decide to table this until the next meeting, we have already done notice and we have
O held the public hearing, there is no further notice required and it can be put on the agenda where ever you • O
want it.
Mr. Cochran: i see this as being significantly different from the previous case for a variety of reasons
and it seems votable to me right now and 1 don't have to see the other case to decide. I disagree with the
traffic survey that they did, I think they were unfair to themselves to some extent on assigning sixty
percent of the traffic from that site going to Lillian ..{{Miller. Traffic is an issue we can use to circumvent
~y c
♦ r. ..ww r..~~ ..aa~..-.u-rr.-.re.ewrr~~'rna r.maw.vw♦.ruwa'W..-M.w-,~wRroV-I,1-TI\1wi ,MM.w
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 24
some other issues within the Denton Development Plan as well as compatibility in the fact that this is
across the street from a fire station and a library. I think that is a considerable difference from what we
were looking at before.
Ms. Schertz: The public hearing is closed and having heard this discussion I would like for the petitioner
to come and tell us what his response is.
Mr. Shelton: We were confused and we should have had one application and saved ourselves eight
hundred and fifty dollars. We thought that we had to have two applications for this. As far as tabling
this we would like to have your approval tonight but we will be here next week presenting the residential
portion.
Mr. Moreno: I move that we table consideration of this petition until our next scheduled meeting on
December 11th.
Mr. Powell: Would you accept an amendment to say that it would come on the agenda after the
residential portion of this property?
Mr. Moreno: Yes I would,
Mr. Powell: I'll second.
Ms. Schertz: Any fii0wr comments?
Ms. Gamer: 1 would just like to say that I would be comfortable voting on this tonight.
Mr. Powell: 1 would also be comfortable with voting on this tonight and would prefer to vote on it
tonight.
Ms. Schertz: I am comfortable in voting this evening based on knowing that the residential is coming
before us next week and knowing the consequences if it doesn't come before us next week.
Mr. Jones: I am ready to make a decision.
` Ms. Schertz: All in favor of the motion to table this item until December I lth, please raise your right , `1
hand. Opposed same sign. Denied. (1- 6) Ms. Caner, Ms. Schertz, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Powell, Mr,
Jones opposed.
Mr, Powell: I move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 4.004 acres from the Agricultural ti+
• (A) zoning district to the Office conditioned (O(c)) zoning district with the conditions as shown on `
' Attachments 2 & 3 with the exception that condition number 4 on Attachment 2 shall read that no off _
premise signs, as defined by Section 33-2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton nor its
successors, shall be permitted.
Mr. Jones: Second.
4
J
P&Z Minutes
December 4, 1996
Page 25
Ms, Schertz: Any discussion?
Mr. Cochran: I think that there are a number of reasons why this is different. One is that is not currently
zoned SF-16, and there are no expectations necessarily that people have built upon because this is a
considerable improvement over a race track. There is a question about the proximity to non residential
with this being across the street from the fire station and the library and this will provide some buffering
for the residential behind it. 1 also have a difference of opinion in the proposed traffic flow.
Ms. Schertz: Any further discussion?
Mrr. Moreno: 1 am disappointed that I didn't get to see the residential before our deliberation and vote.
I see too many inconsistencies with the Denton Development Plan and 1 can't vote for this in good
conscience.
Ms. Schertz: All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(5-1) Mrr. Moreno opposed.
Barbara Russell returned to chambers at 9:30 p.m.
III. Discuss and/or gi a direaiun to staff with regard to information and backup outlining options for changes
or additions to the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Svehla: What we were wanting to do was to get your comments to make sure that we are on line.
We planned on having at least one more public hearing.
Mr. Cochran left at 9:33 p.mr
Mr. Persaud: At the public hearing there were a number of issues raised. Depending on who you talk I
to The other issue was in regard to special access issues. We have fourteen churches that have access
to residential street. The Religious We had a suggestion for changing the notification to 250 feet. ?
Parochial schools you told us how to handle that. Super majority for SUPs. The attorney felt that we
must separate zoning and SUP. He wanted us to not due notification and we didn't want to change that.
Group homes are highly regulated by federal and state regulations. WE may run into conflict with the
• Fair Housing Act. Satellite dishes. if you have to put a large dish in your front yard then they could
have to go to the Board of Adjustment. We cannot control dishes in the non residnetial districts. Don
dillard has some wording changes that we will walk you through. Non conforming uses and structures, '
4 Terry Morgan has a written that section for us. Staff has gone through the ordinance and there are some
minor changes that we want to suggest.
• Mr. Svehla: Were thinking about the 22nd of January. 0
Mr. Powell: that sounds good and you need to put it at the beginning.
i
Adjourned at 9:43 p.m. f
4
- - - `aa~..:. .rte
t P ` ! A ! ~ f yt ~ t J ~ [ ~ , ~I 1.
~4ci '..r, ~f `~iri~a~x~~`~~~ {~+~kti FiJ `~f ~ r, :f s~ ti":, ~ it 4~ Y- ~ :c:.
,
i . , ~ i v s a y r 4+r '"t -4 f {a 5 y u i
•
t ~ 1 i r t
i
.•.:t}::F.w;ax,;::,iu.<TJI.11kY1it~~dCb~ara~iwx "w~.~i+~ ? .~._:_"'4 h,4Gr._.^_l'.., ~(t~~~~ytt~il~'Si ~~,d~4E,
~4genda No. / ~
Uganda Item
Date
CITY COUN.'IL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
a SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinm)ce rezoning 169.391 acres
from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) and
Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning districts. The subject property Is located
on the east side of Teasley Lane, approximately 1,000 feet south of the
Teasley/Lillian Miller Intersection.
I R€COMMENDATION: ;
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (6-0).
l
SUMMARY:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
BACKGROUND:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
x.r
.5
i
y
` ~ Y
S
ar: .-may. ~ r . ~ r ~r ~Ss V ° 1 ~ ~ i
r tir x; r'J~ w n :e v„{ se :hi V +1 r, ~'i°-0re`~.. PRV y >Yd' I. : ~ ~
~ S u Y a ~ f , p's"~r~ a G y~ t r 7 F
• sR { r ' . :r n rx`~~n'1~7 ~'w.w' I q. 7~ i b r Ky~'~ .,.ylV aF,
~ ~ `ky P n s{ •t F a~'4 S , ;F 4 ~ '~gv M S ~r L ~ r '4 I ~ v '
c'~ L dyrp i a ~ Jt ~ ~ f{,
Jy v i , ..r r . J r~:, ♦ :h vwa ' .~1 ° Fj~., .p.~~ a3 r9 ^t <a~` 7'1s 0.' q.`-.r3 't IN r
S u f I ':r ~.;y} L X ~ #v c l a 3.~ t 7 r+'~'s e.3 ~ dy, wi r r J'•
"J - I~ S l~~ ,~,~y Y1 Yll ! 14 M.,\J Fr !2<~lf 4Y IAA L121 Y~
...ra..u,r ~ ,'..1 ~ r,~ ~ ! i fvs._....~ .~Y'~' as.r 'e TF~:` , ~r>~„W.Y`,
. La~/~r+ds~w,,.:r~.:~........:~~.3.... .w1.i u. ~...r.....ti.. ~,u...ti £r~:1...~~. Y1.a$ ,.i,1a
Please advise if ! can provide additional information
Respectfully submitted:
,
Ted Benavides
City Manager
Prepared by:
t
~ L'
4A
Walter E. Reeves, Jr., AICP
Urban Planner
.
Approved:
Rick Svehla
Deputy City Manager 7„ 1
f",'1 r.Tl1 }
Attachment N1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. f v°°n
Attachment #2: Ordinance. ar t
Attachment N3: Draft minutes of 12/11/96 P&Z meeting.
' fSLi > ~ f '
tnc
'„f ate..
1
,
i L y~1v L i ~
..,.•~+.n-r_ F^i I •L f r~ eJfx i~ r1 Yh tMlr
J ,l ~ ~ ~~.yt r, ~Y^hv aC r pp~ ai' F`~;v iW ~0. f;r S ~ vi~f Fi,f
T
lV 1 ' f
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
To: City Council
From: Planning and Zoning Commission
Date: January 7, 1996
Subject: Z-96-048
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Bob Shelton Enterprises
1901 Stadium Oaks Drive
Arlington, Texas 76Ct1
Owner: Lynr & Jerry Cott
3505 Teasley Lane
Denton, Texas 76205
Action: Rezone 111.28 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the
single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district, and rezone 58.11 acres from the
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning
district (Enclosure 1).
Loc. lon: The subject property is located on the east side of Teasley Lane,
approximateiy 1,000 feet south of the Intersection with Lillian Miller
(Enclosure 2).
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: Vacant, SF-16 zoned land.
South: Vacant [arid zoned Agricultural, SUP 140 (mobile home park).
East: PD-20, vacant land.
West: PD-65 (single family residential and offices), PD-16.
3 Denton Development Plan: Low Intensity Area #77 (1550/9 alioceted).
y
SPECIAL INFORMATION
The subject property is currently unplatted. Public improvements involved with the plat
process will Include:
1. Dedication and construction of public streets throughout any proposed v
o subdivision.
2. Sidewalks
3. Exionsion of water and sewer lines.
4. Drainage Improvements & fire hydrants.
Page 1
3
s
V t' ! V I~V~ I} 11 r I
,4 lV 1 jr( 1 i'~
rr
%
L
1
r.w.~Pi.xmfs~xws..w..rv.~.....sea..~.......~.Y.......w..,....-.,........~.n.._.~.--,~..~........~.... °c . L~ A t~ r
k'
I
ATTACHMENT1
BACKGROUND
The subject property is more commonly known as Sundown Ranch. The property has
an existing Specific Use Permit (SUP 192) for a horse training facility granted in May
1987. The property was annexed into the City of Denton by Ordinance 83.33, and the
property was placed In the Agricultural (A) zoning district.
NOTICE
Twenty five (25) notices were mailed on November 27, 19%. Four replies were
returned in favor, and two replies were received opposed (6.4%).
ALY
i Denton Development Pion
i Policy Analysis Summary
p~ Low Intensity Area
Development hating V6 Poky
7
POLICY COMMENTS Wera"Mov swWw'" /ICs "W d slm,.asre
To be consistent with the P{an, ■ Allocated Inlan sity . 10,167 Intensity trips. . .
development should not exceed its Proposed Intensity . 7.114 Intensity trips,
allocated Intensity. As no motes and bounds dwcrlpbons of the x
SF-7 or SF-10 areas have been submitted,
proposed Intensity calculated on touts of
entire wea le being SF-7.
Strad tithe plan control within 1,600 Law density residential use within 1,600 feel
feet of exlsang low density No site plan proposed. Not being proposed x
residential. as a PD.
Trattia design to ensure that MA- Not applicable. -
Family or Non•RosldonW use" Mw
access to coltectOre or terg"t -
arterials with no dred eoce"s
through residential stre"ts.
r i
Suf font green "pace, rsr':WlOrol Cdys park policy Is voluntary. No green
lacllities and diversity d parks are space or other open space is proposed u x
provided, part of this noon". . .
d:.
d ,
t' Input Into planning by nelghboe, good A rrphborhood meeting was held on
b assoclasons and counolls Is December 10, 1996. X
sncour"d.
Neighborhood servla center Not appAcei t
concentration
J,
Nonresidential % milo separaSon Not applicable,
Page 2
~y.. t ,d1~ .fit
~',~{,~II!'ff!' tT. ' 'I~ C" 1.!' r ~ ~ 1 + ~y r , ,I ~ , ~ I ~ f } e ~ F 1 1.'F
F I. Y,
1
w
ATTACHMENT 1
rAryfonn of continuous strip Not applicable
cial development Is strongly
ged In a near love Intensity
Bler Specific Ar" Polkles. Olven tte prominence of the south East PW%Nng Area surd Be lhoroughlere network In
that sector there are YFay to be pressures to locate high to moderate intensity land uses along T"Wely Lane, FM 2181, Men
Miller Parkway, Hobson Lane, I-ME, and between Loop 288 and Ulan Millar. These pressures are stray to Increase as FM
2181 is developed as a primary arterial and ezterded further south to ultimately oonred with fie DFW Airport
The policy of this Plan therefore Is to restrict the further intrusion of high and moderate hi.•rs,?~ and uses In Ihls area Urnite0
nalghborhood services and high density housing consistent with ea standards for a low Inte mt/ area, are not prohibited The
following specific guidellnes are repulrad.
The neighborhood donsiyAntensity The proposal is consistent witty Proportionate
standards should be closely Share Policy of tte Denton Devshpmant Plan. X
morutarod and vigorously
Implemented.
Pestrict curb cuts to Teasley Lane. There will probably be two street Intersections
FM 2181, Ullian Miter, and Hobson with Teasley Lane to provide atoms to any %
Lane. subdivision. The curb cut policy of Chapter III,
Section D. refers b drlvtaway access.
Pasidential subdivisions should be Not applicable, this poky will be addressed
generally designed so houses do not through the peat process,
face onto major IncrouWares.
These should access onto local and
collector streets,
Through traffic to DFW. NA
Other Policies
Diversified housng patterns,
Hous ng concentration Proposal helps diversity housing In area x
Transition between types 6 density Proposal transitions to higher density In center x
Transportation design No direct acce ss to Teasley % i
Ptavlslon for transportation mod" Not applicable
is propose is sign ican y inconsistent with onl~y one poll Icy t e pan, s e p an
control. This proposal is somewhat inconsistent with the open space policy.
The Parks and Recreation Section of the DDP {Chapter III, Section F} states as
follows:
The plan recognizes the need to provide adequate parks and open spaces for f
the citizens of Denton for leisure activities and to enhance the quality of life. ,
The general concepts and policies are intended to provide guidelines for related
land use planning and preparation of a more detailed master plan for parks and
recreation.
Page 3
r'
00-
r1 ~ ,2 ~ye7~ry -4 ~ ~~Yra~$ f+.. ~l; the 'vy t~1,• s „ f t
r
~1} vY 3f k ~ t :4~ `C ~ `ti + "jz~ , Sh F''.1:1 1 y,{Y ♦14 ^
h
'A~~ .r lr~~ '.t~ rr, }r 'Q'Y.I U'Y~'rv t"~ $ Fin rt $4'° s ~ Y Y ,
,
h
,
~ Y d 1,. ~ ~ Lj 74 a {
' ' f ~ r ,4•iy. ' ,,oZ rhFY 1i'r'S ~jit~~°'YS.
ATTACHMENTI
This section then goes on to recognize the need for neighborhood parks (5-10 acres,
open space, community parks (30 acres or more) and greenbaMinear parks. The
current City park policy is voluntary donation of land or money.
l ~Y..
An issue that may surface Is the traffic issue. The potential raw acreage lot yield
ranges from 4 to 4.5 for SF-7, and 3 - 3.5 for SF-10. There Is the potential for as
many as 750 lots under an entire SF-7 proposal, or 500 under an entire SF-10 proposal. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation handbook shows
.
j an average trip rate of 9.55 trips per unit of single family detached housing. At full rh,
development, the possible trips generated by the single family development would
range between 4.7751 to 7,1623.
A second issue likely to be present is that this Is "high density" development. The
Denton Development Plan (Chapter III, Section C) defines housing density In units per
acre as Low (0 - 5), Medium (6 - less than 12), and High (12 and over). Additionally,
as low intensity areas are assigned 60 trips per day/per gross acre, and as Appendix
A of the DDP assigns a trip generation factor of 10 trips per unit for all single family n>
residential development, the maximum Plan accepted density for residential
development in a Law intensity Area is six (6) units per acre, which is considered
medium density. Appendix A also recognizes an average level of development for the
City of Denton of 4.2 units per acre in SF-7, and 3 units per acre in SF-10 (Enclosure
3).
• Y,
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request (6-0).
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve as requested/recommended.
2. Approve with conditions.
3. Deny. r ey
4. Postpone consideration.
` Yoh 1"h
ENCLOSURES
1. Zoning exhibit. ~S
2. Location map.
3. Appendix A Table. ~`r r ''A
v.
.~4 ,
4 ~ Y
5
M
y §~k
Page 4
eat
ti' Yid
r
~q.rf t `
M h
~ ~ 1 r f 4 I e
y, y mm J
Y 1rI V
v.
r•
ATTACHMENT t
r
ENCLOSUREI
12/17/90 rigs 09:29 FAX !11 $3$ 0117 C i ! DALLAS IZ002
r-s/2/
I W~ I !2013
v ,
3 ~
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
e Gs ` 10,000 SQUARE FEET
~j.• x OW . SF-10
r
K efj?"4' L M Wail! r 7aLa0
y
MINIMUM LOT SIZE
7000 SQUARE FEET
SF. 4
V*
M
{ IllPaT r uu.lt i
5". Os~l//Ayal!t„ ~ r. r
Lh.~pp~~,0011 '
• CIAO sflcolor
u I f+~'y' • o n
1 u■ r r
www a Pat
SqET ZONING EXHIBIT '
ww 04
/..r, M 9.la CARm t MIIlOt3s. IIIC.
' 2/r r srR LI
w T2/ *~lM~
p~pp M PLR
n L II✓5 _ A I' ~ie. rJI .V' rd' f JfPt 5 W.i ~I ~d. M •C 1 ✓ .f 1~J'1 l y~ 'Y ,
e r~ r• .m 3 + . ~ ti ~3^4c'~.rp~,~4~y ;•C~^J:'5-~. `ld~'
•
ATTACHMENT 1
ENCLOSURE2
Z-96-048 mo'
a2m
Sundown Ranch 3101
SITE azxa
I h~ ~ aaa i
r v
VAV~Q
I~'I•r' tS~r`.t L v~'Sa. K, ! k: ' •4~2~
ti
Its
L~V}1C ~Fn ~J♦ rt41 y/i QJjS1~JT',.
.L ~y
III
o asae
goal 11"
i ~ •
o
s
• -'1~ a0F1 3001
_
♦cob • T~ i ~~r'"°°~4 %,1a0~°f. i:,,S ton
•
•
ATTACHMENTI
ENCLOSURE3
3.0 A STANDARD METHODOLOGY FOR INTENSITY CALCULATIONS.
3.1 Trip Generatiom.
Intensity 1s measured by. the number of vehicle trips that are
attracted or generated by a particular development' in trips per day
per-acre. (t/d/ac). The average trip geoerattoa-rates by land use
category given in Table I have been adopted after reviewing trip
generation rates piblished by cha institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), the Arizona Department of Transportation and
local/regional data.
Since the average trip generation rates are used to measure the
intensity of lead uses in a particular area, average trip rates are
referred to as 'intensity trips' and the area Is called an
'intensity area'. The standard methodology for intensity
calculation keeps track of the trips generated by existing
developmeats and potential future developments In the various
intensity areas.
The Plan designates three types of intensity areas with specific
intensity allocations in trips per day per acres Lov intensity
areas are allocated 60 t/d/ac. Moderate activity centers are
allocated 350 t/d/ac. The major activity centers have no limits on
the number of trips generated by land use developments.
Accordingly, an analysis of Intensity for a development Is a aujor
activity center Is not done.
TABLE It TRIP GENERATION RATES BY LAND USE CATEGORY
Land Use Trip Generation I Average Level I Average
Category I Factor (er unit) l of Develo ant l Trips/Acre
sin Ale Family SF-16 10 Woo 2.0 units ac 20.
Single Family SF-13 10 Trion 2.5 units ac 25
Single Famil 3F-10 1 Trips 3.0 units/ac 1 30
Single Family SF-7 10 Trips 6.20 ua! a ae• 42
Mobile Homes 10 T i units ac 80
Duplex 10 Tri e 8 units se • i
Multi-fam11 MP-& Trips 12.5 units ae 1 .
Multi-family MF-1 Tr1 s 25 units se 2
Institutional 35 Tri -1 000, s " 2 439 843 ' ae 85 /
Industrial 6 Ipea! -1 000 a 17 2 s ac 1
Office Covstnaant 1 Tai s-1 00 . • 2 3] s ac 350
Commercial getail 1 60 Trips-1 000 s 10J34 s ac 6
Parks
0962o
-3-
•
Z-96-048 ATTAC-.I. NT 2
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 SINGLE-FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 111.28 ACRES OF LAND, AND
TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY 10 (SF-10) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION
AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 58.11 ACRES, BOTH SUCH PARCELS BEING
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TEASILi LANE, APPROXIVATELY 1000 FEET
SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER
PARKWAY; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Bob Shelton Enterprises, on behalf of Lynn and
Jerry Cott, owners of the subject property, initiated a change in
zoning for a 111.28 acre parcel of land from the Agricultural (A)
zoning district classification and use designation the Single-
Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use
designation, and a 58.11 acre parcel of land from the
Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use
designation the Single-Family 10 (SF-10) zoning district
classification and use designation,; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the requested change in
zoning, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this change in zoning
district 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 111.28 acre parcel of land described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein,
is hereby changed from the Agricultural (A) zoning district
classification and use designation to the Single-Family 7 (SF-7)
zoning district classification and use designation under the
• comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. • •
SECTION II. That the zoning district classification and use
designation of the 58.11 acre parcel of land described in Exhibit
B. attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, is
hereby changed from the Agricultural (A) zoning, district
classification and use designation to the Single-Family 10 (SF-
0 0!
L
ATTACHMENT 2
10) zoning district classification and use designation under the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION Iii. That the City's official zoning map is hereby
amended to show the change in zoning herein approved.
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
fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City
secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this
ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle,
the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten
(10) days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
,
1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY
0 BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: J
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: / • •
PAGE 2
A
1 r~' r
~4~d, ,£41LeT1+.
•
FRONM D£NTON CI7V ATTORNEY FAX NO.1 8173827923 12-24-98 81$19► F.BS
EXHIBIT A
12111108 TUC 11:37 FAA 111 871 0947 C 8 R DALLAS 0002
TRACT 2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
8EW0 A 111.200 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE J. FISHER SURVEY, ABSTRACT
NO. 421. AND THE 9. LIEWIS SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 769. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND
BEING A PORTION OF THAT CALLED 40 00 ACRE TRACT ONE AND A PORTION OF THAT
CALLED 129.32) ACRE TRACT THREE, DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JEROME OOTT ET UX
RECORDED IN VOLUME 1152, PAGE 400 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON
COUNTY, TEXAS. ALSO 8FDNG A PORTION OF THAT CALLED 0.008 ACRE TRACT
DESCRIBED IN DEED TO JEROMECOTT ET UX RECORDED W VOLUME 8165. PAGE 039 OF
THE DEED RECORDS OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS. SAID 111200 ACRE TRACT BEING
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A POINT FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SA1012032.1 ACRE TRACT;
TH ENCE 8 00'25'46' W, ALONG TH E EAST UNE OF "D 120.327 ACRE TRACT. A OISTAN CE
OF OW26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF SAID 111,200 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE S 00.25'46' W, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID 111.280 ACR E TRACT, A DI STANCE
OF 1902.81 FEET TO A POINT FOR THE MOST NORTHERLY SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAIO
III -0ACRETRACT;
THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID 111.280 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING THREE
COUROCS AND DISTANCES;
S 60'59'47 ;W, A DISTANCE OF 1589.01 FEET TO A POINT; ,
9 00'41'58'W. A DISTANCE OF 00318 FEET TO A POINT;
S 89'69'4Y W. A DISTANCE OF 788.42 FEET TO A POINT FOR THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 111.260 ACRE TRACT;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID 111.260 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING FOUR
COURSES AND DISTANCES;
N 20`06'49' W, A DISTANCE OF 44040 FEET TO A PONT AT THE BEGINNING
OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT;
ALONG BAUD CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A 01MUS OF MM.78 FEET, A
DELTA ANGLE OF 11'66'14', A LONG CHORD THAT BEARS N 20000'53' W A
DISTANCE OF W6.92 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 80712 FEET TO A POINT;
• N 32.1Of 16- W. A DISTANCE OF 66468 FEET TO A POINT;
N 05663'47' E. A DISTANCE OF 008 85 FEET TO A POINT:
THO CE S 88107'04' E, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 111.280 ACRE TRACT, A
DISTANCE OF 3082,00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, AND CONTAINING 111.280
ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS,» THE MVwN9TwK AND OR V00n7 W-Afw IS NOT THE FMCOLT
OF AN ON THE OROVW SURYtY BY 'CARTEA ANO SUROESr. THE BpAMN0. DISTANCES AND
ACAEACCS L40r1M ARE ALL ARAOXUATE AND S10" NOT W AEUED UPON AS ACCVRATi OR
o CORRECT. 81 THESE DOCUMENTS A11E NOT 11TENOED FOR USE AS DEFINEO VN00t SECTION 20F THE
PROFESS*ftk LAND SURYEYNO PRACTICES ACT, ARTICLE 92820 VT C S. W600,
I.uO,IlDwafwNWt,w,CnN nA '
12 w
•
14041 DENTON CITY ATTORNEY FAN HO.1 f173627123 12-20-16 fl~1TF F.ft
I
EXHIBIT B
tV17/11 SL12 11:21 742 214 131 DINT C L I DALLAS Sao:
TRACT T
LEGAL OEBC Fr*N
BEING A 89.110 AORE TRACT OF LAND 8171,14M 94 THE J. F't8HE1 SURV[Y. AOSTRAOT
NO.421. MID THE B. LVMS SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 789. DENTON COUNTY, TOM AND
BEING A PORTION Of THAT CALLED 40.00 ACNE TRACT ONE AND A PORTION OF THE
CALLED 189323 ACRE TRACT THREE, OESCF48ED IN DEED TO JEAOME COTT ET IDL
RECORDED IN VOLUME 1188, PAGE 440 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DENTON
OMWN. TEXAS. ALSO 9af46 A PORTION OF THAT CALLED 0.009 ACRE TRACT,
OiSCF0M IN DEED TO JEF DMECOTT ET UX RELOADED IN VOLUME SIM. PAGE 639 OF
4WD FEAL Pf10PERTY RECORDS. SAID 59.110 ACRE TRACT BEING MORE PARTI IJILARLY
DESCRIBED BY MITES AND BOUNDS AS FOUAMS:
BEGINNING AT A PONT FOR THE NORTNEAST CORNER OF SAO 50.11 D ACRE TRACT.
THENCE B 00'75'49' W, ALONG THE THE EMT UNE OF MO 69.110 ACRE TRACT, A
DISTANCE OF SWAM FEET TO A POINT:
THENCE' N 88'07104' W, A DISTANCE OF SWIM) FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER IN THE
WEST LINE OF SWO 89. t TO ACRE TT4ACT;
THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID 59,110 ACRE TRACT THE FOLLOWING SEVEN
COVMS AND DIYTANCIM
N GSW4r E. A DISTANCE OF 70253 FEET TO A POINT FOR COMM
N 88'09'35' W. A DISTANCE OF 479.13 FEET' TO A POINT FOA CORNER;
8 74'6'55' W, A DISTANCE OF 78A2 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNEA;
N 87'59'25' W, A DISTANCE OF 24" FEET TO A POI NT FOR CORNETS
N 00'31.20' W, A DISTANCE OF 41.07 FEET TO A POINT FOA CORNER;
5 98'00'29' E, A DISTANCE OF 747.97 F EHr TO A POINT FOR COMM
N 01'3'81' E. A DISTANCE OF 48537 FEET TO A POINT FOR CORNER FOR
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID 59.110 ACRE TRACT:
THENCE 3 M20TW E, ALONG THE NORTH ME OF SAID 89.110 ACRE TRACT, A 016TM4CE
OF 3168.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. MO CONTAINING 89.110 ACRES OF
LAND, MORE OR LEM q M ossomm N AND OR oaurt NLKM RR NoT tNa RIfULT OF AN ON
TM CADWq amm my %AAm ANO U210Efl. TNR evAmt ORRTANCEf ANI ACTL wu vm*m ,
AM ALL AF111010NT1 MO MOULD NOT M ROUfD UPON AS AOCUMTY OA '20AMCT. N "M i
00GA48Nry AM NOT RITEND90 FOR LINE AS DVVM UNDUE KCTON 2 OF THE YAOMMONAL LAND ;
2UMYd0 PAACRCMI ACT. MIMS NEIL V.T.C.I OvANO I
RECEIVED g4ou'fD ON
cic 1 . i5$o JAN 0 1991
J
PWNt9NG R DEMOMW -
• ra.a..,nrw..ao.u..rN,.rr DEPARTWNT FOR D.R.C. + a
1J ' r' t,
_ y...__-_ -V.~.,. . r, ~ r a`te` _
cn SCI; a . ~i ~I ~ ~ .i•Y ~ I b d . i~11 M ~J'TI'i.,H 'C'r k~ x d'1°s~ t r~~ ~ 7
v'' 'Rr ru s• %~r .c w R , .X ~ ff ~ $ , 4.0~' <~„_r ~ Y,-
•
ATTACHMENT 3
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 13 DRAFT
Mr. !ones: Second.
Mr. Cochran: 1 am going to vote in favor of this because there is no opposition to it, but if there was 1
would have a real difficult time voting in favor because this is a considerable increase over what is out
there now and t think it is going to be an unsightly thing. It is close to a lot of single family residences
out there, but since there is rto opposition I will vote for it. 1 think those things are ugly and the fact that
the city is involved in commercial ventures for the profit of private entities requires a little extra scrutiny.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(7.0)
Ms. Russell excused herself from the next case to avoid a conflict in interest. Left chambers at 7:35 p.m.
X. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 169.391 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning
district to the Single Family-7 (SF-7) and Single Family-]0 (SF-]0) zoning district. The subject property
is located on the east side of Teasley Lane, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Teasley
and Lillian Miller. (Z-96-048)
Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing.
Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning of 169.391 acres from the Agricultural zoning district to the Single
Family-7 and Single Family-10 zoning districts. We mailed out twenty-five notices on November 27th.
We received three responses in favor and two responses opposed. 1 received the opposed responses this
aftemoon and 1 don't have the calculation for the Twenty Percent Rule. If you will look at page 138 and
139 of your backup, the subject property is located in a low intensity area and the table that you see there
is an analysis based on the Denton Development Plan. As you can it is consistent with the intensity
policy, it is not consistent with the site plan control policy. The Plan recognizes a need for adequate park
space and open spaces. Normally that box would be checked as being consistent with our policy since
our park policy is one of either voluntary dedication of land or donation of money. In this particular case
you can condition the zoning to provide some park space if you think that is necessary for the rezoning.
By doing so that would obviously t, ake this consistent this policy. My reasoning behind checking the
somewhat inconsistent category was tha if you think that some park land is necessary for this project then
you can condition it. We would certainly be willing to work with the developer in trying to develop some
• sort of park through the platting process. There was a neighborhood meeting last night and 1 was not able
to attend so 1 do not know what the results of that meeting were. This is also consistent with two of the i
policies of the Lillian Miller specific area policy and with the diversified housing policies of the Plan as
well. This particular request is consistent with the three major policies of the Plan, those being intensity,
concentration, and separation. Staff recommends approval of this request.
• Ms. Schertz: Would the petitioner care to speak? • •
Mr. Brad Meyer: My name is Brad Meyer and 1 am with Carter and Burgess. 1 am here tonight
representing the applicant, Bob Shelton, who is the developer for the project. This is the sister zoning
case to the office case that you saw last week. We did have our homeowners meeting last night. We had
about twenty people present and it was a good meeting. We presented our plan and lei them know what
we were doing. During the whole meeting we did not hear a single negative comment. What we are
o;
• r--- - 0
•
P&Z Minutes C~
December 11, 1996 DRAF1
Page 14
proposing is a mixture of SF-7 and SF-10. The SF-7 is on the south side and the SF-10 is on the north
side. We are going to have a divided drive into the project. We are going to use the existing entry to
the property. On the south end we are proposing a series of green belts along the road that will serve as
drainage ways and there will be a detention pond. The amenity center will be a fifteen thousand square
foot facility maintained by the homeowners association. Jack Hatchel, our traffic consultant is here
tonight to answer any questions that you might have. Bob Shelton, the developer, is also here tonight.
Mr. Cochran: How much land to you anticipate being in the common areal
Mr. Shelton: About thirty acres.
Mr. Cochran: So it is not your intention that this will become a public park?
Mr. Meyer: No, it will be owned and maintained by the homeowners' association.
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition?
Mr. Robert Rayner: My name is Robert Rayner and my address is 1108 Dallas Drive, Suite 310. We
did have a neighborhood meeting last night and we had twelve people there. One of them was the
president of the Bent Oaks Association. We mailed out notices to all of Bent Oaks, those within the two
hundred feel, and we used Mr. Herrman s list also. We stressed that there would probably be about
eighty houses built per year. They liked that the existing home was going to remain as a residence. They
liked the use of the existing entrance. The liked the stacking for the offices coming off of Teasley. There
weren't any questions about the office conditioned zoning. They liked that the zoning was simple.
Overall the package that was presented to them was acceptable.
Mr. Cochran: Did traffic come up with the neighbors?
Mr. Rayner: It was covered when we discussed the phasing of the project and the fact that they are
looking at about eighty houses per year.
Mr. Morena: Is there only one entrance?
• Mr. Rayner: No there is another entrance to the south.
Mr. Bob Shelton: My name is Bob Shelton, my address is 1901 Stadium Oaks Drive in Arlington. lam
'
the developer on the tract. I can assure P&Z that this will be a five to seven year project. The amenity
j
center and the green space will be privately owned with a homeowners' association.
• Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? • •
Ms. Valerie Meredith: Ay name is Valerie Meredith and my address is 3428 Teasley Lane. 1 was not
able to attend the neighborhood meeting yesterday afternoon from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. My concem is with
the traffic. It is very difficult at this point in time to enter and exit our property dee to the increase in
traffic along F. M. 2181. This road narrows to two lames just past Bent Oaks. This road does not have
the capacity to handle the traffic that is there now. We are concerned about the construction traffic that I
`~wW ~rl .w d: ~.fX I ~n . L4~°'r it .1 r, r ..?r"yM ♦t,.,w~'i
•
r r i ..a. i.« rr...n..w +.>+.u.1 M.NIr N'+rv... M'Mw ir1... ...M-n anl.-al+n+nlr~v.ae. r.wwLLr.~~~.ay.
P&Z Minutes d~. ~6 0 A F
December 11, 1996 J I
Page 15
this will generate. The south entrance that they are proposing has no shoulder there. I went to the Texas
Dept. of Transportation today and they said that they have no proposed capacity improvement program
scheduled for F.M. 2181. 1 am not opposed to the development but 1 do have concerns about the traffic
that will be created.
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Does the petitioner have any final comments?
We will close the public hearing. Any final remarks?
Mr. Reeves: Our legal staff' has asked me to approach the park issue with care. I would simply say that
was a suggestion about the park. We can certainly do some research to establish whether you can actually
require people to dedicate park land in a case like this. We ask you to proceed with caution. It is nice
when we see these drawings, but that is not what you are voting on. In fact staff has not seen this and
we don't know if it works.
Mr. Morena: I understand what Mr. Reeves is saying and you have not mentioned the entrance at the
south. What are your intentions for that entrance?
Mr. Meyer: We have not worked through that at this point. We will ti^,a to work with the Engineering
Department to get all of the details worked out.
Mr. Cochran: How many houses are you proposing for this project?
Mr. Meyer: Right now we are looking at about five hundred and twenty-five houses.
Mr. Cochran: Mr. Reeves, in your report you said that there could be the potential for as many as seven
hundred and fifty lots in the entire SF-7 proposal? Do you mean if the entire property was zoned SF-77
Mr. Reeves: Right.
Mr. Powell: It would appear to me that the only way that we are not going to affect the traffic is to leave
it the way that it is. Any development at all is going to increase the traffic problem. 1 don't know how
you could develop it that wouldn't increase traffic.
• Mr. Cochran: We looked at a case on Highland Park Road where they were asked to do curb and gutters.
Now is this different?
Mr. Salmon: It really isn't much different. When this property comes in as a plat we will be reviewing
the traffic and applying our ordinances as they apply to traffic improvements. I would suspect that
whoever develops this tract and is proposing this number of homes will be required to make some traffic -
• improvements to make, probably some turn lanes, participation in the signal at Lillian Miller and Teasley. • •
I think before this comes before you as a plat a lot of the technical issues are going to have to be worked
out and there will be some improvements required.
Mr. Moreno: The Meadows of Wirdy Hill is in the process of widening Kings Row between Dunes an
so why wouldn't they have to do the same in this case?
w rya .
• "mss-~-'~~'.' • ' ~ ,
•
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 16
Mr. Salmon: The main difference is that Teasley Lane at this point is a state highway. Kings Row is a
city street and we require curb and gutter. The Highway Department under normal circumstances doesn't
want to have curb and gutter along the side of their highway, unless they are building an urban section.
I imagine that the developer will be required to do some widening along Teasley.
Mr. Svehla: TXDOT has no plans, but the developer can be required to do turn lanes and deceleration
lanes at their entrances. We would act as the intermediary to TXDOT to help the developer get the
required permits to do that. It would be similar to what Lowe's and Walmart had to do.
Mr. Bucek: If you want to do talk about a condition to require some park land then we need to go into
executive session. You do have the ability under the conditioned zoning to do landscaping. 1 have not
seen anything that shows where the SF-7 and the SF-10 will be located and if you like the plan that they
presented then you need to incorporate that into your motion to tie down the SF-7 and SF-10.
Mr. Reeves: I didn't mention this because I did my analysis based on it all being SF-7. I do not have
any legal descriptions showing what is going to be SF-7 and SF-10. I caution you about stating that you
want it to look like what they have shown because we haven't reviewed it and we don't know if it will
work.
Mr. Bucek: You might be able to tie it to acreage.
Mr. Reeves: Before this goes to City Council 1 will have to have the legal descriptions for those areas.
Mr. Meyer: There should be have been an exhibit that actually defines that line ar being eight hundred
feet south of our northern property line. That may be an easy way io define that tonight.
Ms. Schertz: Could you address the acreage for the landscaping that was mentioned?
Mr. Meyer. We haven't run areas on that. 1 would think that it would be in the area of twenty acres,
maybe a little bit more.
{ Mr. Cochran: We have a problem with what is going to happen with Teasley and how is it going to be
taken care of? What can we do to have some positive effect on this? We are going to be creating an
• unworkable situation as a things come on line, what kind of solution can we look forward to?
Mr. Salmon: Each development is looked at individually and asked to make improvements according to
their effects. There is going to be a spur for Loop 288 that will connect up to 1-35 at Mayhill.
Eventually there is going to be a collector street through the property nn;th of this that will connect up
to the 1-35 service road. At some point in time we expect that Hwy 2499 will connect all the way from
• the airport up into Teasley Lane and extend even farther north than that. I think there are some things • •
in the long term that will help the situation and each development is going to be required to make some
traffic improvements that are consistent with our development ordinances.
.J
Mr. Svehla: You have to look at what each development generates. The other subdivisions that you were
looking at were on city streets. You have a thoroughlue map that dictates to us what we ask those
developers for. In this case it is a state highway which has different requirements and the jurisdiction is
I
t
•
•
P&Z Minutes J
1J L
December 11, 1996
J $J+~~
Page 17
different. Yes we will look at turn lanes and those kinds of improvements at the entrances and exits to
this development. When you are talking about adding lanes to a major highway you run into a number
of different things. First of all, TXDOT has that jurisdiction. If lanes are added then they are added
based on what TXDOT's requirements are. The second issue is that you have to look at what the
subdivision generates versus what their costs are. You deal with exaction variances all the time and
clearly in this kind of instance where they a lot of frontage on a state highway and given TXDOT's
requirements there could be a basis for seeking an exaction variance. That is what we run up against.
Those things get in the state program is based on the amount of traffic on there and the amount of delay.
Mr. Powell: Based on the fact the we couldn't ask for a park, would the term green space be
appropriate?
Mr. Bucek: You can designate so many acres for landscaping.
Mr. !ones: Are the residential lots counted as landscaping?
Mr. Bucek: I think the terminology that we have used in the past has been "not on the foot print of a
home."
Mr. Reeves: Since we don't know what the actual area is, what is common area now may not be
common area when we get to the plat process.
Mr. Powell: I think it would be appropriate to have a green spac,; in the zoning and my intent is to have
common area that would not be developed.
Mr. Shelton: There are two lakes on the property and we do intend to maintain them. We realize this
is a concept plan and we would rather address this at the platting stage.
Mr. Svehla: When Mr. Shelton and Carter and Burgess come before us with the plat we will look at all i
of that in terms of the drainage requirements. Mr. Hod
ney will have an interest if there is going to be
public green spaces. Mr. Shelton may want to plat it as private common areas which is an option for
him. One thing that we have to be very careful about when looking at these projects, if they are to be
public and they contain drainage structures, we have to be careful that they can be maintained, and is it
• worth taking considering the ma:ntenance required.
r
Mr. Powell: 1 move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 169.391 acres from the
Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family-7 (SF-7) and the Single Family-10 (SF-14) zoning
districts, to include all of the land eight hundred feet south of the north property line as SF-10.
• Mr. ]ones: Second. t •
Mr. Moreno: 1 am very concerned about traffic. I wish we could build our infrastructure before we got
to these developments. 1 suppose growth is inevitable along Lillian Miller. This project really looks
pretty good, 1 am surprised that there is very little opposition to this and for that reason 1 ant going to
vote in favor of this petition.
/8 ,
..Y.VM'..W:•FF,\P:1'.rlAw~w..~--r.rr~.w/a.M..Y-..ra~a~w~w~r~.+wwnsr.w+a+arn.M~~.+wLr~.wM~•w~.~rw ~~.I~~t~r.uwuMrW
P&Z Minutes u
December 11, 1996 ~ !3 .
Page 18
Mr. Jones: 1 have the same concern about traffic. Unfortunately the only way to get relief on these farm
to market roads is to over build it before you can get any relief. i
Ms. Schertz: Any further comments? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign.
Approved. (6-0)
Five minute break at 8:45 p.m.
E
Ellen Schertz left at 8:50 p.m.
Barbara Russell returned to chambers at 8:55 p.m.
Reconver.od at 8:55 p.m.
XJ. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the
proposed annexation of 11.40 acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. (A-74)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: This tract land is located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin. The owner of the
tract have applied to the city requesting annexation. The objective is to develop this tract for single
family homes starting sometime next year.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak.
Ms. Amy Homoly: My name is Amy Homoly and 1 am with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc.
and our address is 5999 Summerside Drive in Dallas. I am here to represent the applicant and answer
any questions that you might have.
I`
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor? is there anyone to speak in opposition? We will close
the public hearing. '
Mr. Persaud: We had a public hearing before the City Council and no one spoke in opposition. Staff
• is seeking a recommendation for the Commission so we can return to Council for the second public
hearing.' ,
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of 11.40 acres
south of Robinson Road, east of Nowlin Road.
• Mr. Jones: Second. • •
Ms. Russell: Any discurFjon' All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed sarne sign. Approved.
(6-0)
X11. Spring Hill Estates. The 110.3 acre site is located on the south side of US 380, directly east of the
AT&SF railroad tracks and FM 156.
yS
~(r...w.~w..-_.. •B__ ,..t n. ~t ~ F .'1`d, ~♦i?,~/p: .k vy tF4.~l Q'~r~{{,~'~r ~sF~ r
%
y
•
i
1 u `'n r ` ' by .a
_ ,x+•9~1 3`WOMf~Ibtl~WW~~YYtaYi~r~i~N r 'Agenda No. DO
Agenda Item
Data
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City !Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Consider approval of exaction variances w Section 34114(17) concerning sidewalks;
Section 34114(11) concerning cui de sac lengths; and Section 34-124(e) concerning
drainage design standivds. The 304.97 acre tract Is located northeast of Brushcreek
Road and Highway 377.
RECOMMENDATION: ' t
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variances (7-0).
SUMMARY:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. 4
BACKGROUND:
Soo Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Respectfully submitted,
Ted Benavides
Prepared by: City Manager
j
f Dorina Bateman t '
• Senior Planning Technician
t Appro
i
Rick Svehla
Deputy City Manager •
Attachments #1-3: Planning and Zoning Commission Reports.
Attachment #4: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from December 11, 1996.
etd `
~t r, f.R`~ 4 fS i+~r~A+ ,1
r.:, , .1 f~ k
• ~ + 1 t ~ ~titi. ~ ~ 4+~r i ~~,e by f C~
~~'~~~ti,4:m
,
ATTACHMENT i
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
TO. Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34114(17) CONCERNING SIDEWALKS FOR
THE HILLS OF ARGYLE.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the sidewalk variance on a internal
streets and Highway 377. Sidewalks will be installed on Brush Creek Road.
SUMMARY
The 304.97 acre tract fronts on both Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 (in an 'L' shaped
pattern). The initial five hundred (500) feet of property, fronting on Highway 377, is zoned
Agricultural (A) and has been since annexed In 1969. Future intentions are to rezone the property
to a non-residential zoning district.
The remaining portion of the property is in Division 1 of the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Under
Section 34-35 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, staff must conduct an
annexation study on all single family development larger than five lots. That study has been
initiated and a recommendation will be made at a later date.
BACKGROUND
Greg Edwards, representing the owner of the proposed 'Hills of Argyle' subdivision has applied for
a variance of Section 3411: (17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks. The cited
section requires sidewalks to both sides of internal streets and along one side of perimeter streets.
This would include Brush Creek Road on the south and U.S. 377 on the west. The developer
proposes no sidewalks within or adjacent to the subdivision, except for Brush Creek Road. The
developer proposes a trail system through the common area along the east portion of the '
subdivision. No details concerning the width or surface of the trails have been given. The
applicant bases the variance based on the rural character of the subdivision and the large lot
frontages.
ANALYSIS
As the variance is not related to the shape or topography of the property, it would be an exaction
variance. An exaction variance may be recommended to the Council if the Planning and Zoning
Commission find the following exist:
,
Where the Commisslon finds that the Imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations
exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or Is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract
to be platted, It may recommend approved of variances to wslve such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to •
the City Council. Waiver of developmental exaction shall be approved by the City Council.
J ENCLOSURES '
1. Preliminary Plat
2. P&Z Minutes of December 11, 1996
~.Y1YM.w•f.r.!!.!r4R, lr H • ♦B~W~-Yi114... i , '4
•
ENCLOSURE 1
• 8 F
1 h'
E"
7 7 I ~ / X17 \
1101[1 - - ; w +
~}I.Ta ww.ta T/rrtmwmeM w Y ~ ~ U C
ar°n orr~w~.r'R"rt"r A1°~0/•7w..n ( `e 7 -71
C lvMa~II.I~R.fa inaall ui nan \ ! ° I ~
rtwrwa TNI RA7Ii:M i C`\
A M rmwlla wun°p~i`m \ }J
II11.I10RrtNOAMKIA ~ t/ J ~ • ` L
wrt[rwa 11/If7/tl I7MQn a
! plb0lm 4Nm W mM1KMML
1w.MiRCRfpI NAMmI0l1 / io
a ruowr imar vm mllr l ( 7t I I~ w
AO~lOlA17IIi00f U4CMN}All! _ ! 71
rW. Ndlr.Mr lNClbl'1011M I 7f 71 !7. Y - `
ptA MT 1 I 1. /.i.l w
• rrrtm N r wR II} v nOal C'
I m OVp llmlty rrlo}111oM 77 '971 rr
Iw IIWw KIIII ri tl
IMIM1 Wt41M RIIOT'A/[v1A1 w
pal"A TDK Ym1M AIM IM MTNI 7~ A tl w
I0W w
J_
frMglL•i u V
' ! WOYrI NIA/IA1MAt 1~
M K10tM1Vl..'oK
CWOIIAA- KY t 'f 17 3,7I
Cllq NOM" qIG w • l
/ r
N ° 1' i 1 q J 7 • y L
i -1 I
RED M•M~ } 4 ` - - i,
,d
> w
1'. SON
VICIMII} W w u ~ .MI
t`
NIP
The Hills of Argyle Mr' r?~
A 112 1OT SINGLE rWLY - B = -
DE7AKNED DEVELOPMENT ON r--~ I
301.97 ACRES IN THE 1. SEYERE SURVEY A-1191 r IoM . w
DENTON• DCMTQM COUNTY. TEXAS ~~,~t
C IIImO A FM 1,,,cs ~ ~Y~ ' I
sO1 a :'rd1 PLINFUM
Ali o 1
a"m w&"m
A ~.I The Hills of Argyle 194TY curiw~colnoLUTlDII 1aIlraersI 1~~A° a L
tNQi PRELIMINARY PLAT an*.T-Mcr,~I IIiAl IK ~!ri101 r
1 P 1 OCN7ON. OCN7ON COVWrt. KRAS 111 /n Anr.Ia fWi tv q. !I rl-N 1. rw I •Mt-vw
F..w A IM.'
1/ Mr 1•In IM li l•M77 \71 t ~iy
1
•
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34114(11) CONCERNING CUL DE SACS
FOR THE HILLS OF ARGYLE.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the cul-de-sac length variance.
SUMMARY
The 304.97 acre tract fronts on both Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 (in an 'L' shaped
pattern). The initial five hundred (500) feet of property, fronting on Highway 377, is zoned
Agricultural (A) and has been since annexed in 1969. Future intentions are to rezone the property
to a non-residential zoning district.
The remaining portion of the property is in Division 1 of the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Under
Section 3435 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, staff must conduct an
annexation study on all single family development larger than five lots. That study has been
initiated and a recommendation will be made at a later date.
BACKGROUND
Greg Edwards, representing the owner of the proposed 'Hills of Argyle' subdivision has applied for
a variance of Section 34114 (11) of the Code of Ordinances concerning cul-de-sac lengths. The
cited section requires that cul-de-sacs be a maximum of 1,000 feet long. The proposed
subdivision layout has a cul-de-sac approximately 1,700 feet long near the southeast comer.
Because of the large lot size, the lot yield is much less than a normal city standard subdivision. 1
Thus the developer Wishes to minimize the amount of streets within the subdivision.
ANALYSIS
As this variance is based on the type of lots and financial considerations, it would be an exaction
variance. An exaction variance may be recommended to the Council if the Planning and Zoning
Commission find the following exist:
• Where the Commission finds that the Imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations
exceeds any reasonable benefit to the properly owrwr or is to axcessive as to constitute conlbeation of the tract
to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to wahre such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to
the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council.
i
ENCLOSURES
• 1. Preliminary Plat `
2. P&Z Minutes of December 11, 1996
i
n14 ~
ENCLOSURE 1
+N tw V g
e 1
/ - ~,1 r 1
~ ~ ' a ~ ~ 1 IP
41
gAr/~' gyp. i 1 ~ - 1
/ 1 ff i / 5
1 \
1 1 . • • ~ • 10 1 ~Jt 1 ~ f
worn `~r _
~wr r i
t1wlQ iaralRi wPgDlrM ~ ~ 1 e ' i ` ~ `
ar°nd1+l~+ela~n7wlwn f1 ` l1L.a
l LM1Weliw4tf YI+NQONbp Il
l RIVItlIMaLfM1•.lOOl1lA~.Wn
RIV1•I Aw nll M7NRMIbpYPR•5Rr \
O M ONRUR101 rw e" OraM 10
1
'~i+wci10~''V°arwwndn~it~no ~ , L
rwvOiOwoui RArAYM4L 70 J° ]I
a IMYYiaAWMIALL- {
a• nA'onfw icerleairw filar 11 71 - V
_ r
1RaWRD1O11111/01 •.o1iMVlraO is
~w%AL m1O.Iwiuawrr'""omaM 1 sr lr'
n
rur, l i- f1)
♦ +..•w ur Ito +Nalr N7TA/ nme
1+wa/O~0•~EOwm1IV Oi 1D'Iwont 11 » '0N
r vn7n uAllixra rl•anvlom•N Jr
~aYRYIOtt ~Owll Ow Mnw MrM 7~ » is
r
iMaq alln
1014UwlaL•i M .~-.1•. -d7
l WaKa Nf NIRlOw1 - }
OOH I~i1M~~ •~VG 1 * T _ I e)
TN11 aR11R• _ 4' . J
r.
N w ~ at 41
t 1 ~ t
11
rn _ 1
at.
VKUA l1 11N
1 ads,
The Hills of Argyle
A 142 LOT SJNOIL TAMIUY
DETATCHED DEVELOPMENT ON e.
301.% ACRES tN THE J. SEVERE SURVEY A-1164 W aro a we wK 5IR+E'r
D!.NTON. DEMTON COUNTY. TV" t~ s ;DµrrME
l .ao~a n /.w
rAl.ser~or nw1rR1 or ;
~.,..r The Hills of Ar a`
.p gle y U0131 COW4 MRJaRAra N ae(C 10 F. E.
1u1Rn1 PRELIMINARY PLAT Ma k'+. a...1 ni, •t+q. ■alt f•il w~
D(N70WL D[N7dV [O,.WM1. f[xlS - 111 MM a 1100 A Iii Ja1-1ql. lw 1+1.!11. Nil 1~
s
.V„'P, s . 1. .+e .IJq . 1'. 1 d q r. t n. a ~•+arl t~,+°Y-Nd
•
♦u Y.~.~Yt.. Y... [...Y siw~WO...~....._r._~ r.... ..-v....v...r.r.wnar✓vw-.urvr.~w.r......~.r. r._
ATTACHMENT 3
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34.124(e) CONCERNING DRAINAGE DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR THE HILLS OF ARGYLE.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the drainage design standards.
SUMMARY
The 304.97 acre tract fronts on both Brush Creek Road and Highway 377 (in an 'L' shaped
pattern). The initial five hundred (500) feet of property, fronting on Highway 377, is zoned
Agricultural (A) and has been since annexed in 1969. Future Intentions are to rezone the property
to a non-residential zoning district
The remaining portion of the property is in Division 1 of the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Under
Section 34,35 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, staff must conduct an
annexation study on all single family development larger than five lots. That study has been
initiated and a recommendation will be made at a later date.
BACKGROUND
Greg Edwards, representing the owner of the proposed 'Hills of Argyle' subdivision has applied for
a variance of Section 34114 (11) of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design
standards. The cited section requires that drainage courses, not associated with a floodplain, be
handled with underground pipe or a full channel lining. The developer proposes open channel
drainage with ten (10) foot wide pilot channels constructed of a hard lining. They wish to handle
the drainage in this manner because of the large rural nature of the lots.
ANALYSIS
As this variance is not related to natural topography or shape, it would be an exaction variance.
An exaction variance may be recommended to the Council If the Planning and Zoning Commission
find the following exist:
Where the Commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these rogulatiom
exceeds my reasonable benefit to the property owner or Is so excessive as to corodUs confiscation of the tract J
to be platted, it may recommend approval of varkmes to w" such exactions, to a to prevent such exoeas, to
the City Council. WOmr of developmental exactions rhea be approved by the City Council. J,
ENCLOSURES
1. Preliminary Plat '
2, P&Z Minutes of December 11, 1996
~!'R1' f. ~ [ i Y~ y 7 . y w 5 r
ENCLOSURE 1 ~c+
1
iI I ; r
1 41,
I
Jt I ~ ti .
/ -tit t ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~
J t IJ ` 10 / 5 - - n
« J I t ' ri1
t
f
St \~+Ay'7 1 .f1
~ _.P "f/ " •vJ a ti I , ~ 1
tlptll - - K '
' f, w.1[fl rlfq tOrIMNLOnM e
Cnp axoa L
Itw7 Iuwr n
w m Itl•LIa L.Itna Jtnt\tt ~ Jt - JI
LMIMnrtlw4pMrp t
Aw•A,R
I,VIU0[■■■dIWrRM6.'li V'e,p1,1 ~ ~ i~~ r`
r•PMwnw Mr N11M ~ 1`t`
pMrM01■IIM MONIR01M11
wnlmnwaalr aL . r;.
LlttpOm WOYY+r~pJ1Ml ~ I ~ Jt
.1wrtlA9.tt./01ALL IIrO■OL / ` \
Ittttlll { `
l ROW HNIigalpn1111u 1117 f ( Jt r
wtoa,mrLl lLnr eeL aM17ca1 _ I -
r■w n•.. l ~ IJ~ ~ I 1
Llw.ttal,a 11011[rlpn■ao
MIHIp MO LpASMtw ttl tM IR MOIK 7J •ON .t
ttlMMR OIIIM T 71
WIIIII I. YRIntN.[irtIRRQM1 prNLh «
w~rwtJCr w,wa MMw MJN 1~ » M w
rNtt•O L
IlMlttLUV
■tNO Ue1MM/RJgh ~ ~
mrrroww_ r.G 1 II •J , g
p,a,oMLLl- •MG w 1 J
Kcv4w
rtllJ~ 4 p _ f
vtcru. I w ~ .
Y A~ 14
Ub I ~ F rrr .
• The Hills of Argyle ~_r •
A 142 LOT SINOLL fAJI]LY
DE•TATCHED DEVELOPLIENT ON B • t
501.97 ACRES W THE J. SEVERE SURVEY A-1161 S n tlv ■ ..c rty
r DENTON. DEMN COUNTY. TEAS yLAiR
1 r+na n JJr nu"~ s 15''6
re v1°s+oi~a+wop flss~ 1
rw ~LmAV JlJtnm ~
dom. The Hills of Argyle °"1°L a1Dlett
BY RTALrr wrru LG1r.Rnf06ATHLR CRX 4 'AM P. IL wnwr
PRELIMINARY PLAT I10 M Mwi M: ttl is ~in~Mt. IKOftL~ MIM
OC r01A "WON COUNM1, !E+-IS
. In a~...4+. r., to MM.l7!
•
s'.: .'~,.=:t. .+.e:f..u'.i3;~.-;+P,-"c'v-L-.ylGxtr v..A~y'.t :i.s C:'+Cat~MStwpiSTf3s7.•1'itS4.Xi'~N:C«L9N,rj'M.9~'L4
ATTACHMENT 4
P8Z Minutes DRAFT
December 11, 1996
Page 23
XIII. The Hills of Argyle. Located at the northeast corner of Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road.
a. Consider a variance of Section 34.114(17) concerning sidewalks.
b. Consider a variance of Section 34.114(11) concerning cul de sacs.
c. Consider a variance of Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design criteria.
Mr. Salmon: The first variance we are considering is for sidewalk requirements. The applicant is not
proposing any internal sidewalks or sidewalks along the perimeter which are required by our subdivision
ordinance. The applicant has proposed a trail system around the east side of the development. He is not
proposing concrete sidewalks due to the rural nature of the subdivision and the expense associated with
concrete sidewalks. This is an exaction variance. Staff does not recommend that the sidewalk variance
be granted as proposed. We would agree that because of the size of the lots the internal sidewalks would
be excessively expensive on a per lot basis. We would recommend that a variance be granted for the
internal sidewalks. They are within eight thousand feet of a city water line they are required to install
sidewalks on the perimeter roads. Staff finds it a little bit difficult to recommend that simply because the
amount of perimeter frontage that they have is really relatively small compared to the number of lots.
The perimeter sidewalks would Dose them about a hundred and eighty-five dollars per lot. Another thing
that 1 would mention is that a large portion of the perimeter sidewalks are along Hwy 377 which is not
being proposed for residential development. One suggestion that staff has is that they leave that area out
of the final platting at this time and simply final plat those lots when they have a user or when they think
they will be marketable for a non-residential use. At that time I don't think that it will be as far out in
the country as it is now and sidewalks may be more appropriate then.
The second variance concerns the length of cut-de-sacs. Our ordinance currently requires that cul-de-sacs
be a maximum of one thousand feet long. Down in the southeast comer of the proposed development
there is a cul-de-sac that is quite a bit longer than a thousand feet. The other cul-de-sacs in the
development do next the one thousand foot requirement. 1f you were going to build a thousand foot long
cul-de-sac in Denton in an SF-7 subdivision you could fit about thirty-two lots along it. We try to limit
cul-de-sacs because we don't want to have a lot of homes or businesses in an area that only has one
entrance and exit for emergency purposes. In this case because of the size of the lots there are only
twenty-one lots even though it is seventeen hundred feet long. They have fewer lots here than what you
• could potentially have on a thousand foot cul-de-sac. 1 think the safety issue wouldn't really be a concern
in this instance. Staff recommends this particular variance. 1
The third variance concerns the drainage design criteria. This developer would be required to install an
underground pipe system or fully lined channels depending on the amount of water. There are several
easements through out the development that would fall under that requirement. The developer has
• proposed a ten foot wide concrete pilot chan,tel with grass sides. Because of the rural nature of the • •
subdivision and the expense associated with this staff would recommend that this variance be granted.
All three of these are exaction variances and you will be making a recommendation to the City Council. ,
Mr. Powell: Did you take into consideration the safety requirements for that long cul-de-sac? It would
appear that you have more than a right angle turn and I wonder about getting a fire engine around that
comer.
P&Z Minutes
December 11, 1996
Page 24
Mr. Union: This is a preliminary plat and I can see that it is not quite a ninety degree angle there. We
require that our intersections be at ninety degrees plus or minus five degrees. They are going to have to
do that when they do the final layout for the subdivision and the final plat. That is normally when we
get all of those dimensions and distances worked out.
Ms. Gamer: Are there any sidewalks on Hwy 377?
Mr" Salmon: There is not one there now.
Mr. Richard Myers: My name is Richard Myers and 1 am the president of Realty Capital Corp. We are
based in Grapevine and we are the developer of the property. The Hills of Argyle is a beautiful piece of
property. It is a three hundred and four acreparcel. 'there are about a hundred and thirty-five residential
lots on the property. The lots range in size from about one to three acres. The price range for the horses
should be from a hundred and eighty thousand dollars to five hundred thousand dollars. Several of the
lots are wooded. We are proposing two to three miles of trails. Some of those will be concrete trails,
there will be areas with crushed rock, and areas with asphalt. These will be private trails for the
residents. There is about a hundred acres of common area out of the three hundred acres. We will have
a homeowners' association, and an architectural committec. We control the dtsign and quality of the
homes. We are in complete agreement with staff and we will put sidewalks in on Hwy. 377. We would
like to do that as the commercial property is filled out. We would put in the sidewalks along Brush Creek
Road right away.
Mr. Powell: How far is this from 1-35?
Mr. Greg Edwards: My name is Greg Edwards and 1 live at 1116 Sandpiper. 1 am guessing that it is
about four to five miles.
i
Mr. Powell: I move that a variance of the internal sidewalk requirement for The Hills of Argyle
subdivision as cited in Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances be recommended to the City Council
based on the unusually large lot size. I would include in that also a variance for the sidewalks on the
external portion of this subdivision that border Hwy 377.
Ms. Gamer: Second.
•
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor phase raise your right hand. Opposed same s,, n. Approved. r
(5-0)
Mr. Powell: I move that an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) of the Code of Ordinances for The
Hills of Argyle subdivision concerning cul-de-sac length be recommended to the City Council due to the
• unusually large lot size.
Ms. Gamer: Second.
J ,
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved.
(5-U)
H`.•+'.±iti-+w`q!!1 ~ : .,r~"~_, ~ ~ • ~ "~'1 ` e ~ `1`h^' # i t ;r F`° ` , y Q. ~ Yb'"^ w ~1' -'~~Z+'X ~~lZl~y~, ~Ft^! F"~~',.
P&Z Minutes R A F (l~~
December 11, 1996
Page 25
Mr. Powell: l move that an exaction variance of Section 34.124(e) of the Code of Ordinances for The
Hills of Argyle subdivision for drainage design criteria be recommended to the City Council as proposed
by the applicant.
Ms. Ganzer: Second
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor Y:ease raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved,
(5-0)
d. Consider the preliminary plat of Lots 1.64, Block A, Lots 1.52, Block B and Lots 1-24, Block C of
the Hills of Argyle,
Ms. Bateman: This is a little over three hundred acres and just the front portion, five hundred feet on
Hwy 377 is in the city limits. The rest is in Division One of the ETJ and we are doing a study for
annexation. Public improvements associated with this include fire hydrants, dedication of utility and
drainage easements, perimeter street paving along Brush Creek Road, and the construction of internal
streets. DRC is recommending approval of the plat with conditions.
Sir. Salmon: We were trying to fast track this plat to get it on this meeting since you will not meet again
until January. For this reason we were not able to work out sonic of the technical issues that we normally
would at this stage. The first condition is that the lake be included in the common area and the applicant
is in agreement. The second condition is that the common areas be provided with adequate visibility and
access from public streets. At this point staff is not convinced that as proposed the common area has
enough access and visibility from the public streets. Currently what is being proposed is a thirty foot strip
from the common area out to the road and I think there will be some type of access easement at the end
of the proposed lake. As it is those are the only two access points currently. We come to you with these
recommendations based on the fact that even though this may be maintained by a homeowners' association
for a long time, common areas whether they are publically or privately maintained still have the same
safety issues. In addition to that sometimes thee; common areas end up being owned by the city at some
point in the future anyway. What we would :ike to do is establish a common area that is going to be safe,
enjoyable, and useful for everyone involved. The third condition is that the lake be designed to require
minimum maintenance by im luding featuras such as a hard edge, a drainage system, and a concrete
spillway. We conic with these conditions looking at the possibility th=t the city will be responsible for
• maintaining this at some point in the future. Because this is not associated with a floodpWn they would
be required to do a full concrete lining, or some other alternate lining, or put in underground pipes. Our
ordinance does not really allow for this lake. Staff is recommending with these conditions that the lake
would be an acceptable amenity simply because if the city does end up maintaining this lake it is going
to be something that is easy to maintan and shouldn't be a burden on the citizens of Denton to maintain.
One of the reasons that we require a hard edge is because of the s)Js that we have in this area they are i
• highly erosive, We have grasses that grow very high and we are looking at the mowing and maintenance • •
issues. The fourth condition is that a homeowners' association be formed and funded to maintain and be
liable for the common areas and that it be reviewed and approved prior to final plat approval.
M . Powell: Why are we saying that the lake be included in the common area?
Mr. Salmon: Originally the lake was going to be part of the lots that backed up to it.
~T
• 1+
•
•
Agenda No. 00 I
Agenda Item
ORDINANCE NO. Dale 4rz
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supple :s or services approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTIONA. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUMBER -IQ VENDO8 AMOUNT
1961 I,IA BICK'S EXHIBIT"A"
1961 2.3A DUSTROL EXHIBIT"A"
SECTION-U. That by the acceptance and approval A if the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons sub, pitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms,
• specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTIOMM. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written a;;reement as a result of the acceptance,
• approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby IL -
authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written • •
contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and
specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
1
fi
w r 1
5
r
A ' SJ 1 'r. 1 R1 'e,
y
w
a f~ F, ~'a> i r ' kl al v M^ ~t~K Yi't> 'y4Y~' r~ya~ Gi A~'~Sr ~M c ~y L ~~"*f l(~✓a+,^' c r r[ a r4 , ,tit .a i
~Mfas 9 w41M R, ~ ti+, i v a+ v
' i
St.CT1ON 1V, That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance with the approved birds or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein.
SECTION That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and ,
approval.
r}PASSED AND APPROVED this _ day of 1997.
fl
JACK MILLER, MAYOR ~,1,
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
w
BY: ; s
c~rJ
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
4
BY: _
SUPPLY ORD ,
a
tx
f r.
i
v 1
~frn ~ M': r r r v
pti
NP-
i
DID. l%I
~BIDNAME STREET MAINTENANCE DUSTRL SICK'S
EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC '
(OPEN DATE NOVEMBER If, 19%
EXHIBIT "A"
VQNDOR VENDOR .
DAILEY RENTAL RATt
i
1. PER DAY LAYDOWN MACHINF VABDER 9
GREEN SAISSOR 6 AL SUNNI
IA.I EACH MOBILIZATION CHARGE TO
j INCLUDE DELIVERY AND PKI"
AS WELL AS LOADU40 O UNLOADING
AS R6 UIRLD, 52" - 'i
17. ! PER DAY MILLWG MACHINE•TRACX TYPE
j CATERPILLAR IN OR EQUAL SSAN.N
IA:' EACH MOBILIZATION CHARGE TO INCLUDE
DELIVERY, t PICKUP AS WELL AS 1
LOADLNG ! UNLOADING AS RZO(Wtw S)3S.i1
j PER DAY PICKUP BROOM • MOBIL TU OR EQUAL mas
j i 'ILA.! EACH MODILIUTIONCHARGLTOINCLUDE
-2
DELIVERY, A PICKUP AS WELL AS
LOADINGAUNLOADINGASRE IRLD. Sl7P.N
~c.
i .
< r
a ,
4
1 ~
F
i n.
3
f r1J
n e , 1 'R r✓ ,SAC q'
1
' e
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1997
CITY COIfNCII,REPQI;T
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJFCT: BM 01%1 - STREET MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT RENTAL
RXC03U1EIYDA310N: We recommend this bid be awarded to the low vendor on each items as listed:
1. Laydown Machine Bick's $1,100.00 day
1A. Mobilization Charge Bick's S 200.00 each
2. Milling Machine Dustrol $3,500.00 day
2A. Mobilization Charge Dustrol S 350.00 each
3. Pickup Broom Dustrol S 680.00 each
3A. Mobilization Dustrol $ 170.00 each
For an annual estimated expenditure of $150,000,00.
SUACKARYt This bid is for an annual price agreement, for the rental of Street Maintenance equipment.
All prices include qualified operators with each price of equipment under the general direction of the City
of Denton Street Department.
Four proposals were received on response to eight bid packages mailed to vendors.
PRIXRAMSFDRPARTMENTS OR GROI S.-APFECCTEED; Stmt Department, Engineering
Department and the Citizens of Denton.
FISCALIWACTt Budgeted funds for Street Maintenance for 1996 Account 0100.020.0031.8303.
Attachments: Tabulation Sheet
Memorandums from Danny Beckham
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
Prepared by:
r Name: Denise Ha ! i
Title: Senior Buyer
s ♦
- Approved: I
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
ua.uso+na .
4
i V .t R. Y r~. Y SY l d
I AR
9 am imam
Y
r
K f s
t i) l 1 ~
,_.,+vwiJC+ASlYt~ - w...-u+~+._~aG.... ~"r i.,... a.s'_... ~'w.i~e-:-•.,.i.h.Y~uA•"
BID// 1911 ! .
~BIDNAME STREET MAINTENANCE DUSTRL JAGOF. LICKS MIDWEST or
EQUIPMENT RENTAL INC PUBLIC ASPHALT
OPEN DATE NOVEMBER 19, 19% 4?
TY DBBCRU11" VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR
DAILEY RENTA L RATE
i
LAYDOWN MACHINE-BARBER
1. ~ PER DAY
GREEN SAI SI OR UAL NO BID 31 " S1 109.00' NO HID
IA.! EACH MOBILIZATION CHARGE TO
INCLUDE DELIVERY AND PICKUP
AS WELL AS LOADING R UNLOADING I
AS RZOVIREA NO BID 5.100,00 5200.00 NO BID
I
2. PER DAY MULLING MACHINE-TRACK TYPE 4S&HR
CATERPILLAR 4M OR t OVAL S3301.00 I NO BID 53,600.00 ' X 8-3610 :
LC EACH MOBILIZATION CHARGE TO INCLUDE
DELIVERY, • PICKUP AS WELL AS
1 LOADING A UNLOADING AS REQUIRED 5350.00 ! NO BID 3350.00. 57$0100
13. ' PER DAY PICKUP BROOM - MOBIL TE3 OR _ VAL 5600.00 i NO BID 37NA0 ~ NO BID
3A. EACH MOBILIZATION CHARGE TO INCLUDE
DELIVERY, & PICKUP AS WELL AS
LOADING A UNLOADING AS REQUIRED. 3170.00 NO BID I 5170.00 NO BID
t ~ I
I I t
y ,
p
o
t. ;
5 ht;'a• ' C
~j
r w,st
1111 11111 Jill 111111111111111111111 111-
L ~
ti's
t
r
,
,a AWA.Lttsam
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CaYmAU WEST 221 N. ELM DEMON. TEUS 76WI
{bin 688-8200 • DFW METRO 434-2?29
MEKORMDUM
DATEi December 12, 1996
TO: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
y ,
FROM Danny Beckham, Engineering Tech/II, Streets
} SUBJECT: Rental of Killing Kachine and Pickup Broom Bid 11961
Stroat Department staff has reviewed the low bid submitted by
Dustrol Inc. of Texas, P.O. Box 17380 Roanoke, Texas for rental of
milling machine and pickup broom.
We recommend Dustrol be awarded rental of milling machine and
pickup broom only.
Danny amr ;
1 • wl~
c
I
AEE00676 I
~Fr+ 1
6
'Ykdtcattd to QmWitY Servkr' v
as•
♦ , ♦ E..: 1 w A11. .5~ { ~t1 f:S " N~~n~~ 1. ';(.r
. ,.........u w.~~i.~C461vx¢s'~YNKUC1rl..rs~ivr..-..~:._._~ ~ ~ . .t:. fi I . _r_i.L~_ 1. _ ~ .2 m ~T~ w'~~tlf'd~ ~.A`',~.~.,. t1~6do.~~1u,S4~.~~.•.
v
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HAU WEST 22 r N. ELM • DENTON, TMS 7901
(81n 6Q64M DFW METRO 494.2529
p
MEMORANDUM
3
i
DATES December 110 1996
TO: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
FROM: Danny Beckham, Engineering Tech/II, streets
SUBJECT: Asphalt Laydown Machine Rental Bid 01961
We have reviewed the low bid submitted by Bick's Construction,
Inc., 2608 West Waggoman Street, Ft. Worth, Texas. Three (3)
references were called and all were positive.
We recommend Bick's Construction be awarded rental of laydown
machine only.
.z
A.
Danny Be kham
P
' .fit F
4
f
7
3
AEE00676 ;
7 ~r
'Drdiedstd so QsWiry Savka" 4
~ k ;ti 2r~ t 1Ll i., 4f 4fI f
~ a ~ Yk
•
s
AQ.,,ida No -LOO/
AG mda Item
ORDINANCE NO. Oa1e
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated :lnployee has reviewed and recommended
that d herein described bids are the lowest responsiE;e bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or ser :s as shown in the "Bid Proposals" subr•--itted therefore; and
yWHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or sc.-vices approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION-1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
SID ITEM
NUMBER -NO_ VENDOR AMOUNT
1965 ALL HEMPHILL BUS $124,095.00
SECIIO*_; 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted biCs, the City accepts th- offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms,
specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitatiors, Bid
r Proposals, and related documents.
j SECUON M. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to err •r into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written « N
J contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and
specif ed sums contained in the Bid Proposal and r Jetted. documents herein approved and accepted.
1
1
r'
r
r
J
_ ......,.....n-,r..atllHlirW`i.i:.nwwr♦.w~.w.i..+..+~.:r.rwu..r._r.y~:..........a-.~:...4 d~^•_t ..5 4f.... ~.:.i~:;..~y.^.~..i
SECTION IVr That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance th the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein.
SFCTION V. 'that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
3 ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
ti BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
SUPPLYMD
~ I
t
a r"
i
2 r`a+
'fapaulm 1919M
l'
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1997
CITYSQI[NrH.. REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: BED N1%5 - TRANSIT VANS
REMMhff, A ION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Hemphill Bus,
in the amount of $124,095.00.
SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of three 10 passenger transit vans for use in our public
transportation efforts. The vans will accommodate 10 seated passengers and one wheelchair
passenger. The units will be owned by the City of Denton and operated by our public transportation
contractor, SPAN Inc.
SPAN staff members have reviewed the bids and concur with our recommendation.
PROfIRAM& DF.PAR OR GROUPS-AFFECTED: SPAN Inc., Motor Pool
Operations, and Citizens of Denton.
F Std ACTS Funds for the purchase of these transit vans are available from Federal
Transportation Authority (FfA) and Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) grants. No local
funds are involved.
Attachment: 7abuldon Sheet
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
Approved:
• has-- `
i`
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
p' $00,AOSNDA
• 0 •
I
3 N
r ,
r
_ k: ,h4 ej,C .F~J+'~L ~5 rr 7+~~i~Pd~ tS f" ,F. i ►x ,,~Y
'S! f"
r r
r
If r.~k i xr^ { £ r'.
6 v ~ as1T Ar~~ y{~1 :"r~' iY
BID 0 1965
BIDNAME TRANSIT VANS HEMPHILL LASSITER DALLAS i
BUS BUS & BUS
OPEN DATE NOVEMBER 19,1996 SAM MOBILITY SALES
M DESCRIPTION VJWDOR VENDOR VENDOR ! >
1 6 PASSENGER VAN SM77R00 NB NB
{ ,5
ADDENDUM 01- REC. YES YES ~ YES
ALTERNATE $3919E0.00 S41,9i6.001 S45,4K00
10 PASSENGER VAN IJ
DELIVERY 90-110 DAYS MI SO DAYS 130 DAYS
NO BIDS r r
TEXAS BUS SALES
ff GILLIG CORP
I ~ I P i
. PA
S ~ +rxi
a .
r
•
•
Agenda No.~
Agenda ire
ORDINANCE NO. Date
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DALE,
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described birds are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION-1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby ace-pted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUMBER NO- YEMDOR AMOUNT
1974 ALL RITE WELD S22,67130
SECTION I1. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the of_°er of the persons submitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms,
• specifications, standards, quantities and far the specified s,nms contained in the bid Invitations, Bid
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTION W. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
• authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that tie written • •
contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and
specified sutras contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
•
R 1 r ,
f
y k 1 4 3 I, si4 1 1 y'1
1 l ^f ( a 1
~8 ~3 a~'i~ hrlyy y' y '
.rif:aW~31'''1.Ya•I::/u..Y'S~~Yrts~
1
'n-
SECTIQN-W. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the r
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in ar cordence with the approved bids or pursuant to a written wrtract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein. .
sFf ON V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of .1997.
J
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
Yt
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
t'
i
'
BY:
S .
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY `
r.
J f
dl• y
r G
BY: _
SUPPLY.ORD
!r
3r .
R J r
1 C
,a
r
r
iJ
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1997
CIUDLCOUNLf'I2 REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: BID #1974 - ANNUAL BOTTLED GAS AND CYLINDER RENTAL
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bld be awarded to the low bidder, Rite Weld Supply
Inc., for the unit prices listed:
BID4 1974 Rr &WELD
C~j~k PAT'00011001~ NO
1 379 HYDROGEN (191 CU. IrF.) s10Sir
2 100 NITROGEN 225 CU. ff.) $4.99
3 10 CAR90N DIOXIDE (CO2,50 L&) $7.75
4 DELETED -ADD ENDUM #1
S 60 OXYGEN(244) $4.99
6. 30 ACETYLENE 510.00
7 10 ARGON $19.50
e 2 ARON 75%]CARIIWN DIOXIDE 25% $22.50
9 12 CARBON MONOXIDE (K SIZE CYL) $145.00
10 12 OXY. & ACETYLENE WELDING SETS 5231.00
I1 6 HELIUM $29.00
12 599 Ert. CYL RENTAL MISC GASES/MONTH $2.90
13 599 EIL CYL RENTAL MISC GASESNEAR $26.00
DELIVERY 2 DAY
The total annual :stimated expenditure is $22,671.30.
• SUMMARY: This bid is for an annual price agreement for the purchase of bottled gases and
cylinder rentals for use by several different departments throughout the City organization r
Two bid proposals were received in response to five bid packages mailed to vendors.
PROGRAMS, DEPAPTMENITS RGROUPSAFFF TM- City of Denton Departments. _
FBCALJMPACL Budgeted funds from the Individual departments for 1997
Attachment: Tabulation Sheet
• t ,.rFY. ~ ".1. y~ k r I, °~t7 r~,~,~,~16, r~ `!a ~di d o~; ~5'"~ P 11 ,l a~4 Y.{ ~M ~•y,, y'
I rl( 1 {
Y1' % I k
~I I +
{
' 4 ~.'A 1 {f"r IryY'"r ~J Y. 4y,° rJ
y f•
t„fS;r7'7~'y~,r~_:.},L'~•s r.Ftk3I°}_"fE>... t _3A
sue:..-.swawavureawrwwr. ~ .
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
JANUARY 7, 1997
{
PAGE 2 OF 2
1
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
Prepared by:
r:
i
J
Name: Denise Harpool
{ Title: Senior Buyer
r
r,
Approved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
914 A02"A
Yi 4
~ +r
yb♦a
1 ~
! Y r
y
iCI
4~x
• 4 ~1 r
- .....+r_._~_.r -1 , ,D'ZY~"j~• ~ ~ { ~ Ixy.`! IJa~ t r` ~ ~t
.r
1 ~
.
' 1 j ✓ f a Ju, I
, n
t r
~ 1 e}titgr
S
Y
" ~ + F c < St ~1 ~ rid ] r,j +"1~ y'"`S'f. _ _....swuvnw~ ~ ~ ) I .,7•x,;,1 ~~~~ri~ ~tii°v tX L ~f I ~ f~, ~ ~N~ e~
t ~ ~•~..Si a ~ ~ ' 'M~fi~~v
? DID% 11T[ ~
IW MA1! AM" lartun "I AM RIMA%= 3L IYLLOMO AM TRY/TY
CYLMOW RWAL tM111p A"" IW,
10►[M DATE occom R 1;11N
1 IN swam otrcN►r1oM : %SON „ vM1ooA .:waw vOOOR _ ,
x
1 3"3 HYDR00911 0" ou. M SHIA SHIA M) MO Now
i
180 IwTftoam rAs Cm "4
3 10 ICARAOM DIO%10t Li• 1T.T3. ttl•» f .
[ I~ ADOfIM1tM1 3M ,1
I' ~ i~ [ ! N OLxYOnI_ 31 M.N _ tt.N
1 30 IAC2TYMl NLN H3-» - _
7 11 AROON ifl.N iH.N _
t 1 1 AMN V MXAR OM DORM m ~ 133-311 11l~
1 ~ u CARWNM!ONORIDI PC OW m 81"." S"
10 12 OR'LACIM/►i 1MLD110 Mri N3iA91 111[.NI
ADO M V%'M MMOt 1
on tau"
I
1 H 1 MILAN 3Nd/ 1»•N~
11 [ACR CYL RMAL MM OASSLOONM 11.11 13.11
se'
13 EACH CYL R1/RAL um Q482MMM ULM 81.01
owvlRr 3 ar ~ 1 DAr1
4
I I II u y l r .
e
l_
f
y~ R , TF ~
SCy b. .
y 1
aa vN~ r'
~ q
k
I... .J
t
~V
/~t Whry 1. Yn v a'~.
I J e~ w C~,
. go
•
i
Agenda No. 'DD
.Agenda Item
~22
ORDNANCE NO. Data
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD
OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employoc has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bias for the materials, equipment, supplies
or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submittal iherefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of fiords
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTIOR-L That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hertby accepted
and approved a t being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUNIBER -NO VENDOR AMOUNT
198? ALL FAMILY HEALTHCARE, rNC. $33,000.00
SECTION-IL That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or cervices in accordance with the terms,
specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums co, wined in the Bid Invitations, Bid
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTION 111. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written
contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and
specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
J
1
5 { ati''
f
' ,,ll JS~t ~ I
I
•t* ~ i L M i ~ SI,p ati u w,' fn, ° "~,;~~rPr ,w ~
s. i 's Y'^ f I° n~P `lr 11 ~ . ~afE~ J r~~'7ry16~~rY .•P.~54"~. .
• I
SECMN- Y. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance with the approved bids or p;um=t to a written contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein.
SECTION -Y. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval. I
j PASSED AND APPROVED this day of ,1997.
i
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
`r .
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
r
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
s
BY: _
r~
SUPPLY.ORD
a
P `
V
1~ I y/
r
a 7 1 ~
{ IS~
It t~_
k+yr
• yr
n
%
~ 4 -
I
l (n
e{
c
-
w
I
.
r '
DATE: JANUARY 7,1997
CITYCOU_N-_C_R.REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: BID 01983-PRENATAL PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME WOMEN
RECOMMENDATI : We recommend this bid be awarded to the single respondent, Family Health
Care Inc., in the amount of $35,000.00.
SUMMARY: This bid is to provide prenatal, psychosocial and educational services to pregnant low-
income women. Services include patient examinations, arrangement for lab work, medically necessary
j sonograms and other required diagnostic, case management, as well as childbirth and parenting `
~ aucat+'on.
pRO4RAMS, DEPARDENTS OR CROIUPS •AFMCTE . Family Health Care Inc., CDBG
Division, and Citizens utilizing the program.
C FISCALIMPACT: General Fund monies have been appropriated for program, Account # I OM51
051M-8502.
Respectfully submitted:
Ted Benavides
City Manager
:F
Approved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
MAGMA
3 r s''
y f F ~ y
Emmet'
•
•
Agenda ND. 91-06
Agenda item
ORDINANCE NO. Dale
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWAR
OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or s ,r vices in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the arpropriation of funds
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SEcnoN-L That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUMBER NO. YENDOR AMOUNT
1972 ALL SOLA COMMUNICATIONS S30.419.00
SECTION-II. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms,
specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTION-W. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written y'
• contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and • •
specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
1
11.^M M~ Si
•
,.j~, y nt t ib~H". r h 1". 5 l ASS fk Y ri,, ,~Ay~s ~f~f'^r( Y,ak~,aY... . ..-...e.a1.~..+r.`.`.~w~ t . ~.a1..s....S $~i''•,, _...~~'a1~.n~i...~'~..`
~',~E".^`P..YV•ry r".~'~.`f.2fi~+
SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein.
SECMQhLY. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , --,1997.
J
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
5 r ,
ATTEST: '
f JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ;
1
BY: -
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
,a
jyM
1
BY:
SUPPLYMD
..y qaJ F
}
y" ,a
2 Y~ 1
r. ti , e; ti ' `a,g r r w; i++; . r a' 4 . ~ ~ 7t}s, way^j~ rd ~
_a.a.._.. _d....r;...a..._..~ "ate-,~.'.:~.,:
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1997
CITY Q[FrICn, REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
:ii.;u IECT: BID M 1972 - SPREAD SPECTRUM MICROWAVE
RE O T.~1~FNDATIOH; We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Sofa
Communications, in the amount of $30,419.00 including installation. We also recommend we ampt
the option to hold prices firm for one year for subsequent purchase to update our radio
communications.
SUAEM ARY: This purchase Is for microwave radios and antennas for installation between the
Spencer Power Plant and Lake Lewisville Hydro Generating Plant.
PROGRAMS, DF.PAR7'MENTS QRnRMP&AMClED: Radio Communication Division,
Electric Production Division.
FISCAT- IMPACT; This purchase will be funded from 1996197 budget funds.
Account #610-101-1011-3970-9227.
Attachments: Tabulation Sheet
Memorandum dated 12-11-96 fmm Ray Wells ;
Respectfully submitted'
r'
Ted Benavides
City Manager
-^r
y Approved:
,t
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
a 17.AGE"A d
S.
3
} a~~I rely § y::} a .5
s a t.x ~ ytr i n ~ E~+y'fl~~'_ 1 1 R~
e,
a
1
1
,
1fd1111 + ,
y 1 t i I ( r g1 f1 e Ia ikL~?d 5I~
t u i A y" 3r ~r f, + i
• J: A~~„ ...x ~.~>Er 7} ~ ~n~±e 4~~'y' Z e~'''~+C ' }1'
am / WI
4 IM"AM vRtaa{ ILICTI MMICWWAn CORMAT M1LA TRtco ,aRa "
I=A" 8410" m COMMOK WORT ~ VCRDM k OP" CATR pR(YMa[1III, 1A"
y MIRY ` R~rvIlRa vpmn 1'tAMaa Yp10a11 w3} ,
j 1 3 G_ MKROII'An LOW OLD" FI./I" NJ".'M
tOTTIa tYtfLY t'
I ILA M,LIOWAn AK1aNNA./R. pAf7AR pA".M UA" f'
R 1,7111 WAR
I I fA M CWWAn AARFIOIA. R. "m FIJI"
1 R AMttnMA Rta LO1a AN R fLJ/R pA1 R { .
faRIORO IML r
wNII Wd IN LO4 AM IM
PATWO
r
i~ f ItA MWta BURLY TOR 1AJlI mi" NIA" FIJI" TORO r
j I,2M'MVII RADq
Nuum
~kr r.
TOTAL ZQUUMM
oflIOm
a,"LMI I Y_"
'I 1 1.11I p1117"I 7fON, TTCmOdAt FIJI." UJI"
i , -rup+Im nurAwTr011' wJn." MA" w"." k, fM.
' Lo1rllAOaonaR.altvaA>,a r
uaraaNSa+s _ ~ w 5
4arnl/ u4coKm
Orr on POWKS 13"M
01 com
i atLlvaar 36 DA" IARAn
I aMOtIED" 3
F r
Fr ~
~y1
. ~ v
~11 y
1 s
f y? ,
h /
Y fro
3 a
4 t t'
w
Y~? N ypp/ s A
.
A +q~P.r `iy,~ a F
s
e
ED 96 DEC 1 2 !:I C: 32 •
CITY at WINTOMe TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 215 E McKINNEY~ DENTON, TUAS 76201
(617) 5668200 DFW METRO 434.2529
M E M O R A N D U H
TO: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
FROM: Ray D. Wells, Superintendent of Electric
Metering/Communications i Electronics/Substations
DATE: December 11, 1996
RE: EVALUATION OF BID 01972, Spread Spectrum Microwave
sssssasasssasasassssssssss !°°sss
On December 10, 1996, the City of Denton received Bid 01972 for
Spread Spectrum Microwave equipment and installation between
Spencer Generating Plant and Lake Lewisville Hydro Generating
Plant. We had three (3) vendors responding with qualified bids,
they were:
Comsat BSI, 2100 Couch Drive, McKinney, Texas. Responded with
a total installed project cost of $36,917.66.
Sola Cemmuniaationa, Ina, 124 Toledo Drive ,0 Lafayette,
Louisiana. Responded t+ith a total installed project cost of
$300419. The Houston office will perform technical support
and installation.
Tejo Group, Ina, 801 Greenview Drive, Grand Prairie, Texas.
Responded with a total installed project cost of $41,266.25.
All three responded with the Lynx cp2 radios manufactured by
Western Multiplex Corporation. We recommend Role Communications,
I 1, as the low bid meeting all specifications. Per the
specifications we further recommend extk.:,ding a one year agreement
for subsequent purchases of Bid equipment and options.
Expanded communications requirements to the Hydro Plant associated
with THPA assuming operating control necessitated this system.
This Microwave link will extend our T1 network to Lake Lewisville
offering bandwidth necessary for a telephone at the Hydro Plant and
SCADA communications for Denton, TMPA, and Brazos. Other
communications possible include expanded adio communications for e
safety and automated meter reading.
This project is funded from current electric utilities operating
funds.
cc: Sharon Mays
Robert E. Nelson
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
5
` a ::>•l
Agenda No
Agenda item -
ORDINANCE NO. Date
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the hereir. described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or b~rvices as shown in the "aid Proposals" submitted therefore; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriadon of funds
to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTIONA. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUMBER NO- VENDOR AMOUMT
1975 ALL DICKERSON CONSTRUCTION $59,200.00
SECTION-H. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and
agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms,
specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid lnvitat ons, Bid
Proposals, and related documents.
SECTION.W. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and
of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance,
approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby
• authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written b
contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and
specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted.
1
w to 1„~ t
.
i
,
I
r
I~ "r `E7 yb ' t
• a 1
SECMNIY. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein. '
SECTIOMY. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its pass4c and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
%
AT'T'EST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY: '
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
l~
ij
I
BY:
SIMMORD '
,r
Tr.
k v
i J." I
r ~ < f t` e
_,r 7 y.
{
.t
+t
r . A1!
. .a...~}.~ewr-+MUYriw'Nlw...w•w.W-~.w....~L.~. r...-SI~ ~.1 _r A.u W.. ..~..J ~l~.i.v
DATE: JANUARY 7, 1997
CITY COUNCiT,. REPOJU
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: BID k 1975 - BORE CROSSING
RE : We recommend this bid be awarded to the only bidder, Dickerson ,
Construction, in the total amount of $59,200.00.
SUWr1ARY: This bid is for all labor and materials necessary in boring approximately 300' across
135E td James Wood. A 20" casing will be installed and Polyethylene duct will be pulled through.
This will convert the existing overhead line to underground and improve the system reliability.
One bid proposal was received in response to sixty-five notices to bid mailed to prospective
contractors.
i
PROGRAM S.DFP R NTC (1R GROUPS AFFECTED; Electric Distribution Department
and the City of Denton citizens.
FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted funds for Electric Distribution for 1997.
Attachment;: Tabulation 17,
Memorandum from Don McLaughlin
Respectfully submitted: ;
ed Eenavides
Citr Manager
Prepared by.
Name: Denise 1{arpool
Title: Senior Buyer i
Approved: r •
t i S
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
us.AGMA 3
r:: { C 'fl r ti 4• r:R~ ! 1„ ~1£~:',4 t~~ ~15Fw~ P-' Lj!!:.'1•~~tj~ ~A.14iPr'~rRyj~~~ Tyrl rat ~l. ~'n•..
¢ k e ~i
...w:_. _ Y V~ j y Y 1 r 'iY.FiliF..Y' - * r•{~.a
a
t ,
4 '
'.t n I 1 I i t Y r~ j l~
BID M 1975
BID NAME BORE CROSSING DICKERSON
CONST.
(OPEN DATE DECEMBER 12,19%
N QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR
1 I BORE CROSSING 1-35E do $59,200.00
JAMES WOODS, APP 300'
ADDENDUM YES
~ f a
i I E
i
F ,
i I
f
e
F
4
1
rj
~ I
s
.r ,r` , 1 .Y ` 7~4rv ;e 1 -Y•{~•cYAM .411^ rs1 ~94~ f"~~ry,~~'~Y^ { ~ },p t~ `I~ i ~ t f i
..L • v g flT'~:~+ Ilr r.:,., S,(~/+~~3 *Yh '.1 r,'y.'
T.
R 1. '
r [~4 Yr , Y kr t ,
r ° ~ f f'kJ~. ~ 4`v. 4 • F o-`~ -.~a" N't ~ Y f 1 i~>r-~ c , • 1 r`,
4 1 . t
Y,i'
,
I r
Y
i
. I~ .Ai 1 r'ze i ~ ik r~ t+~rv.~~+rt .aJ `f ~f i'~~ i Y r
~Z ~r
i
i .a....4...~i..+.rJV • J yi .~..i'h,~l........ ' ~1b' '7.. .fir k~~
I~i.r/y k1rr ~
•a .J „
y C~PU•>~"' ~
,
OEC 19 134 '0+ S4
6
To: Denise Harpool, Senior Buyer
From: Don McLaughlin, Senior Engineer
Electric Engineering
f Date: December 18, 1996
Subject: Evaluation of Quotation on bid 4 1975
The utility staff recommends awarding the bid to the low bidder
Dickerson Construction.
i Bid 1975 is for the following:
• 300 foot bore across F 35E at James Wood
• installation of two manholes provided
j by the City h , •
• Installation of Polyethylene Duct provided by the City
The total cost of the bid is $59,200 ($197/foot).
L r
h
a C
Sincerely,
Donald L. McLaughlin
copy
Joe Cherri i'
Ralph Klinke
1 ~1ti,;C
1
- ♦L
,AkN ,
PYt 4
i~
T
4~. Imo'',
i
Yi ~F y'.^f r {t
A O w
t
q i
~ .l
51
it r
Irfi~'6 ~1? . qny f v
.a„~ . iY,
t 1 .ycr 't4 . l ~F^' n X t'~~ i •ktt ♦ "i r $,t ~r'^h, T i~ 3 W a+. Y .1~^SF 'y,'
Y ......n...aw Mntlw^vuL runur.av.aw.Ye......,.._....w._._.........,......_..___..._...._...~.J ..Y..
Agenda No.
Agenda Ite
Date ~ 7
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS
DENTON COUNTY CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE Oc VARIOUS GOODS AND
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE:
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION T That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement,
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
SECTION IL That the City Manager is authorized to expend funds pursuant to the
agreement for the purchase of Police Sedans.
SECTION III That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
` APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: f
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY s ,
BY:.
A NTEnOCAL.DOC 1 • •
y,
1
s
i ~.7 iP: ~ t ~t T• Sys ~FY b~ ~ 11,~9~~ v " ~t ] i tt
s "''7ry .tom r•1' y~i''r ~ tid' ~~Y ~}t et. ~t i~ ,Y ~xs g~ ,1, 4 a~ $9 , a Iti i`
W1 WA, 13k A'Xij:li
' Vti ~Vr y fir. Y ~ YIr ~ P y
Y F j 1 xL
v 9° l~'Q r w 3~,s My VV Ii! v S 6ti a i5<t H , f { + _ i
rt,
♦
. I l
f •4
L.
[ h q'~ Ai1 tr~l y° V r t°l y*[~Lrlr 1 11
4 w btiA F rA.~ i ,r~ti [ PI~~ a;
.....~vw.wA.Y.aLl~.rWde~Y~rldar.~vi1.-- _ _ r V 4 ,1"~ i'a .t~'~.♦..a.~...~...Y2S'~Z <.:a l~.i'`
DATE: JANUARY 7,1997
Cra♦ COIJNrILREPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: 1NTERLOCAL AGREEMENT #19" Wi TH DENTON COUNTY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF POLICE SEDANS
'
BECOMMENDATIO We
1,f recommend that the attached interlocal agreement with Denton County be
approved and the Purchasing Agent be authorized to acquire Patrol Sedans through this cooperative ppmhasing
agreement and to award the purchase of police patrol sedans to PhiIpott Ford Part Nechos, Texas F.
the total
amount of $268,398.00, w '
S11KHARY: This interlocal agreement would allow the City of Denton to utilize the bidding process of D►:non
County to acquire specific items. In this ctu it Is our Intent to purchase thirteen (13) patrol sedans and one
administrative sedan.
! R5' x
This would be the fourth year of participation in a cooperative effort with Denton County to puf::.hase Patrol
Sedans. Through these efforts we have been able to acquire at a lower coat than the State of Texas GSC Contract
prices on several occasions.
! Ali local dealers are extended the opportunity to bid.
Denton County Commissioners Court approved the bid award to the lowest bidder, Philpott Ford, at their
December 17, 1996, regular meeting. Currently we are purchasing thirteen patrol sedans at a but price of c `
$18,366,00 plus options (see attached list) which brings the cost to 519,165.00 each equaling $294,145.00. We
are also purchasing one administrative sedan to be assigned to the Fire Chlef at a price of $18,366.00 plus option
for a cost of 519,2$3♦00.
All of these units are motor pool replacements. The older units will be reassigned to other areas in the fleet or
sold at auction.
PBOC,RAM&DEPARTMENTS OR-GROIIPBAifFECTEIL• Police Department, Fire Department and
Motor Pool Operations.
FISC"IMPAM This purchase will be funded from Motor Pool Replacement Funds.
Account # 720.025.0582-9104 dry
Attachments: Interiocal Agreement .
Bid Tabulation Sheet °
Optional Equipment List i ,
tl+
~ipl r ~ r
Respectfully submitted:
L t
M IY
Ted Benavides ; f
City Managers
Approved: yr . ;
w l
Iz d I;
j +
Name: Tom D. Show, C.P.M. `1 -
Tide: Purchasing Agent S
AMMA 14'V . ~ 1
MAMMA
Z
4
t 7
'
. e...Ka~=~~ _'I'~ r M1~V' ~,~k.n t ~V ~ `Ir. lr['*. j+"t `:,!F" ..t r ~ r~'~/"~fy , 4 '~L~, ~f ~ ' ~J'
J4 r
ORIGINAL
COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
THIS AGREEMENT is made on the day of 1996, between
, State of Texas, and the County of Denton, Texas, each referred to herein
as participating governments.
WHEREAS, the respective participating governments are authorized by the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, V.T.C.A. Government Code, Chapter 791, to enter into joint contracts and
agreements for the performance of governmental functions and services including administrative
functions normally associated with the operation of 3ovemment such as purchasing of necessary
materials and supplies;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the aforesaid participating governments :o comply with
and further the policies and purposes of the Interlocal Cooperation Act;
WHEREAS, the participating governments cannot normally obtain the best possible
purchase price for materials and supplies acting individually and without cooperation; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed in the best interest of all participating governments that said
governments do enter into a mutually satisfactory agreement for the purchase of certain materials
and supplies for the Denton County fiscal year 1996-1997.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
conditions contained herein and pursuant to the authority permitted under the Interlocal Cooperation
Act, promise and agree as follows:
L
Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize participation of
in various Denton County contracts for the purchase of various goods and services.
Participation in this cooperative program will ba highly beneficial to the taxpayers of the
governmental entity through anticipated savings to be realized.
II. ~
Duration of Agreement • •
This Agreement shall become effective on , 1996 and, unless
terminated earlier, remain is effect until September 30, 1997, By mutual agreement of the parties,
this Agreement is renewable for additional one-year terms. Termination by either party shall be
upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party.
3
e t
n x
~+e r e.yYTM y~.yr r I e . k 1 _ 1.
M11 --JA
•
M.
Relationship of Parties
It is agreed that the governmental entity, in receiving products and/or services specified
in this agreement, shall act as an independent purchaser and shall have control of its needs and the
manner in which they are acquired. Neither the governmental entity, its agents, employees,
volunteer help or any other person operating under this contract shall be considered an agent or
employee of Denton County and shall not be entitled to participate in any pension plans or other
benefits that Denton County provides its employees.
Denton County shall notify all participating entities of available contracts to include
terms of contract, commodity cost, contact names and addresses. Denton County shall keep
participating governments informed of all changes to the Cooperative Purchasing list of contracts.
Nothing in this agreement shall prevent any participating government from accepting and
awarding bids for commodities subject to this agreement individually and in its own behalf.
IV.
Purchase of Goods and Services
All products and services shall be procured by Denton County in accordance with
procedures and statutes gn•.eming competitive bids and competitive proposals.
The participating government will be able to purchase from those contracts established
by Denton County where notice has been given in the specifications and successful bidder has
accepted terms for Cooperative P rchasing Agreements for local governments within Denton
County.
The participating governments hereto agree that the ordering of products and services
through this agreement shall be their individual responsibility and that the successful bidder or -
bidders shall bill each participating government directly
The participating governments agree to pay successful bidders directly for all products
or services received from current revenues available for such purchase. Each participating
government shall be liable to the successful bidder only for products and services ordered by and
r
received by it, and shall not by the execution of this agreement assume any additional liability.
i
Denton County does not warrant and is not responsible for the quality or delivery of
products or services -)m successful bidder. The participating government shall receive all
warranties provided by successful bidder for the products or services purchased.
In the event that any dispute arises between individual participating government and a f1
successful bidder, the same shall be handled by and betwom the Earticipating government body and J
the bidder.
4
.
r'
.
~I t .dST ~•£r4J##iP~c r tia w3nv k„at 't x~2R`~iy .
1 t ~ a # ~ x i >`G Icy tYr~ t i •
' r t [ A y.,# A~.,_ ~ ~ < ir`i'9f ~`t~~> tttt i k I Er , a1 ,-t t I ~ e
r tr ,'.3xSJ r~~.s 1.~~ v +."f1'}JC :r -r'%} r'ri#; a.~"^ ry 4 ft,.. e
Ir n na r 'r'<7+~ilF t t2 zS.a.t e y , ~x t ,
R n ye' + 11 ~Jr ^ A i sf r r S.; T 1 e ! j '',,3 r{. ~~r``,: l k ¢ri.. y(< art rf i
r .I -
• 1 I : Y ~ e ~ j . 1 1.
'r
6
i
Y~ r ) • Y 'p ~ vt t 1
1 I .l i f Il l av I .l J S} 1 {I Y
~s ISYr~r'.k
i • t ~x r t• w x S G~ C rA 1'Sl. i t
_ / ' 1iYU,i.\iFrv s7~~l 1~L 3` O1M~~f~i~~ Y+91.~'{~~`+~ ~iF' A. ✓ a~Pi « ~.i
HJ 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed
by their authorized officers thereon the day and the year first above written.
s
a,
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS
l
is
By: Jeff A. Moseley By: ,l
r..
Denton County Judge
Acting on behalf of and by authority }
of the Denton County Commissioners Court
Approved as to content:
yr
Director of Purchasing tir k
r r•
1
Approved as to form:
~r
~ l!
Assistant District Attorney
Pi
I'tw a r r
~pc~t,1
~ PrYN~~ T
~ i
r
,
4
kF Y. '
SQr ~r?vi~4. _
r4,~
P-%00" dr C0 -m *PQ Y k
4
rn ~~k l.if I~ r
.
1997 is trot Vehicles
[lid #10-961032 Witness
VENDOR - ---•-s Orange Ford Phapott motors, Inc,; Hilltop Ford Marshall Ford Mercury Nkdwle Ford'
MAKENEAR 1997 Ford_ o' lo97 Ford , 1907 Ford 1997 Ford 1998 Ford
- Crown Vlctorfs PC Crown Yictork rown VklOda Cram Vklorle Crown VlctoAl
MODEL ltd wIth Police acka+e DHSS Isle or Poke I lerce or
isf7kt
AL 2
OT 0 6T TbT
DENTON COUNTY'S PRICE for
polkePackage egkdppedvehicle with 516,756.00 $18368.00 $19,539.00 $18,728.00 $19,123.25
manufacturers Standard I t
-r
DELIVERY 60 Date 80.00 De a from Award 8-8 Weeks 90 D 4!• In SIoCk
ma a emeSe
VENDOR Texas Motors Ford Visage Ford VWege Ford • Wage Ford' FMe Star Ford
of Levrisvine of Lewh l svilN.
MAKE 1997 Ford 1997 Ford 1996 Ford 1998 Ford 1997 Ford
Crown Victoria Cram Vktorle Cram Vidods Crown Vldods Crown
MODEL Police fn x +
DENTON COUNTY S PRICE for
police package equipped vehicle with $18,761.00 $18,398.00 $18,273.50 $18,937.00 $18,381.00
manufaclurefa standard equipment
• I DELIVERY ESL 4 months 901 BO D 25 Oe 2.5 Days 90 to 180 E&L Days
Ahemate
VENDOR Fhre Star Ford 8111 Utter Ford 'Does not nest spedball".
• MAKEIYEAR 1997 Fad 1997 Fora •
Crown Vklorls Crown Victoris
MODEL
DENTON COUNTY'S PRICE for
ponce package equipped vehicle with $18,523.00 $20,450.00
manufacturers standard equiparoni _
- I
DELIVERY 90 to 180 Est. DO" . _ 80.120 D s
t' t a dt^ 4 '
nh:
y
J
L
i~
t
St"~
ij(eV'. 3p,r~iti .5~4
Tom, here is a fist of recommendation for cptions on equipment we have received bids on.
MICE CARS:
~l
A total of 13 police cars with a base price of S 18,366 need to he white with cloth front
seats and vinyl rear bench seats and have the following options:
• Traction lock $81
• Power locks $75
• Driver controlled locks $8
• Radio suppression $60 '
• Aux, fuse block $35
• 6 way power seat $320
• Left spot light $140
• Inoperative courtesy light switch $8
• Floor mats $29
• Roof wiring $43
Total after all options S19.165
FIRE CHIEF CAR
The fire chief car needs to be beige with cloth front and rear seats. The front seats are to
y.
be bucket seats. The base cost is $18,366. The following options are also needed
• Traction lock S81
• Cruise control $147
k
• Power locks $73
• Radio suppression $60 '
AmIFm cassette radio $175 Wt
-011 1
1 • 6 way power seat $320
• Floor teats front and rear $29
w
'r TOTAL, COST S19.233
' tl I ~~4 ` ~ • '
w ,
4
f 4
or,
t
i
7 gf i
A e,
~ r d
(1
mks-,,'~ jJ x rr.
Y
Y!
4
tlnl I.1 L f
. . . ..i. ,..,o.~r«.asa...Yrisc.".iW.iliaslGtJh+INWP1e5{ASNBQBAM Q wr -
Agenda N)._-!_07
Agenda item 19 2b
Data r/
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor Miller and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT RESOLUTIONS
r
RE-OMM%NDATION: It is our recommendation that City council approve
the tvio attached resolutions for interlocal ambulance service to
the -ities of Corinth and Lake Dallas.
SUMhhRY: This is an annual interlocal agreement providing for the
continuation of emergency medical services to the small cities
t withi-i our service area.
BACKGROUND: The resolutions for interlocal ambulance service to
the cities of Argyle, Corinth, Lake Dallas, Ponder, Sanger, Hickory
Creek, Krum and Shady Shores began in 1980. The revisions to
population are being made based on the 1996 North Texas Council of
Government population figures.
s'
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: No other programs or
departments are affected, however, without this agreement we would
have to stop service to the small cities.
FISCAL IMPACT: This will comprise approximately 10% of our total
EMS Revenue for this fiscal year.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
i
a
Ts Benav des , , .
City Manager
Prepared by: r
1
mes R. Thomason
eputy Fire Chief
• " . i~~ ~ "h '~'~~-A~,~4FW3 ~~~~2r a'~` y r~~~~',Sy.~ ~KAh ~.~,i1'~.
r
,
r♦ r.
-
r + 1
y
r
w r°.
L: ~AlOUI~JIC.6mt Y
Agenda No.-_!1=1040
Agenda Item
Dats
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION :.PROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF LAKE DALLAS FOR AMBULANCE
SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton hereby
approves an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of
Lake Dallas for ambulance services, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and the Mayor is
hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION Ii. That this resolution shall become effective immed-
iately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
j APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: j
• i HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
y+ =r ~ 7
BY:
t'; r
4I
+
MA • k„5 ,y C; YtlY air i~~ $ ~r-( R iL~ F 1 t.
A 'i ' yyy
•
a.\3akeEa ll.k
AGREEMENT FOR AMBULANCE sERVICE
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
THE CITY OF LAKE DALLAS
Recitals ,
The City of Denton currently provides emergency medical ser-
vices to the citizens of Denton. The City of Lake Dallas would
like to contract with the City of Denton to receive emergency
medical services for its citizens. Pursuant to Chapter 774 of the
TEX. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE (Vernon 1992) and the Interlocal
Cooperation Act, TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 5791.001, et agg., (Vernon
1994), a city may contract to provide emergency medical services to
the county or another city.
~4F~II~
This Agreement is made rn the day of ,
199_, between the City of Denton, Texas ('Denton"), and The City
of Lake Dallas ("Lake Dallas").
The parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Emergency Medical Services or $.MS. means
personnel and ground transportation vehicles used to respond to an
individual's perceived need for immediate medical care and to pre-
vent death or aggravation of physiological or psychological illness
or injury.
2. Denton to Provide EMS to Lake Dallas. Denton shall
provide emergency medical services to Lake Dallas in response to
requests for emergency medical services in accordance with this
Agreement. All requests for emergency medical services for persons 1
residing in the corporate limits of Lake Dallas shall be com-
municated to Denton in the manner specified by Denton.
3. Discretion in Providing E.M.B. Lake Dallas understands
that Denton must also respond to requests for emergency medical
• services for persons in Denton and that Denton has other cont:a,~ta 4 •
to provide emergency medical services to other entities. Denton
`.I shall have the sole right and discretion, without being in breach ,
of this Agreement and without liability to Lake Dallas, to
determine:
ti,
r
•
:.r
(a) Whether or not to respond to a request for medical
emergency service;
(b) Whether and when personnel or egvipmept are available
to respond to a request for emergency medical service;
(c) The order is which to respond to a request for emergen-
cy medical service; and
(d) The time in which to respond to a request fDr emergency
medical service.
i. Service Fee. In consideration for providing emergency medi-
cal services to Lake Dallas, Lake Dallas agrees to pay to Denton an
annual sum during each year of this Agreement determined by multi-
plying the population in Lake Dallas by Five Dollars and Seventy-
five Cents (3,750 x $5.75). The population figure used ehall be
that contained in the latest edition of the North Central Texas
Council of Government's Regional Directorv. The annual payment
shall be paid to Denton in equal quarterly payments on or before
October 1, January 1, April 1, and July 1, of each annual term.
Denton may, after giving prior notice, suspend service to Lake
Dallas during any period of time Lake Dallas is delinquent in the
payment of any undisputed service fee.
5. Patient Charges. In addition to the service fee paid by
Lake Dallas, Denton may charge and collect from persons provided
emergency medical services, the patient fees established by ordi-
nance of Denton.
6. Governmental Immunity Not Waived. Neither Denton or Lake
Dallas waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or
defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims made
or arising from any act or omission resulting from this Agreement.
7. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be in one year incre-
ments, beginning on October 1, 1996 and continuing to September 30
of the following year and thereafter from year to year until termi-
nated in accordance with this Agreement.
•
S. Terminationf Default. Either party may terminate this Agree- i
ment at any time without cause by giving ninety (90) days advance
notice in writing to the other, specifying the date of termination.
:f either party breaches a provision of this Agreement, the other -
party shall give the defaulting party written notice of the de-
fault. Should the defaulting party fail to correct the default
• within thirty days of the date notice of default is sent, the other • •
party may declare the Agreement terminated. Lake Dallas shall be
liable to Denton pro rata for the payment of emergency medical ser-
vices provided up to the date of termination.
A
9. Notices. All notices sent under this Agreement shall be
mailed, postage prepaid, to the respective addresses, as follows:
3 I
%
%
' t. t 'sly ppi- t
fir) , ,t
r; , t i II i; a c, 1 rid •u' • N
tr,
,
To Denton: To Lake Dallas:
City Manager Mayor
City of Denton City of Lake Dallas
215 E. McKinney P. O. Box 386
Denton, Texas 76201 Lake Dallas, Texas 75065 ;
10. Agreement Not for Beaafit of Third Parties. This Agreement
is not intended and stall not be construed to be for the benefit of
any individual or create any duty on Denton to any third party.
i 11. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this
Agreement
except upon the prior mitten consent of the other.
EXECUTED on the day of , 199.
}
CITY OF DENTON$ TEXAS
s y~'
BY:
JACK MILLER, MAYOR r !.i
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
Y"
BY:
,tS
1
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: x
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
t
rd{~r.r
BY:
rod
I} CITY OF LAKE DALLAS
BY: _ t
ATTEST:
t
BY:
SECRETARY
-
• v
r
f i i 4` ' ' i y r'r)• ~.vr ~'ti~r.-.1JriV... i.. . a+w•• np/I WrMCYU-Y.V-MYAW rwY(M~ti{ .wr~r ~ r Q
~w+ouuwe.ow Agenda No. / T bb
Agenda Item 20
Date
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF CORINTH FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
[ THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
s •
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton hereby
approves an agreement between the City of Denton and the City of
} Corinth for ambulance services, a copy of which is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein, and the Mayor is hereby
authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City.
aECTION Ii. That this resolution shall become effective immed-
iately upon its pa3sage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
k APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
• HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
• • to ~ • •
Z°7,
'~`'ti H('7~Y ~'Y 4~f~`l;. ~A i • PrC y y~,
• ~1erw • tinrriu~nriYYAUiI~IMrlYlllillrll.~81~I • 4"+1''~'T ~ t~,s „f ~~~Y ~ +r+~t'~g4 ~ 2.9~~~s~-t'T~r.
F. \Cog IM. K
AGREDW4T FOR AMBULANCE BERVICB
SBTNEEN THB CITY OF DENTON AND
THE CITY OF CORINTH
Recitals
The City of Denton currently provides emergency medical ser-
vices to the citizens of Denton. The City of Corinth would like to
contract with the City of Denton to receive emergency medical ser-
vi^es for its citizens. Pursuant to Chapter 774 of the TEX. HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE (Vernon 1992) and the Interlocal Cooperation Act,
TEX. GOVT CODE ANN. 5791.001, et sea., (Vernon 1994), a city may
contract to provide emergency medical services to the county or
another city.
Agreement
This Agreement is made on the day of ,
199_, between the City of Denton, Texas ('Denton"), and The City
of Corinth ("Corinth").
The parties agree as follows:
1. Definitions. Emergency Medical Services or E.M.S. means
pereonnel and ground transportation vehicles used to respond to an
individual's perceived need for immediate medical care and to pre-
vent death or aggravation of physiological or psychological illness
or injury.
2. Denton to Provide BUS to Corinth. Denton shall provide
emergency medical services to Corinth in response to requests for
emergency medical services in accordance with this Agreement. All
requests for emergency medical services for persons residing in the
corporate limits of Corinth shall be communicated to Denton in the
manner specified by Denton.
3. Discretion in Providing E.N.B. Corinth understands that
• Denton must also respond to requests for emergency medical services
for persons in Denton and that Denton has other contracts to pro-
vide emergency medical services to other entities. Denton shall
have the sole right and discretion, without being in breach of this
I Agreement and without liability to Corinth, to determine:
(a) Whether or not to respond to a request for medical t
• emergency service; •
J (b) Whether and when personnel or equipment are available
to respond to a request for emergency medical service; '
(c) The order is which to respond to a request for emergen-
cy medical service; and
2 r
tin~exW+ +a. ~
i
f _
(d) The time in which to respond to a request for emergency
medical service.
4. Service Fee. In consideration for providing emergency medi-
cal services to Corinth, Corinth agrees to pay to Denton an annual
sum during each year of this Agreement determined by multiplying
the population in Corinth by Five Dollars and Seventy-five Cents
(4,350 x $5.75). The population figure used shall be that
contained in the latest edition of the North Central Texas Council
of Government's Regional Directory. The annual payment shall be
paid to Denton in equal quarterly payments on or before October 1,
January 1, April 1, and July 1, of each annual term. Denton may,
after giving prior notice, suspend service to Corinth during any
period of time Corinth is delinquent in the payment of any
undisputed service fee.
5. Patient Charges. in addition to the service fee paid by
Corinth, Denton may charge and collect from persons provided emer-
gency medical services, the patient fees established by ordinance
of Denton.
6. Governmental Immunity Not Waived. Neither Denton or Corinth
waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any immunity or de-
fense that would otherwise be available to it against claims made
or arising from any act or omission resulting from this Agreement.
7. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be in one year incre-
ments, beginning on October 1, 1996 and continuing to September 30
of the following year and thereafter from year to year until termi-
nated in accordance with this Agreement.
9. Termination) Default. Either party may terminate this Agree-
ment at any time without cause by giving ninety (90) days advance
notice in writing to the other, specifying the data of termination.
If either party breaches a provision of this Agreement, the other
party shall give the defaulting party written notice of the de-
fault. Should the defaulting party fail to correct the default
within thirty days of the date notice of default is sent, the other
party may declare the Agreement terminated. Corinth shall be
liable to Denton pro rata for the payment of emergency medical ser-
vices provided up to the date of termination,
9. Notices. All notices sent under this Agreement shall be
? mailed, postage prepaid, to the respective addresses, as follows:
To Denton: To Corinth: 1 1
City Manager Mayor
City of Denton City of Corinth
215 E. McKinney 2003 South Corinth Street
Denton, Texas 76201 Corinth, Texas 76205
PAGE 2
e
~11
)
, . a fu L),~ ~J~ +~'T k ~La
• n l; f„ f ~ ~ ra Y} ~ L,a ~ f of ~ ~ °.:T f 42
,
i
1
.'r "J. rye ~ 1 4 Et'Y'~2 ro~ :-a:
. .._~~_.`...~.....~..r.....w..s..as.....www...r.u.w.. .~.M..u^ ............~~-..a_..:.~a~t ~.,x.. i~. ,
10. Aigrawat Not for Banef!t of Third Parties. This Agreement
is not intended and shall not be construed to be for the benefit of
any individual or create any duty on Denton to any third party.
11. Assignsont. Neither party shall assign this Agreement
except upon the prior written consent of the other.
EXECUTED on the day of , 199.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
{
I BY:
I JACK MILLER, MAYOR
i
t
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
CITY OF CORINTH
s
d BY: a a ~
• 7 AYOR
ATTEST: .y v y ,J
• BY: {j0~ ~,aAi,~,~ •
S MTdARY f c3 ~ti'S
1~7(Ag' ~
PAGE 3 ""Nµ11M11N~
i, y ?~p~k' "y. ~iy' F~, *~1~11. y~.3 e •i1r~ ~yy'.. F: ~ ~r.c ~I~ti,~WY <V
r'~ai~y rv.1' - rJv G r~A Y ~dy J ~ F~ M hF"~y
r
jai
Agenda Ro. '7 7- 00Agenda Ile
Date
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
DATE: January 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing and ; stablishing temporary
agriculture "A" zoning district classification on a 11.24 acre tract located south of
Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. (A-74)
BEQMMENDATION:
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. (6.0)
SUMMARY&
The annexation ordinance included in attachment #1 will annex and establish temporary
agriculture "A" zoning district classification on a 11.24 acre tract located south of Robinson
Road and east of Nowlin Road, being a tract of land in the Berry Merchant Survey, Abstract
#800. The tract is shown on site map included in attachment #2. Following a petition from the
land owner to annex the subject tract, the City initiated annexation proceedings and the required
public notices were published in the Denton Record Chronicle.
The owners of the subject tract, Timberglen Company has also petitioned the City for the zoning
of the tract to residential single family "SF-7" zoning district classification upon the completion
of the annexation process.
The City will provide municipal services to the site in accordance with a service plan which is
included in the annexation ordinance. The service plan summarizes the city's policies with
regard to the extension of water and waste water services to the site. A map showing existing
water and waste water lines at that location is included in attachment #3.
City Charter requires six out of seven affirmative votes of the City Council to approve the
annexation ordinance.
BACKGROUNDo
r {
City Council received a reportwith regard to the proposed annexation on October 22, 1996 and v
directed staff to proceed. On November S, 1996, City Council approved a schedule setting the
dates and times for public hearings (attachment #4). City Council held a public hearing on
December 3, 1996 and no one spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation. The Planning
and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on December 11, 1996 and voted 6.0 to
recommend approval, City Council held a second public hearing on December 17, 1996 and
l
,
t'
',t .s 1~~} • ~„r i. : . ..,:~t' J
6dT~4 ~1 f++~FG Y,~.Yt'^, t•,tf
rc . rft d
%A
r.4" 1~
•
_..c.waas~'IYyt,a4SW~lYtYYM+MnVlia w~+w•..+....tiLw1.+w,..r.+.. S.
again no one spoke in opposition.
PROGRAMS DEPARTM) NTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
All city service departments including Police, Fire and EMS, Engineering, Utilities, Solid Waste,
Parks and Recreation, Library, Planning and Development, Animal Control and Environmental
Health.
FISCAL, IMPACT:
There is no additional cost to the City at least in five to ten years, as infrastructure needs will be
addressed by the developer and City departments will extend services using existing budget
resources. The tract has a current appraised value of $34,650 allowing for an estimated $183 i .
of tax revenue per year if no development occurs.
A fiscal impact calculation using the per capita method, shows that the City will culler: a total of
579,656 in tax revenues and expend $62,205 for municipal services with a net gain of $17,451
over a ten year period 1998-2007 if development is implemented as planned..
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
ed Benavides
City Manager
Prepared by:
~ . ~a..t~.ot..
Harry N. ersaud, MRTPI, AICP
Senior Planner
Approved:
Rick Svehla
y' Deputy City Manager f
kk ATTACHMENTS* ~
1 ~ r 5
(1) Annexation ordinance
(2) Site map , • r
(3) Map showing existing water and sewer lines
(4) Annexation schedule
(5) P &L Minutes
2
+ue..-.:. ` y .I ~~y~ ^ i ~ ~ S,i~.Y 4, , '.F ~.~14 ~n..yG '6 . y ~I.li 162V ""1 1
„ c
•
V lord , red
ATTACHMENT 1
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 11.24 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF ROBINSON ROAD AND EAST OF
NOWLIN ROAD; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS "A",
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to extend its City limits
line to include the 11.24 acre tract as described in exhibit "A";
and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on
December 3, 1996, and December 17, 1996, (both days being on or
after the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of
institution of the proceedings) to allow all interested persons to
state their views and present evidence bearing upon this
annexation; and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the
property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at
a meeting of the City Council on January 7, 1997; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in
the official newspaper of the City of Denton after annexation
proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council
taking final action, as required by City Charter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
S,~CTION is That the tract of land described in exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the
City of Denton, Texas.
SE ION II: That the service plan attached as exhibit "B"
and incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of
municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of
this ordinance.
SECTION III: That, pursuant to 535-15 (a) of the code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, the annexed property is
temporarily classified as "A", agricultural district, until
permanent zoning is established by the city council. ti
• SECTION IV: That the City'a official zoning map is amended to
show the temporary "A" agricultural district classification of the
property annexed.
SECTION V: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal
for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion
of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares it to be its
J
}f4 fY' lc }
141 Ft~.(I.4i2r;`{ r,
r.
..I.,. ...w..ufdNC!"uYLx~i[RYrM~`~►MM'wbr~. tir~a....~ ''aZWrr • purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property
described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of
the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City.
If any part of the real property annexed is already included within
the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any
other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's
jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the
territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly
described in this ordinance.
SECTION VI: That any person violating any provision of this
j ordinance relating to the Temporary "A" Agricultural District
shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00.
! Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall
4 constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION VIII That this ordinance shall become effective
F fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City
Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance
to be published twice in the Denton Record Chronicle, the official
E newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1997.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: j
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY '
BY:
a4d . sw.,c=•~.~--- ~i f'r r f,~P ~~AI~+.•:L [~~'rr~ ~r~~r u~~ r)J ♦r~.
f AIf ~
v i•" t U rye 1 'pu •Yi wv'T E... `rY j''4 s'~!°'~rr. j.1JgrrX~,
• r t 0. '.Sr q~4 .4r4• 41'+
O-Z
•
it
"EXHIBIT A"
ALL that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of
Denton, State of Texas, being part of the Berry Merchant Survey, Abstract Number
800 and being a portion of that 441.7629 acre tract of land described by deed to
Oakmont Canadian Land Partners, Ltd., ns recorded in Denton County Clerk's File
Number 94-R0003975 of the Real Property Records of Dmton County, Texas and
being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a point for the southwest comer of Robinson Road (80' ROW)
dedicated to the City of Corinth, Denton County, Texas by plat recorded in Cabinet
E, Slide 278 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas and the most easterly
northwest corner of the before mentioned 441.7029 acre tract;
THENCE South 03' 39'461 West with a west line of said 441.7629 acre tract a
distance of 1275.48 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE South 03° 05'30* West with a west line of said 441.7629 acre tract a
distance of 176.33 feet to a point for corner, said point lying on the Denton-Corinth
Agreement line and said point lying on the present Denton City Iimit tine
established by Ordinance 7446;
THENCE North 86° 55'29" West a distance of 10 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, said point lying on the present Denton City limit line established by
Ordinance 78-28, Exhibit "C";
THENCE South 03° 44' 15" West along said present Denton City limit line
(Ordinance 78.28, Exhibit "C") a distance of 719.41 feet to a point for corner, sai, 1
point also being the most northerly northeast corner of a tract annexed by the City
of Denton by Ordinance 85.30;
THENCE North 86° 55'29" West along the north line of said annexation (Ordinance
85-30) a distance of 680.54 feet to a point for corner;
THENCE North 030 44' 15" West with a westerly line of the said 441.7629 acre tract `
a distance of 719.41 feet to a point for comer; '
THENCE South 86° 55'29" East with a northerly line of said 441.7629 acre tract a
distance of 680.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 11.24 acres of -
• land.
.J ,
anne lwpS 11.14.96
i
j ~4
zm=
2, il,
r
1
Exhibit 'Bo
SERVICE PLAN (A-74)
CASE H: A-74
AREA: 11.24 acres
LOCATION: South of Robinson Road and East of Nowlin Road
B. Police Services
1. Patrolling, response to calls, and other routine services will be provided on
the effective date of the annexation, using existing personnel and equipment.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of police services will
be provided to this area as are furnished to comparable areas within the
city.,
B. Fire protection and Emerged Medical Services (EMS)
1. Fire protection and emergency medical services by the present personnel and
present equipment, within the limitations of available water and distances
from existing fire stations, will be provided to this area on the effective date
of the annexation.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the some level of fire and emergency
ambulance services will be provided to this area as are furnished to
comparable areas within the City.
C. Late astenatgr Services
Water and wastewater services will be extended to the property in accordance to
the City's master utility plan and Section 34-118 of the Denton Code of
Ordinances.
• Developers shall pay the actual cost of al water and sewer main extensions, lift
stations and other necessary facilities required to serve their development in
accordance with the City's master utility plan and the Subdivision and Lend
Development Regulations. i
The City may participate in the cost to oversize water and sewer mains subject +
♦ to fund availability and approval of the City Council.
Where water orsewer main extensions, lift stations, force mains or other
necessary facilities are Installed by the developer, the developer shall be entitled
to reimbursement of the cost cf such facilities from pro-rata charges paid by
persons connecting to or using such facilities to serve their property, according
•
i
•
f
to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
D. Solid Waste Collection
1. Solid waste collection will be provided to the property at the some level of
service as available to comparable areas within the City, within 60 days of
the effective date of annexation.
2. As development and construction commence within this prnperty, and
population density increases to the proper level, solid waste collection shall
be provided to this property in accordance with then current policies of the
City as to frequency, charges and so forth.
E. Streets and Roads
1. The City of Denton's existing policies with regard to street maintenance,
applicable throughout the entire City, shall apply to this property beginning
with the effective date of the annexation.
2. Routine maintenance of streets and roads will begin in the annexed area on
the effective date of annexation using the standards and level of service as
currently applied to comparable areas of the City.
3. Reconstruct:cn and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm dr^.inage
facilities, construction of curb cuts and gutters, and other such major
improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the City Council or
Manager, will be accomplished under the established policies of the City.
4. Traffic signals, signage and other traffic control devices will be installed as
the need therefor is established by appropriate study and traffic standards.
1 5. Street and road lighting will be installed in the substantially developed areas
in accordance with the established policies of the City.
• F. Environmental Health and Code Enforcement Services
r
1. Enforcement of the City's environmental health ordinances and regulations
including, but not limited to the grass stud weed ordinance, garbage and
trash ordinance, junked vehicle ordinance, sign ordinance, food handler
ordinance, animal control ordinance, and the tree preservation ordinance
• shall be provided within this area on the effective date of the annexation. • •
These ordinances and regulations will be enforced through the use of existing
personnel.
2. Building, plumbing, electrical, gas, and all other construction codes, as may
be adopted by the City, will be enforced within this area beginning with the
7
1
•
Y
effective date of the annexation. Existing personnel will be used to provide
these services.
3. The City's zoning, subdivision and other ordinances shall be enforced in this
area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
4. All inspection services provided by the City of Denton, but not mentioned
above, will be provided to this area beginning on the effective date of the
annexation. Existing personnel will be used to provide these services.
5. Flood damage mitigation will be provided by existing codes and ordinances
of the City as of the effective date of the annexation.
6. As development and construction commence within this area, sufficient
personnel will be provided to furnish this area with the same level of
environmental health and code enforcement services as are furnished to
comparable areas within the City.
C. Planning and Development Services
The zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to the annexed area on the
effective date of annexation. The tract is to be temporarily zoned Agriculture
(A) zoning district classification at the time of annexation.
I. Parks and Recreation Services
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all recreation facilities, including
parks and swimming pools throughout the City, on the effective date of the
annexation. The some standards and policies now used within the City will be
followed in the maintenance of parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.
J. Electrical Distribution
• Electrical power will be made available to the site as required, at the some level
of service currently being provided to comparable areas within the City.
K. Miscellaneoy=
1. Street names and signs will be installed, if required, approximately six (6)
• months after the effective date of annexation.
~ i
2. Residents of the newly annexed area may use all publicly owned facilities,
buildings or services within the city on the effective date of the annexation. All
publicly owned facilities, buildings or services will be maintained In accordance
with established standards and policies now used in the City.
8 4
.~44wu..rTrwyr.rrw{ •,~„y t.` 1.. 'o ' ! dY 1 ' ~ ~ i ~ nh ~
t ' ~
P, `•Y b~ ~r,I '
r
~ -y
r
,
{
r rp~ fi y F l~ ~ c 1 1 n; I ay F f"" i, y ,t~ i rt# * Y;~ +
I
i
L. Capital Improvements Pr_Qgram (CM
The CIP of the City is prioritized by such policy guidelines as: r'
I
1. Demand for services as compared to other areas will be based on r
characteristics of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude
of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards '
and professional studies.
2. The overall cost-effectiveness of providing a specific facility or service.
The annexed area will be considered for CIP Improvements In the upcoming
CIP plan: This tract will be considered according to the some established
i criteria as all other areas of the City- _ w .
y r .
1k
I l fi,
S
A
7k
#O
c:
r
Y
I 1
w
4k R
°4 •
Him
•
APB
. 'KJ.r'Yi.in\Ii+Y4M,~NV6f~.~l.Y)4,~u tlk:rn.Frvvrr a.rM.ore.~.wnw~.-.~r~.sn.wyw~+.arY.~w~w~~~.-Y~r~~~~.~.~~.
Proposed Annexation
A-74
J f ri ~Y ATTACHMENT
I
ETJ foot i is
- - A-74
SITE
a
City of Corin h
Tj
< < - 1Q of strip In el limits
TT ;
SET` j
-T--- -
twi
Shaded area: inside city limits
1 r~
149
Ia r ' ` s~ y.1 i
•
•
S
Map Showing Existing wefierll"°
Sewer IIm
- Fame mein
Water and Sewer Lines acax«
Indicates and of water line
ATTACHMENT 3
ON ON ROAD t !•✓~~1 t,,,_,~.,
ETJ
ITE --ILI X! 00
j 'I
F
_ •f
y ETIJ I L •S
' ~ _t u~ : ~/,[I/~•~~, _~A ~ j}' ~ III •sf, .~f r^`""'.yl'
t i 1 c~ • cYS ~ . • ~
FU
of
1- 7
rN'M .Y.. V7 Y.
ATTACH 4ENP #4
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE- A74
i October 22, 1996 City Council receives a report and give direction to staff with
regard to the proposed annexation.
c
November 5, 1996 City Council considers approval of a schedule for public hearings.
November 22, 1996 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first public
hearing. Service plan is prepared.
December 3, 1996 City Council holds first public hearing.
December 6, 1996 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second public
hearing.
December 11, 1996 Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing and
considers making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the proposed annexation.
December 17, 1996 City Council holds second public hearing.
January 7,1997 City Council institutes annexation. First Reading of
annexation ordinance.
January 10, 1996 Publication of Annex,:iion ordinance in Denton Record Chronicle.
February 18, 1997 Final action by City Council. Second Reading and adoption of
the annexation ordinance.
{ •
Meetings in bold require 6 out of 7 votes at City Council
ri
12
A
n yrx ti` 37. 5'+r ~ 7~ ~ E Y l
y •a 4 ~r Y M1 'Ir#t~~li ~i .('v t •ll Y5 ~ ~~d~oi'~1 ~dM~ h~~~ I ~~Y'~'t'". ,4 r
•
•
• J Y a k ,
&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 5 D A FT1
December 11, 1996
R Page 17
XI. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the
proposed annexation of 11.40 acres located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin Road. (A•74)
Ms. Russell opens, the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: This tract land is located south of Robinson Road and east of Nowlin. The owner of tk..e
tract have applied to the city requesting annexation. The objective is to develop this tract for single
family homes starting sometime next year. :y
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak.
Ms. Amy Homoli My name is Amy Homoly and I am with Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc.
and our address is 5999 Summerside Drive in Dallas. I am here to represent the applicant and answer
any questions that you might have.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? We will close
the public hearing.
J
Mr. Persaud: We had a public hearing before the City Council and no one spoke in opposition. Staff
is seeking a recommendation for the Commission so we can return to Council for the second public
hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend to City Council approval of the proposed annexation of 11.40
acres south of Robinson Road, east of Nowlin Road.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign,
Approved. (6-0)
3
1 <
l~
/3'
r
III III&
•.Y'. uw 0.x ,i y, Jts 1 ~.4 J
' Nk i/. ~ ~ ~~11V ✓ yM h"+ni!.k. :~i~ k ~ ~,0.1..1 ~1 M1 1~.
i
•
qq-
hpenda No.
Apanda (tam
Date
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
DATE, December 9, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: Ordinance Prohibiting Parking on Oak Street
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the ordinance that would provide a proper line of sight for
the residents of the apartment complex at Williams and Oak.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUN_D_L
The owner of the aparLment complex(601 W. Oak) requested that the
parking be removed in front of complex so that the residents who
exit can clearly see the traffic coming westbound on Oak Street.
The traffic normally drives above the posted speed limits of 30 mph
which aggrevates the ability of the residents to see.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Police, Engineering & Transportation Department, residents of the
apartment complex at 601 W. Oak, and traffic on Oak.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $150 for signs.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Ted seavi3'es
City Manager
Prepared by:
t , Je y Clai~k
• Dor cft Engineering and Transportation `
Approved.
Je yCar j
Di for o Engineering & Transportation
i
i
i p
-h 4, Yr. is 'r n °x 1 I v r ny,+ y'6 , 6~ IM r~ Ek✓~7 t>y,+„'~ ~y1. ' ,M'o G F1r
I L2
'M p F rr} l 1 r4
r w.
r
r rr ♦ 11r T1 ' q i
'i . I c ~ Lr Iv ~ 4; 1♦ 1 r N♦ 1
,ar .tr 1i ~ R vt., 1 a . r .r~
~F P } 1 r~ 4 ,Pia ~♦*Ft J,~ui ; . `w~ Y ~ L
1
MEMO
t
To: Ted Benevides, City Manager
From: Jerry Clark, P.E., Director of Engineering and Transportation
1 Subject: No Parking on Oak Street Near Williams
Date: December 10, 1996
J
This request from W. James Russell is to prohibit puking in front of his apartment complex at
601 W. Oak. The residents as they exit encounter a line of sight problem especially when larger
vehicles like pickup trucks or vans am parked along the frontage. The no parking request is only t
I W tong and eliminates 2 or 3 spam where some office workers in the area an now parking. t
The businesses and apartments are required to have adequate parking on site.
Can traveling westbound on Oak are usually above the speed limit of 30 mph which aggravates
the fine of sigh problem. Traffic Safety has reviewed this request and approved it after a staff a.
S
recommendation that it was needed and reasonable..
F
i 1
„
~A
,
• r r
F Y~
i ljro 7'•
~F
28 Y'7!5~ r TT y
a.
J<
~ ~ ~u~jfa 1r !y r 1y tr ` y .pV
~ ;oaf ri
r r r
1JV*4
}
...nw1t+lrl+btbwlal"'' V ~ h `+.~.«i..r+..a....:...~~+ l~:.{.~'.._~:~ y~ t : p u1.+..5.i ~ ♦rl
TSC Memo
October 24, 1996
page 3
ITEM #3 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PRORISITING PARKING ON
THE SOCK SIDE OF OAK STREET STARTING AT THE WEST CUR? OF
WILLIAMS A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO E WEST:
This request is by the owners of the apartments located
at 601 West Oak street. The line of sight for the cars
coming out of the driveway of the apartments is
obstructed when care park between the drive and Williams
Street. This is most likely to be true when those cars
are large pickup trucks, vans and the other taller, wider
vehicles.
R:
As with most of our roads in Denton, speeding above the
posted speeds is normal on Oak Street. Most of the
traffic in the area is heading to UNT, or businesses in
the UNT area and are usually in a hurry. This request is
to limit parking in front of an apartment house which is
s positive in that it shows the on site parking is adequate
for residents and guests. Site visits have confirmed that „
there were normally several spaces available.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal to develop an
ordinance that would prohibit parking on the south side
of Oak Street from the west curb of Williams street a
distance of 100' to the west.
tf
i
5
r
i
y ~Y
ASSO07RD
2 b
Ar~ti tiA P 1 I '1
. .,n: ~ 1 i r 9 ~i,l . ~ v '~~t•4 ~yS't'~Fr ar~d ~r!Y li
• .r r '•F..: Jr ' is {y,nt,r. 1..$aY - x , , ~i~ ^c r i'l
All
,
, I.
.
I - ~ yti:l Y rr~ ~~k~s r~r➢'7rS• ~'r ..v
.
r
TSC Minutes
November 4th, 1996
page 7
ITEM 13 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE '
SOUTH SIDE OF OAR STREET STARTING AT THE WEST CURB OF WILLIAMS
STREET A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET TO THE WEST:
Clark said Mr. Russell who requested this is here tonight and
you may wart to get his input. Basically, this is a line-of-
eight issue. He owns the property and is willingly asked for
removal of parking. It shown he has enough onsite parking and
isn't lacking for parking spaces. This should help the line-
of-sight triangle and staff recommends approval.
Hill asked, how much parking takes place in that area right
now? Clark said it's about 100 feet and part of that is ir.
the corner, at least four spaces. Hill asked if they are used
very much right now. Clark said the spaces are used
occasionally. The problem occurs when you have a big truck or
van parked there. Hill asked are they being used. Clark said
staff has observed them constantly parked there.
Russell came forward to address Hill's concerns. He said the
space is actually for two cars in front of the apartments.
when his tenants come out of the driveway making a left turn
to the north, traffic is so fast and heavy they can't see when
vehicles :re parked there. The next block, the attorneys
office, bas a nice hedge around it which also obstructs the
view. If cars park west of their driveway, tenants have to
awing out even further into the street. They have some older
tenants and this is difficult for them.
Hobdy asked if they had an exit onto Williams street. Russell
said yes. There is a small exit on the back on Williams
street. It's very narrow.
Bacon asked who usually parks there. Russell said he really
doesn't know. It seems like there has been more parking there
since they built that nice building across the street. They -
tore down an old building and built a nice office building.
More cars have started parking there since then.
;cc STAFF RECOMMENDED: Approval
Y
COMMiS3iONERS: 5awko made P. motion to approve the no parking at this _
section. Hobdy seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
1
4 r "
y.
AES007CO
2 b
r A
r L'\Y E~.4; Z~ fir ! ~/G p.~ M 11 ' 4
+>y,i V,A pS',. ~ 'ta I•:f' ~'a .,~r ~ 7' C 4r;` r ° ~ r~Y CAS ~~i eS
i•,
. , Y ~ ~ ~ ' ~S'~Z Y ~ r ~ S ~ Y ~~L~ ,~~yn~(,~"lu ,.p ~al~♦Z~~~
na~A'12~..T
.~'S3l'.
Y '
? 5~ 3 01996
September 23, 1996
f,
%
a
Mr. Jerry Clark
Traffic Safety Commission
City of Denton
221 North 61m
Denton, Texas 76201
F Y
Dear Mr. Clark:
We own an apartment house at 601 Rest Oak and we would like to have
no parking designated In front of the apartments. Cars park east
of our drive, between the drive and Williams Street, and this
obstructs the view of cars traveling west on west Oak when leaving
the drive.
Yours truly,
4 amen Russell
A. O. Box 11
Denton, Texas 76202
817-382-808J
r ,
1 Y
L
t ,
YY
11
S
2 b t
~r9 i;° . d• ♦ yg-.q y~{,,~Y, j ^ Si~~~♦Tn ~ ~"~YV~YI~?•E S1~ ~;Z r P'a +'+r~
:1. 't:~t.'♦, .,Y .4`itk!_~`G~AY i •.~.3'"iCiA'27
•
J:\MPD0CS10RD\X0PRR0M.CRD
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS PROHIBITING PARKING ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF OAK STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST
CURBLINE OF WILLIAMS STREET AND CONTINUING WEST FOR 100 FEET;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSF;;
PROVIDING A F2i:i1ZY NOT TO EXTEED TWO HGNDRED DOLLARS; PNL
DECLARING AN EFFECT::VE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF rHE CITY OT., DENTON HFRRRY vRi +TNS,
SECTION I. When sigr,s or markings are in place giving notice
thereof, no person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the
following street 14 the City of Denton:
The south side of Oak Street beginning at its intersection with
the west curbline of Williams Street and continuing west for
100 feet.
SECTION II. The provisions of Section I prohibiting the
parking of vehicles shall apply at all times to the designated
portion of the above named street or streets except when it is
necessary to stop a vehicle to avoid conflict with other traffic or
in compliance with the direction of a police officer or official
traffic control device.
SECTION III. That all provisions of the ordinances of the City
of Denton in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed, and all other provisions of the ordinances of the
City of Denton, not in conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION IV. That if any provision of this ordinance or
application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid,
such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applica-
tions, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are
severable.
•
SECTION V. Any person adjudged guilty of parking a vehicle in
violation of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and J
punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00).
SECTION V1. That this ordinance shall become effective
fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City {
• secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance
to be published twice in the Denton-Record chronicle, the official
newspaper of the Cary of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
2 c
0
}
t
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996. r
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
i
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
i
BY:
I
1
L i
to
k ,
2 C i r
r
r~T ~
LZA
❑ o
❑ a
C:j
AM,
a~ .
0
NO, CARROLL BLV
• _
PINER
z a IL=~f
• _ac.__ RRrK 0w~^'IkN v i4 S~ t'I+'{Yrr*h`~F~yh,{1; KK((i?{/~~Ri
pw-
a.
111
Agenda Item
~J_~~~~~
tkte_'~T-~"r
I
DATE: January 7, 1997
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager
SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO AUDIT COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends appointment of a Council Member to the Audit
Committee to replace outgoing Council Member Krueger.
SUMMARY: The Audit Committee is made up of the Mayor, two council members, City
Manager, Execotive Director of Finance and the Internal Auditor. The mission of the Audit
Committee is to oversee the integrity of the City's financial reporting, governance and internal
controls. They accomplish this oversight through the external and internal auditors.
The Audit Committee approves the long range strategic plan and annual budget of the Internal
Auditor. They are also responsible for making recommendations concerning the external
auditor, the annual audited financial reports, management letter, and City management
responses. Several major activities take place in January of each year.
Current Council Members on the Committee are Mayor Jack Miller and Council Member David
Riles. A vacancy has been created with the resignation of Jeff Krueger.
PROGRAMS, DEPARW-INTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: NIA
Respectfully submitted:
ed Benavides
City Manager
P~md by: F 5wm Cro11, Yo to,
ADvmd by:
i If't)p M Dlneta of FMr c~ "
AFFD013E 4
ry r m
~h.
r
- 1 F Y-, ) L e Ri ; 4 f ~,y
Agenda No.
Agenda Item
. Date 1 r
CfTY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL 90LOINi4 DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TELEPHONE 817,566.8309
oNtce of ft City Secretary
1a MEMORANDUM
t DATE: January 3, 1997
Tv: • ,ayor and Members of the City Council
r
FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
i
{ SUBJECT: Board/Commission Appointments
The following is a list ov current Board/Commission
vacancies/nominations: ;
Cable T. V. Advisory Board - Joe Dodd has resigned. This is a
nomination for Mayor Pro Tem Brock.
if you require any further informati)n, please let me know.
i
e a tern
jty Se atary
y
ACCOOOF4
r
i
r
`Dedieau?toQuatirySnvke" k f ~
i 1 ' e r'
'%,:9'~"'S"a ?%r .•".'~T'" >~~jt 5~tx~~~rr d4"~;i ~`tV~S ~i~i;
' v6
j
~ ~ ~ f Xg' r ra,'w '341: r`'~i. 't~Jr.~~na~)i41, r.+~Y~arYD~F',~.+r~Q~R:d4. rk„r dt.'!
...,.i..., .^~s..r2:v»wsuwwwrrrRM~M _ 4dIVFiYe• w-.1.1
1
n r ~ }
W'
• 5
•`V4 r .
r • ,
END
i
r r .fit `
OF,
FILE
I
r a ' r a ~ `
a S
Q.:
~ r t4 r
• 1 r,
R , • r
1 r,'
! ~i r
lP . •
r 11
A, F
7q§ .qe~ rfl'S~'~rk°~ Y~'lx .~lr~.<