Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-04-1997
• • City Council Agenda Packet March 4 1997 • • ti S , ix. • AGENDA Awda No 1-010. - CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL _ March 4, 1997 Agenda Item Date Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 4, 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 CITYCOUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTOCLOSED MEETING AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM FOR WHICH IT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. 1. Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551,072 C. PersonrellBoard Appointments Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Consider and discuss evaluatioas, duties and conditions of work of Municipal Judge, City Attorney and First Assistant City Attorney. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March 4, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: I. Pledge of Allegiance A. U.S. Flag B. Texas Flag "Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." 2. Consider approval of the minutes of January 7, January 14, and January 15, 1997. 1 3. Resolution of appreciation for John Robinson. 4. Request :or an exception to the Noise Ordinance and Street Closure for REZ Week Activities on Thursday, April 3, 1997 until 12:00 midnight. r CITIZEN REPORTS " 5 Dessie Ga,~dson regarding general issues concerning the City of Denton. • 6. Iarry Muller anJ Mr. Mess regarding city-wide clean up April 12, 1997. • O 7. Gary Tetreault regarding flooding problems in Denton. i 0 PON Hill • City of Denton City Council Agenda March 4, 1997 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Hold a public hearing and give direction to staff with regard to the proposed annexation of a 286.57 acre tract located north of Brush Creek Road and east of Highway 377. (A- 75) 9. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving modifications to the Flood Prevention and Protection Regulations, Chapter 30 of the Code of Ordinances. 10. Hold a public hearing 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, approximately 500 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) 11. Consider adoption of 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, approxima;ely 500 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning and 7oning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) VARIANCES 12. Exaction variances to Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks and Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage channel lining. This 50.0 acre tract is located on the west side of Masch Branch Road, north of University Drive. (Marriott Gardens Addition) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-0.) 13, Exaction variances to Section 34-116(e) concerning water capacity for fire flow; and Section 34-116(c) concerning fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A, of the Brazeel Addition. This 5 acre tract is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 377, north of Country Club Road at the city limits line. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-0,) 14. Exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks for Denton Country Club • Estates. The subject property is in the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district and is located southeast of the intersection of U.S. Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road. (The r Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) 15. Exaction variance of Section 34.114(11) concerning cul-de-sac length. The subject ` property is in the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district and is located southeast of the • intersection of U.S. Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road. (The Planning and Zoning ® • Commission recommends approval 5-1.) 16. Exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design standards. The subject property is in the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district and is located southeast of the intersection U.S. Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) s • City of Denton City Council Agenda March 4, 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 authorizzs the City Manager or his designee to implement each itern in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment under the Ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back-up information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items 17-28). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw au item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda items 17-28 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 then be considered before approval of the Consent Agenda. 17. Tax refund to Title Resources for Henry Rife in the amount of $868.67. 18. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #1996 - Overcurrent Relays) 19. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #2004 - Annual Distribution Transformers) 20. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #2010 - Water Treatment Chemicals) 21. Ordinance accepting a competitive sealed proposal and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (Bid #1914 - CIS Utility Billing Study (Phase 11)) • 22, Ordinance accepting a competitive sealed proposal and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. (RFSP #1966 - Utility ` r Management Study) 23. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. (Bid # 1999 - South Central Sidewalk Repair) 24. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. (Bid #2000 - Sequoia Park Sidewalk Repair) 25. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or service, (Bid #2011 - Mowing, Trash Removal and Erosion Control) C" ~ - • City of Denton City Council Agenda March 4, 1997 Page 4 26. Ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. (P.O. #73327 - AMS Pump & Supply $15,117.00) 27. Ordinance authorizing the expenditure of funds for the first quarter 1997 payment by the City of Denton for solid waste permit fee with Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissicn. 28. Resolution providing that the City Manager shall exercise the City's right to terminate the agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the YL Roses of Texas Repeater Associaticn. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 29. Ordinance directing the issuance and publication of Notice of Sale of City of Denton General Obligation Bonds. 30. Ordinance amending Sections 28-61 and 28-62 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas; adopting the 1996 Edition for the National Electrical Code with local amendments. (The Electrical Code Board recommends approval.) 31. Ordinance approving the release of paving liens assessed against homestead by Ordinance No. 61-16 relating to the property commonly known as 1904 Whipporwill, Denton, Texas. 32. Consider nominations lappointments to City Boards and Commissions. 33. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 34. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items: A. Legal Matters • B. Real Estate C. Personnel i D. Board Appointments j 35. New Business • This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future 'agendas. • - r • Cr • • • City of Dei.ton City Council Agenda March 4, 1997 Page 5 36. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOV'T 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 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 , 1997 at _ o'clock (a.m.) (p.m,) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1S ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING I-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. ACC0036F • • 9 0/ AgnNUr IJd.-, ApenQa Ilem~ CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Date 7 January 7, 1997 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 7, 1997 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Ceancil considered the following in a Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 7, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags. 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of October 15, October 22 and October 23, 1996. Young motioned, Biles seconded to approve the minutes as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Miller presented the Yard of the Month Awards to: Residential Awards - Neith and Tammy Jeffries • Mrs. Pearl Wooton Business Awards - E. V. Scott Downtown Award - Dale and Charlotte Irwin NOTE: Council Member Cott requested that Item 03 be transcribed verbatim. • 3. Citizen Reports • • J Mayor Miller - the first citizen report is a report from Mickey George regarding a neighborhood concern. A. The Council received a report from Mickey George regarding a neighborhood concern. i • i City of Denton city council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 2 Mr. George - I would like to thank the Council for the opportunity to be here tonight - City Manager, City Secretary. I'm going to be speaking tonight on a concern that has to do with the extended hours ordinance. It's an ordinance that was passed last January and my report has to do with research and my discussions with many people in the bureaucracy, city citizens, neighbors, the University of North Texas that I have had the opportunity to deal with in the past year. And whenever I started out on this quest, I was pretty vague about what I was going to be finding and in the process, I've come to be very firm in my belief that the extended hours ordinance should be repealed by the City Council. My question that I have is how do you guide the growth of a city. This is a question that I have that each Council person and bureaucrat in the City who's responsible for directing the growth and direction of a city should consider. I know that this is something that's on your minds because r have spoken with many of you in the past year and I know you are very sincere individuals. Now if you have paid attention to your correspondence over the past year, maybe you will realize that I do not speak alone on this issue. There are many people that share my concern about this. But back to how do you guide the growth of a city and it's a very difficult question and you have to know your city. You have to get out and you have to ask the people. You can't make decisions on your own and you can't really express your own opinions in these things unless you get out and discover what does community mean. And that is people that live together. And whenever you decide this, you will find that they are, that the Denton City City Council, they have experimented this past year with an ordinance and that experiment is now over. It's been a year and when you look at the results of the experiment, you will see chief Jez actually has the evidence is there that you will see that there has been a shift and the times that there have been arrests and disturbances in the neighborhoods and that shift has been moved from 12 to 2 o'clock. Exactly the hours of extended bars whera people can consume alcohol. Those have been extended so the distL:rbancee in the neighborhood have been progressively moved until 2 o'r;lock. That is intolerable in the community, in my neighbu:ho xl. That is intolerable because we are tax paying ` citizens and we don't want to be disturbed in our homes at that hour. Now that is an objective. You know, that is a scientific, if you want to look at this extended ordinance as an experiment, which I do, then that is something you can truly look at and that is very clear. That now also with you will have problems. I do expect the Council to repeal this ordinance and what you will have when you do that is you will still have the problem that those • hours that peak at 12 o'clock will still be there and I do expect, p O you know, the Council to look at that because this experiment to where the hours have been extended that has spotlighted some problems within the community. The community of individuals that live together. Not just exist together and that community that I speak for right now is the University of North Texas and the students there. That are represented by the administration at North Texas, the neighbors in the area of the Fry Street area. I e 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 3 That's the area that I know the best. You know thatts an area that where there is a concern about tho development of bars in that area. And I do feel that the Council should consider us and if they have compassion for those citizens that live in those areas, consider our plea. This is the sacond time this has come up. In 1979 this issue came up and the citizens had to defend themselves in that case. In 1981 the Council responded and they repealed the ordinance. And I stand before you right now with that same request and I have, well I can promise you this, that if, and this isn't a threat or anything, but we have organized and we have petitions and just to save the taxpayers money and the effort of going to the polls, I would really recommend you consider your conscience. Consider what I've said and also all the input that you've gotten from the pastors, from neighborhood associations, business people, and please save us the effort of going to the polls. Lewisville had this same issue come up right down the street. The City Council at ieast had the foresight to throw this issue onto the polls, at least. They did not begin to make the decision on their own and in the polls, as you know, the city, the citizens of Lewisville very adequately spoke their mind in the polls and the ordinance never had the chance to begin to become an experiment. Thank you very much for your time and I appreciate it. Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. George. The next citizen report is from Larry Bailey regarding the late hour alcohol sales. B. Report from Larry Bailey regarding late hour alcohol sales. Mr. Bailey - I am Larry Bailey. Live at 3819 West University. Lived in this city, wonderful city, for approximately about 23 years. I chose this city. I am glad Itm here. I t.ever apologize for it. At this time, I would like to address the Council regarding two, some of my reasons for the repeal of ordinance 96- 014. 1 picked up a copy of it. I have not been able to find any good grandmother who is proud that their grandchildren hanging out in a bar or saloon after 12 midnight. Daytime employers want e employees well rested, sober and good attitudes ready to work. Individuals and families lose their finances hanging around bars, clubs and saloons. I've yet to see a person increase their possibilities of going to heaven or have great success on this earth, drinking alcoholic beverages after midnight. The liquor industry has become rich by enticing our citizens to consume their addicting poison. It advertises in very fancy and appealing ways. 0 They are great salesmen. Like the mafia and undorworld chey have I~ G O ways of getting what they want. My elected city leaders are like dogs on leashes to the liquor industry. With little discussion, operating in the dark of night, no city-wide vote, they vote to give the liquor industry whatever it wants. In return the liquor industry gives campaign contributions, free drinks, parties at their facility, kegs of plenty and money for their elected leaders as needed. It has happened in this group here. The liquor • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 4 industry also promotes taxes because they never pay taxes. The poor suckers who drink the poison pay the taxes and they just pass it on. Thus my city elected leaders have gotten, have wanted, and gotten ordinances passed in the dark of the night, opening bars and saloons until 2 a.m. because it's good for business. The policemen get off duty work trying to maintain some decent order so that the real problems of anger, fight, drunkenness and all that follow that of the produce consumption does not look too bad on the liquor industry. The Dram Shop laws of liability are in effect. The tobacco industry has found out that they have developed their own financial cancer of lawsuits, misery and no fun now. Elected city leaders are to aid and assist the people to have a better life with less misery. I can see the time when lawsuits are filed and possibly won because city leaders encouraged alcoholic consumption after midnight so that they could please the liquor industry and evaded having a full vote of the City voters as to opening up the City of Denton to legal liquor drinking in bars and saloons after midnight. You are aiding and abiding alcoholic misery so that you can get your 30 pieces of silver from the liquor industry. I beg of you to repeal Ordinance 96-014. It has no good redeeming value. Your grandmothers would not be proud of you if they were here tonight or any other time seeing you promoting misery on your fellow citizens. Please help us to defend, please help us who depend upon your good judgement. Do not hurt us. Do what is right and best for the citizens. Repeal Ordinance 96-014. Help decrease legal alcohol drinking after midnight. I'll take any questions if you have any. Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Bailey. The next citizen report is from Anita Bruno regarding late hour alcohol sales. C. Report from Anita Bruno regarding late hour alcohol sales. Ms. Bruno - My name is Anita Bruno. I live at 1004 Stuart, Denton, Texas. Since the late hours ordinance was passed for they City of Denton on January 17, 1996, club, restaurant owners and suppliers have done and will continue to do everything in our power to • promote responsible entertainment for our city and our city's visitors. we understand that the success of the ordinance is to be reviewed at this time. I believe that it has been a success and that the success has resulted in jobs for our community, prosperity for our city and a positive business climate in the City of Denton. No longer are the citizens of Denton going to Dallas or Fort Worth I~ ® for their entertainment. They are staying in Denton. The success O 4D of the ordinance has resulted not only in safer highways between Dallas, Fort Worth and Denton, but also in the city itself. According to Denton Police Chief Jez's statistics for the City of Denton in the last 12 months, alcohol-related citations have dropped 27.21, burglaries have gone down 15.11, party music and other disturbances are down 11.21. DWI arrests are down 5.91. In addition, no alcohol-related 'deaths have been reported between 0 City of Denton city council minutes January 7, 1997 Page 5 either Denton and Dallas, or Denton and Fort Worth for this past year. As cooperative Denton merchants and suppliers, we ha-e come together to urge responsible beverage alcohol consumption. Some of the steps we have taken include more effective signage to encourage our customers to drink responsibly and use designated drivers in every on-premise account. Free cab service to our customers whenever available or provide transportation personally to ensure our customer's safety. My particular locations spend quite a bit of money. We provide cab service Thursday through Saturday night that's free to anyone in Fry Street area. They're there from 11 to 2 o'clock every Thursday through Saturday night and that has been our policy since January of 1996. It began right after the 2 a.m. ordinance was passed. in addition, we worked with the Denton Police Department and the University of North Texas Police to open and operate a police store front at 106 Fty Street on September 13, 1996 to enhance police presence and encourage responsible drinking. And I for one am a huge proponent of that and whether 2 a.m. stays or goes, we definitely want the police down there. We support the store front 100%. Also all of our employee's at my three locations are all TABC certified and it's my understanding that that's pretty much universal throughout the city of Denton. Almost every on- premirae location that I'm familiar with all their employees are TABC certified which means they take a State course that certifies them in alcohol beverage training. I am a Denton resident as well as a club operator. I am also the treasurer of the Fry Street Development Corporation. I believe that we have taken positive steps towards responsible alcohol consumption. Responsible consumption is a constant and continuing effort on everyone's part. It is apparent that everyone is trying to sell and consume alcohol at a more responsible manner each day. You have our pledge and our promise that we will always be cooperative in urging moderation. We will always support stringent enforcement of DWI and underage drinking laws. We greatly appreciate your consideration and we want you to feel free to please call on us if you havo any questions. And thank you for your time. Mayor Miller - Thank you Ms. Bruno. • Council Member Cott - Mayor. With the City Secretary's approval, r would you see whether we may, in this section only, have a literal translation of the, of what is being said versus..... Mayor Miler - Fine. Council Member Cott - Thank you. • O Larry Bailey - I have a printed copy of my remarks. Council Member Cott - Good. Thank you air. f Mayor Miller - The next citizen report is from Mike Reid regarding Fry Street. z' sip$ -d .++a~re+r • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 6 D. Report from Mike Reid regarding Fry Street. Mr. Reid - Appreciate the Council's time on this issue. My name is Mike Reid. I live at 1035 West Oak Street. That's about i~ block east of Fry Street so I am pretty familiar with what gobs on down there. Fry Street is a lot of things to a lot of people. You know, it's a music venue for live acts which is great. Denton has a lot of musical talent. It ought to be exploited or used and enjoyed by the people in Denton. Fry Street's eclectic to say the least. it's folksy, quaint little place that a lot of people in this town remember from 20 years ago when it really was quaint. I'm living a block away now and it's anything but quaint. I'm awakened at least once a week by people screaming obscenities at the top of their lungs at 3 o'clock in the morning. Having fun, having been to these bars. And you know, all the calls to the Police Department for a non-emergency call, there's no response. The people are gone. I call them. They say "OK, ue'll send a squad car out". The people are gone by that time and I'm awakened and I can't go back to sleep now. Fry Street is people mistaking my driveway for a public restroom which I have seen more than once. Fry Street is me having to go out on Thursday or Friday or Saturday morning, picking up all of the broken beer bottles in my yard and then sweeping them up out of the street because the City doesn't come by to do it for me. I'm not against drinking by any means but I don't think we need to be doing it at 2 o'clock in the morning. In a neighborhood where I have to get permission from the City to paint my house. I have to get permission from the City to put a roof on my house. I have to get permission from the City to replace a rotted window in my house because I'm in a historical district. People who care that much about their city don't seem to care what goes on a block away. And I just want to express my opinion that the 2 a.m. drinking thing is not necessary. The idea that people are going to Dallas to drink and not here, well fine, let them go. Let them spend the night in Lew Sterrett, courtesy of Dallas because I don't see anyone getting arrested for these actions up here. So, in my opinion, the 2 a.m. drinking thing is not a good thing. Like I said, if someone wants to drink until 2 a.m., let them go to Dallas. I don't think it's something we need here. Thank you. Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Reid. The %axt citizen report is listed for Pat Ragsdale but I understand that Jim Martino will be making a report at her request. E. Report from Pat Ragsdale regarding late hour alcohol sales. • Mr. Martino - Mayor Miller and members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to address you for just a moment. I am Jim Martino. I do not live within the City of Denton but I do represont, and I come representing, two institutions within this City. I come as President of Russell-Newman and I also come as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints here l k 0 s _ h city of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 7 in Denton. I was born in Denton. I was raised here in Denton. I have lived all of my life here except for a short four year period of my life. I appreciate what each of you have done to strive to help to give your time and to build this city. I have sent a letter that explains some if my feelings to each one of you but I would like to go over a couple of those issues. No one has addressed at this point yet. I personally have not seen at the time the contact was made, Police chief Jez did not have a report that was completed when I started mine. But I do have a letter here from Eric Jackson who is the Chief of Police at the University of North Texas. And if I may quote one paragraph from that letter and this is a memo that was copied but it was sent directly to Fred Pole as Vice-President of the University of North Texas. "While I am not advocating that the University support any particular position concerning this matter, I do believe the ordinance had a negative impact on our environment and the safety of our students. Also we do not have the luxury of selected enforcement as the City has. The City has no obligation to individual citizens. This is clear under case law. The University, on the other hand, does have a responsibility to the people we allow on campus. If the late hours ordieance remains in effect, we will continue to experience a drain on our resources that has not been there before January of 1996". I was not in attendance a year ago, when the ordinance was first presented, but I have spent the tim9 to listen on video tape to the entire proceedings. It amazed me as I sat here and listened to, and as was presented tonight, owners of those establishments that are selling the alcoholic beverages and talking about all of the things they're doing to be sure that all of the laws are lived by. And then a couple of months ago, I read in the Denton Record-Chronicle, where undercover, they go by to each of these establishments and take an underage individual in there and only on one occasion in all of the establishments that they went into, was that individual even carded to see if they were underage or not. I have great difficulties to understand how they can stand and say they are going to abide by all of the laws when on that one particular case which to me is one of the most important laws pertaining to alcoholic consumption that there is, that the Record-Chronicle • proved that there is nothing being done in that area. I have a tremendous concern for that and for the safety for all of the citizens of Denton when that is going on. I believe that that is one of the great concerns of the University of North Texas. If the City of Denton is striving to police that as well, my understanding and I could be in error, is that when an establishment has received three citations, that their license is suppose to be revoked. My ® question that I would ask the City Council is who keeps a record of • those citations? I have had difficulty finding that anyone keeps a record of those. If there were three, would anyone even know about it when those establishment should have theft license revoked. One of the other things that was presented a year ago was that this was necessary to be competitive with the towns that surround Denton. Arlington was mentioned, Dallas was mentioned and Fort Worth. I would ask, is it necessary to be competitive with all of the things • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 8 that those cities offer for our convention and entertainment business? A couple of years from now will someone come and say to be competitive with those cities, we need to offer the sex-oriented industry that each of those cities have as well. I don't believe that we need to offer some of these things to be competitive. Denton is special because of the beautiful park that is here. The quality of life that we enjoy. I would hope that we recognize the importance of ;seeping the quality of life in Denton. I don't believe in prohibition. I believe in everyone has their own right to alcoholic consumption if they so demand. But I don't believe that it needs to be at hours, the extended hours that this ordinance provided. We appreciate your thinking about this and I hope that your w!11 take it serious in all of your considerations. Thank you. Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Martino. For the benefit of the citizens here, this is a work session item for the Council next week. We did, as part of the ordinance that was approved a year ago, that we would receive a report from the staff concerning the impact, the effect of the change in the procedures. We do f appreciate the input from the citizens. We've had input from others and any communication you or others would care to give to the Council or the staff between now and next week, we would greatly appreciate it. We will be looking at this next week in a work session. NOTE: This ends the verbatim transcription of the meeting. k HLIC BEARINGS 4. The Council considered an ordinance rezoning 15.831 acres from Planned Development No. 2 (PD-2) to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The site was located directly east of Bell Avenue at Coronado Drive, extending north past Cordova Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that there were 120 • notices mailed to property owners either within the District or within 200 feet of the District. Eight replies were returned in favor and none in opposition. This was a rezoning of the property. Planned Development No. 2 had residential development but the meaning of "residential" was very vague. Several months ago the staff was approached by neighbors concerned that they had built SF- 7 type zoning in the Planned Development. Staff reviewed the area and found that each of the lots in the affected area were built on • b the requirements of SF-7 zoning. A neighborhood meeting was held with the neighbors indicating that they were in favor of the zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal at their last meeting and recommended approval. Mayor Pro Tam Brock stated that the affected area was already built out with no vacant property for further development. • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 9 Svehla replied correct. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-001 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE 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 FOR 15.831 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF BELL AVENUE AT CORONADO DRIVE, EXTENDING NORTH PAST CORDOVA DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 5. The Council held a 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 subject property was located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning and zoning Commission recommended • approval 5-2.) Council Member Cott excused himself from deliberation as he owned property near the proposal and felt there might be a conflict of interest. Mayor Miller stated that Council Member Cott had signed an • affidavit to that effect which was on file. That meant that five • • members would be deliberating the proposal and would require four out of five 'rotes for approval. Rick Svehla, Deputy city manager, stated that thirty notices were mailed twice to surround property owners. The notices were mailed twice because part of the request was postponed during one of the Planning and Zoning Commission sessions. Of the notices received, • G i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 10 one was in favor, fourteen opposed and one had comments opposed to the development but the opposition area on the form was not circled. Duplicates were not counted but rather each of the responses were looked at. That was prior to this meeting. Today a fax was received from Beazer Homes withdrawing opposition to the proposal. That withdrawal reduces the amount of opposition to 131 which did not require a super majority. Mayor Miller stated that in order for any business of the Council to be approved, a minimum of four affirmative votes was required. Svehla continued that the applicant proposed a total zoning of the area and as such the staff had to review it based on the application. Staff reviewed the proposal with all of the uses in place and calculated intensity/density requirements. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed all of those issues as well as other issues such as traffic. After that review, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the circumstances and conditions in the zoning application were sufficient to remedy the deficiencies and recommended the proposal to Council by a vote of 5-2. Mayor Miller asked for a summary of the phases of the zoning request. Svehla stated that the applicant was proposing office with conditions for the property fronting Lillian Miller. The conditions only permitted professional and administrative offices, total floor area of all of the buildings constructed on the 4.4 acres would not exceed 5,200 square feet, no loading docks would be permitted, the exterior walls of all buildings would be constructed of not less than 701 brick or masonry vernier with loot brick on the front of each building, no direct off-site lighting would be permitted, no off-premise signs would be allowed, a bufferyard measuring 15' wide would be constructed with specific types of trees along the property line of the 4.4 acres abutting the residential lots, maximum building height would not exceed 351, no individual buildings would exceed 7500 square feet, all buildings ® must have pitched roofs and no roof surface would have a slope of less than Sot. rn addition to any street yard landscaping required, an additional tree per every 501 of frontage along Lillian Miller Parkway would be planted and no parking would be allowed in the front yard setback of any building along Lillian Miller Parkway. • Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if there was any condition about where • • the access to the street would be. Was the access in this area J directly on Lillian Miller or on a collector street. Svehla replied t!3` no condition was made regarding access. There were requiremt,.- addressed in the subdivision Regulations regarding Lillian Miller due to the class of street. I • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 11 Council Member Young asked if the plans complied with the Denton Development Plan. Svehla relied that this hearing dealt with the land use issues and zoning. zoning was acquired first and then work began on the platting phase. More regulations governing the uses like driveways would be considered then. Council Member Biles stated that there was no provision limiting curb cuts on Lillian Miller. Svehla replied correct that there were none in the office conditions. Council Member Biles asked if that was going to be an issue of the zoning or an issue of the platting. Svehla replied that that generally was looked at during the platting. There would be requirements which would have to be met due to the class of road. The curb cuts would be taken up at a later date. He continued with the conditions for residential zoning which were included in the agenda back-up materials. Council Member Biles stated that the plan showed access to the east which currently was a dead end road. Svehla replied correct. Council Member Biles stated that the property to the east of that property line was not developed. Svehla replied correct. Council Member Biles asked if there was anything in the works for that property. Svehla replied that there had been some discussion regarding that 0 property. Council Member Biles asked to what degree did staff believe that there was a potential of development of a thoroughfare that would access further to the east to create a release for traffic to the Interstate. • Svehla replied that staff and the owner of property were aware of • 0 that road being on the thoroughfare plan. Staff had had a discussion or two with Dr. Baety but there was no time table at this point in time. Council Member Biles stated that that potential street would be a residential street or a larger street. • • s City of Denton city council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 12 I Svehla replied that it would be classified as a collector street so that it would be at least 401 wide. Council Member Beasley stated that the traffic study only looked at the single family homes but not the office. Svehla felt that it looked at the office also. Council Member Beasley stated that there was no mention of office. Svehla replied correct that two peaks were looked at in the morning and evening. She was correct that the office was not included. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Jake Hersman stated that this had been a long process with this project. The process began with Development Review Committee meetings in the summer, to a neighborhood meeting on October 8th, to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 23rd where a number of concerns were discussed regarding the proposal. Another neighborhood meeting was held on October 21st which outlined the many substantial changes which had been made since the beginning of the project. The proposal was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission on n-•-ember 4th. He felt that the system was working in this zoning case. It was felt that the conditioned office zoning along Lillian Miller would be very attractive with large brick home-like office buildings, landscaped bufferyards, low pedestal lighting, strict signage control and rear or side parking. A unique mix of lot sizes was designed each with separate entrance off of a landscaped 41' collector road. The road would go all through the property and would have screening walls along each side of it with landscaping. The SF-7 and SF-10 lots averaged 9,349 square feet. The planned development section, located in the middle of the subdivision, would bo completely surrounded with screening wails. The attached residential conditions ensured that the homes would meet or exceed what presently was in Southridge Estates. Another unique feature would O be the development of a linear park system which included 5.876 acres of lakes and 10 acres of open green space. The lakes would r have a rock border with sidewalks. There were be many open areas with the green spaces. There was also the possibility that Unicorn Lake, a large 30 acre lake to the southeast, would become a part of the park system. His contribution to traffic relief was an $800,000 collector road which would ultimately collect to 135. ® Whenever the PD-20 property was developed, they would be forced to O put in the collector road through. He would also contribute to the construction of traffic lights at Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane. Wind River Estates would be developed in four phases over a 6-8 year period of time allowing infrastructure, schools, etc. to slowly expand to accommodate growth. The average selling price of homes in Denton last year was $86,000. The average selling price of homes for wind River Estates would be $1500000. 0 • City of Denton city council Minutes January 7, 1997 it Page 13 I Council Member Young asked for a discussion regarding the parks proposal, the detention ponds and the proposed collector road. Hersman stated that the collector road would go through the middle of the property for 4,300 feet. It was estimated that it would cost $800,000 for the screening walls, road and curbs. It would be a major relief point for traffic in the area. He was not sure when PD-20 would be developed but when done, it would complete the road and connect to 135. Council Member Young asked if sidewalks would be built. Hersman replied yes on each side of the road with landscaping on the inside of the screening walls which would consist of masonry pillars with a wood fence. There would be almost six acres of waterway with a masonry edge around it with sidewalks. The ten acres below the collector road would have a 36 inch drainage pipe which would go underneath it and would take care of almost all of the drainage for minimal rainfall. A 100 year flood would go over the top of the landscape green space. The City of Denton Parks Department had agreed to accept the land into the park system but would not spend any money until ready. The developer would be spending the dollars for the infrastructure. The City would not have any maintenance until it was ready to accept it into the system. Funding, through a homeowners association, would maintain the green s,,)ace until the City was ready to accept it. This type of density was the only type of density which would allow for the dollars to spend on this type of park system. The park system would not stay in place at the present SF-16 zoning as it was not economical for that zoning. Council Hember Beasley asked about the access to the office buildings. Would there be curb cuts along Lillian Miller. Hersman stated that as Wind Rivers Lane came in, there was a curb cut on Lillian Miller as the main entrance to the subdivision. There would be only one curb cut on Lillian Miller. All parking • would be at the side or rear of the office development. r Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that Unicorn Lake was not on this property, Hersman replied that it was part of the whole water shed issue. It was not on his property but would most likely become part of the , ® park system. i O O Council Member Biles stated that the offices on Lillian Miller would be similar to what Dale Irwin had done along Carroll Blvd. The offices would not have driveways or parking between the building strucutre and Lillian Miller. e • I city of Denton city council minutes January 71 1997 Page 14 Hersman replied correct that it would be all yard on Lillian Miller. Council Member Biles stated that the entire area could be developed as SF-16 but if done, the additional infrastructure items could not be included. Hersman replied correct. He felt that as a land plan it would be boring to have all SF-16. It was too big a piece of land to put in only one product. The SF-7 and SF-10 lots would be larger than Southridge Eetrtes. The planned development would similar to Ellison Park. Council Member Biles stated that the lots were larger than other lots in the area. Hersman stated that the Southridge Estates lot sizes were 9,000 square feet. The minimum deed restriction for Southridge Estates was 1600 feet. His deed restrictions were 1600 for the SF-7 and 1800 for the SF-10. The average lot size, although SF-7 and SF-10, would be 9,349 feet. if the planned development were included in that formula, the average lot size was 8,500 square feet. He felt the planned development was an important part of the project as it provided an Ellison Park type atmosphere in the center of the development totally surrounded by screening walls for those individuals who did not want to mow yards. Council Member Biles stated that with the exception of the planned development, the balance of the development was similar to surrounding areas. t , Hersman stated that one only had to look in many directions to see what the development going to look like. Council Member B.iles asked about the time frame for the development. • Hersman stated that it would be a six to eight year project. It was not the case that many homes would be added in a short time frame. In the first two years only 100 homes would be added. That would not impact the traffic. The office zoning was several years down the road. Office buildings were not needed there in the next year or so. But over the long term land plan, it was a good land + plan. • Council Member Bilea stated that the offices would not be built for a year or two. Hersman stated that they would be built as the market dictated. Right now there was no need to complete the office space. • 0 City of Denton city council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 15 . Council Member Biles stated that by the time development was encroaching on the traffic burden, it was anticipated that the street would be built to 135 to provide the pressure relief. Council Member Beasley stated that if the zoning remained as SF-16, some drainage improvements would be needed. Hersman replied correct but there would not be a park system. It would be concrete drainage ditch. Fred Gossett stated that he was in support of the zoning request. He was aware of the emotional aspect of the proposal but felt that Dr. Hersman had gone above and beyond on this proposal. Previously it was indicated that this would impact the schools but that was not a school issue, it was a zoning issue. If the proposed zoning request did not significantly violate the Denton Development Plan, adhered to code and city ordinances, was recommended by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission, it seemed to him that it was a proper and legitimate use of the property. The request for conditioned office zoning along Lillian Miller would serve as a suitable buffer between Lillian Miller and the proposed housing community. Since it would be screened appropriately from the residential neighborhood, he felt it would protect the neighborhood rather than housing abutting a four lane boulevard. some feared that the proposed project would cheapen the neighborhood. He had heard those same comments when Trend Maker was proposed but now everyone liked it. The average value of homes in Denton was $70,000 and this project would bring up the overall values. He found it difficult to imagine that the housing in the proposed community would be anything but enhance the diversity of housing in Denton. As a property owner of residential and business property in the immediate area, he supported the proposal and asked the Council to vote in favor of the proposal with the conditions already agreed to. Carol Evans felt that as a real estate agent not everyone liked what she liked. The world today was becoming more diversified. There was a need in Denton for homes with a diverse amount of square footage. She asked the Council to vote for this proposal and support Denton. Mike Heaver stated that he was a business person and part of the premise of life he based his decisions on was to make the best business decision that he could, that he never let policy overrule ® common sense and he never backed down from the hard decisions and • • he tried to do what made sense. He tried to remove the emotional issue from his remarks., He was immediately adjacent to the proposal. This property was going to be developed. It might not happen this year or the next, but it was going to happen. When the proposal was first began, he was concerned with tho project. He spoke with Dr. Hersman regarding those concerns which Dr. Hereman immediately addressed. Dr. Hersman had made many concessions in i ' O City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 16 order to develop this land. He was also aware that Corporate Beazer wss opposed to the development. He wrote a letter to corporate Beazer about the situation and how Dr. Hersman had met with him to address those concerns. He considered himself fortunate to have a developer who would work with the neighbors. He liked the park system which was proposed and felt that it would benefit the Southridge residents. The proposal would appreciate the land value in the area. Wade Harris stated that he had a business in Denton. He owned two of the immediate lots within 200 feet of the office proposal. He felt there had been many concessions done with the proposal. He felt a stop light was needed in the area of the park. The developer had addressed all of the issues requested of him except for the collector street. He felt that there would be no deterioration of property values due to the development of the proposal. Terry Garland stated that his property was adjacent to the proposal. He had been to 5-6 meetings with the developer. Any builder could built smaller homes among larger, more expensive homes and still sell them, Any builder who built in a flood plain had to put in drainage. There might be a connecting road but when would it be built. It was stated that the homes would be compatible to property in the surrounding area. That was not true. Southridge Estates was a planned development with all the homes being different. The smallest home there was larger than the largest home in the proposal. This was not a planned development. The builder was in the business of selling lots and nothing more. The property was zoned for smaller homes and there was no reason not to build smaller homes. He was worried about devaluation of his home with the development. There were already traffic problems in the area without the development of this proposal. He hoped the Council would be responsible for protecting the neighborhood. Alan Wasserman presented an analogy with American Airlines cancelling flights after seeking the advise of their flight A attendants and pilots. They forfeited their short-term financial success for the greater qood of their passengers and employees. He r represented the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. There were many members of the subdivision who could not attend this meeting and every homeowner had signed a petition against the proposal. They had the following expectations of the Council that they should follow Section 10.06 of the City Charter. The Council were ® their elected leaders. They voted for them and respect their C opinions and expected them to be responsible to them. The Denton Development Plan was the guide for land development in Denton and served as the contract in zoning matters. He was opposed to office buildings where two story offices would be built. He felt resale values would be reduced with this proposal. Citizens depended on local government to protect them from zoning erosion which would seriously jeopardize investment and diminish quality of life. i ' ara~w~~ • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 17 Brennan Gourdie stated that three years Dr. Hersman successfully rezoned this property to the current SF-16 zoning. At that time Dr. Hersman must have felt that type of zoning made sense for the area. It was an uncontested change as it fit in with the surrounding community and the low intensity plan set aside for the area. Now Dr. Hersman was wanting to change the zoning again for larger returns. More homes meant more profits for developers, more homes meant more expenses for those who lived there in the form of more traffic congestion, more noise and more crowded schools. Those who lived in the area did not have the option of avoiding the congestion or hoping that it would get better. More was not always better. There were four significant inconsistencies against the Denton Development Plan which were not addressed at the Planning and Zoning commission meeting. He was opposed to the rezoning and to the Sundown Ranch rezoning. He urged the Council to look to the future and vote against the proposal. Elizabeth Gourdis stated that with all the development which had occurred so quickly within the south end of Denton on Loop 288, Lillian Miller and I-35, major traffic problems had developed. Lillian Miller was the only economical route for the residents in the neighborhood to get to 135 and to shopping areas. Each new development created more hazards on the road which was designed for residential traffic only. The Hersman proposal would be one more problem in the area with more acres yet to be zoned. If this development were approved, it would not to good for Denton. Lynn Thompson stated that she lived in Southridge and owned a lot in Hunters Ridge. She investigated all appropriate zoning when she purchased the property. She felt there were was no infrastructure plan for southwest Denton. It had come to her attention that Dr. Hersman, his partner or both had been in negotiation with Pulty Homes since the beginning. She had called the Pulty Home main office and was told by their marketing analyst that they were doing a feasibility study on his property and providing that the zoning was changed by the City Council, they would entertain thoughts of developing it as soon as summer of 1997. This upset her as she • felt she was put at risk for a devaluation of her property especially the SF-7 and commercial zoning. The proposal would cause traffic problems. The supporters of the proposal, including Dr. Hersman, did not live in Denton and some did not even work in Denton. This proposal was not affecting them and should not be considered. The City and Council could be held liable for G destroying surrounding property when there was a rezoning. She • urged the Council to take their concerns into consideration before • • they voted. Richard Bragg stated that his lot was SF-13 and not SF-9. Most of the homes built in his area were larger than SF-9. Density would be a problem for the residents in the 1,500 and 7,000 square foot lot areas. They would not have the quality of life that Denton was noted for. Comparing this density with Southridge Estates was not • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 18 . equal. To make a fair comparison, the 4.42 acres of office and the 14 acres of lakes would have to be taken out of the formula. This gave a density of 3.77 or more with 16 acres. .111 7,000 square foot lots would be odd sizes as would be the 5,000 square foot lots. Dr. Hersman would be developing a park system with a retention pond. There was a safety factor associated with the development of the retention pond. He was not opposed to development but felt that the density of the proposal was too great. Sal Avila stated that his home was across from the proposal. The proposed green belt was actually a grass waterway to help control flooding. There were approximately 30-40 acres of land in the 100 year flood plain in the development. During the first neighborhood meeting, Dr. Hersman was asked why he had not dedicated any park land. At that time, he showed no interest in doing so. It was not until after the presentation to the Planning and.Zoning Commission that Dr. Hersman compromised. In fact, this was not a land dedication for park development. There was really nothing else j that could be done with the 14 acres and pass flood plain requirements. Responsibility of maintenance of the grass waterways p was not clear at this time. He requested that the petition be denied. Bill Claiborne stated that he lived approximately 200-300 yards from the proposal. There were several positives to the proposal but also many negatives. Four were in contrast to the Denton Development Plan. One was the separation from existing zoning. This proposal, with the office zoning, was less than h mile away from existing high intensity land uses. A second conflict was continued commercial development along major arterials. The zoning request seemed to challenge many of the values set forth by the Denton Development Plan. Those were the maintenance of neighborhood integrity and stability and tended to overlook some approved and adopted standards of development. The current intensity allocation was 1551 over standard intensity. This development would add 51. The proposed office and the planned • development were two areas which would merit Council voting against this proposal. He also contrasted the current proposal to the 1993 zoning case to SF-16 plus office development. The office development in this proposal would more than doubl9 the proposed office development submitted in 1993. For that reason he asked that the Council vote against the proposal. 0 Mitchell Turner stated that he objected to the proposal because of • eight policy violations of the Denton Development Plan. Four were very significant. Three of the more significant policy violations were related to the office proposal. Neighborhood service centers were permitted in low intensity areas provided they were at least ~ mile apart from other non-residential development. There was an office development next to the proposal with no separation. That was a violation of the separation policy. If it did not violate e e City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 19 . the separation policy, a 3 acre service center would be permitted on a street such as Lillian Miller, not a 4.42 acre center. Another violation was the strip commercial on Lillian Miller which should be avoided according to the Denton Development Plan. If the proposal were approved, there would be a two story 35f foot tall office building all the way from the intersection of Teasley and Lillian Miller to Southridge Estates. He felt that city government had a responsibility to protect the policies of the Denton Development Plan and to protect neighborhoods from undesirable developments. He had three other reasons for not approving the office proposal. First, there was enougn office zoning already on Lillia,i Miller. Second, more office space was not needed in the foreseeable future. Third, a 4.42 acre office proposal would add to the traffic problem. He asked Council to deny the proposal. Roland Vela stated that he was not opposed to progress or growth of the City. He was opposed to the effect the proposal would have on their homes. This was a high density development when the number of lots was increased on an area of land. This was a special city and community due to the maintenance of the City. They had maintained the integrity of the community and felt the proposal was a threat to their quality of life and value of the property to those who lived in the area. The area was for SF-16 homes. Reducing the size of the lots would be only for a greater profit for the developer if it was rezoned as proposed. He felt that mixing this type of development in an SF-16 area would decrease the value of the current SF-16 development. Ile asked the Council to make a decision which would be best for the quality of life in Denton. Nancy Peters stated that she had lived in Denton for approximately 15 months. They had a choice to move to the Dallas area but chose to remain in Denton. With the proposed 945 homes and estimating 3 members for each home, there would be an increase of 2800 people in that area. Even though the school district was a separate entity, this was a quality of life issue. e Marvin Jeffries stated that the 136 acres in question should remain single family only. When the land was rezoned to SF-16 in 1993, the neighborhood felt it was a good deal and that was what should go there. The issue was whether to allow office buildings across the street from homes. That was not much of a buffer to those kinds of homes. He understood the asking price for the homes in Hunters Ridge Terrace had already dropped. The bottom line was about money. He was not opposed to making all the money possible but not 0 ® at the expense of the quality of life of the residents in the area. M The rezoning was merely a way to make more dollars. David Morales stated that he was disappointed that his representative would not be present due to a potential conflict of interest. Traffic was already bad in the area and more homes would only add to that. The increased traffic, reduction in quality of 0 - 0 • i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 20 life and the fact that children would have to cross the street to the school would not be good. Council Member Beasley indicated to Mr. Morales that he did have other Council Members who represented that area. Two members and the Mayor were elected at-large to rr.present the whole city. Tim Christian stated that at the neighborhood meeting and at the Planning and Zoning commission meetings, it was discussed that this would be a precedent setting event. If the Council decided to approve the proposal, then the land surrounding would probably be approved for rezoning. As a resident in the area, he knew that there were severe traffic problems in the area now and this proposal would not help. Gary Francis stated that they were completing a move and thought Hunters Ridge might be an area to build on. Based on what he had heard at this meeting, he would not consider Hunters Ridge if this proposal was approved. Mary Woodruff stated that when she purchased her home, the lot across from her was in a flood plain and could not be built on. Now there were lots all across there. If this proposal was approved, none of the neighborhoods would have protection. She questioned a system where zoning could be changed in such a manner from people who were not living here. She hoped Council would seriously consider voting against the proposal. Mayor Miller read speaker cards from individuals who were in opposition but who did not wish to address the Council: Janell Trachta Royce Levino Mary Benjamin Roger Lewis William Benjamin Robert Kay Marian Hutsell Betty Kay David Pearce JoanAnn Byroad Pamela Storaci Kay and Gary Francis Ralph rhenault R. Ponder sandy Kristoferson Earl Ponder Windy Harris Pat Langa Rick Harris Betty Garland Mr. and Mrs. Larry B. Hail Patricia Cukor-Avila John and Betty Horton Tim and Deb Christian Peter Richardson Jim and Ketha Voighk Robert Byroad Michael Skryak • Oliver Chyan Gayla Tenell Dan Brock Joe e. Eamek Wanda Samek H. D Herweck Walter C. Wells, Jr. Randall Whipple Blanche Herweck Deborah Novae Mike Nantz Mary Woodruff Karen Connor Ron Wang • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 21 Jennifer and David Morales Leslee McMorrough Claire O'Hearn Russ Sutton Margaret Carleton Lynn Thompson Roland Vela stated that everyone who spoke against the present proposal were also opposed to Items 19 and 110. The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Dr. Hersman stated that he would like to speak with those who questioned his financial motives. He would be involved with the development from start to finish. From a business perspective, there was the need to look at what was the market area. This subdivision was planned exactly as those around it due to the success of those developments. Council Member Beasley stated that Dr. Hersman indicated to her that he had met with the neighbors and felt that he worked out most of the problems -oncerning the proposal. This evening that did not appear to be the case. She wondered if the proposal were postponed if there would be a way to work out the differences between the neighbors and the developer. Hersman replied that they would consider anything. They had had several meetings with the neighbors. The proposal had changed substantially since the beginning concept. This was a zoning request and not a plat request. He had made several concessions based on what was heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings and neighborhood meetings. Council Member Beasley believed that if the developer and neighbors worked together there would be a win-win situation. She did not hear that happening here at this meeting. Hersman asked if he made a concession at this meeting would it warrant a postponement or could the Council act on the proposal with a particular concession. City Attorney Prouty stated that if a concession was made, it would r be a floor amendment to approve the ordinance with additional conditions. Hersman stated that he was committed to the commercial portion of the proposal but could concede on the planned development and go to SF-7 which would be an easier part of the plan to amend. If the O 0 planned development were taken out, it would be well over Beazer and surrounding areas. He was willing to amend the proposal to take out the planned development and change it to SF-7 in that section. City Attorney Prouty stated that Council could act on this amendment as it would be more restrictive. a City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 22 i Council Member Biles asked if the planned development were converted to SF-7, what would be the impact on Hersman's financial capacity for the green belt, etc. Hersman stated that it would continue as shown. Council Member Biles asked if the street layout would be changed. Hersman replied no. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Young motioned to approve the proposal with the amendment to change the planned development to SF-7. Motion died for lack of a second. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that diversity was good and was one of the attractive things about Denton. However, she felt there were serious problems with the proposal. The City did consider the impact on schools with everything done in Denton. She was concerned about the impact of two large developments on the school system in the area. Another major issue was traffic. The intersection of ' Lillian Miller was already stressed with traffic and the present zoning was 155% over the allocated intensity. This proposal would add another 5,000 plus vehicle trips. She was also concerned about violations of Denton Development Plan. Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to deny the proposal. Council Member Biles addressed the concerns about the water and detention ponds. The area could have a green belt with parks and a landscaped quality development or an alternative of concrete ditches. The developer voluntarily wanted to develop the land to give it to the community and yet people did not want that. A second concern was the office along Lillian Miller and the reason for a wall around the planned development. The developer indicated that with the wall people would not be looking in the backyards of those homes. He felt that he would rather look at a landscaped yard than a six foot fence. He agreed with the diversity in this particular plan as not everything needed to be SF-16 down to Flower Maund. Traffic congestion was a large problem throughout the City r and the City was trying to address traffic congestion in this area. He wanted the developer to know he felt it was admirable to move forward with a green belt area. He was still concerned about the planned development and needed more information about the third outlet to relieve congestion in the area. At this point in time, 0 8 he could not support the plan as proposed. Council Member Beasley stated that she like to see more of a ~~~JJJ consensus between the developer and the neighborhood. She felt that the neighbors had concerns about the office zoning and for the number of SF-7 lots. She felt there was a need to transition down from SF-16 as not all developments would be able to have SF-16. • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 23 But she did feel that there were too many SF-7 lots in the proposal and that it violated the Denton Development Plan. She indicated that she would not support the development. Council Member Young indicated that he would support the proposal due to the diversity it would bring to that area. He also agreed with the greenbelt area. He felt the development would enhance the area. Mayor Miller stated that there was a problem with schools as Denton was a growing community. However, the School District was much larger than the community of Denton. There was a lot of development between Denton and the Town of Flower Mound which was in the DISD. Traffic was also an issue in the area as th,a city was growing in that area. The developer could put in SF-16 homes in the proposal but he felt that probably something between SF-16 and what was proposed would be appropriate. He would be voting against the motion. It might be possible vo postpone consideration, review the proposal and work out issues with the neighborhood. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the motion was to deny the petition which would require four votes to carry the motion. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "nay", Biles "nay" and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 3-2 vote. f Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone consideration until a date established with the Deputy City Manager working with the Planning Department and the developer. On roll vote., Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 9. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance rezoning 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to an office Conditioned (O[c)) zoning district. The subject property was located on the east side of Teasley, approximately 500 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning • and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Young motioned, Brock seconded to change the agenda order to consider items 19 and 110. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. ® Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the 20% rule was not • in effect with this proposal. There was a separate office zoning case associated with this proposal. The proposal was recommended with conditions bl the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Mayor opened the public hearing. i • 973 • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 70 1997 Page 24 Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess, stated that the office portion of the proposal would be off Teasley Lane. The proposal was trying to create an atmosphere where individuals could live in the neighborhood and walk to work. An important part of the proposal was the open feeling with the office construction. Bob Shelton stated this was a transitional area to have office in front of the proposal. There were other offices located around the proposal so that it would not be a strip zoning for office. Council Member Beasley asked if the offices would be fronting Lillian Miller or would there be a road into that area. Shelton indicated that there would be no entrance onto Lillian Miller. Mayor Miller asked if the front of the offices would be on Teasley Lane. Shelton stated that the offices would be clustered in different directions with some possibly facing Teasley. Council Member Young asked if there would be curb cuts on Teasley Lane. Shelton stated that there was no site plan at this point in time. Parking would be more behind the buildings than in front. There would be no curb cuts on Teasley. Rob Raynor stated that this was a zoning creation which was not here on the original Denton Development Plan done in 1984. Conditions for the proposal included a total floor area not to exceed 4500 square feet; one prohibited use was a restaurant while an art gallery, office administration, animal clinic or hospital with no outside runs would be allowed. A traffic study was done with both office and residential considerations. There had been a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the proposal made sense for the office as there were offices already in the area. There would be a good diversity in the area with single family homes, offices, mobile homes, etc. Bill Claiborne stated that his objection was the continued growth of commercial property on Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane. The-'e ® was too much commercial zoning along this area and this proposal I~ 0 0 only added to Chet. He had to speak in opposition tc: the proposal. . / Marvin Jeffries stated that he was in opposition due to the continued office development along the entire Lillian Miller/ Teasley Lane way. The proposal violated the Denton Development Plan with regards to the separation requirements. He asked the Council to oppose the proposal. • • City of Denton City council minutes January 7, 1997 Page 25 Alan Wasserman stated that if these two proposals did not have commercial zoning associated with it, there would be no opposition from the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. There were problems with notices regarding this proposal. Staff report from the Planning and Zoning commission indicated that the proposal was over intensity and density and could not recommend approval. Roger Lewis stated that he was concerned about a lack of notification regarding meetings. He had not seen the plans for the office zoning but felt it was similar to Woodhill Square. He had not seen anything which would indicate a quality office development. Mayor Miller indicated that he had received the following speaker cards from individuals who were in opposition to the proposal but who did not wish to speak: David Morales Pam Arthur Richard Bragg Pam Storaci fE Brennan Gourdie Roland Vela David Pierce Patricia Cukor-Avila Sal Avila Brennan and Elizabeth Gourdie The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Rob Raynor stated that one of the reasons for the Froblem with the meeting time for the neighborhood was because of the mailing the staff had. Some individuals not get a letter as they were not within the 200 foot radius. Conditional zoning was a good idea as it allowed a developer to determine what was going to be built and the size of the building. He requested that the Council vote in favor of the proposal with the conditions. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Brock indicated that she was not going to vote in favor due to the many policy violations. In particular was the large size which exceeded the intensity allocation and the issue of strip commercial. Council Member Beasley agreed that there were many inconsistencies with the Denton Development Plan. There were some mitigating , c<rcumstances with this proposal such as the fact that it was f ® directly across from other office type buildings. it would be a good buffer against the residential zoning. Council Member Biles stated that this proposal was substantially different from the previous proposal as only 251 of the acreage would be developed with much open space. There were inconsistencies in the plan but attention had been give with 1 i • • i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 26 regards to the entryway and facilitation of the office3. He encouraged the developers to have nothing but landscaping between the buildings and Lillian Miller with the parking in the rear. Council Member Young stated that he was in favor as it was a buffer with the residential and office across the street. The Planning and Zoning commission was in favor of the proposal with a vote of 6-0. Mayor Miller stated that he was against the proposal for a variety of reasons. There was not as much communication with the neighbors as there could have been. He felt the project could return with an alternate proposal. He felt it could come back the same as the prior proposal. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "nay", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 3-2 vote as four affirmative votes were needed. Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone consideration of the proposal and to have the developer meet with the neighborhood and ~ Planning Department and return to the Council at a date to be detp,rmined. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 10. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance 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 was located on the east side of Teasley, approximately 1,000 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that 25 notices were mailed concerning this proposal. Three were returned in favor and two were returned in opposition. The 25t rule was not in effect O for this proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this at their December 11th melting and recommended approval. r The Mayor opened the public hearing. Phil Philips stated that he represented the owners of the property. I When the property was first purchased, none. of it was in the city limits. Now all of the property was in the city limits. This O proposal consisted of approximately 169 acres of SF-7 and SF-10. There would be two lakes in the proposal, a green belt, and a 1,500 square foot indoor arena. The proposal would not de-evaluate any of the existing properties. Council Member Young asked about the water. • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 27 Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess, stated that the development was proposing a divided entry off Teasley Lane. There would be a lot of open space which would be connected by trails throughout the project. Council Member Young asked how large was Unicorn Lake. Meyer replied that Unicorn Lake was approximately 20 acres. They were still working on the green belt details. There would be two accesses along Teasley Lane. Council Member Young asked about the lot sizes and size of homes. Meyer stated that the lot sizes would be 10,000 and 7,000 square foot lots. He was not sure of house size at this point in time. Bob Shelton stated that the house size depended on the price of the lot. The approximate cost of a home was not sure at this point in time because of the exact price for the lots. This would be a quality development. A homeowners association would maintain the green belt area. Q Rob Raynor stated that the land was currently zoned agricultural and this proposal was not in contradiction with that land use. Denton was experiencing a lot of growth and he asked the Council to approve the zoning for the area. Arthur Johnson stated that he owned the property south of Sundown Ranch. Denton was a bedroom community for people working in Dallas and there was a need to have homes in the area. Regarding the discussion on roads, no one had mentioned Loop 288 and Highway 2499 which came into this area. These roads should help with the congestion in the area. He attended a neighborhood mEeting regarding the proposal and asked the Council to approve the proposal. John Johnson stated that he was in support of the project. He felt e it would be better to have thia area developed than to have vacant ground. It was far better economically to have the area developed. Lamar Ball stated that the requested zoning was compatible with the surrounding zoning and the proposed zoning for this property was a correct zoning. He felt the sale of the property was contingent on the office zoning and felt that the proposal should be approved. Alan Wasserman stated that this proposal would not impact Lillian O Miller and his only concern was to find a way to donate the green belts and waterways to the City. He was in favor of this proposal. George Kolb stated that he was not so much concerned about the plan and the zoning but rather where it was going to be. He felt more information was needed before he could determine whether he was in ~ ,t e City of Denton city council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 28 favor or not. He felt there needed to be a meeting with the community for more information on the proposal. He suggested postponing consideration of the proposal until the community had a discussion on the proposal. He would like to see SF-10 along the back side of his property. Elizabeth Gourdie stated that she objected to the two developments proposed back to back. If this proposal was accepted, she suggested putting the other proposal aside for five years. Mayor Miller stated that he had received the following speaker cards from individuals who did not wish to address the Council: Brannon Gourdie Richard Bragg Pam Storaci David Pierce Patricia Cukor-Avila The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Rob Raynor stated that the traffic study done included both the residential and commercial tract. It indicated that there would be less traffic with the proposal than would be allowed in the area. The lots would be larger than the SF-7 lots but were not laid out at this point in time. The Mayor closed the public hearing. k The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-004 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 e ACRES, BOTH SUCH PARCELS BEING LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF TEASLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY; r PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and • • ® Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. J Council Member Cott returned to the meeting. 6. The Council held a 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 • 0 • • city of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 29 . agricultural (A) zoning district. The property was located on the south side of McKinney Street, directly south of Bellaire Boulevard. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommended approval 7-0.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that thirteen notices were mailed with two received in favor. This was a child day care center located at an existing church on McKinney Street. The church was not running the day care but rather this was a private business which rented space from the church. Staff felt that all requirements were met and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Joseph Sainah stated that he was available to answer any questions. Council Member Young asked about the number of children allowed at the center. Sainah stated that 51 children were allowed and to date the center i had 50 children. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-002 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 BELLAIRE 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. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance with O conditions. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 7. The Council held a 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 property was located on the north side of Scripture, between Lovell and O 0 Bryan. (The Planning and zoning commission recommended approval 6- { 1.) Mayor Miller indicated that the petitioner had asked to postpone consideration of this item. i • 0 s City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 30 Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone this item until the February 40 1997 City Council meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 8. The Council held a 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 was located on the south side of Londonderry Lane, approximately 200 feet west of Teasley Lane. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Planning and zoning commission recommended approval. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Roy Metzler stated that he wanted to develop a small restaurant on the site with limited seating. The business would mostly do catering at the location. p The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: i No. 97-003 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 3, BLOCK At OF THE TEASLEY MALL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE .N OF LONDONDERRY, APPROXIMATELY 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. Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. VARIANCES • 11. The council considered exaction variances to Section 34- O 114(17) concerning sidew.tlks; Section 34-114(11) concerning cul de sac lengths; and Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design criteria. This 304.97 acre tract was located northeast of Brush Creek Road and Highway 377. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) • ' o City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 31 Brock motioned, Young seconded to approve the variances. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda and corresponding ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 12. NO. 97-005 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. (Bid 11961-Street Maintenance Equipment Rental) 13. NO. 97-006 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. (Bid 11965-Transit Vans) 14. NO. 97-007 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS P.NQD AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FONDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVF. DATE. (Bid 119T4-Annual Bottled Gas 5 Cylinder Rental) 15. NO. 97-008 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE w AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 11983-Family Health Care, Inc.) 16. NO. 97-009 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE • 0 OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 11972-Spread Spectrum hicrowave Link A Radios) i • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 32 L 17. NO. 97-010 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTPACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 11975-Bore Crossing) 18. NO. 97-011 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 OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 11968-Police Sedans) 19. NO. R97-001 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF LAKE DALLAS FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 20. NO. R97-002 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. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CON8IDERATION 21. The Council considered an ordinance annexing and establishing temporary agriculture "A" zoning district classification on a 11.24 acre tract located south of Robinson road and east of Nowlin Road. (A-74) (The Planning and zoning commission recommended approval 6- 0.) Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that this was the first reading of this annexation ordinance and a three-fourths vote from O Council was needed for approval. The following ordinance was considered: (First Reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT • • B COMPRISING 11.24 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH CF ROBINSON ROAD AND EAST OF NOWLIN ROAD; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXEJ PROPERTY AS "A", AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $20000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • r • t City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 33 Beasley motioned, Biles seconded to daopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 22. The Council considered an 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 recommended approval.) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-012 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 CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Millcr "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 23. The Council considered an appointment of a Council Member to the Audit Committee. Council Member Biles nominated Council Member Beasley. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 24. The council considered nominations/appointments to Boards and Commissions. Mayor Pro Tem. Brock nominated Hank Dickinson to the cable Television Advisory Board. 25. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. City Manager Benavides did not have any items for the Council. ' 26. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items. • 27. New Dasiness • o The following items of New Business was suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Young asked for a report on the condition of the Phoenix Apartments. E li i r i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 7, 1997 Page 34 S. Council Member Young indicated that there was a traffic safety problem at the corner of Lakey and Wilson Street and asked for a traffic light or 4-way stop sign at that location. C. Council Member Young asked that the proposal for the extension of Scott street be placed on an agenda for a Council vote. with no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I~ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACC00359 I r i . ~ I r ~~W~ r i ♦ ti.. - • • .,aa CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 14, 1997 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Discussed and considered Personal Injury Demand of Attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Fred Evans on behalf of their daughter, Crystal Evans. B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Annual Performance Evaluation of Municipal Judge. 2. Annual Performance Evaluation of City Attorney. } 3. Annual Performance Evaluation of City Manager. The council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, January 14, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding an update on the effect of extended hours for alcohol sales. Mayor Miller indicated that this was a review of an ordinance which A allowed establishments to receive an extended hours permit and stay open until 2:00 a.m. One of the provisions of the ordinance was to receive information a year after passage and to determine where to go from there. Mike Jez, Executive Director of Public Services, stated that on ` December 13th he provided Council with a report with comparative • data regarding the first 290 days of the late hours permitting ordinance. A concern he had expressed at the time of passage of the ordinance dealt with a shift of the distribution of the police officers work load. This shift would primarily change the activity of the officers related with alcohol sale and consumption from the 22:00 a.m. - 2:00 a.m. time frame to the 2:00 a.m. - 4:00 a.m. time frame. It appeared that that shift in activity did take place and in fact there was an increase in police related activity in the e e City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 2 2:00 a.m. - 4:00 a.m, period. The overall net effect in the shift of activity it. ed alcohol-related arrests increased by only 2.81; alcohol-rt,.ated accidents increased 5.71; alcohol- related citations decreased by 27.24; domestic citations increased by 4.44; loud party/noise-related citations decreased by 11.24; DWI arrests decreased by 5.91. He felt that a 290 day period was a short period of time to establish a data line. Council Member Biles agreed with the Chief that a 290 day base line was insufficient to look at the numbers. Another relevant period of time was the ability to institute and follow through with a new effort with the Fry Street Area Merchants Association. The 2:00 a.m. ordinance at 290 days gave rise to number of concerns. He reassured all that Council had taken a hard look at this. The greatest area of attention was the Fry Street area. The Merchants Association, within the last 60-90 days, had an opportunity to begin new measures and that area of town will continue to receive the highest degree of attention. The Merchants Association was not lust comprised of the bar owners but also of barber shops, real estate owners, and other merchants in the area. The steps which they instituted should be given more time. He was not sure of the amount of time but it should be enough time to test its effectiveness. Biles motioned, Youngfng h at the Chief of Police be directed ':seconded enafty efforts in conjunction with the to continue and ij- University of North Texas Police Department, in particular the Fry Street area. Based on the types of calls he had received, he felt the complaints were from area residences. The sphere of influence of the two police department needed to be enlarged to others areas. During these new hours, the patrols should be increased in the neighborhoods. The sphere of influence should be increased by the two police departments beyond the Fry Street area and continue to monitor the numbers to see if additional enforcement improved the circumstances of violations in the area. He felt there would be a greater degree of information received from the police store-front in the area. The motion would be to enhance and intensify the O joint efforts with the University of North Texas Police Department and to enlarge the sphere of influence of patrols during key hours in the neighborhoods. He had not heard many complaints from other parts of the city. Since a program was started in that area, there was a need to continue those efforts. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if there had been a gradual increase in O arrests and accidents related to alcohol, ! e a Jez replied that he did not have a five year trend analysis for those figures. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that she was in support of the motion but felt that there were also responsibilities with extended hours. The business people started a merchants association and were • e City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 3 working with the city's Development Office. There were some changes already in this area. She challenged the business people and others in the area to accelerate their efforts which they had started in the last three months. one area was to reduce the nuisances in the area, to think of ways to be sure people were not performing acts which they should not be. She had suggested that the bar owners use the extra profits to do clean up iii the area to be sure the area was clean. She hoped in the next six months to see an improvement of appearance in the area. There was a lot of repair work to do in the area. If the late hours contributed to the physical deterioration of area as well a people deterioration, she felt it would need to be looked at again. With everyone working together, there should be an upgrade of the area. She felt that the merchants should pay for some of the expenses involved in upgrading the area. Two consultants who worked with Vision felt that Fry Street had a unique feeling. She felt the area could be improved and made into a positive area. Council Member Biles stated that he would like to modify his motion to include another component. The first was to intensify joint efforts with the University of North Texas Police Department, the } second was to enlarge the sphere of enforcement and the third was to direct the Development Office, the University and the Police Department to :lecifically address these issues with the Merchant's Association. Council Member Young agreed with that addition to his second of the motion. Council Member Cott asked if the figures stated by Chief Jez included only the Fry Street area. Jez replied no that they included the entire city limits. Council Member Cott stated that there was no real measures as yet. He had a petition placed on his desk and asked if that was only from the Fry Street area. • Mayor Miller staked that Mickey George had submitted the petition r to the Council. council Member Cott asked if there were a certain number of signatures which were required before being submitted. ® City Attorney Prouty stated that he had not seen the petition but O O to repeal an ordinance or to enact a new ordinance, a petition required 25% of the registered voters who voted at the last regular election of the city which would be the last City Council election. It also had to meet certain specifications as noted in the City Charter. x • i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 4 Council Member Beasley stated that she had had discussions with area merchants. She suggested a different challenge which would be to have the merchants and neighbors working together to see what could be done. The complaints and concerns which she had heard were mainly from the Fry Street area and not from other places in the City. She suggested having the neighborhood, together with the merchants, try and work something out to make some of the improvements. She would support the motion and felt that if all worked together in the area improvements would be seen. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that some of the club owners had hired off-duty police officers and should share some of the responsibility of these improvements. She was concerned that some club ov _era felt it was police harassment when they ei.:orced the issue of sales to minors, That was not the case but was pact of enforcing the law. Council Member Young felt that not all of the problems were from the merchants. There were young people who did these types of things. The merchants upheld their end of the deal made last year. The problems discussed were social problems experienced all over. There were young people taking beer from home and drinking it on Fry Street. Some people were driving by in cars and selling beer to minors in the area. All needed to get together and work out ways to solve these problems. Mayor Miller stated that the motion was to give staff direction to continue to study the issue and to work to change the behavior of those involved. As a member of the Council he attend meetings of the Texas Municipal League and the National League of Cities and both organizations have sub-groups of communities with universities. These groups have had discussions on what it was like to be in a university community. About 98% of the discussions were very positive but also there was 21 which was not as positive. The Council was looking at trying to have an environment acceptable to citizens but must also realize that this was a university e.vironment. He did not see anything which had caused a drastic • change in the community over the last year's time. He would be voting for the motion. Everything possible should be done to make sure minors were not being served. It was the responsibility of ' the owners to not continue to serve those individuals who were obviously over in.1briated. This also fell under the noise ordinance. The noise ordinance indicated that there was a ` different level of to]erance after 10:00 p.m. This should be looked at not just at 2:00 a.m. but at all hours of the evening. O • Council Member Cott asked that the motion be repeated. Mayor Miller stated that the motion was in three parts. The first was to have the Police Department work more closely with the University of North Texas Police Department to enhance enforcement, the second was to enlarge the area of enforcement beyond Fry • • City of Denton city council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 5 i Street/Avenue A, and the third was for the Development Office and the Police Department to work with the Merchants Association to develop specific issues to address and to work towards those issues. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. The council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the adoption of the Parke and Recreation Department Strategic Plan. (The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommended approval.) Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that the purpose of the document was to replace an old existing plan made in 1984. That plan had been accomplished and it was now time to move on. The new document would provide guidance until the year 2000 for capital improvements recommendations and projects. It would provide guidance for budget development and for service and program development. It would also provide a philosophical foundation for the City's response for anything which was not specifically addressed at this point in time. The document created a model for change ~s a department and for a management tool as wall. It would help the department maintain its eligibility to apply for and receive State funds for grants. The new plan set the stage for real progress for the next few years. Throughout the process, which took approximately three years, about 400 individuals had some role to play in the development of this plan. A large number of those individuals gave their input through a survey. This process incorporated the work of the Vision project. The Executive Summary of the Strategic Plan indicated a statement of core values and principles. It provided an operational feel for each of the team members. There were nine major goals, twenty nine specific strategies and eighty five specific actions included in the plan. 1995 was the first year of plan. The strategies defined the way to specific goals and actions and how to complete the strategies. Mayor Pro Tom Brock asked about a wild plant center which was a consideration and if that would conflict with a botanical garden which was included in the plan. Hodney replied that the wild plant center could be a formal garden setting or informal with a wild flower demonstration area. It could be on the order of a nature center at South Lakes Park. ® Staff was looking to see if there was any interest in the concept. o a Mayor Pro Tom Brock stated that one area to consider would be whether there would be any overlap or conflict between those two ideas. Hodney stated that another area of the plan was a study on ways to boost productivity in certain areas and to determine the best ways • • City of Denton city council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 6 to improve services. The plan would also work on understanding how much the operation cost. An annual review of fees and charges for facilities was recommended in the plan. The Denton Parks Foundation had been fairly inactive in the past. The purpose of the Foundation would be to gather fund raising support for parks and recreation activities. One goal of the plan was to get the Foundation back up and running to assist with the funding of proposed programs. Mayor Pro Tom Brock stated that last week the Council was looking at two proposed developments which had proposed a private park system. There was some discussion on whether that type of park would be maintained by a homeowners association and then become a part of the city system. She assumed that when a park was operated and financed by a homeowners association, the general public did not have access. If the City was running and financing it, all the public would have access. Hodney replied that it could work that way. One of the developments had proposed that the land be dedicated immediately as public park land but the cost of running the park would be absorbed by the homeowners association. Council Member Beasley stated tha4 she liked the accountability portion which would review progress during the year. Council Member Young stated that he always said that Denton had good schools and good parks. He hoped there would be a park in the Willow Creek area but did not see anything in the plans at this point in time. He felt that staff needed more diversity in hiring in order to truly reflect the community. Council Member Biles requested a list itemizing and describing each of the CIP projects and a current inventory of parks. 1 Mayor Pro Tom Brock asked where the hikeibike trail system came in. i G Hodney stated that there were two major elements in the system. It was not placed in the document es it was still in a draft mode. ~ Mayor Pro Tam Brock asked what was the completion date of the rail to trail plan and the Ray Roberts trail. ` Hodney stated that the rail trail was proceeding into design and ® would be completed approximately by 1998. The Ray Roberts Green 0 • Belt was currently under construction and was to be completed by October of 1997. The only question was what happened between the two point j. There was a need for some type of funding to make that connection. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that one suggestion of the Tree Board was a legacy forest in which someone would buy a tree and maintain • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 7 it in honor or dedication to someone. it might be good to include that idea in the master plan. Hodney stated that it was indirectly mentioned under promoting tree planting efforts. The legacy forest program was already initiated and staff was working on promotional materials for the program. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to return with an ordinance for consideration at the following Council meeting. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding Robertson Street funding. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that there were two projects in the CIP related to this issue. Ore was a study for the Downtown area and the other was funding for Robertson Street. A consultant was hired to look at the design for Robertson Street. The study began with looking for a way to pipe the water around the railroad overpass on Robertson. Once that study was started, the consultant began looking not only at how to pipe the water around the overpass but also piping it under Bell Avenue. That was done for two reasons. A longer structure to carry drainage water was more efficient. The second reason was that the Utility Department was looking at building a large water main in the same area. There were three options for this project. The first was an open channel. The advantage of an open channel was that it was the least expensive but if it was built on Robertson Street, there would no longer be a street. That option was not really viable. The second option was a box culvert which was a buried square pipe. The advantage of this option was that it would leave the same height clearance for the Robertson Street underpass. The disadvantage was that it did not carry much water in terms of efficiency. The third option was a crown span which was the most effi;,dent and the most expensive of the alternatives. It would change the height capacity of the railroad overpass by one foot. • This option was favored because with this structure and the existing pipe strucutre, all of the water in a 100 year storm would be carried and thus there would be no flooding at Bell and Robertson Streets. Mayor Miller asked if the open ditch would remain. Svehla replied yes plus the street would be realigned. f~ 0 • Mayor Miller asked if trucks would be able to get through if the height were reduced. v Svehla replied that some trucks were some higher than 10~ feet. The major effect would be on utility trucks which would have to use another street. Some emergency vehicles would not be able to fit 0 e ~i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 8 under the crown span such as the quint. That would require 3 change in route runs in order to not change response time. Chief Chadwick was comfortable with a change in route and felt that it would not impede fire response. Council Member Young asked if option two would change the height of the overpass. Svehla replied no but it also was not as efficient. Council Member Young asked if it would cover a 100 year flood. Svehla replied no. Council Member Young expressed a concern about a fire truck response in that area of the city. Svehla replied that a smaller crown span could be built but it would not carry as much water. Council Member Young stated that that area was crucial as it was f the only way to get into tLat area when there was a train on the tracks. Council member Biles stated that with the crown span the road surface would be raised tut there would still be flooding. Svehla replied there would not be flooding if the overpass were shortened one foot. All the water would be in the channel and drainage structure. Mayor Miller stated that the crown span was 7 feet high and the box culvert was 8 feet high. what was the difference in design. Svehla replied that there could be no direct travel on a crown span while there could be driving on a box culvert. In terms of cost, the open channel was the cheapest. The box culvert was estimated e at $350,000 and the crown span was estimated at $500,000. There was $200,000 in the current CIP. There was $100,000 in the CIP left from the Good Samaritan project. There was $200,000 in the sixth year of the CIP which was unfunded. All of those funds added up to the $500,000. A loan would have to be taken from Utilities for the project. After reviewing the options, the CIP Oversight ` Committee was in favor of the crown span and this scenario of funding. They suggested looking for an opportunity to repay the ® loan from the Utility department as soon as possible. The recommendation from staff was to use the crown span, to cross everything at one time, use $200,000 plus $100,000 from Good Samaritan plus a $200,00 loan from Utilities with options to repay Utilities. I • City of Denton Ci::y Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 9 Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to proceed with the crown span with the funding as indicated. Staff would bring back to Council the listing of options to repay the $200,000. Council Member Young stated that if the response time by the quitlt was reduced more than a minute he would have to vote against the motion. He was not willing to trade one unsafe deal with another unsafe deal. He did not want to use the crown span. Svehla replied that Chief Chadwick indicated that the first truck to respond would be from Station Two which was on that side of the tracks. Council Member Beasley stated that it was very important to correctly fix the drainage at this area. She also agreed with the Chief that fire safety was important. She was comfortable with tho Chief's opinion that fire protection would be available to the area. Council Member Cott suggested delaying consideration for one creek in order to continue to study the issue. F Council Member Biles withdrew his earlier motion and s,otioned to postpone consideration until the meeting of January 28th. Mayor Pro Tem Brock seconded the motion. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council received a quarterly update from the City's TMPA Board members. Bill Gies,n, TMPA Board Member, stated that this was the first quarterly report to be given and that more would be scheduled in the future: Ther, had been organizational changes, operational changes, financia' changes and regulation/ litigation changes at TMPA. In the area of organizational changes, there was a power sales agreement amendment. All of the involved cities had passed • that agreement and were currently seeking approval from the Bond insurers and Sord Counsel. A new mission statement was adopted at the last meeting and read "to provide reliable power to member cities in an economically competitive and efficient manner". The Personnel Committee was currently developing a profile for the appointment of a General Manager. The selection of a General Manager would proceed as rapidly, as possible. Under operational ® changes the conversion to Powder River Basin coal was complete with improved productivity. Th's total staffing of TMPA will be reduced • 0 to 138 positions effective April 1997. In 1995 TMPA had 310 positions prior to conversion. Council Member Cott asked about the amount of debt. Giese replied that it was approximately $1.3 billion. t ...rte. ~ T~ • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 14, 1997 Page 10 Council Member Cott asked if any of that had been devalued to the original bond holders. Giese replied no. Other operational changes dealt with land management. The Agency managed approximately 40,000 acres of which about 30,000 was owned. The policy was to maximize revenue with an orderly disposition of land that was considered surplus. Financial changes included an investment advisor and bond counsel were proceeding with a bond issue of $29 million to acquire ownership of one dragline and a conveyor belt. and a release from leveraged lease provisions. The Construction Fend and Special Restricted Fund were substantially depleted. The funds were used or would be used to finance a rotary car dumper and a turbine upgrade. In the regulations, legislation and 1Ltigation area, the Public Utility Commission had ruled on how rates were to be charged on the transmission of power from Taxes utilities to College station for 1995. -college Station night appeal that ruling. College Station had been billed $3.56 million plus interest for the first 11 months of 1996. Future transmission rates were still to be determined. The Public Utility Commission had recommended that 'retail wheeling' be deferred until the year 2001. The Texas legislature and U. S. Congress had yet to take a final position. The 'stranded cost' issue was still unresolved. Council Member Beasley asked tf College Station was taking any power from TMPA. Giese replied no that it was taking power from Texas Utility. in order to get that power, they have to transmit it over TMPA's power lines and pay for those tranamicsions. Mayor Miller thnnked Mr. Giese for hib report. i With no further business, the meting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ! JACK MILLER, MAYOF. CITY OF DEMN, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS • CITY SECRETARY • • CITY OF DENTON# TEXAS k , J ACC0035C f I ~ a w. ,Orw.-rw-.«..♦ 6.~ v.....'r ~.u~:.~.`~i le'Tlil'~- . ~ w i "iw.~wSS'~a ~G `„H~.:yq • • CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 15, 1997 The Council convened into a joint session with the Denton Independent School District Board of Trustees on Wednesday, January 15, 1997 at 12:00 noon at the Radisson Hotel. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Ten Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, and Cott. ABSENT: Council Member Young 1. The Council Receive a report and held a discussion regarding the joint City/DISD Planning Group. Ted Benavides, City Manager, stated that a joint City/DISD Planning Group would be formed. This group would provide additional coordination for particular issues dealing with the two groups. Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation would coordinate for the City. Albert. Thomas, Superintendent of Schools, stated that Ray Braswell would coordinate the issue3 for the DISD. Time was needed to coordinate the group and get the proposal ready for City Council and ISD approval. 2. The council received an update and heli a discussion on the ` new middle school to be built in South Lakes Park. Dr. Thomas stated that the school would be out for bids on January ?3rd. All issues concerning the laj:d had been resolved and within a month the project should begin. The Acme Brink property was acquired and the school should open in 1998. This would be a time of transition to move the sixth grades to middle schools. 3. The Council received an update and held a discussion on the f connector street between Loop 288 and Mayhill Road. Jerry Clark, Director of yngineering and Transportation, stated that they were working with the DISD on alternatives to the McKinney Street entrance to Ryan High School. There was a proposal for a north entrance at Mayhill Road. This wan in the fourth year of the CIP proposal and included a signal and a new road. It was felt that this would be a help for economic development in the • area. Design on the road would begin in :998. A fifth year project would be to rebuild Mayhill and reconstruct Mills. The corners of Mayhill Road would also be widened to help address the access issue. 4. The Council received an update and held a discussion regarding the status of the city bond program. • 0 • Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that projects in the bend issue included Kerley and Robertson Streets drainage, sidewalks in southeast Denton and the purchase of Loop 288 right-of-way. Included in the first year of the program was the installation of traffic signals at Oak/Hickory at Bonnie Bras and turn lanes at U.S.380, Bell Avenue and Sherman Drivo. Included in the second 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 15, 1997 Page 2 year of `_he program was Nottingham, Mingo Road to Audra Lane with railroad crossing signals. Later years included a Mayhill/Loop 288 connector and Mille Road. 5. The Council received an update and held a discussion on signals to be installed on McKinney at Mayhill and Loop 288 at Kings Row. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that approval was needed from the State regarding the signal at Kings Row and Loop 288. Design would begin soon and the signal should be in by March. The signal at McKinney and Mayhill wau a TxDOt signal. The contract was let in November with 120 days to complete. The signal should begin work in February with completion seen approximately in late spring. 6. The Council received a update and held a discussion reg&rding the status of the Development Plan Committee. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Development Plan committee had been working for over a year on this update. currently they were working on the concept map. The Committee was going over the document line by line and probably would not be finished before February/March. The process would be to :receive public comment, proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and finally go before the City Council. The earliest the process could be completed would be May but more likely it would be June or July. 7. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding, building permit activity in Denton. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, reviewed statistics from the 1 prior year. It appeared that most of the building permit activity this year was in the residential area as opposed to commercial. Some of the building was outside the city limits but was still in the DISD boundaries. City Manager Benavideu felt that these meetings were a great way to • exchange ideas and information between the two entities. The next meeting was scheduled for April 16th. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 1:15 p.m. E • JENNIFER WALTERS JACK MILLER O 0 CITY SECRETARY MAYOR CITY OF DENTON; TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACCO0371 ~ti • Agenda No, 7?'-~0/0 Agenda Item i_~.._.-- ~G.rtiIIt~ Date 3'tf-99 W epymdatios of JOHN ROBINSON WHEREAS, on Febnmy t, 1977. John Robinson retired, after serving with the City of Domtoa sioce February 1, 1966; anal WHEREAS, during the past 31 yam, Jobe has reprmated ar City as so example of a quality service employee; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been fortunate in having wMod & der+icaled and ouenaodiag service of Jobo end wish to roooplat the same; and wHEI AS. John Robwoo has always served above and beyond the etfieimt diwbarI;e of all hie dua;es is promoting the welfare and prospahy of the City, and hr earned the foil reaped of bis felow employees, colteaQ and eitiarns of Denton; NOW. THIRUOR& THE COUNCH. OF THE CFFY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOI VES: f That the ainccre and warm appreciation of John Robinson felt by the atiww sod oflws of the City of Denim be formally owovgW to him In it permsonA manor by recordics this ' Resolution upon the official minutes of the City Council of the City of Dealm Texsa, and fwNwding to Jobe a trot oopy thereof as a token of ow appreciaa m PASSED AND APPROVED this _ day of 1997• i JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: • RERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: • 4 • • Apenda Apenda Item Dale CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPHONE (817) 66-8307 Office of the City Afanager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Ted Benavides, City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Request For Exception to the Noise Ordinance and Street Cicsure for REZ Week Activities on Thursday, April 3, 1997 until. 12:00 midnight. BACKGROUND Representatives of the University of North Texas' Baptist ^tudent Ministries have requested that the City council grant an exc ration to the noise ordinance for the use of amplified sound for their fez Week activities on Thursday, April 3, 1997. The concert scheduled to take place at the intersection of Hickory and Fry Streets from 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 midnight (Attachment 1). Along with the music there will be tables set up with literature and other free merchandise for those who pass by. As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 2). The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions when the publin interest is served. In addition to the request for an exception to the noise ordinance, the organization is also requesting that a portion of Avenue A be closed for the concert (Attachment III). The requested closure, approximately 50 feet of the public street, 101-103 Avenue A, is • detailed on the attached map (Attachment IV). The closure will result in the loss of approximately eight metered parking spaces for the duration of the event. The property owners affected by the closure have signed in favor of the organizations request. PROGRIhtS. DE?ARTMFNTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: ~ • 0 Area Residents. 'Dedicatrl to Qualify Service" • • .r Fiscal Imoacti Revenue from eight metered parking spaces. Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Ted Benavides City Manager Prepared By- Veronica S. Rolen Administrative Assistant II Attachments: 1. Request from Baptist Stcdent Ministries 2. Noise ordinance 3. Request for Street Closure 4. Map • .r . f . e • Baptist Student Ministries UNf P.O. Box 13555 Denton, Texas 76203 (817) 382-6331 City of Denton 215 East McKinney St. Denton, Texas 76201 To Whom it May Concern; I am writing to request that the city grant any and all necessary permits regarding the outdoor concert we are planning for April 3, 1997. The week after Easter a group of Christian 01 gam'zations from the University of North Texas will be sponsoring many different activities focused on benefiting the community and school. The activities will culminate at the end of the week with an outdoor concert in front of First State Bank on Avenue A. We would like to begin the set up of all the equipment by 5:00 p.m.. The bands are scheduled to begin playing at 8.00 p.m.. The show should be')ver by midnight. One crew will remove all equipment, and another crew will be in charge of cleaning the entire venue after everyone leaves. We have asked several crmpus organizations along with other Christian companies to set up booths at the concert and give away free merchandise to these who pass by. Some of the bands will have booths to sell their memorabilia. 1 Our experiences in the past vwah this event have been very good. We feel we • , provide a service and reach many; ropic through this activity. We hope that you will be i able to help us incur endeavor. If you have any qucytions or need anything else please contact me at the Baptist Studcnt Ce.nler. Thank you for your time and consideration of t this issue. Sincerely, Amanda Gross • • Chapter 20 NUISANCES' Art. I. In General, 44 20.1-20.30 Art. 11. Abandoned Property, H 20.31-20.70 Div. 1. Generally, H 2031-2040 Div. 2. Motor Vehiclea, 94 2041-20.70 Art. 111. Grass and Weeds, 40 20.71-20.73 ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL Sec. 20.1. Noise. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, dis- f turbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive. 11} The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10.00 p,m. and 7:00 ` a.m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sem sibilities in -ny dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; (2) The use ofany stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7.00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at anv time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon • application when the public interest will be served thereby; (3) The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of , any other loud or far-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or atop work or as a warning of danger, (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration or repair work on any building at any time other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., Monday through • • ® 1 •Croureferences- Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, 4 6-87;'snepection and abatement warrants, 1 19.86 et seq.; insect and rodent control In mobile home and rec• ! reational vehicle parks, 132-91. SupPNo.I 1389 - - • • 4 20.1 DENTON CODE Saturday; provided, however, that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public safety and convenience; (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or un. loading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or con* tainers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument elf device for the purpose of performance, attracting attention by the creation of noises to any motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto. (Code 1966, §11 14-20, 14.21) Cross reference-Animal noise, 4 6.26. Sec. 20.2, Odors. (a) it shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any unreasonably noxious, unpleasant or strong odor hich causes material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of t rdinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. IN It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any odor, stench or smell of such character, strength or continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts or conditions, among others, are declared to be odor nuisances in not be deemed to be exclusive: f violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall no )1) Offensive odors from cow lots, hog pens, fowl coops and other similar places where animals are kept or fed which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; 0 Offensive ,rs from privies and other similar places; (3) Offensive odors from the use or possession of chemicals or from industrial processes or activities which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; (4) Offensive odors from smoke from the burning of trash, rubbish, rubber, chemicals or other things or substances; (5) Offensive odors from stagnant pools allowed to remain on any premises or from rotting garbage, refuse, offal or dead animals on any premises. (Code 1966, 34 14.22, 14.23) • See. 20.3. Garbage, trash and rubbish nuisances-Generally. • O (a) Storing or keeping garbage, trash and rubbish. The; storing machinery keeping of fully thed all stacks, heaps or piles of old lumber, refuse, junk, old car garbr&!, trash, rubbish, scrap material, ruins, demolished or partly demolished structures or street building:, piles of atones, bricks or broken rocks on any premises bordering any public supp. No. 1 1390 5. ) • • REQUEST FOR STREET CLOSURE Parson or Ps-e ons Requesting Street Closure:_ Gr 1)l- S agarizinxi C~ J i5 S`~a\f~Q Yl~ iv~~ ✓S :S G r.f A"w: I J- P (1 l~~~x _~":~r~5 ~ >r'✓l'(rty~ Tx r~tf ~~lr i r Phorr Nrm+ber:_ NamUPhone Number Alternate Contact Pison: Street To Be Cbud: of tti r "1n't " - Cr 2a il , LLf L. I~2F1 ~:cr ~1,nL ]t i Data and Time To Be Closed: A Interacting Streets: 14 Evl (t f a r r a1 cc k~~--r- Reason ForCosurc I111C-/_ 1&)6o~- Request must be accompanied by signstura or an stbcteG prop" owners ISae Anachawrtl Please Not the type acthnles to be Conducted during the event: ` v,/ fro,", c4rri S~Ii^n. Pianrl5 "Lr ,th5 lic n. Cr 7• ~'ar.-tinr.t .a ♦rr(!~ c-/•iii. ~T Jn arc Et:+~^..~^`V S _-TFgaSECTION FOR $TAFFUSE ONLY DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS SIG APTUR VI f1NG momm~ CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT TRANSPORTATION/ENGINEERING DOES THIS REQUEST REQUIRE: YES NO • City Council Approval? Exception to the Noise Ordinence? Particle Permit? - • Other ConditionslRequirernsnts? • V Request Approved By: NamelTdo dmiRnb+: a,ee,ML Werea. Caviar da41 N 110110.1101' to r+W■& WWVVI rOnd and Mf►Yr DWWVW . i • ALt props•*y ewnwr ";w tsnonts oflsctod by oi•s rtrssc doswo MUST be comsood end must ppn below wnr sn odcsoon V bwnp in Isrw w in oppaMdon to tlN ~trNl doows. Address Aut,arlcod i vwl Nrrw of Prep" Ownv! Sl Oppuoo Torw+l of Prod" 1. n/)f 1 / 11,7 Ined 07"~ W J / s. r rll~ C 1. C Jrr ~ AV ? l 1 r t at B. l\\~'~~obltb y4A rnr 4 ILI R 10. Y'l V1 7 ` (eel t ~ UY ! J f r 11. 12. 11. 14. 15. 16. - 17. 1a. • 19. 20. 21. _ 21. J 22. _ 21. i - 0 O u n~ rl [olp•r ' II ' r l 'l l 2 IF, CE,tE " u I4 .J''r ~ EI ~.14I , ~YfIS ilk: u A INC ' ar~ IL v r I I -FY I I ~ rt{1 t e ~`'~'I` ~If6 1 4 I , I nI t 7 'EII I cry 't I' I ! „ ^!'TT j1 rt ~yf. L--~ tk' i e~ I~ II !'in I !Ihh ~lt' t'I t E~ V 'yf~ Ijl t . I ilI'~t! pr~l i1 i~14' ~ I s t I V4 k. FI I ~ ` 7 ` k y,l ~ N If 4~ rEl I'E la ~!1~ I I I! ~~I I~ I~ll$' `~--IIEHr~~'~ Y ui.iLa(♦~j~llt~ • III 9i I I EI°al n r. ` fff 1 1 I I Ykl lal ~E~I I ! j! r ~ I ]f I~i 'I t'1 'tlti . I f"t lip. at~i I IE 1 Iy'~il 7 I {i i I h I a ``'I { k III . ! fki tpp µJ ; IIi' 1 I ~S ,II 1 t l'I E k tl'l IIBt E` i it f'ilh !`Il j r lE~'I r ? rl Iy Il-. I I. t ;I E M M F'. kL It If {i 1 ~r t F IF I !I L :f , ul 1174N ~ I, ~ 1 ti ]i✓, t t II~ st III li E II' ' I IS~Ny{~ EFi, full Irl r'itEt ~IIR NiS III{F I i.lt t ,I 1 ' ~ rt~I t ~ ~ k t I'~ rli n"In 1 r 4 tl°. s t' r' 1ZS~ li I ~ I I t ej d t t ra li~ 3iN r IEt Eat ! I ~J WI HICKORY I I NF II I trl 1lttly ' Z, 144 itol ,j rFrlLI rE' !i X ' ' ~,:I D F,F \ kr ~I I't~' ! t s IR r r~~ fJ I I ! lid Or. \ ' t E l)`[ J ~ II E .t ' t t It, IE, I'll r i 11 aY tit t II tl ; tr ti y I it III ;1:!0A ' :E:zz r 11,1 t! t Ir 1 I{ ` ys t r { t t ! 1 ~1` I r {i I.. I i jt rt r 1' 1 P ; t4 E r k Fr' ' III ~II IiI II ;ICI I lrfit EI t~~' I, 1-ti ,k IIEt L. It({I 11'I{lyi IIFH,;.. III d~PI f IF r , r 1`h i I1~ flAl ' F r1'•' ~IE III~r liifl' Ijl t`. GLqI~r I E' ~:HI I , it! t 4i I t ii ItI l`I a f ''I Ift 1r 3.i II d L Eh13,t Nu it I I.IiI is T.;l r' d' ' r 4 tiit li , t S I 'I' u 4 I y 'I it p ItII I IF I rr l r r' ti 1 I i IhEt c { I I rl I; r t t f, E r I J I f i l I L j[1I E E I t I ' l u l dtc qtr I I ;J N f +I33 I4cl r~ if 7:;j f t I~ ti1~rt~IIIlI ~tM~i~r rEl lir~ E~ II~FIy*7 Eil l ki1l{ V 7 I'Y r I i.-.c..'(•---+r" r~ R E.I k~i'EtE9 IµN't~ 'u~l Ill I t ' F't EII x!'~~r1~Ill,tl)e EY ~I~ t4lltF u~ f~jlM~'~ri: ~•h yal~ i FI F" -n t fr'' N}~ 1 4 E u j}~ I f Et 1 r I ~ 616 ~ E h E I!N (I r tEl ~I is rll7 yl '~u l 14 I F~ {E f I~ r i t. s I ~ 4 d, ~IPII i ~ E {,ky~L I „,~'I~r~~ ltd. IF, i ~ p t4lf: IMF}J t,l' `fyjt ,t~a~ i ! yak 'I t t. 0 '1llN I EII`~j Ei i'I'E,~'d! kNl iit'!' `ll,t IEI r' 'ilr rlt' f ::u r I' II I r ! r I I. I d }I n{i y I~E f3n I 'iE<~'.~ 'Yq tE t'I i I r I N I I:.IILI!II~ I r19 1 I~IIUi° ~1`I~I GMtl~ d.I t G I rF'1'!lr'II tFl Ell I in tad jllll`r EI~ GI~,'Es .r 11 It LA: t. J REZ WEEK • • Agenda No. 7-o Agenda Item CITY COUNCIL RE.PORT DalE- T_ TO; Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1°197 SUBJECT: Bold a public hearing and give direction to staff with regard to the proposed annexation of a 286.57 acre tract located north of Brush Creek Road and east of ]iWY 377. (A-75) RECOMMENDATION: This item is scheduled for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 12, 1997. SUMMARY: Realty Capital Corporation proposes to develop approx. 305 acres located north of Brush Creek Road and east of HWY 377 to accommodate a single family large lot subdivision. The site is ` shown on site map included in attachment 91. Part of this tract abutting HWY 377 is located in the City limits of Denton. The purpose of the public hearing is to receive comments from interested persons with regard to the proposed annexation. The property owner and the developer has been notified of the annexation schedule and a notice was published in the Denton Record Chronicle. BACKGROUND: Realty Capital Corporation is in the process of purchasing the subject property for the purpose of developing a 142 lot single fancily estate type subdivision. Planning and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary plat for this development on December 11, 1996. (Attachment ti2) City Council received a report on January 28, 1997 and directed staff to proceed with the annexation. • On February 4, 1997, City Council also considered and approved a schedule for public hearings. City Council held a public hearing on February 18, 1997 and no on spoke in opposition. r PROGRANIS, DEPARTMENTS 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 • O Health. • .n FISCAL IMPACT: The developer will be required to address the infrastructure needs on this site at the time of platting to include water, wastewater, drainage, access and perimeter street improvements including sidewalks. As this tract is developed in the future, the revenue benefits will exceed costs for municipal services. A fiscal impact calculation for a ten year period 1999-2008 ( assuming that development occurs as planned) shows that the City will collect a total of $1,302,506 in tax revenues and expend $925,602 for municipal services with a net gain of $376,904. Please advise if 1 can provide additional information. RES CTF L Y SUBMITTED: zRick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: t OAMA Harry N. rsaud, MRTPI, AICP Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS: I (1) Site map (2) Preliminary plat (3) Service Plan (4) Annexation schedule (5) Fiscal impact analysis • 2 4 l • ice. • ' • f PROPOSED ANNEXATION A-75 1\ ATTACHMENT 1 ~ r I 1! d 1 3 , J \ , 1 S U6 toot strip (n ai ty limits r The His of Argyle ~ Water C~ Area in Denton city limits sewer • • ATTACHMENT 2 ' r: 1 ti r A \Q~ ~~y 'J t r1~ rn ~1 1'~ DNA EA M ` ,y~'1 t'J' 1 f 1 J 1 ,0 '•~1 \ \ .yS` - rrr . -r- J LYgnA 1[w.4IO Ir INTOrfRM - JJ U ~ and ocNlo:a In.[• I[rars R Rr.{n ~ ~ - ; ~ a rr1 a{IOtu rrtnNa r r, a M IwNn:aVa d M`s4 Wp.q 11 i fltww.Or rro.iutm ♦rOq W(N[,In ~ YPwdM{MlggM gYOb _ d M OMldfRd RId,sR OVA I/ ` WIa KLrR41((d WI[IOA ~ 5 I{•1Rt4NC1 MN,[, 11 Tr >M1 D j \ \ f ROIRrL W9,s11l AJS~(uryy, r/ ' I » . p Ar~ISpY CRO M.Id 41 MR:OJ:1 / ~ / r- • rtopp M-WP0.IRqu rRIDr ~ ( JI r gouga ro+faoa ••,I(AUIf..B _ _ rl d~n uHd.,v°wa wrlr•^+cln a,M L rl ri 1, :i ~ IuN.wlnwl.w r,dnmo 1 I I -rs~. ~r ~~1 ~Nm 'r nrm uo r.im+wrl{ rJ '0J. 0• i. wAm wclcm Rl mrdo{«ra J' a _ , ounlumlr lNaN~M nu r.~TN „ n 0• ~ N• rO WAI :s laaauafn 71 rs At k b « >a r6 -V 1r .a. rlMfflurl it L'lNON1[l MI 4 KLLdrf - Irt grK[Vrt4.7m4 . EM4^L.114MGi- n+C r I .J 11 - I' Rl,ls ~ q {r .a' G r MW M 3W fr ° The Hills of Argyle A 212 LOT SINGLE FAMILY 1 • .5 0 ~k1G!-~` DETATCHED DEVELOPMENT ON \ 00AV7 ACAES IN THE J SEVERE SURVEY A-1161 .n ti • Ls I OENTON• DEMON COUNTY. TEXAS ,RVtt IMJK'f Ja. r1N T; .IY6 } /PI IKRr/UI' MORE tq S ♦ , J /d Kcom RI,Mfrf I The Hills of Argyle OWNER ENaorJxR tiY REALTY CAP"AL CORJroMTJON 01166 EO•AAJJS P. L PREUA/~NARY PLAY 111 .~'N.i~.i.o lA, nn f.an4 an W Rr15 w OCNION, "NrON CON M, r[AAS A Ilr.!/1-Ir11, Iw I~f.Hi•q{r r 11 •.•W.. qR.. l.w IrrNN•V • • Attachment # 3 SERVICE PLAN CASE H: A-75 AREA: 286.57 acres LOCATION: North of Brush Creek Road and East of IIWY 377 Municipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on behalf of the the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and in accordance with the following schedule: 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 Emergency 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 same Ievel of fire and emergency ambulance services will be provided to this area as are furnished to comparable areas within the City. C. WatcrMastewater Services • Water and wastewaler 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 all 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 Land • Development Regulations. • • I he City may participate in the cost to oversize water and sewer mains subject to fund availability and approval of the City Council. 5 • • i Where water or sewer 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 of such facilities from pro-rata charges paid by persons connecting to or using such facilities to serve their property, according to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. D. Solid Wastg Collection 1. Solid waste collection Hill be provided to the property at the same level of service as available to comparable areas within the City, within 60 days of the effective date of annexation. l 2. As development and construction commence within this property, 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, sball 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. Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm drainage 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 deices will be installed as the need therefor is established by appropriate study and traffic standards. • S. Street and road lighting will be installed in the substantially developed areas in accordance a ith the established policies of the City. F. En»Ironmental Ilcallh and Code Enforcement Services i 1. Enforcement of the City's environmental health ordinances and regulations • including, but not limited to the grass and weed ordinance, garbage and trash • • ordinance, junked vehicle ordinance, sign ordinance, food handler ordinance, 2 too, rreurar • • 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. I 3 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 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 sr~a 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. G. 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. 11. 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 same standards and policies now used within the City will be followed in the maintenance of parks, playgrounds and swimming pools. 1. Electrical Distribution i 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. • J J. Nfisccllancous 3 i x • r • 1. Street names and signs will be installed, if required, approximately six (6) months after the effective date of annexation. i. 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 he maintained in accordance w ith established standards and policies now used in the City. K. Capital Improvements Program (CM The CIP of the City is prioritized by such policy guidelines as: 1. Demand for services as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. 1. 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 criteria as all other areas of the City. i 44 O { • Attachment #4 3 ANNEXATION SCHEDULE- A75 January 21, 1997 City Council receives a rerort and give direction to staff with regard to the proposed annexation, February 4, 1997 City Council considers approval of a schedule for public hearings. February 6, 1997 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first public hearing. Service plan is prepared. February 18, 1997 City Council holds first public hearing, February 20, 1997 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second public hearing. March 4, 1997 City Council holds second public hearing. March 12, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing and considers making a recommendation to the City Council t?Nfarch 25, 1997 City Council institutes annexation. First Reading of annexation ordinance. March 2g, 1997 Publication of Annexation ordinance in Denton Record Chronicle. May 6, 1997 Final action by City Council. Second Reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance. I Meetings in bold require four-fifths vote at City Council ONTarch 25, 1997- Special called meeting. • I _ rte'"' YUK" • • ~k Attachment #5 ) ISCAL IMPACT CALCULATION FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF 286.22 A, RE (2CATED NORTH OF BRUSH CREEK ROAD AND EAST OF HWY 377. NIETHOT20LOGY: The per resident costs of municipal services are computed based on a total City budget expenditure figure of $33.1 million. The 533.1 million represents only that portion of total expenditures which are attributable to the provision of city services through the general funds. The total general fund expenditure includes general debt service and motor pool costs but excludes utility transfers. (a) Cost of municipal services per resident: Impacted general fund expenditures: $33,076562 Expenditures allocated to residential tax payers (72.4%) $23,947,431 Estimated total population of City (1996) 70,450 Municipal costs per resident $339.92 (b) Cost of municipal services per single family home: Current aver. ¢e household size for single family homes 2.76 Cost of municipal services for the average single family home $938.18 ( c) Assessed value for "break even" in municipal cost/revenue: Current tax rate per $100 of assessed value .5284 Assessed value of single family h )me for " break even" $177,551 ASS JAIPTL(?ZN&- (a) The calculations are based on an average household size of 2.16 • (b) The current tax rate of.5284 per $100 assessed value has been used in calculating the "break even" in municipal cost/revenue for a single family home. (c) It is assumed that the site will accommodate 142 single family homes to be phased and ' constructed at 20 units per year commencing in 1998. The average assessed value is estimated at $250,000 per unit. i 10 • • • i FISCAL IMPACT CALCULATIONS FOR 10 YEARS 1999-2006 EXHIBIT I REVENUE CALCULATIONS YEAR 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2.005 2006 2007 2008 TOTAL NUMBER OF N0M£ 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 142 t42 142 142 ASSESSED VALUES 5000000 1000000) 15000000 20000000 25000000 30000000 35000000 35500000 35500000 35500000 46500000 CITY TAXES(1) 26420 528-10 79260 105680 132100 158520 184940 187582 187582 187582 1302506 MUNICIPAL COSTS YEAR 1999 2000 _2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 20:7 MQ08 TOTAL EST. POPULATION 56 111 166 _ 221 276 331 367 392 392 _ 392 392 MUNICIPAL COSTS 19056 377)1 56427 74782 93818 112514 131549 13329 133249 133219 925602 NET GAIN OSS 7384 15109 22833 30898 38282 46006 53391 5433a 54333 54333 376904 Notes: (1)The current tax rate of .5284 is assumed to be constant through the period 1999-2008 3 • (2) A per capild cost of $339.92 multiplied by estimated population as development is phased. Average household size is 2.76 • i NINO • i Agenda No.--91-0/6 Agenda IteCate CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT DATE: February 12, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Revisions to Chapter 30, Flood Prevention and Protection RECOMMENDATION: Approve the ordinance SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: FFMA has recently completed a p.ugram to update the floodplain naps to include all map revisions since our current map was adapted in 1987 and to consolidate City a:.3 County maps for clarity and easier administration. The City is required to adopt the revised maps by ordinance. .ROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS, OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens in floodplain, Engineering and Transportation Department, Denton County and Development in floodplain (potential and actual) f1SCAL IMPACT i Less than $200 to switch out maps Please advise if I can provide additional information. ;ESP,EC FULLY SUBMITTED: vehia Deputy City Manager • _2-r4oared b : Davi Sa m n Engineering Administrator • Attachment: • • AEE00767 1 kC t qua,`......... • • MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 1997 ` TO: Ted Benavides, City Manager FROM: David Salmon, Engineering Administrator SUBJECT: Flood Prevention and Protection Ordinance The City's floodplain maps are being updated from the August 4, 1987 version by FEMA. They have taken all the approved map revisions and updated the maps to accurately show that approved data. FEMA also is consolidating the City of Denton and Denton County maps so that a citizen using them will no longer have to splice two maps together at the city limit lines. FEMA requires that our regulations meet or exceed their basic criteria as described in Section 60.3 (d) of the National Flood Improvement Program Regulations. Our regulations exceed those, as you have been briefed p:evieusly, through our participation in the Community Rating System (CRS) !Program. Our flood insurance rates are now S t below the minimum which saves policy owners in the If community a minimum of $20.00 per year each on their insurance premiums. There are some clea%up actions that are proposed for our flood protection ordinance. The first, on page 2099, would insert our new effective map date of April 2, 1997. The second, on page 2101, { clarifies the requirement for finished floor elevations in Zone A and x floodplains to 1811 above the encroached based flood elevation • as is consistent with other flood zones. Finally, on page 2108, flood proofing requirements for non-residential structures to 18" above the encroached base flood elevation and inserting an "or" , where a period existed to clearly define flood proofing as an option. These will give us additional CRS points. The ordinance is _erscie d fo yo zeview nd approval. / i • • • David Salmo AEE0078a 0 ClWPDOMORVAMDFLOOD.ORD I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 30-5, 30-32 AND 30-53 OF CHAPTER 30 TITLED "FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON TO REVISE THE BASIS FOR ESTABLISHING AREAS OF SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AND TO REVISE THE FLOOD PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICA- TION AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That Section 30-5, "Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows: Sea. 30-5. Basis for establishing the areas of special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on the flood insur- ance rate map (FIRM) and the flood boundary/ floodway map, community No. 480194, dated April 2, 1997, and any subsequent revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. (Code 1966, 5 10 ~-5) SECTION 11. That subsection (6) of Section 30-32, "Duties and responsibilities of the city engineer," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows; all portions of said section not specifically amended herein are to remain unchanged: Sec. 30-32. Duties and responsibilities of the city engineer. (subsections (1) through (5) unchanged) (6) When base flood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with section 30-5, the r city engineer shall obtain, review and reason- ably utilize any base flood 'elevation data available from any federal, state or other source as criteria for requiring the new construction, substantial improvements or • other developments in zone A and meet the requirements of 44 C.F.R. 60.3 subsections (C) (2), (C) (3), (C)(5)# (C) (6) and (D) (3) of the National Flood Insurance Program in order to administer the provisions of article III of this chapter. In unnumbered A zones and zone X, the base flood elevation shall be estab- lished through an engineering study, and this data shall be used for requiring the lowest 3 - e • floor elevation to be 18 inches above the k encroached base flood elevation. (subsection (7) to remain unchanged) AUCTION III. That subsection (b) of Section 30-53, "Specific standards," of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended to read as follows; all portions of said section not specifically amended herein are to remain unchanged: Bee. 30-53. Specific standards. (subsection (a) to remain unchanged] (b) Nonresidential construction. New construction or substantial improvement of a commercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, Includ- ing any basement, elevated eighteen (18) Inches above the one-hundred-year water sur- face elevation based on encroached stream conditions as shown in the appropriate flood insurance study, or this construction, togeth- er with attendant utility and sanitary facili- ties, shall be floodproofed so that the struc- ture is watertight to 18" above the encroached base flood level with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and struc- tural components have the capability of re- sisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. If the flood insur- ance study does not inclurl+ the property, the required one-hundred-year -oter surface eleva- tions shall be based on ultimate development watershed conditions. A registered profes- sional engineer, architect or land surveyor shall submit a certification to the city engineer, in accordance with section 30- 34(a)(1), that the requirements of this sub- section are met. A (subsection (c) to remain unchanged] SECTION IV. That if any aection, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or applicatiothereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City • Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it would have ~ O • enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION V. That any person who shall violate any provision of this ordinance, or who shall fail to comply therewith or with any PAGE 2 4 • , • r of the requirements thereof, or with any permit or certificate issued thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine as set forth in Section 1-12 of the code of ordinances of the city of Denton, Texas. Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and upon conviction of any such violations such person shall be punished within the limits above. S&jMION VI. That this ordinance shall become effective on April 2, 19970 a date at least fourteen (14) days after 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 WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: j HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY s 1 `I 1 BY: 1 PAGE 3 I • Chapter 30 FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION* Art. 1. In General, if 30.1-30.30 Art. If. Administration, 30.31-30.30 Art. 111. Standards for Flood Hazard Reduction, if 30.51-30.55 ARTICLE L IN GENERAL Sec. 30.1. Statement of purpose. It is the purpcse of this chapter to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and privalelcsses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions desigmed to: 117 Protect human life and health; 121 Minimize expenditure of public money for costly flood control projects; 31 Minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally undertaken at the expense of the general public; 14) Minimize prolonged business interruptions; (5) Minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric, telephone and sewer lines, streets and bridges located in Iloodplains; 16 Help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of floodprone areas in such a manner as to minimize future flood blight areas; and 17t Ensure the potential buyers are notified that property is in a flood area. iCode 1966, § 101(2-11 Sec. 30-2. Objectives. In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter shall be applied, administered and en- rorced as follows: 0 l l1 To restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities; Q) To require that uses vulnerable to floods, including facilities which serve such uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction; 'Cross references-Emergency management generally, Ch. 9; housing generally, Ch. 0 15; buildings and building regulations generally, Ch, 28; issuance of building permit where +A flood hazard exists, 128-29; landscaping, screening and tree preservation generally, Ch. 31; subdivision and land development, Ch. 34; drainage requirements and design standards for subdivisions, § 34.124; zoning generally, Ch. 33. "If 2093 6 • • 3 30-2 DENTON CODE (31 To control the alteration of natural floodplains, stream channels and natural protec- tive barriers which are involved in the accommodation of floodwaters; (4) To control filling, grading, dredgingand other development which may increase flood damage; (5) To prevent or regulate the construction of flood barriers which will increase flood hazards to other lands; (6) No permit shall be issued for the construction, alteration or improvement of any property within a floodway or floodplain area, unless the permit shall comply with the terms hereof; (7) Areas within a ftoodplain, when dedicated to publi- use as open space, green belts or parkways or when permanently and irrevocably reserved as privately owned space, greenbelts or parkways, shall conform to the city's plan of development. Such land may be included in the computation of open space as gross density requirements of this chapter. (Code 1966, 4 10V2-21 Sec. 30.3. Definitions. Unless specifically defined in this section, words or phrases used in this chapter shall be interpreted to give them the meaning they have in common usage and to give this chapter its most reasonable application. Appeal means a request for a review of the city engineer's interpretation of any provision of this chapter or a request for a variance. Area of shallow flooding means a designated AO zone on a community's flood insurance rate map MRM) with base flood depths from one (1) to three (3) feet. This condition occurs where a clearly defined channel does not exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate and where velocity flow may be evident. Area of shallow flooding hazard is the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in any given yeah. Area of special flood hazard is the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one (1) percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year, designated as cone A.E. i Base flood, also known as the one-hundred-year flood, means the flood having a one (1) percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. Critical feature means an integral and readily Identifiable part of a flood protection system, without which the flood protection provided by the entire system would be compromised. • • o t7ecelopment means any manmado change to improved or unimproved real estate, in- cluding but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. 2094 7 p C 7,7 • • FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION § 30.3 I Elevated building means a nonbasement building, (1) Built, in the case of a building in zones Al•313, AE, A, A99, A0, AH, B, C, X and D, to have the top elevated floor elevated above the ground level by means of pilings, columns (posts and piers) or shear walls parallel to the floor of the water; and 12) Adequately anchored so as not to impair the structural integrity of the building of up to the magnitude of the base flood. In the case of zones Al-30, AE, A, A99, AO, AE, B, C, X and D, elevated building also includes a building elevated by means of rill cr solid foundation perimeter walls with openings sufficient to facilitate the unimpeded movement of floodwater. Encroachment lines are limits of obstruction to flood flows. These lines are generally parallel to the stream. The lines are established by assuming that the area landward (outside) of the encroachment lines will be ultimately developed in such a way that it will not be available to convey flood flows. If hydraulic efficiency of the floodway is maintained by pro- tecting it against unnecessary encroachments, it will be adequate to convey the regulatory flood without resulting in an increase in flood elevations of more than one (1) foot. Existing construction means, for the purposes of determining rates, structures for which the staot of construction commenced before August 1, 1979. Flood or flooding means a general and temporary condition of partial or complete inun- dation of normally dry land areas from: (1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters; f2) The unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. Flood hazard boundary map (FIMM) means an official map of a community, issued by the Federal Insurance Administration, where the areas within the boundaries of special flood hazards have been designated. Flood insurance rate map (FIRM) means an official map of a community, on which the Federal Insurance Administration has delineated both the areas of special flood hazards and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. Flood insurance study means the official report provided by the Federal Insurance Ad• ministration containing flood profiles, the water surface elevation or the base flood and the flood hazard boundary map. Floodplain means the area designated as subject to flooding from the base flood (one- hundred-year flood) on the flood insurance rate map. The floodpWn includes the floodway. Floodway means a river, channel or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Normally, the floodw•ay will include the stream channel and that portion of the adjacent land areas required to pass the base flood (one-hundred-year flood) discharge without cumulatively increasing the water surface eleva- tion at any point more than one (1) foot above that of the prefloodway condition, including ® • those designated on the flood insurance rate map. Floodway fringe means the area located within the floodplain and outside the floodway. 2095 I I 8 i • • 3 30.3 DENTON CODE f Functionally dependent use means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is located or carried out in close proximity to water. The term includes only docking facil• ities, port facilities that are necessary for the loadingand unloading of cargo or passengers and ship building and ship repair facilities, but does not include long term storage or related manufacturing facilities. Highest adjacent grade means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to construction next to the proposed walls of a structure. Historic structure means any structure that is: (1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; 121 Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance or a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district; 131 Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic pres. ervation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of Interior; or Ai Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic ± preservation programs that have been certified either: a. By an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior; or b. Directly by the Secretary of the interior in states without approved programs. Levee means a manmade structure, usually an earthen embankment designed and con• strutted in accordance with sound engineering practices to contain, control or divert the flow of water so as to provide protection from temporary flooding. Lccee system means the flood protection system which consists of a levee and associated structures, such as closure and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in ac• cordance with sound engineering practices. Lowest floor means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area, including basement. An • unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable nonelevation design requirements ofthischapterand 44 C.F.R. 60.3 ofthe National Flood Insurance Program regulations. Manufactured home means a structure, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which is • built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation O O laying connected to the required facilities. For floodplain management purposes, the term "manufactured home" also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed upon a site for greater than one hundred eighty (160) consecutive days. For Insurance 2096 f 9 • • FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION § 30.3 purposes, the term "manufactured home" does not include park trailers, travel trailears and other similar vehicles. Manufactured home park or subdivision means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided into two (21 or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale, Mean sea level, for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, means the National Geodetic Vertical Data INGVD) of 1929 or other datum, to which base flood elevation shown on a community's flood insurance rate map are referenced, Minimum building elevation means the elevation to which uses regulated by this chapter are required to be elevated or floodproofed. This elevation would be equal to the elevation that could be reached by the regulatory flood if it occurred under conditions existing at the time the ordinance was passed, from which this chapter is derived, plus eighteen (18) inches, plus the surchage depth due to encroachments permitted by the establishment of floodways, Le., min- imum building elevation equals regulatory flood elevation, plus eighteen (18) inches, plus the surcharge depth as indicated in the flood insurance study. New construction means structures for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of a floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. Obstruction means any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, pro I jection, excavation, channel rectification, bridge, conduit, culvert, building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill structure or matter in, along, across or projecting into any channel, water. course or regulatory flood hazard area which may impede, retard or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water or that is placed where the flow of water might carry the debris downstream to the damage of life or property. Program deficiency means a defect in a community's floodplain management regulations or administrative procedures that impairs effective implementation of those floodplain man. ngement regulations or of the standards contained in s.ctions 60.3, 60.4, 60.5 or 60.6 of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations. Regulatory flood means a flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in the area and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur • on a particular stream The regulatory flood generally has an average frequency in the order of the one hundred-year recurrence interval flood determined from an analysis of floods on a " particular stream and other streams in the same general region. Remedy a violation means to bring the structure or other development into compliance with state or local floodplain management regulations or, if this is not possible, to reduce the • impact of its noncompliance. Ways that impact may be reduced include protecting the strut- Lure or other effective development from flood damages, implementing the enforcement pm O O visions of this chapter or otherwise deterring future similar violations or reducing federal financial expenditure with regard to the structure or other development. 2097 ro 7 7 -1 • • 4 30.3 DENTON CODE Start of construction includes substantial improvements and means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabili- tation, addition, replacement orother improvement was within one hundred eighty (180) days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first placement of permanent construc- tion of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of the slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns or any work beyond the stage of excavation or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land prepare- ; tion, such as clearing, grading and filling, nor does it include the installation of streets and'or walkways nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers or foundations or the erection of temporary forms nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. Structure means anything constructed or erected, on the ground, or attached to the ground, including but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, buildings, factories, sheds, cabins, manufactured homes and other similar items. Substantial damage means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty (50) ' percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred, Substantial improvement means any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other im- provement of a structure, the east of which equals or exceeds fifty (50) percent of the market value of the structure before the start of construction of the improvement. This term includes structures which have incurred substantial damage, regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either of the following: (11 Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary or safely code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions; or (2) Any alteration of a historic structure, provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure. • blanket value determination, for the purposes of this definition, shall be made by the city engineer by makinga determination of the cost of repair, reconstruction or improvement, who may consider appraisals by the taxing district, information contained in the permit applica• lion, as well as other information that may be available to the department or other resource. Surcharge depth ineans the vertical rise in base flood elevation due to encroachment ofthe floodway fringe. • • • Variance is a grant of relief to a person from the requirements of this chapter when specific enforcement would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance, therefore, permits construction or development in a manner otherwise prohibited by this chapter. ' I 2098 i~ I I .w s e FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION 030-8 I Violation means the failure of a structure or the development to be fully compliant with the community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the elevation certificate or other certifications or other evidence of compliance required in 44 C.F.R. 60.3(b)(5), (c)(4), (c)(10), (d)(3), (e)(2), (e)(4) or (e)(5) is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided. ]hater surface cleuotion means the height, in relation to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 or other datum where specified, of floods of various magnitudes and frequencies in the Iloodplains of coastal or riverine areas. (Code 1966, 1104x3) See. 30.4. Lands to which this chapter applies. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazard within the jurisdiction of the city. (Code 1966, 1101/2-4) Sec. 30.5. Basis for establishing The areas of special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM) and the flood boundary/floodway map, Community No. 480194C, dated November 16, 1983, and any subsequent revisions thereto are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a put of this chapter. (Code 1956, 3 1042.5) Sec, 30.8. Compliance, No structure or land shall hereafter be located, altered or have its use changed without full compliance with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. Xode 1966, 6 1042.71 Sec, 30.7. Abrogation and greater restrictions, This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, cove- nants or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter and another conflict or overlap, which- ever imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. (Code 1966, 6 1042.8) Sec. 30.8. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this chapter, all provisions shall be: )1) Considered as minimum requirements; • (2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and O O ~3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted understate statutes. (Code 1966, 4 104'x91 2099 12 c-,, 41 • • § 30.9 DENTON CODE Sec. 30.9. Warning and disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection required by this chapter is cunsidered reasonable for reg- ulatory purposes ar a is based on scientific and engineering considerations. On rare occasions greater floods can and will occur and flood heights may be increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazard or uses permitted with-.n such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter shall not create liabilit) on the part of the city or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result Gr,m reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made there- under. (Code 1966, 3 10'2-10) Secs. 30.10-30.30. Reserved. ARTICLE II. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 30.3 L Designation of city engineer. The city engineer is hereby appointed to administer and implement the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1966, 4 101,'z-11) Sec. 30-32. Duties and responsibilities of the city engineer. Duties and responsibilities of the city engineer shall include but not be limited to the following: (1) Maintain and hold open for public inspection all records pertaining to the provisions of this chapter; 121 Review, approve or deny aTI applications for development permits required by section 3033 of this chapter; 13) Review permits for proposed development to ensure that all necessary permits have been obtained from those federal, state or local governmental agencies from which prior approval is required; f (4( Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the areas of special flood hazard, for example, where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions, the city engineer shall make the nec- essary interpretation; (5) Ensure that maintenance Is provided within the altered or relocated portion of the watercourse so that the flood-carrying capacity Is not diminished; E • (6) 11 hen base hood elevation data has not been provided in accordance with section 305, • O the city engineer shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation data available from any federal, state or other source as criteria for requiring the new j 2100 13 • • FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION $ 30-34 construction, substantial improvements or other developments in zone A and meet the requirements of 44 C.F.R., 60.3(CX2), (3), (5), (6) and D(3) of the National Flood Insurance Program in order to administer the provisions of article III of this chapter. In unnumbered A zones and zone X, the base flood elevation shall be established through an engineering study, and this data shall be used for requiring the lowest floor elevation to be one (1) foot above the base flood elevation. (7) The city engineer shall maintain on record in the public works department the ele- vation of the lowest floor, including basement, of new and substantially improved structures in all special flood hazard areas. ! (Cade 1966, $ 10y2-12) Sec. 30.33. Establishment of development permit. A development permit shall be required to ensure conformance with the provisions of this chapter. (Code 1966, § 101/2.6) Sec. 30.34. Permit procedures. (a) Application for a development permit required in this article shall be presented to the ' city engineer on forms furnished by him and may include but not be limited to plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the location, dimensions and elevation of proposed landscape alterations, existing and proposed structures and the location of the foregoing in relation to areas of special flood hazard. Additionally, the following information is required: (P Elevation, in relation to mean sea level, of the lowest floor, including basement, of all proposed structures as certified by a registered professional engineer or registered public surveyor; 12) Elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any nonresidential structure shall be Iloodproofed; (3) A certificate from a registered professional engineer or architect that the nonresiden- tial Ooodproofed structure shall meet the floodproofing criteria of section 30.53(b); (41 Description of the extent to which any watercourse or natural drainage will be altered • or relocated as a result of proposed development; IS) Typical valley cross sections showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land ~ areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by the proposed development and high-water information; !6) Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structure, e fill or storage elevations; size, location and special arrangement of all proposed and • existing structures on the site; location and elevations or streets, water supply, san- itary facilities, photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream, soil types and other pertinent information; 2101 r4 Mulb • :r 4 3034 DENTON CODE (7) Profile showing the elope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream; I6) Specifications for building construction and materials, floodprooling, filling, dredging, grading, channel improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary fa- cilities; i9) For subdivisions of three (3)or more acres or thirty (30) lots or more, whichever is less, the base flood elevations of such subdivisions must be developed by the builder and this data will be utilized to regulate development within the area; (101 For areas outside identified flood hazard areas, the elevation shall be that which is required by chapter 29.07 of the Uniform Building Code which requires a minimum six-inch elevation above adjacent ground to compensate for loss of stormwater storage or drainage areas. (b) Approval or denial of a development permit by the city engineer shall be based on all of the provisions of this chapter and the following relevant factors: (11 The danger to life and property due to flooding or erosion damage; i 121 The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (31 The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; (4) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development; t (5) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (6) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions, in- cluding maintenance and repair of streets and bridges, and public utilities and facil• ities, such as sewer, gas, electrical and water systems; I (7) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; 81 The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable; • 19) The availdbi lity of alternative locations, not subject to flooding or erosion damage, for i the proposed use; , (10) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan for that area. (Code 1966, § 1OY2-14) Sec. 3033. Variance procedures. 4 0 (a) The board of adjustment as established by the city council shall hear and render judgment on requests for variance from the requirements of this chapter. 2102 15 • • _ all- • • FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION § 30.35 (b) The board of adjustment shall hear and render judgment on an appeal only when it is alleged there is an error in any requirement, decision or determination made by the city engineer in the enforcement or administration of this chapter. (c) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the board of adjustment may appeal such decision in the court of competent jurisdiction. (d) The city engineer shall maintain a record of all actions involving an appeal and shall report variances to the Federal Insurance Administration upon request. (e) Variances may be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that (i) the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and (ii) the variance is the minimum necessary to preserve the historic character and design of the structure. {ft Generally, variances may be issued for new construction and substantial improve- ments to be erected on a lot of one-half acre or less in size contiguous to and surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the base flood level, providing the relevant factors in section 30-51(c) have been fully considered. As the lot size increases beyond the one-half acre, the technical justification required for issuing the variance increases. (g) Upon consideration of the factors noted in this section and the intent of this chapter, ' the board of adjustment may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it deems necessary to further the purpose and objectives of this chapter which may include: (1) Modification of waste disposal and water supply facilities; (2) Limitations on periods of use and operation; (3) Imposition of operational controls, sureties and deed restrictions; (4) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, dikes, levees and other pro- tective measures; (5) Floodproofing measures, as described in section 30-53(b); • (6) No temporary or permanent structure, fill, including fill for roads and levees, deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses shall be permitted which, r acting alone or in combination with existing or future uses, unduly effects the ef l- ciency or the capacity of the tloodway or unduly increases flood heights above the minimum building elevation. Consideration of the effects of a proposed use shall be based on a reasonable assumption that there will be an equal degree of encroachment ti • extending for a significant reach on both sides of the stream. • O (h) Variances shall not be issued within any designated floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result, 2103 rb °o • 3 30-35 DENTON CODE (i) Prerequisites for granting variances shall be as follows; {1) Variances shall only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the min- imum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief; (2) Variances shall only be issued upon the following: a. A showing of good and sufficient cause; b. A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant; and c. A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances; (3) Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice that the structure will be permitted to be built with a lowest floor elevation no more than two (2)feet below the base flood elevation, and that the cost of flood insurance will be commensurate with the increased risk resulting from the reduced lowest floor eleva- tion. (j) Additional factors for consideration by the board shall include the following: (1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments; (2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of cihers; (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; (4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community, (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location; (7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use; (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development i anticipated in the foreseeable future; (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplaln man- agement program for the area; • (10) The safety of access to the property in times of flooding or for ordinary emergency A vehicles; (11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the floodwaters expected at the site; 2104 i • 0 FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION § 30.51 (12) Such other factors whi-h are relevant to the purpose of this chapter. (Code 1966, § I042-15) Secs. 30.36-30.50. Reserved. ARTICLE III. STANDARDS FOR FLOOD NA7ARD REDUCTION Sec. 30.51. Zoning map flood area desfgnatlons. (a) Applicability; districts; boundaries. (1) The provisions of this section shall apply to all lands within the city irrespective of zoning district classification. (2) The floodplain areas within the jurisdiction of this chapter are hereby divided into two (2) districts, tloodway and floodway fringe. (3) There shall be superimposed upon the official zoning map the floodplain designation, as determined by the flood insurance study and report. (4) The outer boundary of the floodway fringe at any point shall correspond to the base flood elevation as obtained by flood routing procedure. Minimum finished floor ele- vations for buildings within the floodway fringe shall be determined by adding eigh- teen (18) inches of freeboard to the base flood elevation, plus the surcharge depth as indicated in the flood insurance st:idy for encroachment of the C)odway fringe. (5) The boundary of a foodway shall correspond to the floodway encroachment lines. Boundaries of a floodway shall be determined by scaling distances on the official zoning map. On the ground the floodway encroachment Tyne shall be located by mea- suring distances perpendicular from the floodway centerline. (6) In cases where floodway encroachment lines have not been delineated, the area below the minimum building elevation shall be designated in the floodway until the en• croachment lines can be determined. (7) Where interpretation is necessary as to the exact location of the boundaries of the floodpiain as shown on the official zoning me?, the city engineer shall be consulted for guidance and direction in determining the location in question. Interpretation beyond ° this point shall be made by the board of adjustment after hearing testimony from all interested parties. (b) Fooodway uses. No use of land shall be permitted in a floodway unless: (1) The use is permitted within the zoning district in which it is situated; (2) Such use is not prohibited by any other ordinance; and ` ° a o (3) The use does not require structures, fill or the storage of materials or equipment; provided, however, that the following uses, when otherwise permitted within the 2105 ~8 • • 4 3051 DENTON CODE zoning district in which the uses are situated, shall be permitted upon application to the city engi neer for a development permit, as provided in section 3034 of this chapter, upon proof of compliance with this chapter; a. Accessory uses or structures; b. Circuses, carnivals and similar transient outdoor amusement ent4erprises; c. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers and wharfs; d. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines; e. Other uses, similar in nature, which are consistent with the provisions of this chapter. (c) Floodway fringe uses. No use of land shall be permitted in a floodway fringe unless: (1) The use is permitted within the zoning district in which it is situated; (2) Such use is not prohibited by any other ordinance; and (3) The use does not require structures, fill or the storage of materials or equipment, other than the following uses: a. Any use permitted in this section; b. Any other nonstructural use, provided that the use is elevated above the min- imum building elevation and that a determination has first been madeby the city engineer that such use will not unduly restrict the capacity of the channels or floodway of tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches or any other drainage facilities or systems; c. Structures constructed on fill, provided the first floor or basement floor is above the minimum building elevation. Such fill shall be made to an elevation no lower than one (1) footbelow the regulatory flood protection elevation for theparticular area and shall be extended horizontally at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond the limits of any structure or building erected thereon; d. The following uses and structures shall be permitted only upon issuance of a development permit by the board of adjustment as provided in section 3034 and subject to the following provisions: 1. Nonresidential structures, if adcquately Iloodproofed as approved by the city engineer to a point above the regulatory flood protection elevation; 2. Uses listed in this section and other similar uses which will not be subject to substantial flood damage and which will not cause flood losses on other lands • or to the public. These may include uses which can be readily removed from flood hazard areas during the times of flood. The board may in the develop. ment permit allow such uses to be located at an elevation below the regula- tory flood protection elevation. (Code 1966, $ 10'/2.13) See. 30.52. General standards, • In all areas of special flood hazards the following provisions are required: • O (1) All new construction and substantial improvements shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure. 2106 19 Plop • • s FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION § 30.53 (2) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. i (3) All new construction or substantial improvements shall be constructed with mate- rials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage. (4) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. (5) New and replacement sanitary sewerage systems shall be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system and discharges from the system into floodwaters. (6) Onsite waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or con- tamination from them during flooding. (7) Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities shall be designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. All exterior equipment shall be elevated eighteen (18) inches above the base flood elevation, i (8) For all new construction and substantial improvements, fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior waIls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood. waters. Designs for meetingthis requirement must either be certified by aregistered professional engineer or architect or must meet or exceed the following minimum criteria: a. A minimum of two (2) openings having a total net area of not less than one 0) square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be prodded. b. The bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one (1) foot above grade. c. Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers or other coverings or devices, provided they permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. (Code 1966, § 10y2.16) • See. 80.53. Specific standards. (a) Residential construction. New construction or substAuitial improvement of any resi• denlial structure shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated eighteen (18) inches above the one-hundred-year water surface elevation based on encroached stream conditions In • the appropriate flood insurance study or if unavailable one-hundred-year flood elevations • • based on ultimate development watershed conditions. A registered professional engineer, architect or land surveyor shall submit a certification to the city engineer, in accordance with i section 30.34(aHl), that the standard of this subsection is met. 2107 ao • • l 30.53 DENTON CODE (b) Nonresidential construction. New construction or substantial improvement of a com- mercial, industrial or other nonresidential structure shall have the lowest floor, incl iding any basement, elevated eighteen (18) inches above the one-hundred-year water surface elev9~ion based on encroached stream conditions as shown in the appropriate flood insurance stud},/,~This construction, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, shall be floodpZ ed so that the structure is watertight below the base flood level with walls substantially imperme- able to the passage of water and structural components have the capacility of resisting by drostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. If the flood insurance study does not include the property, the required one-hundred-year water surface elevations shat h based on ultimate development watershed conditions. A registered professional engineer, architect or land surveyor shall submit a certification to the city engineer, in accordance with section 30.34(a)(1), that the requirements of this subsection are met. (c) Manufactured homes. (1) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zone A on a community's FIfBM or FIRh1 shall be installed using methods and practices which minimize fl ood damage. For purposes of this requirement, manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation, Methods of anchoring may include but are not limited to use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This require. ment is in addition to applicable state and local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. (2) All manufactured homes to be placed or substantially improved within zones Al-30, Ali and AE shall be elevated on a permanent foundation so that the lowest floor of the f manufactured home is at least eighteen (18) inches above the base flood elevation under encroached stream conditions, and shall be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation in accordance with provisions ofsection 32.94W6Pofthfs Code. (Code 1966, 4 10112-17; Ord. No. 90-u53, ; H, 4.3.90) Sec. 30.54. Standards for subdivision proposals. (a) All subdivision proposals shall be consistent with sections 30.2, 30.3 and 30.4 of this chapter. (b) All proposals for the development of subdivisions shall r.ieet development permit • requirements of sections 30.33 and 30.34 and the provisions of th'.s article. (c) Base flood elevation data shall be generated for subdivision proposals and other pro- posed development which is greater than the lesser of twenty (20) lots or three (3) acres, if not otherwise provided pursuant to section 30-5 or 30-32(6). (d) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hmards or as outlined in the storm sewer ordinance of the city. _ • (n) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, ~ O O electrical and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. (Code 1966, 4 10Vr18) 2108 21 0 r_..:, • • • FLOOD PREVENTION AND PROTECTION 4 30.55 Sec, 30.55. Standards for areas of shatlow flooding (AO zones). Located within the areas of special flood hazard established in section 30.5 are areas designated as areas of shallow flooding. These areas have special flood hazards associated with base flood depths of one (1) to three (3) feet where a clearly defined channel does not east and where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate; therefore, the following pro. visions apply: (1) All new construction and substantial improvements oC residential structures shall have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to the top of the curb of the nearest street-plus the depth number specified in the community's FIRM. If the building site is not located adjacent to a street, the lowest floor, including the base- ment, must be elevated a minimum of one (1) foot, plus the depth specified on the community's FIRM, above the highest adjacent existing ground elevation of the site. Fill for landscaping around the elevated structure will be limited to provide adequate drainage capacity by utilizing channelization methods that adequately route the water through the property. (2) All new construction and substantial improvements of nonresidential structures shall: a. Have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated above the top of the curb of the nearest street plus the depth number specified on the FIRM; or i b. Together with attendant utility and sanhmy facilities, be completely flood- proofed to or about that level referenced in subsection (2)& of this section so that any space below that level is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy, i (3) A registered professional engineer or architect shall submit a certification to the city engineer that the standards of this section, as proposad in section 30.51(aXf) are satisfied. (Code 1966, ¢ 10S'249) i • i i (The next page is 21691 2109 22 60 • • 4E1~ Y , Federal Emergency Management Agency Y NVashin gton, D.C. 20172 0 CERTIFIED MAIL IN REPLY REFER TO: RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 19P October 2, 1996 The Honorable Bob Castleberry Community: City of Denton, Texas Mayor, City of Denton Community No.: 480194 City Hall, 215 East McKinney Panels Affected: 0210 E, 0220 E, 0235 E, Denton, Texas 76201 0240 E. 0245 E, 0355 E, 0360 E. 0365 E, 0370 E, 0380 E, 0385 E, 0386 E, 0387 E, 0388 E, 0389 E, 0391 E, 0510 E, and 0526 E Dear Mayor Castleberry: This is to formally nitify you of the fuial flood elevation determination for the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, in compliance with Title 44, Chapter I, Pan 67, Section 67.11, Code of Federal Regulations tCFR). This section requires that notice of final flood elevations shall be sent to the Chief Eaecutivro Officer of the commtrtiry, all individual appellants, and the State Coordinating Agency, and shall be published in the Federal Regivner. On September 20, 1995, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided your community with preliminary copies of the Flood Insurance Study (FiS) report and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Demon County, Texas and Incorporated Areas for your review and comment. The updated FIRM was prepared directly from the effective FIRM using a process that involves capturing data in a digital (computer- readable) format and plotting map panels using a specialized computer technology. The effective FIRM identified the Special Fl-id Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in your community. We have incorporated all essential information from the previously effective countywide FIP-SI, including elevations of the flood having a I-percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year (base flood), Dur'mg the processing of the updated F1S report and FIRM, we determined that modifications to the proposed base il(xxd elevations (BFEs) for the City of Denton were appropriate. The proposed BFEs for your commumry were published in the Denton Record Chronicle on May 23 and May 30, 1996, and in the Federal Regiver, at 61 FR 40600, on August 5, 1996. • The statutory 90-day appeal period, which was initiated on the second newspaper publication date cited above, has envied. FEMA did not receive any appeals of the proposed BFEs during that time. Accordingly, the-" 1 for your community are considered final. The final rule for BFEs will be published in th eral Register as soon as passible. The FIRM and FiS report for your community will become effeeti% on April 2. 1997. Before the effective date, FEMA will send you final printed copies of the FIRM and FI n. • Please now that when the FIRM and FIS report are printed and distributed, your community will receive only O • those panels that present flood hazard information for your community. We will provide complete sets of the FIRM panels to County officials, where they will be available for review by your community. 23 e 0 2 Please tone also that once the FIRM and FIS report are printed a id distributed, the digital tiles containing the tood hazard data for the entire county can be provided to your community for use in a computer mapping system. These files can be used in conjunction with other thematic data for floodplain management purposes, insurance purchase and rating requirements, and many other planning applicatior~,s. Paper copies of the FIRM panels may be obtained by contacting our Map Service Contractor at 1.800.358.9616. Copies of the digital fides may he obtained by contacting our Technical Evaluation Contractor at (703) 960-8500. In addition, your community may be eligible for additional credits under our Community Rating System if you implement your activities using digital mapping fides. Because the FIRM and FIS report establishing or revising the BFEs for your community has been completed, certain additional requirements moist be met under Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, within 6 months from the date of this letter. Prior to March 17,1997, your community is required, as a condition of continued eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), to adopt or show evidence of adoption of tloodplain management regulations that meet the standards of Section 60.3(d) of the enclosed NFIP regulations (44 CFR 59, etc.) by the effective date of the FIRM. These standards are the minimum requirements and do not supersede any State or local requirements of a more stringent nature. It must be emphasized that all of the standards specified in Section 60,3(d) of the NFIP regulations must be enacted in a legally enforceable document. i,.s includes adoption of the current effective FIS and FIRM to which the regulations apply and other n .dificadoas made by this map revision. Some of the standards should already have been enacted by your community in order to establish initial 6joibility in the NFIP. Your community can meet any additional requirements by taking one of Jte follo,:ine actions: Q 1. Amending exuting regulations to incorporate 29y a. - 4 -quirements of Section 60.3(4); 2. Adopting all of the standards of Section ? new, comprehensive set of regulations; or 3. Showing evidence that regulations have previously been adopted that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of Section 60.3(d). Communities that fail to enact the necessary flatiplain management regulations will tv suspended front participation in the NFIP a,+d subject to the prohibitions contained in Section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (Pub'ic Law 93-234) as amended. In addition to your community using the FIRM and FIS report to manage development in the tloodpWrt, FEMA will use the RRM and FIS report to establish appropriate flood insurance rates. On the effective date e ot'the revised FIRMM, actuarial rates for flood insurance will be charged for all new structures and substantial improvements to existing structures located in the identified SHIM. These rates may be higher if structures are not built in compliance with the floodplain management standards of the NFIP. The actuarial fool insurance rates increase as the lowest elevations (including basement) of new structures decrease in relation to the BFEs established for your community, This is an important consideration for new construction because building at a higher elevation can greatly reduce the cost of flood insurance. ~h ~ O 0 I u I 24 r~ dWOL" • 10 • f4 , 3 ! To assist your community in maintaining the FIRM, we have enclosed a Summary of Map Actions (SOMA) to document previous Letters of Map Change (LOMCs) (i.e., Letters of Map Amendment, Letters of Map Revision) that will be superseded when the revised FIRM becomes effective. Information on LOSICs is presented in Ouee categories: (1) LOMCs that have been included on the revised FIRM; (2) LObICs that are too small to show on the revised FIRM because of scale limitations, and (3) LOMCs that have not been included on the revised FIRM because they are being superseded by new detailed flooding data. If you have any questions regarding the necessary floodplain management measures for your community or the NFIP in general, we urge you to contact the Director, Mitigation Division of FEMA in Denton, Texas, at(817)898-5127. if you have any questions concerning mapping issues in general or the enclosed SOMA, please contact Mr. Karl Mohr of our staff in Washington, DC, either by telephone at (202) 646.2770 or by facsimile at (202) 6464596. Sincerely. -%kA A Michael K. Buckley, P.E„ Chief Hazard Identification Branch Mitigation Directorate k Enclosures cc: Local Map Repository i f J • O 25 ~1 % • • Agenda No. Agenda Item Date.. i k CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: 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. 4 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (6-0). SUMMARY: The Council held a public hearing on this request on January 7, 1997. The Council closed the public hearing, and after discussion, instructed the applicant to meet with the neighborhood. At least one such meeting has taken place, and the applicant wishes to move forward with the rezoning process. As per the Agenda Committee's instructions, a courtesy notice was sent to all the property owners within 200 feet of the subject property on February 20, 1997, as well as to those citizens who spoke at the January 7, 1997, Council meeting. The applicant has proposed no changes to the recommendation made by the Planning and Zoning Commission (see Planning and Zoning Commission Report). BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: • None. • • 1 to"t I" r, -Im • d:rPlease advise if I can provide additional Information Respectful! submitted: Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager f I Prepared by: f ` ALI Walter E. Reeves, Jr.jfCP Urban Planner • i I • t-• • • f ' I f • 0 ATTACHMENTI PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT 71 To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: March 4, 1997 Subject: Z-96-049 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Bob Shelton Enterprises 1901 Stadium Oaks Drive Arlington, Texas 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 (Ole)) zoning district. Location: The subject property is located on the east side of Teasley Lane, approximately 500 feel south of the intersection with Lillian Miller (Attachment 1). Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: North: Vacant, SF-10 Conditioned, SF-7 Conditioned, and Office Conditioned, 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-i6. Denton Development Plan: Low Intensity Area #77 (155% 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 • 3. Extension of water and sewer lines. 4. Drainage improvements & fire hydrants. Page 1 3. C , • 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 properly was annexed into the City of Denton by Ordinance 8333, and the property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district. NOTICE Thirteen (13) notices were mailed on November 22, 1996. Two replies were received in favor, two replies were received opposed, and one reply was received without an opinion. The opposed replies total 6.5% of the land area within the 200' notice area. ANALYSIS Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Area Development Rating VS Policy POLICY COMMENTS INorff" may son*" cw'u.a Y,caW.t.e Y.con.U1.9 To be conslslant with fns Plan, a Allocated Intansity . 260 Intensity trips. development should not exceed Its Proposed Intansity, . 675 Intensity trips. x allocated Intensity. Proposed square footage • 45,000 sq. fl. Plan square footage • 16,00o sq. it. Over Intensity ellocallon by 181%. sleet eta Plan control within 1,6oo Low density residential use within 1,600 feeL feet of existing low density No sits plan proposed. Not being proposed x rasidentlal. as a PD. Trans design to ensure that Mut6• Proposed office area win have access to Family or Non•Aestdental uses have Teasley two, an arlenai level street access to coltactors or larger x arterials with no direct amass through residential streets. SuffKlant green space, recreational Landscaping wM be required as per the Gye (Wilies and d'versity of parks are Landscaping, Screer4ng, and Tres • provided. Prassrvatim ordnance. A bufferyard is x proposed. Additional landscaping Is proposed along Teasley Lane. Paadng Is being reelected to side and rear locations. Input Into ptanning by neighborhood No neighborhood meeting hold, associations and councils Is x eocouragod. 0 Neighborhood service center Total proposed commercial acreage along concentration Teastey is 4,004 acres. Maximum allowed by x ♦ Q the Denton Development Plan w'oOd be 3 acres, Page 2 y • • i I , ATTACHMENT I Nonresidential ,h mile separation The oflu portion of the proposed development IS wan within V r • of other x nomresfdential davelopmenL Any lorrn of contnuous slaip Not consistent with this policy. commercial development is strongly x dscouraged in or near low intensity areas Lillian Miller Specific Area Pollcles. Gnan the prominenos of the South East Planning Area and the thoroughfare network in that sector there are nicety to be pressures to locate high to moderate intensity land uses along Teasley Laoo, FM 2181, Lillian Miller Parkway, Hobson Lane, 14SE, and boWeen Loop 288 and Lilian Miller. Those pressures are likely to Increase as FM 2181 Is developed as a primary anerlal and extended further South to ultimately conned with this DFW Airport. The polry of this P%n therofore Is to restrict the fuller Intrusion of high and moderate intensity land uses in Nis x ~a. Limited nelghborhood servloes and high density housing consistent with Via standards for a low Vitensity area, are not pros, t0od. The win' specific guidelines are required.. The neighborhood dons ltyAntensity The proposal it 181% over the maximum standards should be dowry intensity of The Denton Development Pi x monitored and vigorously Implemented. Restrict curb cuts to Teasley Lane, It Is unknown k access will be proposed from Fid 2187, Lillian Miller, and Hobson Teasley Lane, x lane Rosidenlial subdivisions should be Not appnwble, generaily designed so houses do not face onto ri thoroughlares. These should access onto local and colecter Alai Through traffic to DFW. Not applicable. In considering the disproportionate share allocation of Intensity, the Plannbg and Zoning Commission and City Council should consider the following items, but are not limited to theta Items: Adequate Inlrastruzture There will be S. number of pub8e Improvements required with this proposal. A law of The major Issues wnl be traffic Impacts on Teasley Lane, extension of water and sower service, drainage, Via proposed commercial development along Teasley Lane. Unusual Topography The subject property has drainage and olhor considerations. Compabbility This currently has an SUP approved In May 1986 for a training park for horses. WhBa This use is proposing a slmllar mix of uses a$ Z496-038, the undorlyingi zoning is Agrlalture?, This proposal Is 181% over the maAmun Intensity of this Denton Development Plan. Addtlonany, the proposal is s111 significantly Inconsistent with a number of major policies of the COP. I 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 3 S c_ .~>>,r-.,yrr~~!twxmtwnaM A • • s ATTACk,MENT 1 the proposed conditions adequately address and mitigate the other inconsistencies with the Denton Devalopment 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.G04 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 riot less than 70% brick or masonry veneer. i 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 (15) 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 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 root 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. • • Page 4 ,Y • ATTACHMENT1 ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve as recommended. - 2. Approve with additionaVother conditions. 3. Deny. 4. Postpone consideration. ENCLOSURES 1. Location map. 2. Surrounding zoning. 3. Prohibited use list. 4. Permitted use list. Page 5 =.-AM arm 0 • ATTACHMENTI ENCLOSUREI Z-96-049 Sundown Ranch r I~ 1 L ° k SITE Sul ''a L Will 'a 1 1 IJ . 0. - ly gyp. >a • e ~ got eels 1 ooof all D ° \\\~1'\'~ • 111 lJ ,i= 14V looo I 'ICI". \r~ { ~ 4 will 0 _ .r..- ooa~ 0 • ATTACHMENT 1 ENCLOSURE2 _ NNN__ l J V ✓IJ~ F = u aN rQ i { 4 v 2-1 I 11L r , Will Y\ ~j T Di rF ILI 1 ~1~ i ~ ~ I• ~ ~ ~ ~ _~y4~JJ { ` L~lrl+l } .F7 a 'Wl >`e- ^ Q.. ~L.1 ' 4 1 1+1y Ja 4 1~ i,~ e ~ ~ _L Y/ ~ C~..•7 1 I LL 1 i l~i~,,s`r.~`~s..a~?k~lr.t~irfs'•L_ _ _ _ 4~~4~ ~ 1 -1~ a F• ~`'nn~l~Hlµr ~4. ' Vr^ . ~ r X71 I j I ~T + it 4•~.Z1m~•+` P j n :j N _ L _ e e. ~ - ?•'a ,mow * ~ i;a1t ~ - i 1 R r -1{~J~~° \ ~ 1 y, P I, i °a ia~P~ j+a ;V .j o ~ Q L _a v w ~ •M' Y f ~1.. _ JJr~ arA., . ~C. N ✓ e 4~ ~ r r I^ tip,, C _ .ter. • • t ATTACHMENT 1 ENCLOSURE 3 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 Halfway House Hospital (chronic care) Public Library Monastery or Convent Occasional Sales Park, Playground or Public Convnu0y 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 Off Street Remote Parking Sewage Pumping Station Ni :ate Swimming Pool Telephone Line & Exchange Switching or Relay Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well Country Club (private) with Goff Course Public Golf Course \ Public Park or Playground Public Play field or Stadium Swim or Tennis Club • Railroad Track or R'ghl•of•Way Farm or Ranch Cemetery or Mausoleum r Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Chic Club Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, State, or FederAt Government Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower , • Water Treatment Plant Airport Landing Field or Heliport Commercial Parking Lot or S!ruc'ura Cafeteria Mortuary or Funeral Parlor Restaurant Scientific or Research Laboratories _ • ,t ATTACHMENT i ENCLOSURE 4 OFFICE (CONDITIONAL) _ j PERMITTED USES: Educational Institutional and Sn -QIAU ses Art Gatleryor Museum • Day Nursery or Kinder t-tair School • Hospital (General Aoute Care) • Institutions of Reltglous or Philanthropic Nature l r • 'Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged .1 1 its dyAccessoty and Incidental Uses • t` Accessory Building _ Temporary Field or ConstruOlon Office (Sublecl to Approval and Control by Buildiing Inspector) • ,Telephone, Business Office Re a1 and Service Tyf(L • Offices, Professional and Administrative • Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health 69*icvhural Type Uses • Animal Clinic or Hospital (No outside funs or pens) f N 11 1 eezaseot.ntox W 7 7 4wwY*w. • • P&Z Minutes DRAFT i December d, 1995 ' Page 16 II. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 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, approxim4tely 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Teasley and Lillian Miller. (Z-96- 049) Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing. Mr. Reeves: I have to apologize, this was also supposed to have a case to rezone 169 acres to residential. That didn't happen because 1 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. 1 need to explain a rather technical issue associated 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 wit, 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 31one 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 do "otice 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 policy chart and this is not cone stent with just about every policy of the plan. it is not consistent with any of the major policies of t',: plan, those being intensity, concentration, and separation. It is not consistent with the density intensity policy of the Lillia Miller specific area. At this point in time we don'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 gaik.ry, day nursery or kindergarten, acute care hospital, institutions of r-ligious or philanthropic nature, nursing home, an accessory building, a temporary field office for construction purl ises, telephone business office, professional or administrative offices, studio for a photographer, musician, artist or health, and an animal clinic or hospital. Having p 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 • O 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. • • P&Z Minutes Decem ber 4, 1996 DRAF Page 17 Mr. Cochran: You mentioned that this proposal when separated from the residential poriion 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, Reeve:: On 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 sepuate applications these have to stand alone and cannot be put together. Nis. Schertz: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Brad Meyer: My name is Brad Meyer with Carter & Burgess, 795D Elmbrook in Dallas. 1 am representing Bob Shelton who will be die developer of the property. Mr. Shelton will be developing the property and may also be a potential occupant in this office complex. Jack Hatches 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 could bring up all of the merits of each. We were hoping to be able to bring them to you on the same agenda. To the north we have existing office conditioned zoning similar to what we 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 on' 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 the Plan that calls for a maximum of three acres on office tract, by having four acres instead of three acres we are able to have a bufferyard and more landscaping. We are going to do the same amount of development but we are doing it on more land 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 j • 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 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-five 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 work out 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 pruposing, how does that compare to what it would be if it vras three acres? 'y 1 1 ......w ...tom.. . • • P&Z Minutes December 4, 1996 D) 2 A F T Page 18 Mr. Meyer: As far as I 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. Jones: 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, lake Hersman's has a ratio of 0.27, and Fred Gossett's has a ratio of 0.27. Nis. Schertz: I would like to hear from you traffic consultant. Mr. Jack Hatchet: My name is Jack Hatchet and my address is 1216 Balboa Circle in Plano, Texas. i did the traffic numbers on the entire development including the residential. The traffic numbers that i did were for the total package. The proposed office development will generate a hundred trips in both the moming 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 moming peak hour and five hundred and thirty trips in the afternoon. The total that 1 did the analysis on was the afternoon peak hour and that was six hundred thirty-one trips. I analyzed the same three intersections that I Old 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 I • e 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 I am trying to get through an intersection and it gets over crowded and 1 am 1 • • P&Z Minutes 11 k December 4, 1996 Page 19 having problems then 1 will find another way to go home and 1 think that is true of everyone. What I have projected in this case is that more of the traffic will use Teasley and F.M. 2181, more than what I projected in the Hersman case. Mr. Svehla: If 1 could add to Mr. Hatchel'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. Hatcbel: Usually the way that 1 like to describe it is that at a level of service C if you come to a light and 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 through the intersection. Mr. Cochran: Did you weigh Lillian Miller and Teasley equally on both of these projects? Mr. Hatchel: Yes sir. Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone else that would tike 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 zoDx+ 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 it: 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. 1 am glad that 1 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 arc 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 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. Schertz: Is there anyone to speak in favor? Mr. Bob Shelton: My name is Bob Shelton and my address is 1901 Stadium Oaks Drive. I am the A proposed developer for this tract. I just wanted to elaborate on what has been said. We do planon doing O O a first class development there. We do not plan on having an access to Teasley Lane. We do think it is 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. Schertz: Have you tried this concept in other cities? i 717 • • I P&Z Minutes December 4, 1996 J! 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: How much of the four acres will be paved and how much will be green space. Mr. Shelton: 1 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 I-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 some 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 street and leave the parking spaces for the patients and customers. Nis. 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. I 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 I-35 to Teasley Lane. If you look w all of the office development along there including the major commercial center in the Golden Triangle Mall, I 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. Sir. Mitchell Turner: My name is Mitchell Turner and my address is 2118 Stonegate. 1 have several objections to this. I have enjoyed for many years watching the longhorns grazing on the Rayzor property on Bonnie Brae and I have enjoyed watching the horses on this ranch. 1 regret very much seeing these disappear because 1 think they add to the character of the City of Denton. There has not a neighborhood • meeting for us to view this. The main objection that I have is that it violates numerous policies of the Denton a.velopment 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. It flunks the three acre size policy. It also flunks the strip non-residential that Mr. Claiborne referred to. I 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 7oning case here in Q less than ten minutes. The gentleman who spoke about the traffic study also helped to rewrite the • appendix A task force that some of us worked on for a year after developing the Denton Development Plan. I 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 1 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, because of the space that has already been zoned, I don't see any need for any additional office space on this property and I would ask that you not approve this petition. • • P&Z Minutes 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 ques.~on, 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 I 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 sendin; out the notices so you will have two separate cases on two different nights. It was our understanding that the petitioner 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 woul6 have been the same even if tile 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 case. 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 I 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. I don't know if there will be any curb cuts along Teasley. There would two that would move to the consistent and the rest would remain where they arc at. Mr. Jones: If they had done one application for the entire project would staff's recommendation have been different? Mr. Reeves: Yes, we would have recommended the same thing that we did on Mr. Hersman's property, A except for the overall gross acreage and the fact that Mr. Hersman has a PD in the center of his development that had five thousand square foot lots these are essentially the same case. r Mr. Cochran: I 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: I don't know if the neighborhood meeting happened. Whether they hold a meeting or not I' • • this one is always going to read consistent because we don't require them to hold a meeting it is just a 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 l7 s s P&Z Minutes t December 4, 1996 ~Jl }I 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 not been approved does not address this in the color code that we have. It has been discussed but I 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 used to either modify the intensity area of the property, or the Planning and Zoning Commission end the Council can assign additional intensity to the property in question on the basis of some items , are mentioned in the Plan. On page 19 it says that in considering the disproportionate share alto.: of intensity, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council should consider the folio, items but are not limited to these items, adequate infrastructure, unusual topography, and compatiWity. 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 5 where I 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 e 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 tal'cing about are in the Denton Development Plan? 6 Mr. Reeves: The intensity policies yes, the Iasi statement that 1 read, the Plan is silent when something 0 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 will help address those problems? All of these same issues were there with the case south of Red Lobster, and we j have a set of conditions associated with that so that it was approved. That helps provide some guidance 1 when you have these inconsistencies like this. Mr. Bucek: So what you are saying is that we have the Denton Development Plan that is a guideline, but 0 0 0 0 w P&Z Minutes 61, December 4, 1996 _ f ±11 Page 23 J u J ; 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 1 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 e•-en 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. ©ucek: 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. I would like to comment on the parking while I 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. Jones: Can we postpone the decision on this one until next week until we can see the residential 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? Ms. Ganzer. 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 • held the public hearing, there is no further notice required and it can ba put on the agenda where ever you want it. v 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 seethe 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 C-om that site going to Lillian Miller. Traffic is an issue we can use to circumvent 19 • • 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. 1 think that is a considerable difference from what we were looking at before. Ms. £chertz: 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 Ilth. 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 further comments? Ms. Gamer. I would just like to say that I would be comfortable voting on this tonight. Mr. Powell: I would also ire 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 11th, please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Denied. (1- 6) Ms. Ganzer, Ms. Schertz, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Powell, Mr. Jones opposed. • Mr. Powell: 1 move we recommend approval of this request to rezone 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (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. ao a • • P&Z Minutes 1' December 4, 1996 Page 25 Nis. 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. I also have a difference of opinion in the propow traffic flow. Nis. Schertz: Any further discussion? Mr. Moreno: 1 am disappointed tl at 1 didn't get tr, see the residential before our deliberation and vote. I see too many inconsistencies with the Denton bevelopment Plan and I can't vote for this in good conscience. Ms. Schertz: All in favor of the mo:' ^n please raise your right hand, Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-1) Mr. Moreno opposed. Baroara Russell returned to chambers at 9:30 p.m. III. Discuss and/or give direction to staff with regard to information and backup outlining options for changes or additions to the zoning ordinance. hit. SvehIa: 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.m. Mr. Persaud: At the public hearing there were a number of issues raised. Depending on who you talk 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 residential districts. Don dilIard has some wording changes that we will walk you through. Non conforming uses and structures, 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 .bout the 22nd of Iarv~ y. ~r O Mr. Powell: that sounds good and you need to put it at the beginning. Adjourned at 9.43 p.m. a~ • 0 Agenda ND. Z-96-D49 Agenda Item Date 3- -0 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 (0[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, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that thin 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 ordinance of the city of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: f 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 e prohibited by the office classification, or any • r3 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. 0 • 4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of not less than lot brick or masonry veneer. 5. That no "off-premLse" 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 rff-site lighting shall be permitted. 7. A "bufferyard" meapuring fifteen feet (151) wide, and compr:.sing four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred linear feet (1001), shall be installed along the east property line abutting the residential lots. 8. That the maximum building height stall not exceed 35 feet. 9. No individual building shall exceed 7,500 square feet. 10. All building$ 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 city's official zoning map is hereby O amended to shCW the change in zoning herein approved. r SECTION •x,13. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance snail, 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. f O o SECTION IV. That this ordinance ;hall 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 • the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of tna date of its passage. 1997PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , . JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:. HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 1 J PAGE 3 t • • EXHIBIT A :TRACT 2t i t 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 a~l of the called 4.004 acre Tract TWo, described in the deed from B.J. Olascock at ux, to Jerome Cott et ux, recorded in Volume 1152, Page 468, of the Real- Property Records of Denton County, Texas, as recognized and occupied on the grounds the subject tract being more particularly described as fQllowat BEOINiIINO for. the Northwest Corngr of the tract being described herein at a capped iron rod *bet for the Northwest Corner of said 4.004-•acre tract' in- the East line of F.M. Highway 21811 THENCE South 88 Degrees 07 Minutes 04 Seconds East with the North line of said 4.004 acres generally along a fence a distance of 374.45 feet'to a 1/2* iron rod found for the Northeast Corner of said 4.004 acres same being the Northwest Corner of the called 40,00 Acre Tract One described in said Cott deed; THENCE South 01 Degrees 3? 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 acres THENCE North 88 Degrees 09 Minutes 35 Seconds West with the South line thereof along the Northern side of a gravel driveway a distance of 347.97 feet to a capped iron rod set for the Southwest corner of said,4.004 acre tract in the Eastern line of said Highway THENCE North 01 Degrees 04 Minutes 18 Seconds West with the Neat line of said 4.004 acres and the -East line of said Highway, along and near a fence a distance of 405.39 feet to a capped iron rod set for the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius of 761.78 feet THENCE along tote arc of said curve an arc distance of 61.25 feet (chord bearing of North 04 Degrees 07 Minutes 21 Seconds West a distance of 81.21 feet) to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 4.004 acres of land, more or less. i 1 S:hedule A (,Rev. 1`1/93) - Promulgated Pan 2 Commitment for Tip, a Insurance lid only If Sdhdules 8, C, D Form 999 - SheSt 4 And Cover Page A~bttached - , • 09 1P -V x • s g EXHIBIT B = List of Prohibited Uses Z-96-044 One Family Dwelling Restricted Commun'tty Unit Development Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or Motel Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (public) Group Homes Halfway House Hospital (chronic care) Public Library Monastery or Convent Occasional Sales Park, Playground or Public Community Center School, Private Primary or Secondary School, Public or Denominallonal School, Business or Trade Community Center (privar:~) 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 Off Street Remote Parldng Sewage Pumping Station Private Swimming Pool Telephone Line d Exchange Switching or Relay Station Water Reservolr, Water Pumping Station or Wall Country Club (private) with Golf Course Public Golf Course Public Park or Playground Public Play Field or Stadium Swim or Tennis Club • Railroad Track or Right-ol-Way Farm or Ranch i Cemetery or Mausoleum Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club Home for Care of Alcohoilc, Narcotic: or PsychlaWc Patients Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, Stele, or Federal Government Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower • Water Treatment Plant O O Airport Landing Field or Heliport Commercial Parldng Lot or Structure Cafeteria Mortuary or Funeral Parlor Restaurant Scientific or Research Laboratories • • Agenda No- -6/0 Agenda Item~p~__ ' CITY COUNCIL REPORT Date~~~~~L Z_ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider approval of exaction variances to Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks and Section 34-124(e) conceming drainage channel lining. The 50.0 acre tract Is located on the west side of Masch Branch Road, north of University Drive. (Marriott Gardens Addition) RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variances (4-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Please advise if I can be of further assistance. Respec submitted, Rick Svehla • Prepared by: Deputy City Manager i AP_rcrn Do na Bateman Senior Planning Technician _ • • O Attachments #1&2: Planning and Zoning Commission Reports. 1\ Asa.y..,,,.~....,,+wM•iyy~!'.t, C~i' ~ • . i • • r ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council l~ FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission 1 DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SEC11ON 34-114(17) CONCERNING SIDEWALKS FOR THE MARRIOTT GARDENS ADDITION. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the sidewalk variance. SUMMARY: The 50.0 ecre tract is o,i the wsst side of Masch Branch Road, north of University Drive. The property Is located in Division One of the City of Denton's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Lot i is planned for a Denton County Public Works Facility and Lot 2 is currently providing truck parking for Marriott Brothers Construction. BACKGROUND: Mr. Tommy Marshall, representing the owner of the proposed Marriott Gardens Subdivision, has applied for a variance of Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks. The cited section requires sidewalk construction along the perimeter of the development. In this case, sidewalks are required along Masch Branch Road. The applicant requests to not construct sidewalks along the street 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 Commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulabo" 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 approval of variances to w,lve such exactions, so as to prevent such ex:ess, to the City Council, Waiver of developments! exactions shell be approved by the City Council. As stated, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variance. • ENCLOSURES: • • 1. Preliminary Plat. 2. Draft P&Z Minutes of February 12, 1997. I MIAMI • s 0 JIXt9 AUYrr svRVrr tiwrw. .fesriucT xvAI afs wl, .,~M ..{Id yYYYY ~Ir Er .N rY O16 - / r 10.M ..I ~ N~.pl b N Mylr V ~ ~N~.(/1 .M• •~/1~ ~ ~ .~E I M I Y Ii1 A~ r..{ / t A \OI Crl/ . -AO .M MO ~ r ~~1~ 1sCOr ' orr~a~r1• u / ~ ~1 uus Y1. N~ rP 1 ~•1 ` A 0.11 L-~•V` 17~ =,1µp I I i` r 4/ ~ I $ !^a~''; ~ ~a ~y~ t' x r. e r • 1s~•w we / w I ~ ~ 1o~1~r ~srj°w r-7 ,~~r r rr ~w~±~[ Iwr~-r~Y.a~r ~r1 r¢ ~...ow,~ • t p QR..~ ~ w ew.w wx.r+x • j.'~ .1wT~~~ai7 "x•+~#`F3 ,1a+or OIIrCI fd14 I , A •r •ii - •r r~1 •r• ~I M I x 1u =~°sr. M!~~ is •a.~- Citi?~1 ranges ; I 4 t~o ~'~S1~sa'~. R•.r. ~G u..rrr~ IIAM ' r+.r .r.r • r w w r r1. r e r i ~olM rr.~w IV t 0 i r ~ • •nllr 11 ••Y'J' an z.1 6. k am G• _ _ r- lis A{,r,,~y V v~ • ~1r • x g l t .Liu ~ss y ..I ~,fl MOMS, MR. a F. A wlww I ~ ~~m • 1 ! t ~ It1• rna0 RvmY~cian mue, oort•I mrn, llfOY~6 M W If1110O r fK ZHW Gown Il/IMr CMYOR WI or MAIN 111``1 r 1 , I I rMY PRELIMINARY PLAT ® r, IY•~ MARRIOTT GARDENS ADDITION • Mfr tltl I1b Ib 100 10. Of•OYX 18 !NM 1-fJ 110H1'. Yf1.I 1VYIl f11 •YfV IMT; ORY ~ I . ue r . m o~u a wwon. w. r . i 1171 a m rl-rl-rfM way sr 1 OG/+eK f • • P&Z Minutes ENCLOSURE 2 February 12, 1997 Page 7 Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) VI. Marriott Gardens Addition. The 50.0 acre tract is located on the west side of Masch Branch Road, north of University Drive. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding drainage channel lining. Mr. Salmon: Tommy Marshall is representing the owner of the proposed addition. They have applied for two variances, one is for the sidewalk requirement, and the other is for the drainage design criteria. The subject property is located north of Hwy 380, on the east side of Masch Branch Road. The subdivision regulations require that sidewalks be built along the perimeter of the property. The lot is being divided into two separate lots. The applicant is proposing that sidewalks not be constructed. Their position is that because of the size of the property and the type of uses a sidewalk wouldn't be of use to the development. This would make this an exaction variance. Staff cannot recommend this variance in this case. Based on the information that we have been given we understand that there is already a contractor's truck operation occurring on Lot 2. To the best of our knowledge Lot 1 is going to be used by Denton County for a centralized road and bridge maintenance facility. Both of those are considered light industrial uses and we would consider them intense uses. There is about fifty acres of property here, about seven acres is in the tloodplain. Since this in not within the city and is not zoned, what could go on this property is pretty unlimited. I have given you some figures based on trip generation for light industrial uses. I would be the first to admit that there isn't a direct correlation between vehicle trips and pedestrians, but I was trying to use that as a measure of intensity and trying to compare that to residential uses which is normally where we are at when doing a sidewalk variance. I tried to compare them side by side and trying to explain staff's position. The drainage variance is also an exaction variance. There is a small drainage channel down in the southeast corner of the property. It is about two hundred and fifty feet long from Masch Branch Road to where it intersects the floodplain. Our ordinance would require that the channel receive a hard lining. In most instances that would be okay, in this instance because there is such a short • amount of channel and it is adjacent to the floodplain the expense of putting in a concrete lining would be un;ustif ed compared to the actual good that it would do for the property owners, the city, and other te!idents. In this particular instance staff would recommend that the variance be granted. Sir. Cochral: Whete is the closest sidewalk? • Mr. Salmon: There are a few stretches of sidewalks across from Ranch Estates on Hwy 380. • • Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Tommy Marshall: My name is Tommy Marshall and I am a Real Estate appraiser. My office is located at 3730 E. McKinney, Suite 103. We requested the sidewalk variance out of a lack of justification. There aren't going to be very many people walking from Krum to the Selwyn School and that would be just about what it would take for someone to reed a sidewalk here. This property 5! 77 4. r t +w'.i...... r...-...- -a:.Rt • • P&'L Minutes'` rebruary 12, 1997 ? r. Page 8 also lies in the airport flight protection area and the city has some restrictions for what can be built in this area. Mr. Cochran: I move am we recorru rd fie sidewalk variance for the Marriott Gardens Addition. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Nis. Schertz: [ move that we recommend the variance to Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances for the Marriott Gardens Addition to allow a natural channel due to the lack of reasonable benefit of the improvement to the owner and the public. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) c. Consider the preliminary plat of Lots l and 2, Block 1 of the Marriott Gardens Addition. Ms. Bateman: This is a fifty acre tract. Lot l will be for Denton County Road and Bridge and Lot 2 is currently being used by the Marriott Brothers Construction for their truck operation. This is currently in Division One of our ETJ and is not in the city limits of Denton. Public improvements associated with this include the extension of water lines, relocation of a lift station, installation of approximately ten fire hydrants, and dedication of various drainage and utility easements. Since the variances have been approved DRC recommends approval. Mr. Jones: I move approval of the preliminary plat for Lots 1 & 2, Block I of the Marriott Gardens Addition. his. Schertz: Second. • Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) VII. Denton Country Club Estates. The 128 acres is located southeast of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and US 377. II • ' a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.114(17) regarding sidewalks. • • J b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) regarding cul-de-sac length. c. Consider a physical hardship variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding channel lining. d. Consider the preliminary plat. S, _ • • ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council M FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34-124(e) CONCERNING DRAINAGE CHANNEL LINING FOR THE MARRIOTT GARDENS ADDITION. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. SUMMARY: The 50,0 acre tract is located on the west side of March Branch Road, north of University Drive. The property is located in Division One of the City of Denton's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). j Lot t is planned for a Denton County Public Works Facility and Lot 2 is currently providing truck parking for Marriott Brothers Construction. BACKGROUND: Mr. Tommy Marshall, representing the owner of the proposed Marriott Gardens Subdivision, has applied for a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design. The cited section requires that all drainage courses that are not associated with a major floodplain be constructed with pipe or a lined channel. In this instance, there is an existing drainage channel that crosses the southeast corner of Lot 2 that is not in the flood plain. The cited section requires that the channel be lined. The applicant proposes that this channel be left in a natural condition and that an easement be granted wide enough to contain a 100 year storm. The applicant bases the request on the cost of lining the channel compared to the benefit it would produce considering that only a short section I of the channel is on the property (approximately 250 feet). 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 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 approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to the City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shell be approved by the City Council. ® • As stated, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the variance, ENCLOSURES 1. Preliminary Plat 2. Draft P&Z Minutes of February 12, 1997 L e 0 • Avsnucr Nmant vs r w .ra ..a ~ I _ o ~ ~w i a--wu w~ ..'^"..~'4u.rw~ww u~ ~ni i w• r , 5"f IPA °-ir.ow .vd .~'w 1f w,. °o'r.~a~:+5° ea rI~.• / w. .per` r 40 ~ayWAWA r~~},.H, ! NCtAfr Y kAP / 1 - t O PEE %'rr .ww w e wr • ~wwr . Ie a r r~~ ,oR f , , , ° k r •s w awr rw w •.~01 vuT 04 o>mw no..n r oas. t ` i ♦w `Z'-S. w o'.'1.'7.~-~S'-.IP.' • .ei ...~I r~m• nwr..uv a ate' w "mw •,aw rro r ~w_.1 .•f mr i C •w .w o.r.l.a~ •i.•w rw~..d . t Z.C- aw rrs ~s+a~-s ~ axes." g-g . . ,wa walks ISM i ~a.m ~m w .w.a ..m.a w x .i~ - a C•-~'i ~ li Ay fw.... •M. Y\ M Ir1 I M..f . MM~ M j~,,t. M li r r wi ~ I I ~ - ..s ~ .w. 7 i... rj-~ pa if www ~ r ~ O ' ~ nw rnw+~ ~oanaaow .a.lr, ooaa aeum, w~ P S u bt 2 C+ I`r sR' - Ctiann~• M1TOArad7wwnr....rM1.ar, bet- 1 s • K° r.^a - e~ PRELIMINARY PLAT O a..e o. • r-~..~ n. I • •f .w r I ..9.~~~ MARRIOTT GARDENS ADDITION j rare. eau r nr NO 107 Al 00ralola ur rnern r7su !0m aartier rVtlrr Il f rMlN OrONf AOr a ut r. m .or 4 rrwcn a r ! I~1q M'~gOJ - swami 23 ME" sr. v.lr-rrr i.-rnr s. I wwmK WA • • P&Z Minutes ENCLOSURE z r~ February 12, 1997 r' rb u Page 7 Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed PAne sign. Approved. (4-0) VI. Marriott Gardens Addition. The 50.0 acre tract is located on the west side of Masch Branch Road, north of University Drive, a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks, b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.124(e) regarding drainage channel lining. Rfr. Salmon: Tommy Marshall is representing the owner of the proposed addition. They have applied for two variances, one is for the sidewalk requirement, and the other is for the drainage design criteria. The subject property is located north of Hwy 380, on the east side of Masch Branch Road. The subdivision regulations require that sidewalks be built along the perimeter of the property. The lot is being divided into two separate lots. The applicant is proposing that sidewalks not be constructed. Their position is that because of the siz- of the property and the type of uses a sidewalk wouldn't be of use to the development. This would make this an exaction variance. Staff cannot recommend this variance in this case. Based on the information that we have been given we understand that there is already a contractor's truck operation occurring on Lot 2. To the best of our knowledge Lot 1 is going to be used by Denton County for a Lentralized road and bridge maintenance facility. Both of those are considered light industrial uses and we would consider them intense uses. There is about fifty acres of property here, about seven acres is in the floodplain. Since this in not within the city and is not zoned, what could go on this property is pretty unlimited. I have given you some figures based on trip generation for light industrial uses. 1 would be the first to admit that there isn't a direct correlation between vehicle trips and pedestrian., but I was trying to use that as a measure of intensity and trying to compare that to residential uses. which is normally where we are at when doing a sidewalk variance. I tried to compare them s`.de by side and trying to explain stafrs position. i The drainage variance is also an exaction variance. There is a small drainage channel down in the southeast corner of the property. It is about two hundred and fifty feet long from Masch Branch 1 Road to where it intersects the floodplain. Our ordinance would require that the channel receive a hard lining. In most instances that would be okay, in this instance because there is such a short amount of channel and it is adjacent to the floodplain the expense of putting in a concrete lining j • would be unjustified compared to the actual good that it would do for the property owners, the city, and other residents. In this particular instance staff would recommend that the variance be granted. Nit. Cochran: Where is the closest sidewalk? • Mr. Salmon: There are a few stretches of sidewalks across from Ranci :aces on Hwy 380. - , • • Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? J Mr. Tommy Marshall: My name is Tommy Marshall and I am a Real Estate appraiser. My office is located at 3730 E. McKinney, Suite 103. We requested the sidewalk variance out of a lack of justification. There aren't going to be very marry people walking front Krum to the Selwyn School j and that would be just about what it would take for someone towed a sidewalk here. This property • • r P&Z Minutes February 12, 1947 Page 8 also lies in the airport flight protection area and the city has some restrictions for what can be built in this area. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend the sidewalk variance for the Marriott Gardens Addition. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Ms. Schertz: I move that we recommend the variance to Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances for the Marriott Gardens Addition to allow a i,atural channel due to the lack of reasonable benefit of the improvement to the owner and the public. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) c. Consider the preliminary plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 of the Marriott Gardens Addition. Ms. Bateman: This is a fifty acre tract. Lct 1 will be for Denton County Road and Bridge and Lot 2 is currently being used by the Marriott Brothers Construction for their truck operation. This is currently in Division One of our ETJ and is not in the city limits of Denton. Public improvements associated with this include the extension of water lines, relocation of a lift station, installation of approximately ten fire hydrants, and dedication of various drainage and utility easements. Since the variances have been approved DRC recommends approval. Mr. Jones: I move approval of the preliminary plat for Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Marriott Gardens Addition. Ms. Schertz: Second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your r.'ght hand. Opposed same sign, • Approved. (4-0) i VII. Denton Country Club E,ctates. T tL 128 acres is located southeast of tho intersection of Brush Creek Road and US 377. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.114(17) regarding sidewalks. • • e b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) regarding cul-de-sac length. c. Consider a physical hardship variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding channel lining. d. Consider ft preliminary plat. • • Agenda Na. 9 7 - O/ O Agenda Item Date CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider approval of exaction variances to Section 34.116(e) concerning water capacity for fire flow on Lot 1, Block A, and Section 34116(c) concerning fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A, of the Brazeel Addition. The 5 acre tract is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 377, north of Country Club Road at the city limits line. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variances (4-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Please advise if I an provide additional Information. Respec submitted, Rick Evehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: onna Bateman Senior Planning Technician Attachments #182; Planning and Zoning Commission Reports. r ; r i r l • • ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34-116(e) CONCERNING WATER CAPACITY FOR FIRE FLOW ON LOT 1, BLOCK A, OF THE BRAZEEL ADDITION. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoe Ping Commission recommends approval. BACKGROUND: The applicant requests an exaction variance from Section 34-116(e), of the Code of Ordinances, pertaining !o fire flow, for the Brazeel Addition. The subject property is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 377, north of Country Club Road at the city limits line. Section 34-116(e) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations states; Every development shall provide adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes. Unless buildings in the development are provided with fire protection by means of automatic sprinkler systems in accordance with Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances, each development shall provide the foilor.'.ng minimum water capacity (calculated with twenty (20) pounds of residual p(essure). For low-intensity residential use, that capacity is 500 gallons per minute at 20 pounds of residual pressure. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council under the follow guidelines: Where the commission finds that the Imposition of a developn ent 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 approval of variances to walve such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to the city council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the city council, • Though a four inch water line exists along the front of the g property, adequate water rapacity for fire flow requires a minimum six inch tine. The applicant could connect to the City's existing 8 inch water line located at U.S. Highway 377 and Hobson, which is approximately 14,000 feet away. At the average cost of $25 per linear foot, the total cost of assuring adequate fire flow would be approximately $350,000. • ENCLOSURES: • 1. Preliminary Plat. J 2. Draft P&Z minutes of the February 12, 1997. a _ _ r 4 0 r l 0 • I _ nIV11M I r I 1, IY {.MIYY11h~YYr•YYw/1Y IMkMw YYIINIMIwYw / ' / y y \11 / Min HUDSON SUR17Y wYrnw Yl' Ow whY Y I.Y1 ~w •YI 10MY M I fsa w Y fLw r1Y Y1n rY. r bw11 ww • w • nf1 r4 ~Yrw w 1Y f •1Y m A-111 M•11 " wlwpw.q YYwrfm Mll Ylrw YIl'101'Yk /.1 I~ m•frY'fl'I rlw IYYfYt•pllwnMYr/LV •Ml~YMwwf 1111IwflRwlrM / /~1 Yrwl,wlrwYYwW Ynfy1. 14'11'OCf lkw CRlS t!'lrlrl FY' IYI CAIDwww lYi•n•kY lwlww•IYwY .wYlr YlwW■ Owr I / nP !J 6_D00 A r•1rr fYwow.w. •wrsr•f M+rwiYfwlwrw~FyrY LOr I J/ IH111'l Itlr 71r ~w/01~iw~YYYI•M rr~fYlYy}RYW.YrMw YYY/hM i f1 : ti • Iril'M'I IIY' . r lMrlwn•w•rYYlrrl wf Yr Y~nnr/w.YnM~lYw~0111. wWiln'[rr ~n I y.Iw~Yr~ f ~ ~iY~wn Mw►Il lw~~I~n~w..wll N fw pl ~ O.ti r frww Ytul !1 R flll Jf '~~;.'^.nl. lrwrrY.k.r►n. nYrrn. 04. n►•.I win WIN 0: / y Oe r~Wn,{[,p rl IYw Y.nrlrl..owY.1.e11.+1r ~t 1 1'r fti r f rIY w I w4Y N s r wY1•rw• r w wf MYrr l•Y•••Yw wf Y _t'__.(-{ f~= T.•"w`wwvir ou ~.TF.Yl _C~ _ 14w1Y.MNIr1a1111 AwIwf. T~ " SPf fR OAANAAr SURITr, ~lw1vYY1 r0 [or JOHN nADAR SUAITr 1i1 . n• 4/ A-elf r fOnlf w / % / . Ti ~'w ~i~ r hMRwV f1Y10i1 / r 1110111,Igfi1Y0 ' / ~ ~ 114MII1T ~ PLA? LOTS BLOCK A PSLEIVED qq f ' 11rta W n• rw.r w wk.v [[111 0fL . YJY M Ih» N RAZr:I:L ADnrriox / ``1/I h\YY l~ w 1 1° MEND 11.11T ACRES 017NE AN•" 1 N1601o1 / al .yym tlhYa MI~N .yrl*M1 TACT ft W ..II/... IeM I1al ~ QIII0Yw.w 1TRACT KI'mC ..•-.wY~Ital 1I~~N~Y 1UR ~~~~~Y ayIY / r.l nar Mlll N0D60N Y1Y A J* 1 Mw I M mFURY .i.roa•Iwl • I r . r ka• e ! rs11 I' w r 00' E THE IOIIII AORDAN "U~IYfY NlL SCALE METMAC[ M0. N1 f0[11KTtt AS TOO r, 1 1.n.~e•°.°'S lwl• CRAP 01 TN[ CRY OF AROU A tW CM Of 00" 1"?) 41"W w Y. ~.4r DENTOM COVNIYI TUGI !Oi lt./r-93077 r 0 \Y......r y.. s • P&Z Minutes GJY February 12, 1997 ENCLOSURE 2 r-~ R A i Page6 )~~5525 V. Brazeel Addition. The 14.037 acre tract is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 377, north of Country Club Road at the city limit line. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) regarding water capacity for fire flow on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed BrazeeI Addition. b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(c) regarding fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. c. Consider the preliminary plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block A, and Lot 1, Block A, of the final plat of the Brazeel Addition. Ms. Bateman: The first item is a variance for fire flow. Initially it was believed that there was a six inch water line that ran along the front of the property and later we found out that it was actually a four inch water line. In order for them to provide adequate fire flaw a six inch water line is required. The nearest line is over fourteen thousand feet away and the cost would be approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Staff is reconumnding approval of this exaction variance. The second variance pertains to fire hydrants and they are a moot issue if there is not adequate fire flow and staff is recommending this exaction variance also. This tract of land is a little over fourteen acres and the Brazeel's have purchased five acres. This tract falls within the City of Denton, the City of Argyle, and a small portion in the county. At this point the City of Denton has no ETJ. Because state law requires any subdivision of land to be platted, the City of Denton did require that the nine acre tract of land to the south also be included in the preliminary plat. Any final platting will have to be done with the City of Argyle. We are recommending approval of the plat with the request that the surveyor provide a legal description for each tract of land that is within each governmental entity's jurisdiction. Ms. Schertz: I move to recommend approval of the exaction variance to Section 34-116(e) regarding water capacity for fire flow on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) • Mr. Jones: 1 move to recommend approval of the exaction variance to Section 34-116(c) regarding fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. Mr. Cochran: Second. • Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. • • Approved. (4-0) Mr. Cochran: 1 rnove to approve the preliminary plat of Lots 1 & 2, Block A and the final plat of Lot 1, Block A of the Brazeei Addition as presented by staff. Ms. Scheru: Second. y' II • ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE TO SECTION 34-116(c), FIRE HYDRANTS FOR LOT 1, BLOCK A, OF THE BRAZEEL ADDITION. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. BACKGROUND: The applicant requests an exaction variance from Section 34-116(c)of the Code of Ordinances, pertaining to fire hydrants. This section of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations states: Fire hydrants shall be a maximum of six hundred (800) feet apart In residential areas and three hundred (300) feet apart in commercia!lndustrial areas. The request is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. The Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council under the following guidelines; i Where the commission finds that the Imposition of an development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonab!e benefit to the property owner or Is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to the city councl. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the city council. In order to serve the proposed lots with an adequate amount of fire hydrants, the applicant would need to provide one (1) fire hydrant at the average cost of $2,500 each. if the variance to Section 34-116(e) is approved, it would be a moot issue to install a hydrant without the necessary water line. A variance however, must still be • approved in order to walve the hydrant requirements. ENCLOSURES: ' 1. Preliminary Plat. 2. Draft P&Z minutes of the February 12, 1997. • o 0 l~ i S e • e l ~ nrrnn wr. / r / 9, n, 41YYw wrI l.lYti Yr4YYyrr•{w IN.Yb IN4, Wnlrl.+i / j~ ` / 7ir1 HUDSON SUR71 nw.r r, a ,r. r r v w rr If9Y. M r rr w IY {9rYr YYiYf Y`rr pIY1 rr r ►YA Y trY r ry. rrt.r. • r 1.. r+s I-JSf pr.lrrwO.rgwawlen wYS 19 YY9r Y{r9M'11'rr } I \ Mrlria'lra ..M' {M/Ml wrr Yr rwf9Y 11ryw Yrlnr9l./YwICIwwYr I.r%,w9 rw Y9Yr. firer rnYwYYrYrYl r.Yw 'lu•irrrl r9m 11Y {Il.brli~9nr191 .awwrrwrYrw O.rr r"1•%• 9W ACM ~ d9~o.YYCw 9Y. I.YISYwMJrrw w.r.wn Ywr'}f YwY 1011 . lw'.ru'1 rrir ilYir lr9/rN IYrYwI•/'9Y r9rr.FIR W/9 wr{Yr/9rM9 J w01R wa r Ir arq w ~ti rYr9'91. f f anwY.r.rrwr rirrlwlrrwwr.rll~rr YrYr'{.11. / / 9n.'Iw• r! { IY Grp iAy....Y. Y r~k Ire I. d11 drrM r x'.'91'9 / C~ I/9w9 YIl lwr MIIIr r wM9. 1~ / J " 11 }I' +.i'~r~ {YYW iYwYY.Ir /19 /YrrMrlr ~.rt.Mr/YMMIM/M 9C .4 . anlrrrlwl en+w+l4wa r I ~{Yr1 Lr~{{ rn.rwY9ra.l.rr.wn.rrrw.rr++►w+rr.. Ff- / q'v1.r 09[~irlw9 1191/YrrrrYrArl~ry1lwr s,fL ._9. _ M dPd 9A WtAHAM dURISI V Y 0 ~ /--401 151 MTV S A nr9 v ~r r 0 / If to II ACA! yr ,w` l toy MRN JOACAN SURrrI S J r•~ e 1 p91r W / ,1 ~ ri r:ir~rJ~ n• ~ OYYS,M7fIY11~{ / 1 I iMgR1, }p9f 1~tl I. Ill.irllr r • / feJ r ~l {2,PLAT LOS 1i 2, LOCK A RECEIYEt1 • BRAMELADDmON y u a;r 99..✓.9,,a., 9r. rr !w""m BERM 14.03F ACRES N THE PLO r 1•Yr\rir l.MY.I YrYI.IYM ~R~A~MJ~MY /V M1.1Y Uy,~r A AgyTMCT N ../Il.. req rrsl ~ Hla / rl.lr WIR HUDSON SURM ASSTPAOt Mw IM ..I • .nw,• rt.U m}IINYLY010•' ri. nqr r. r t11S JONN JORDAN Hfuiw[Y NIthACT Ne. SR Tm SOI M r in.raYr<.r1i CAAPNlC SGId r JDIMrTS2A77{3A1 t... rvtNrok.l'.e rwrr IN rW CRY OIARDYLS S INl CRY Of DO" RlT)WbfR1 clam, Fhi DENTM COUNTY, TV" IDS N► ff-fto>7 • • r , P&Z Minutes ENCLOSURE 2 February J ~ February 12, 1997 Page 6 V. Brawel Addition. The 14.037 acre tract is located on the east side of U.S. Highway 377, north of Country Club Road at the city limit line. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) regarding water capacity for fire flow on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.116(c) regarding fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. c. Consider the preliminary plat of Lots 1 and 2, Block A, and Lot 1, Block A, of the final plat of the Brazeel Addition, his. Bateman: The first item is a variance for fire flow. Initially it was believed that there was a six inch water line that ran along the front of the property and later we found out that it was actually a four inch water line. In order for them to provide adequate fire flow a six inch water line is required. The nearest line is over fourteen thousand feet away and the cost would be approximately three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Staff is recommending approval of this exaction variance. The second variance pertains to fire hydrants and they are a moot issue if there is not adequate fire flow and staff is recommending this exaction variance also. This tract of land is a little over fourteen acres and the Brazeel's have purchased five acres. This tract falls within the City of Denton, the City of Argyle, and a small portion in the county. At this point the City of Denton has no ET). Because slate law requires any subdivision of land to be platted, the City of Denton did require that the nine acre tract of land to the south also be included in the preliminary plat. Any final platting will have to be done with the City of Argyle. We are recommending approval of the plat with the request that the surveyor provide a legal description for each tract of land that is within each governmental entity's jurisdiction. Ms. Schertz: 1 move to recommend approval of the exaction variance to Section 34-116(e) regarding water capacity for fire flow on Lot 1, Block A cf the propwsed Brazeel Addition. I Mr. Jones: Second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Oppose I same sign. • Approved. (4.0) Sir. Jones: I crave to recommend approval of the exaction variance to Section 34-116(c) regarding , f fire hydrants on Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Brazeel Addition. Mr Cochran: Second. • Ms. Russell. An discussion? All in favor lease raise our right hand. • 0 Y P 5' Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0) Air. Cochran: I move to approve the preliminary plat of Lots 1 & 2, Bleak A and the final plat of Lot 1, Block A of the Brazeel Addition as presented by staff. Ms. Schertz: Second. 7• ~.-.o,....~., I .,s, 7- VON rt"af 77:. • • i Agenda Na...V Agenda Nam- Date 3-~/- CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks for Denton Country Club Estates. Tha subject property consists of 128 acres, is in the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district, and is located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road. i RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a variance of Section 34-114(17) for Lots 34-43, Block A and Lot 1, Block C of Denton Country Club Estates I! (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. l • f j Please advise it I can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted: A3- Rick Svehia Deputy City Manager Prepared by: i JA 1~>> - Walter E. Reeves, Jr., AICP Urban Planner Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the February 26, 1997, P & Z meeting. } E rr. I oz. ! ! ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: March 4, 1997. Subject: Variance to Section 34.114(17), concerning sidewalks for Denton Country Club Estates. Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a variance of Section 34- 114(17) for Lots 34-43, Block A and Lot 1, Block C of Denton Country Club Estates Background I Denton Country Club Estates is a proposed 78 lot subdivision on 128 acres located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road (Enclosure 1). The owner of the Denton Country Club Estates subdivision has applied for a variance to Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton. This section of the Code of Ordinances requires sidewalks along one side of all perimeter roads and along both sides of all interior streets. The entire development is located over 8,000 feet from a City of Denton water line and by Section 34-114(5)c3ii perimeter sidewalks are not required. The applicant proposes no sidewalks inside the development. The request is based on the large lot size and per lot cost of installation Find the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. An exaction variance may be recommended to the City Council if the following criteria is met. Section 34.6(b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission 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 approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess to the city council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be ! approved by the city council. r Staff could not recommend a full variance of internal sidewalks based on reasonable nexus. While all the lots in the proposed subdivision are one acre or larger, they are zoned Single Family 16 (SF-16) which allows a narrower lot width and a lesser building line than the Agricultural (A) zoning district which is customary for large lot _ ! subdivisions. As a result, some lot frontages will be as small as 100 feet and will I • ! average 156 feel in phase one, and for the eastern portion of phase two. The resulting cost per lot for sidewalks is approximately $1,500. This is only slightly more than the cost per lot for sidewalks in SF-16, which is approximately $1,250. Although all lots are one acre or more in total square footage, from the street this subdivision 3 i • S will look similar to Forrestridge except there will be no curb and gutter. Homes could be 35 feet from the front property line, and as little as 20 feet apart. From the street there is little to distinguish this subdivision from a standard SF-16 subdivision. Staff recommended that sidewalks be installed on both sides of all interior streets except along Lots 34-43, Block A, and lot 1, Block C, due to the size of these lots. The Commission recommends approval of the variance as recommended by the staff to the City Council. The required sidewalk would cost a minimum of $16,500, which the Commission finds Is excessive for this property, and far outweighs any benefit to the subject property or surrounding properties. Enclosures 1. Location map. 2. Plat. i E i • • • ENCLOSURE I I ' I NoRTh NTS JOHNSON 9RUSH CREEK 0-31 Roo 0, Q0 .Ne VICINITY MAP ~ G i J = f. P' ; • • • i E 6 I r. h z~~'~ I+hhI++(( ~ . ~ E `w' J f/ ` = - _ Y _ a _ , `.i«t:~ ~tYC LM1'~Krr:.t-. m 'Liz ir•~~.v'.•.- ..n..r.--• ~~I . k4.T EMI 11r ~Yr'4 .YI Syr * `J_r v..• i3R3 4._I Y..y is ~y~~4~..r~.~~$'7`.."~i~'St~ N j }i ~ I..~ tw1 is r ,r, • ~7lrSL~ w. +i ~'~/J's,f"l"~w.c•~l" r ~ • • ,w W 1w 1 i1a. N W A i V.J ►.I I YS ` ••11 • Lr L...rr~I Y.3 n/fnP.le h1. 111-JIL-1 • e~...ir w J'i J ~ Denton Country t~ Club Fstetes II ,iwr . r. -4 ih~ _ Why L.pr~~ I / ••fIW f.M. IMrw Y N. 1- 1. 1 -1 I1.n YI H. t l.yYry Inxr. kM A UI YS15NA111.. t.l .f Al l..... P..in r.w .e • • ATTACHMENT 2 Febr Minutes A February 26, 1947 Page & JOR F T VII. Denton Country Club Estates. The 128 acres is located southeast of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and US 377. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) regarding cul-de-sac length. c. Consider a physical hsrdship variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding channel lining. d. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding drainage design standards. Air. Salmon: The first variance concerns sidewalks. This development is in the city limits but it is beyond the eight thousand foot requirement from a City of Denton water line boundary that we use to determine whether or not perimeter paving and perimeter sidewalks are required. There is still a requirement for interior sidewalks. The applicant is proposing large rural lots and the request is based on the large lot size and is therefore seeking an exaction variance from doing interior sidewalks. Staff cannot mcommend a variance based on reasonable nexus. Although all of the lots are one acre or larger, many of the lots are as narrow as one hundred feet which is really not any different than a Single Family-16 subdivision such as Forrestridge. An average figure for sidewalks is nine hundred dollars for an SF-10 lot. The average cost of sidewalks for an SF-16 lot is twelve hundred and fifty dollars per lot. In this case if you take all of the lots and average out the lot frontages, the average lot in this subdivision would cost about fifteen hundred dollars per lot, It is slightly more, but not significantly. Interior sidewalks are for the residents and for their recreation. In this case the cost is not too much more than what it would cost in a normal SF-16 subdivision. What we would have here is a Forrestridge type of subdivision with estate type streets as opposed to curb and gutter streets. Our recommendation does include a partial variance and we would exclude some lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision because they are unusually large lots. Our ordinance requires a maximum cul-de-sac length of one thousand feet. In this instance we have a cul-de-sac which is about sixteen hundred and fifty feet in length. The owner has based the request on the unusual shape of the property and to not have more than one access on Hwy 377. That would make this a five criieria variance, however staff did not find anything unusual about the shape of the property or the topography of the land. We felt that this would be more appropriate as an exaction variance. Staff recommends this based on reasonable nexus. The lots are 12-rger and there will be fewer lots on the cul-de-sac in this situation as compared to a thousand foot cul-de-sac in an SF-7 subdivision which could have as many as thirty-five lots. In this case there will only be nineteen lots on this cul-de-sac. Staff does not feel that there will be any harm in granting this particular variance, The next variance concerns drainage systems that are located on the east side of the subdivision adjacent to the Denton Country Club. In this case our ordinance would require that the drainage be handled with an underground pipe system because of the small amount of water that would be involved. In this case the applicant is a little nervous about having to install underground pipe systems and having to daylight those across the golf course. The applicant would like to have the flexibility of being able to work with the golf course and possibly propose something that might be 7. r-• • • , P &Z Minutes A I Gll Z February 26, Minutes 1997 Page 9 more acceptable to the golf course. The applicant is proposing open shallow drainage ditches that would be able to daylight onto the golf course at the existing grades or close to the existing grades. They feel that might be more appealing to the golf course as opposed to the underground system. This is a physical hardship variance because of the golf course. Staff recommends this variance and we don't feel that granting the variance will cause any safety or health hazards. We do agree that having a golf course adjacent to the property is a physical hardship. Ms. Schertz; We have heard a lot of concerns about the drainage, will the proposed drainage work here? Mr. Salmon: Staff is recommending the variance with the condition that the channels have a hard lining on the bottom, and that they be a minimum of a ten foot in width. 'these ditches tun between lots and the houses could be as close as twenty feet apart. The drainage could work and pan of the 1 requirement for this is that the applicant is going to have an off site drainage agreement with the 1 golf course. We think that as long as the channels are relatively maintenance free there will not be a problem. We had a similar situation with the Tremont Addition and the UNT golf course. Mr. Cochran: [low is a golf course a hardship? I would think that it would not be any different than being next to raw land, Mr. Salmon: Most of the time golf courses like to have as little disturbance as possible. I don't know what is adjacent to each of these drainage channels, whether it is the fairway or a green. As a general rule and we had the same situation with the UNT golf course and the Tremont Addition. They didn't want a deep ditch coming out of a pipe cutting across there golf course. They preferred to have a shallow swale. The same may be true in this case. Staff feels that is reasonable to grant this variance based on there being a golf course there. I The fourth variance also concerns drainage and it concerns the drainage on the north end of the property. As part of this development the developers will be required to make improvement to Brush Crack Road from their entrance to Hwy 377. When someone makes improvements it doesn't make sense to leave undersized drainage structures. In this instance as part of the road improvements we are requiring the developer to put a larger culvert under Brush Creek Road. Our ordinance requires that the drainage system coming under the road be handled with an underground pipe. The reason that the variance has been applied for is because the water does not come from this development. This development does not create the need for a drainage system there, ii just happens that there is drainage there and they are having to improve the culvert under the road so that they can make the pavement improvements, but they aren't required to put the drainage system in because they are adding water to it. What we are looking at is a reasonable nexus situation. They are not creating any additional runoff in that area but common sense says that we need to make this culvert improvement and get the water down to the creek. What is being proposed in that O d location on Lot 1 is an natural grass lined swale. Staff does not feel that requiring a lifted channel or an underground pipe would be a reasonable thing to require because none of it is his water. Staff feels that it will be more appropriate to require the upstream developer to make appropriate improvements based on his increase in runoff which would have an affect on this drainage, if and when development happens. I i I~ • • w P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 ( J" X115 Page 10 Mr. Powell: Why do we need sidewalks on both sides? Mr. Salmon: Our ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks inside a subdivision along lot frontages are more for recreation. As a general rule people enjoy having a sidewalk in front of their home. I don't think that it would be a bad idea to have sidewalks on both sides of the street in the entire subdivision, but trying to apply the rules of reasonable relationship we do recognize the fact that some of the lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision are larger than a normal SF-16 lot. The cost to someone building on one of those lots would be significantly more than a normal lot so we have left off sidewalks in those locations and there is still a sidewalk provided on the other side of the street. I would like to add that interior sidewalks are built when the individual lots are built. The developer of the subdivision puts up an escrow account for fifteen percent of the total value of the sidewalks. Mr. Powell: Is it safe to assume that the Fire Department and Traffic Safety has seen this cul-de- sac? Mr. Salmon: The Fire Department is part of the Development Review Committee and they have reviewed this plat and are aware of the variance. The Traffic Safety Commission would not look at this particular variance. Everything on this cul-de-sac is quite standard and the only difference is that it is a little longer. Normally the fear with a long cul-de-sac is that you are going to get a lot of people in a one entrance area. In this case that is not true and you only have nineteen lots Ms. Russell: Would the applicant care to speak? Mr. Tim House: My name is Tim House and my address is 240 McMakon in Double Oak. 1 am representing Matthews Southwest. Our plan is to develop a hundred and forty-nine acre subdivision. It is located at the southeast corner of Hwy 377 and Brush Creek Road. A hundred and twenty acres has been rezoned for SF-16 residential which will be one acre minimum lots. Our intent is to begin with Phase one as soon as we receive the necessary approvals from the city and that will consist of fifty acres with thirty-eight lots. Our typical lot width in here is a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and thirty feet. There are a few lots that are a hundred feet in width and 1 that is along the curves of the strevis. Our plans are to have our in house custom builder to be the principle builder in the subdivision. 1Ve do not preclude the possibility of selling some lots to other • ' custom builders, but we do intend to start the subdivision off. Our price range will start at two hundred to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and go up from there. We have met with some of the homeowners and talked about their concerns, and 1 understand many of their concerns. One of the principle concerns is the Brush Creek Road access. From our perspective as the developer we want very much to have this, Our access on Brush Creek Road is important to us. We feel that Brush Creek Road offers the rural residential type character that we are going for. If access was • limited to Hwy 377, we feel that has more of a commercial feel and doesn't convey the quality of • J residential development that we are trying to achieve here. We do recognize that are point of access on Brush Creek comes against the corner of one existing house across the street and we have volunteered to help screen the house across from our access in order to minimize car headlights shining in that hone. We do not have any driveway access to Brush Creek Road and we only have this one access point. The homeowners also expressed concern about the type of entry monument that we would do on Brush Creek and their preference was that it not be a typical north Dallas brick • • s P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Pa ,~~~s LS 1~ ge I 1 entry. We also agreed to look into doing a more natural entry feature and possibly using stone work. Concerning the drainage, we have addressed all of those through HEC I and HEC 2 modeling for FEMA. It addresses both the stream characteristics as well as the runoff characteristics. It is my understanding from our engineer that we have complied with all of the city requirements in that regard. 1 would like to clarify also the relationship with the Denton Country Club. We are not affiliated in any way with the Country Club. We had extensive meetings early on with the general manager of that facility on our plans. That gentleman is no longer there and we have no agreements. We like the idea of being adjacent to the golf course. There is an area on our plat that is labeled as golf easement and the intent was to provide the capability to expand the ' fairway which was an expressed concern. It is my understanding that the new board has no interest in pursuing that so that easement may never be used. Regarding the variances, these are all acre minimum lots and we are trying to enhance a rural character here. This is a low density subdivision and we feel that sidewalks would preclude rural feel of the area. On the drainage issue we are leaning toward the grass crete that would allow grass to grow through. We expect to have around a forty foot separation between houses. The front setback is thirty-five feet. The depth of the lot is up to three hundred and fifty feet. Dr. M.D. Williamson: Nly name is M.W. Williamson and my address is 920 Brush Creek Road. 1 have lived there since 1974 and I was the first house on Brush Creek Road. 1 have no problem with the development. My one concern is the entrance on Brush Creek Road. My neighbor lives across from their entrance and the lights will shine into their bedroom. Brush Creek Road has never been disturbed in any way. It is pristine with nice trees. If that bridge is installed then they will disturb that pristine area and they are trying destroying what they are trying to preserve. We would very much like to see their entrance moved to Hwy 377. Mr. Powell: You are asking that there be no entrance from Brush Creek Road? Mr. Williamson: Yes that is correct. Mr. David Yoder: My name is David Yoder and my address is 940 Brush Creek Road. The entrance on Hwy 377 does not occur until Phase 2. That means that everything that is built in there has to come out onto Brush Creek Road unless they complete Phase 2. Our concern is that we have watched this development start and stop at least three times. If they build Phase t and never build • Phase 2 then those people will never have an exit to Hwy 377. If there entrance onto Brush Creek Road was moved fifty feet to the west then the lights would not shine on this existing house. 1 understand their desire to have an entrance onto Brush Creek Road because it looks nice and it is in the country, but the fact is that we have to deal with the cars from there if Phase 2 never happens. All that we are asking is that the exit to Hwy 377 be put in when they do Phase 1. • Mr. Powell: Are you saying that you don't mind there being an entrance on Brush Creek Road as • O long as the entrance on Hwy 377 is built at the same time. Mr. Yoder: That is correct. Mr. Bill Lewis: My name is Bill Lewis and my address is 900 Brush Creek Road. We talked last night with the developer about at least having both entrances built during Phase 1. The developer /o l rrrrllr..Yrn • • P&7. Minutes February 26, 1997 11 C Page 12 ~ has apparently rejected that idea. We also asked if he could move the entrance to Brush Creek Road to the west and he told us that the entrance was determined by the city. I thought I heard somebody mention that they thought nineteen lots on a street that only had one entrance and exit was too many. In Phase I we are talking about thirty-eight lots that will only have one way in and out. It seems to us that having a pretty entrance to a subdivision is a fairly high price to pay to ruin the pristine nature of that area. We would really like to have them remove their entrance from Brush Creek Road. We would like to say that we embrace this project and I think it will be a very high quality subdivision. Ms. Susan Apple: My name is Susan Apple and my address is 8000 Woodcreek Circle. We are concerned about the drainage and if something is not done then it will be our water. We are also concerned about having thirty-eight homes that will only have one way in and one way out of this subdivision. Nis. Russell:: How far is this entrance from Hwy 377? Mr. Salmon: It is right around a thousand feet. Mr. Cochran: What improvements will be required on Brush Creek Road? Mr, Salmon: The developer will probably have to go out and repair any exceptionally bad areas such as potholes, they will have to add a two inches overlay of asphalt, and they will have to make the road twenty-four feet wide from their entrance to Hwy 377. Mr. Cochran: In the past we have required developers to pave half of the road when they are putting in a subdivision, what makes this different? 'dr. Salmon: This subdivision is more than eight thousand feet from a City of Denton water line which means that perimeter paving is not required. However we do have another section of the ordinance that requires off site pavement when you have access to an unimproved road and you are going to generate more than a hundred vehicle trips per day which of course this development will. They are being required to upgrade the road from their entrance to Hwy 377 based on that section of the ordinance. • Ms. Russell: Would you discuss the location of the entrance on Brush Creek Road? i Mr. Salmon: We show Brush Creek Road to be an arterial on our Thoroughfare Plan. We don't know what kind of street section that will ultimately and in our discussions we made sonic comments that their entrance should be a minimum of four hundred feet from any other street so • that if medians are put in at a later date they would be able to have a median cut. O • J Mr. House: The city did not say that it had to go in that particular location, they just told me that I needed to move it west of my origin! luation because it was too close to Kiowa Trail. I think where it is located now also allows for a median cut for us and possibly one more prior to Hwy 377 to serve the property that we do not own. One of the bigger factors in moving our entrance is that we have done all of our drainage analysis based on this location. All of our modeling is based on • O • • r P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 13 this location for the entrance. Nis. Schertz: Phase I has thirty-eight lots and until Phase 2 is started those thirty-eight lots can only exit on Brush Creek Road? Mr. House: Yes. Ms. Schertz: So what happens if something happens at the bridge on Brush Creek Road and one of the residents of your subdivision needs emergency medical services? How will those services enter the subdivision? i Mr. House: I think that is a situation that you face with any cul-de-sac or any one way point whether it is in a city section or estate section. I know that there is a concern that we might not finish out the project, that we might come in and just build the thirty-eight lots. One way that we I might be able to address those concerns is if we voluntarily agree to limit ourselves to thirty building permits prior to starting construction on the connection to Hwy 377. That way we have eight finished lots which have a lot of value and that would be our incentive to put the road in.. Ms. Schertz: How long do you expect it to take to finish out Phase 1? Are you looking at two years? Mr. House: We are looking at about eighteen months to two years. Mc Cochran: Have you considered finishing the Hwy 377 entrance as part of Phase 1? Mr. }louse: It was a consideration. It is an economic burden to he success of Phase l to do that. It has been my understanding in working with the city, in situations like this a phase I temporary turn around is something that is permitted and that is where we have been directing our efforts. Ms. Russell.: Let's start with the first exaction variance for sidewalks. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council a variance of Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks for Lots 34-43, Block A and Lot I, Block c of • Denton Country Club Estates based on the excessive cost to construct sidewalks on those lots. i Nis, Sc! ertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) ® • 0 Mr. Powell: I move that an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) of the Code of Ordinance for Denton Country Club Estates subdivision concerning cul-de-sac length be rr commended to the City Council due to the unusually large lot sizes. Mr. Moreno: Second. C. P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Cochran: I will be voting against this because it appears to me that the reason for having a cul- de-sac here appears to me to be for aesthetic reasons rather than based on any other criteria. There is a very simple and practical solution which would alleviate some problems on Brush Creek Road and that would be to continue that road out onto Hwy 377. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-1) Mr. Cochran opposed. . . Mr. Powell: I move that a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances requiring underground drainage systems be granted for all drainage outfails in Denton Country Club Estates that discharge onto the Denton Country Club with the condition that the above ground channels will have a ten foot wide lined bottom. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Mr. Jones: I rove that we recommend a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design for the drainage course on Lot 1, Block B of Denton Cou:,try Club Estates as there is no reasonable connection between the need for the required improvement and this development. Ms. Schertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) • /3. r 0 0 Agenda No. -04/0 Agenda Hann /S CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.114(11) concerning cul-de- sac length for Denton Country Club Estates. The subject property consists of 128 acres, is in the. Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district, and is located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5.1). SUMMARY: j See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. , r i Y i i I Please advise H I can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted: Joe& Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: Walter E. Reeves, Jr., AI P Urban Planner Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the February 26, 1997, P & Z meeting. 1 II A s J f I a+ k% f • r • I ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: March 4, 1997. Subject: Variance to Section 34-114(11), concerning cul-de-sac length for Denton Country Club Estates. Recommendation Planing and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1). Background Denton Country Club Estates is a proposed 78 lot subdivision on 128 acres located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road (Enclosure 1). The owner of the Denton Country Club Estates subdivision has applied for a variance to l Section 34.114(11) of the Cade of Ordinances of the City of Denton, This section of the Code of Ordinances allows for a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1,000 feet. The proposed preliminary plat has a cul-de-sac in phase two that is approximately 1,650 feet in length. The applicant has based the request on the unique and particular features of the physical surroundings, shapo or topographical conditions of the property, more particularly, the shape of the property and the desire to have only one access to US 377. Staff found nothing related to the sh-.pe or topography of the property that would preclude connection to US 377. Howevirr, due to the size and number of the lots, staff would suggested reviewing the rer,uested variance as an exaction variance. An exaction variance may be recommenced to the City Council if the following criteria is met. Section 34-6(b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where the commission finds tha: the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exAeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess to the city council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be • approved by the city council Staff recommended the variance be granted for the 1,650 foot cul-de-sac due to the large lot size. The Commission recommends approval (5-1). Enclosures • 1. Location map. l • O 2. Plat. I • • ENCLOSURE 1 I NoRTh NTS JOHNSON i 00, GLV~ R~ p,0 s X13 N VICINITY MAP A r A A 1 ~-C` f~ •~s' '~str'~.t c~:::~~-:::;:.=may = i S:iC ' C•~ I ~ , 1 ~ i Piz .11I1hh1++{{ ' Y..M .l / , L r.• 1 ~ w v ~ vu hm-., + 77'~3L'~• 44 Y ~.1..1ry Ml V.+I r..ry Wa ~ T."l?~~1Y.i."LiS11~ Iw 1..l low w... I. r~~Y. •.Ia'S}'~18"I".Yaairy'l W I+Y. Ir. YlfY li lb~..Ira Mn! U. 'in:~L"6tl..i» I t • ~ • ~ "Ia.x ilY c~ • ~ w l ry ' wl nnYnut n.r Penton Country f Club Estates ' • uur Mwv, ~w r Y r5 II.IJ... b4 till GOQD}IIII Y Y. ® ~TMN.. y+ / Y AUMNALLl _ fYl w Yu"MIw1M µ41.~ .z S b..•IM MN A y 1 7~ 7- • • ATTACHMENT 2 February 26, 1997 DRAF Page 8 VII. Denton Country Club Estates. The 128 acres is located southeast of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and US 377. a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) regarding cul-de-sac length. c. Consider a physical hardship variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding channel lining. d. Consider an exaction variance of Sectiun 34-124(e) regarding drainage design standards. Mr. Salmons The first variance concerns sidewalks. This development is in the city limits but it is beyond the eight thousand foot requirement from a City of Denton water line boundary that we use to determine whether o; not perimeter paving and perimeter sidewalks are required. There is still a requirement for interior sidewalks. The applicant is proposing large rural lots and the request is based on the large lot size and is therefore seeking an exaction variance from doing interior sidewalks. Staff cannot recommend a variance based on reasonable nexus. Although all of the lots are one acre or larger, many of the lots are as narrow as one hundred feet which is really not any different than a Single Family-16 subdivision such as Forrestridge. An average figure for sidewalks is nine hundred dollars for an SF-10 lot. The average cost of sidewalks for an SF-16 lot is twelve hundred and fifty dollars per lot. In this case if you take all of the lots and average out the lot frontages, the average lot in this subdivision would cost about fifteen hundred dollars per lot. It is slightly more, but not significantly. Interior sidewalks are for the residents and for their recreation. In this case the cost is not too much more than what it would cost in a normal SF-16 subdivision. What we would have here is a Forrestridge type of subdivision with estate type streets as opposed to curb and gutter streets. Our recommendation does include a partial variance and we would exclude some lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision because they are unusually large lots. Our ordinance requires a maximum cul-de-sac length of one thousand feet. In this instance we have a cul-de-sac which is about sixteen hundred and fifty feet in length. The owner has based the request on the unusual shape of the property and to not have more than one access on Hwy 377. That would make this a five criteria variance, however staff did not find anything unusual about the shape of the property or the topography of the land. We felt that this would be more appropriate as an exaction variance. Staff recommends this based on reasonable nexus. The lots are larger and there will be fewer lots on the cul-de-sac in this situation as compared to a thousand foot cul-de-sac in an SF-7 subdivision which could have as many as thirty-five lots. In this case there will only be nineteen lots on this cul-de-sac, Staff does not feel that there will be any harm in granting this particular variance. The next variance concerns drainage systems that are located on the east side of the subdivision adjacent to the Denton Country Ciub. In this case our ordinance would require that the drainage be handled with an underground pipe system because of the small amount of water that would be involved. In this case the applicant is a little nervous about having to install underground pipe systems and having to daylight those across the golf course. The applicant would like to have the flexibility of being able to work with the golf course and possibly propose something that might be 7 7 7 7 • • P&Z Minutes February 26, , 1997 JAFT Page 9 more acceptable to the golf course, The applicant is proposing open shallow drainage ditches that would be able to daylight onto the golf course at the existing grades or close to the existing grades. i They feel that might be more appealing to the golf course as opposed to the underground system. This is a physical hardship variance because of the golf course. Staff recommends this variance and we don't feel that granting the variance will cause any safety or health hazards. We do agree that having a golf course adjacent to the property is a physical hardship. Ms. Schertz: We have heard a lot of concerns about the drainage, will the proposed drainage work here? Mr. Salmon: Staff is recommending the variance with the condition that the channels have a hard lining on the bottom, and that they be a minimum of a ten foot in width. These ditches run between lots and the houses could be as close as twenty feet apart. The drainage could work and pan of the requirement for this is that the applicant is going to have an off site drainage agreement with the golf course. We think that as long as the channels are relatively maintenance free there will not I> a problem. We had a similar situation with the Tremont Addition and the UNT golf course. Mr. Cochran: How is a golf course a hardship? 1 would think that it would not be any different than being next to raw land. Mr. Salmon: Most of the time golf courses like to have as little disturbance as possible. I don't know what is adjacent to each of these drainage channels, whether it is the fairway or a green. As a general rule and we had the same situation with the UNT golf course and the Tremont Addition. They didn't want a deep ditch coming out of a pipe cutting across there golf course. They preferred to have a shallow swale. The same may be true in this case. Staff feels that is reasonable to grant this variance based on there being a golf course there. The fourth variance also concerns drainage and it concerns the drainage on the north end of the property. As part of this developmen', the developers will be required to make improvement to Brush Creek Road from their entrance to Hwy 377. When someone makes improvements it doesn't make sense to leave undersized drainage structures. In this instance as part of the road improvements we are requiring the developer to put a larger culvert under Brush Creek Road. Our ordinance requires that the drainage system coming under the road be handled with an underground • pipe. The reason that the variance has been applied for is because the water does not come from this development. This development does not create the need for a drainage system there, it just happens that there is drainage there and they are having to improve the culvert under the road so that they can make the pavement improvements, but they aren't required to put the drainage system in because they are adding water to it. What we are looking at is a reasonable nexus situation. They are not creating any additional runoff in that area but common sense says that we need to 0 make this culvert improvement and get the water down to the creek. What is being proposed in that • ~ location on Lot 1 is an natural grass lined Swale. Staff does not feel that requiring a lined channel or an underground pipe would be a reasonable thing to require because none of it is his water. Staff feels that it will be more appropriate to require the upstream developer to make appropriate improvements based on his increase in runoff which would have an affect on this drainage, if and when development happens. I • - • Wag? • • P&Z Minutes li lf1~ ~ l February 26, 1997 II ! J~ Page 10 Mr. Powell: Why do we need sidewalks on both sides? Mr. Salmon: Our ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks inside a subdivision along lot frontages are more for recreation. ,s a general rule people enjoy having a sidewalk in front of their home. I don't think that it would be a bad idea to have sidewalks on both sides of the street in the entire subdivision, but trying to apply the rules of reasonable relationship we do recognize the fact that some of the lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision are larger than a nonrW SF-16 lot. The cost to someone building on one of those lots would be significantly more than a normal lot so we have left off sidewalks in those locations and there is still a sidewalk provided on the other side of the street. I would like to add that interior sidewalks are built when the individual lots are built. The developer of the subdivision puts up an escrow account for fifteen percent of the total value of the sidewalks. Mr. Powell: Is it safe to assume that the Fire Department and Traffic Safety has seen this cul-de- sac? Mr. Salmon: The Fire Department is part of the Development Review Committee and they have reviewed this plat and are aware of the variance. The Traffic Safety Commission would not look at this particular variance. Everything on this cul-de-sac is quite standard and the only difference is that it is a little longer. Normally the fear with a long cul-de-sac is that you are going to get a lot of people in a one entrance area. In this case that is not true and you only have nineteen lots Nis. Russell: Would the applicant care to speak? Mr. Tim House My name is Tim House and my address is 240 McMakon in Double Oak. I am representing Matthews Southwest, Our plan is to develop a hundred and forty-nine acre subdivision. It is iocated at the southeast corner of Hwy 377 and Brush Creek Road. A hundred and twenty acres has been rezoned for SF-16 residential which will be one acre minimum lots. Our intent is to begin with Phase one as soon as we receive the necessary approvals from the city and that will consist of fifty acres with thirty-eight lots. Our typical lot width in here is a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and thirty feet. There are a few lots that are a hundred feet in width and that is along the curves of the streets. Our plans are to have our in house custom builder to be the principle builder in the subdivision. We do not preclude the possibility of selling some lots to other • custom builders, but we do intend to start the subdivision off. Our price range will start at two hundred to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and go up from there. We have met with some of the horneowners and talked about their concerns, and I understand many of their concerns. One of the principle concerns is the Brush Creek Road access. From our perspective as the developer we want very much to have this. Our access on Brush Creek Road is important to us. We feel that Brush Creek Road offers the rural residential type character that we are going for. If access was Q limited to Hwy 377, we feel that has more of a commercial feel and doesn't convey the quality of p o residential development that we are trying to achieve here. We do recognize that are point of access on Brush Creek comes against the corner of one existing house across the street and we have volunteered to help screen the house across from our access in order to minimize car headlights shining in that home. We do not have any driveway access to Brush Creek Road and we only have this one access point. The homeowners also expressed concern about the type of entry monument that we would do on Brush Creek and their preference was that it not be a typical north Dallas brick Z.Z s P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page t 1 If entry. We also agreed to look into doing a more natural entry feature and possibly using stone work. Concerning the drainage, we have addressed all of those through HEC 1 and HEC 2 modeling for FEMA. It addresses both the stream characteristics as well as the runoff characteristics. It is my understanding from our engineer that we have complied with all of the city requirements in that regard. 1 would like to clarify also the relationmhip with the Denton Country Club. We are not affiliated in any way with thu Country Club. We had extensive meetings early on with the general manager of that facility on our plans. That gentleman is no longer there and we have no agreements. We like the idea of being adjacent to the golf course. There is an area on our plat that is labeled as golf easement and the intent was to provide the capability to expand the fairway which was an expressed concern. It is my understanding that the new board has no interest in pursuing that so that easement may never be used. Regarding the variances, these are all acre minimum lots and we are trying to enhance a rural character here. This is a low density subdivision and we feel that sidewalks would preclude rural feel of the area. On the drainage issue we are leaning toward the grass crete that would allow grass to grow through. We expect to have around a forty foot separation between houses. The front setback is thirty-five feet. The depth of the lot is up to three hundred and fifty feet. Dr. M.D. Williamson: My name is M.W. Williamson and my address is 920 Brush Creek Road. 1 have lived there since 1974 and 1 was the first house on Brush Creek Road, I have no problem with the development. My one concern is the entrance on Brush Creek Road. My neighbor lives across from their entrance and the lights will shine into their bedroom. Brush Creek Road has never been disturbed in any way. It is pristine with nice trees. if that bridge is installed then they will disturb that pristine area and they are trying destroying what they are trying to preserve. We would very much like to see their entrance moved to Hwy 377. Mr. Powell: You are asking that there be no entrance from Brush Creek Road? Mr. Williamson: Yes that is correct, \it. David Yoder: My name is David Yoder and my address is 940 Brush Creek Road. The entrance on Hwy 377 does not occur until Phase 2. That means that everything that is built in there has to come out onto Brusli Creek Road unless they complete Phase 2, Our concern is that we have watched this development start and stop at least three times. If they build Phase 1 and never build • Phase 2 then those people will never have an exit to Hwy 377. If there entrance onto Brush Creek Road was moved fifty feet to the west then the lights would not shine on this existing house. 1 r understand their desire to have an entrance onto Brush Creek Road because it looks nice and it is in the country, but the fact is that we have to deal with the cars from there if Phase 2 never happens. All that we are asking is that the exit to Hwy 377 be put in when they do Phase 1. • Mr. Powell: Are you saying that you don't mind there being an entrance on Brush Creek Road as long as the entrance on Hwy 377 is built at the same time. Mr. Yoder: That is correct. Mr. Bill Lewis: My name is Bill Lewis and my address is 900 Brush Creek Road. We talked last night with the developer about at least having both entrances built during Phase 1. The developer 9. Iowa • • P&Z Minutes 11 February 26, 1997 1: Page 12 i has apparently rejected that idea. We also asked if he could move the entrance to Brush Creek Road to the west and he told us that the entrance was determined by the city. I thought 1 heard somebody mention that they thought nineteen lots on a street that only had one entrance and exit was too many. In Phase 1 we are talking about thirty-eight lots that will only have one way in and out. It seems to us that having a pretty entrance to a subdivision is a fairly high price to pay to ruin the pristine nature of that area. We w- illy like to have them remove their entrance from Brush Creek Road. We would like to sa ; embrace this project and I think it will be a very high quality subdivision. Ms. Susan Apple: My name is Susan Apple and my address is 8000 Woodcreek Circle. We are concerned about the drainage and if something is not done then it will be our water. We are also concerned about having thirty-eight homes that will only have one way in and one way out of this subdivision. Ms. Russell: How far is this entrance from Hwy 377? Mr. Salmon: It is right around a thousand feet. Mr. Cochran: What improvements will be required on Brush Creek Road? Mr. Salmon: The developer will probably have to go out and repair any exceptionally bad areas such as potholes, they will have to add a two inches overlay of asphalt, and they will have to make the road twenty-four feet wide from their entrance to Hwy 377. Mr. Cochran: In the past we have required developers to pave half of the road when they are putting in a subdivision, what makes this different? Mr. Salmon: 'this subdivision is more than eight thousand feet from a City of Denton water line which means that perimeter paving is not required. However we do have another section of the t ordinance that requires off site pavement when you have access to an unimproved road and you are going to generate more than a hundred vehicle trips per day which of course this development will. They are being required to upgrade the road from their entrance to Hwy 377 based on that section of the ordinance. • Ms. Russell: Would you discuss the location of the entrance on Brush Creek Road? l Mr. Salmon: We show Brush Creek Road to be an arterial on our Thoroughfare Plan. We don't know what kind of street section that will ultimately and in our discussions we made some comments that their entrance should be a minimum of four hundred feet from any other street so • that if medians are put in at a later date they would be able to have a median cut. tD 0 Mr. House: The city did not say that it had to go in that particular location, they just told me that I needed to move it west of my original location because it was too close to Kiowa Trail. I think where it is located now also allows for a median cut for us and possibly one more prior to Hwy 377 to serve the property that we do not own. One of the bigger factors in moving our entrance is that we have donee of our drainage analysis based on this location. All of our modeling is based on • • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 •s'is 1; • 1~ Page 13 this location for the entrance. Nis. Schertz: Phase 1 has thirty-eight lots and until Phase 2 is started those thirty-eight lots can only exit on Brush Creek Road? Mr. House: Yes. Ms. Schertz: So what happens if something happens at the bridge on Brush Creek Road and one of the residents of your subdivision needs emergency medical services? How will those services enter the subdivision? Mr. House: I think that is a situatior, that you face with any cul-de-sac or any one way point whether it is in a city section or estate section. 1 know that there is a concern that we might not finish out the project, that we might come in and just build the thirty-eight lots. One way that we might be able to address those cor•.,erns is if we voluntarily agree to limit ourselves to thirty building permits prior to startin ; construction on the connection to Hwy 377. That way we have eight finished lots which hive a tot of value and that would be our incentive to put the road in.. Nis. Schertz: How long do you expect it to take to finish out Phase 1? Are you looking at two years? Mr. House: We are looking at about eighteen months to two years. Mr. Cochran: Have you considered finishing the Hwy 377 entrance as part of Phase 1? Mr. House: It was a consideration. It is an economic burden to the success of Phase 1 to do that. It has been my understanding in working with the city, in situations like this a phase 1 temporary turn around is something that is permitted and that is where we have been directing our efforts. Ms. Russell: Let's start with the first exaction variance for sidewalks. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council a variance of Section 34.114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks for Lots 34-43, Block A and Lot 1, Block C of • Denton Country Club Estates based on the excessive cost to construct sidewalks on those lots. i Ms. Schertz: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) L _ Mr. Powell: 1 move that anexaction variance of Section 34-114(11) of the Code of Ordinance for Denton Country Club Estates subdivision concerning cul-de-sac length be recommended to the City Council due to the unusually large lot sizes. Mr. Moreno: Second. • - .r---- 0 E P&Z Minutes =r r February 26. 1997 Page 14 Mr. Cochran: 1 will be voting against this because it appears to me that the reason for having a cul- de-sac here appears to me to be for aesthetic reasons rather than based on any other criteria. 'T'here is a very simple and practical solution which would alleviate some problems on Brush Creek Road and that would be to continue that road out onto Hwy 377. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-1) Mr. Cochran opposed. Mr. Powell: 1 move that a variance of Section 34.124(e) of the "e of Ordinances requiring underground drainage s) stems be granted for all drainage outfalls in Denton Country Club Estates that discharge onto the Denton Country Club with the condition that the above ground charnels will have a ten foot wide lined bottom. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed lama sign. Approved. (6-0) Mr. Jones: 1 move that we recommend a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design for the drainage course on Lot 1, Block B of Denton Country Club Estates as there is no reasonable connection between the need for the required improvement and this development. Ms. Schertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) t e i rt • • r ✓ % • i 4 40 ABbndi Nb, Agenda Item Cate 3-117-97 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: March 4, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design standards for Denton Country Club Estates. The subject property consists of 128 acres, is in the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district, and is located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6.0). I SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS, DEP;NTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. • 1 ~~rrr-!!!l1~~~1~I'1~l~II~.S~I~~ll~Rl~'Nar" p 1 . tdt 4,1 ♦ I 4 n i.. t r r Please advise if 1 can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted Y Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: Walter E. Reeves, Jr., PIC"P Urban Planner f Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the February 26, 1997, P & Z meeting. E l- i i • i i i A -1 a • • ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and mooning Commission Date: March 4, 1997. Subject: Variance to Section 34-124(e), concerning drainage design standards for Denton Country Club Estates. Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0). Background Denton Country Club Estates is a proposed 78 lot subdivision on 128 acres located southeast of the intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road (Enclosure 1). The owner of the Denton Country Club Estates subdivision has applied for a variance to Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton concerning drainage design criteria. This variance addresses an existing drainage course that diagonals across Lot 1, Block B at the northwest comer of the proposed subdivision adjacent to Brush Creek Road. Runoff from the north side of Brush Creek Road crosses the road and the subject lot, and because the developers are repaving the road, they will be required to install an appropriate sized culvert under Brush Creek Road prior to repaving. The cited section would require that the drainage system between the road and the creek be handled by underground pipe. As the proposed development does not generate any of the water that flows through this drainage course, the developer wishes to handle the water in a grass lined channel that can be improved later by upstream developers, if necessary. This variance is based on the need created by the development, therefore it is an exaction variance. An exaction variance may be recommended to the City Council if the following criteria is met Section. 34-6(b) Criteria for variances from development exactions. Where • the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is r so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess to the city council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the city council. Staff recommended this variance be granted because this development does not generate any of the water in the subject drainage course. Additionally, should upstream development occur, the channel could be improved should the need arise. Finally, a grass lined channel is about one-half the cost of a pipe system. r_/1 • • The Commission recommends approval of this variance of Section 34.124(e) concerning drainage design for the drainage course on Lot 1, Block B of Denton Country Club Estates because there is no reasonable connection between the need for the required improvement and this development, Enclosures 1. Location map. 2. Plat. j i I 1 I i • J 7' 0 A ENCLOSURE I NORTh MTS JOHNSON o co ~C\35 GO . . i _ VICINITY MAP i 0 • • C' vpk ~'cxa~r~,. _ f ~ _'tii~t :a:ruriti:_L`3:?"'r-'•'• M -.mow f. ~ _ rw I ~cessra i- , 10 ...a MAI N. Iw..,.F.1w+r 40 CI w... a u... ~r r •T` , ~ ~7 I...qI~ y~ h.. .J ,...I .rw . Si°LKa :.1. w.". ffifLw,tY".~S° Y T r m..la n .•.i w..l wy .n• ::1'.n. ~'a'N.~..1TS•~'a.."".C.Y w L. w. wrl , h..wh.1 b.y 4. y'f~j'y` hi.V lr P 00, Y.~..1 ...1 .A1 I 001, Denton Country Dub Estates ~ ~ r.nv 141MM I.y.....W M>Nh.i M .J... Yr.y..Y•Yl W rl M . My..r.) Iv..F IYiM F. W Fy lwr. i...a m.. Iq, !nl GOOD 1IAI h ew . e....,. r,r .r.. c ~..w .I I.iN.W L. z bnFM UH _ STS .~!•isf~ • • P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 February 26, 1997 BRA" Page 8 VII. Denton Country Club Estates. The 128 acres is located southeast of the intersection of Brush Creek Road and US 377. j a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. i b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34.114(11) regarding cul-de-sac length. i c. Consider a physical hardship variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding channel fining. d. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-124(e) regarding drainage design standards. Mr. Salmon: The first variance concems sidewaiks. This development is in the city limits but it is beyond the eight thousand foot requirement from a City of Denton water line boundary that we use to determine whether or not perimeter paving and perimeter sidewalks are required. There is still a requirement for interior sidewalks. The applicant is proposing large rural lots and the request is based on the large lot size and is therefore seeking an exaction variance from doing interior sidewalks. Staff cannot recommend a varkive based on reasonable nexus. Although all of the lots are one acre or larger, many of the lots are as narrow as one hundred feet which is really not any different than a Single Family16 subdivision such as Forrestridge. An average figure for sidewalks is nine hundred dollars for an SF-10 lot. The average cost of sidewalks for an SF-16 lot is twelve hundred and fifty dollars per lot. In this case if you take all of the lots and average out the lot frontages, the average lot in this subdivision would cost about fifteen hundred dollars per lot. It is slightly more, but not significantly. Interior sidewalks are for the residents and for their recreation. In this case the cost is not too much more than what it would cost in a normal SF-16 subdivision. What w, would have here is a Forrestridge type of subdivision with estate type streets as opposed to curb and gutter streets. Our recommendation does include a partial variance and we would exclude some lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision because they ara unusually large lots. Our ordinance requires a maximum cut-de-sac length of one thousand feet. In this instance we have 1 a cul-de-sac which is about sixteen hundred and fifty feet in length. The owner hs based the t request on the unusual shape of the property and to not have more than one access on Hwy 377. That would niakc this a five criteria variance, however staff did not find anything unusual about the • shape of the property or the topography of the land. We felt that this would be more appropriate as an exaction variance. Staff recommends this based on reasonable nexus. The lots are larger and there will be fewer lots on the cul-de-sac in this situation as compared to a thousand foot cul-de-sac in an SF-7 subdivision which could have as many as thirty-five lots. In this case there will only be nineteen lots on this cul-de-sac. Staff does not feet that there will be any harm in granting this particular variance. ® • O The next variance concerns drainage systems that are io^sted on the east side of the subdivision J adjacent to the Denton Country Club. In this case our ordinance would require that the drainage be handled with an underground pipe system because of the small amount of water that would be involved. In this case the applicant is a little nervous about having to install underground pipe systems and having to daylight those across the golf course. The applicant would like to have the flexibility of being able to work with the golf course and possibly propose something that might be 7 0 • P&ZRry 26s February 26, 1991 Page 9 DRAFT more acceptable to the golf course. The applicant is proposing open shallow drainage ditches that would be able to daylight onto the golf course at the existing grades or close to the existing grades. They feel that might be more appealing to the golf course as opposed to the underground system. This is a physical hardship variance because of the golf cour~,. Staff recommends this variance and we don't feel that granting the variance will cause any safety or health hazards. We do agree that having a golf course adjacent ro the property is a physical hardship. Ms. Schertz: We have heard a lot of concerns about the drainage, will the proposed drainage work here? Mr. Salmon: Staff is recommending the variance with the condition that the channels have a hard lining on the bottom, and that they be a minimum of a ten foot in width. These ditches run between lots and the houses could be as close as twenty feet apart. The drainage could work and part of the requirement for this is that the applicant is going to have an off site drainage agreement with the golf course. We think that as long as the channels are relatively maintenance free Onere will not be a problem. We had a similar situation with the Tremont Addition and the UNT golf course. Mr. Cochran: How is a golf course a hardship? I would think that it would not be any different than being next to raw land. Mr. Salmon: Most of the time golf courses like to have as little disturbance as possible. I don't know what is adjacent to each of these drainage channels, whether it is the fairway or a green. As a general rule and we had the same situation with the UNT golf course and the Tremont Addition. They didn't want a deep ditch coming out of a pipe cutting across there golf course. They preferred to have a shallow Swale. The same may be true in this case. Staff feels that is reasonable to grant this variance based on there being a golf course there. The fourth variance also concerns drainage and it concems the drainage on the north end of the property. As part of this development the developers will be required to make improvement to Brush Creek Road from their entrance to Hwy 377. When someone makes improvements it doesn't make sense to leave undersized drainagf. structures. In this instance as part of the road improvements we are requiring the deveiope • to put a larger culvert under Brush Creek Road. Our ordinance requires that the drainage system coming under the road be handled with an underground O pipe. The reason that the variance has been applied for is because the water does not come from this development. This development does not create the need for a drainage system there, it j-rst r happens that there is drainage there and they are having to improve the culvert under the road so that they can make the pavement improvements, but they aren't required to put the drainage system f in because they are adding water to it, What we are looking at is a reasonable nexus situation. They are not creating any additional runoff in that area but common sense says that we need to ® make this culvert improvement and get the water down to the creek. What is being proposed in that ® • location on lot I is an natural grass lined swale. Staff does not feel that requiring 1 lined channel or an underground pipe would be a reasonable thing to require because none of it is his water. Staff feels that it will be more appropriate to require the upstream developer to make appropriate improvements based on his increase in runoff which would have an affect on this drainage, if and when Aevelopment happens. `j • • P&Z Minutes fill T February 26, 1997 f Page 10 Mr. Powell: Why da we need sidewalks on both sides? Mr. Salmon: Our ordinance requires sidewalks on both sides of the street. Sidewalks inside a subdivision along lot frontages are more for recreation. As a general rule people enjoy having a sidewalk in front of their home. I don't think that it would be a bad idea to have sidewalks on both sides of the street in the entire subdivision, but trying to apply the rules of reasonable relationship we do recognize the fact that some of the lots in the southwest portion of the subdivision are larger than a normal SF-16 lot. The cost to someone building on one of those lots would be significantly more than a normal lot so we have left off sidewalks in those locations and there is still a sidewalk provided on the other side of the street. I would like to add that interior sidewalks are built when the individual lots are built. The developer of the subdivision puts up an escrow account for fifteen percent of the total value of the sidewalks. Mr. Powell: Is it safe to assume that the Fire Department and Traffic Safety has seen this cul-de- sac? Mr. Salmon: The Fire Department is part of the Development Review Committee and they have reviewed th'is plat and are aware of the variance. The Traffic Safety Commission would not took at this parti.-tla variance. Everything on this cul-de-sac is quite standard and the only difference is that it is a little longer. Normally the fear with a long cul-de-sac is that you are going to get a lot of people in a one entrance area. In this case that is not true and you only have nineteen lots Ms. Russell: Would the applicant care to speak? Mr. Tim House: My name is Tim Hous° and my address is 240 McMakon in Double Oak. I am representing Matthews Southwest. Our plan is to develop a hundred and forty-nine acre subdivision. It is located at the southeast corner of Hwy 377 and Brush Creek Road. A hundred and twenty acres has been rezoned for SF-16 residential which will be one acre minimum lots. Our intent is to begin with Phase one as soon as we receive the necessary approvals from the city and that will consist of fifty acres with thirty-eight lots. Our typical lot width in here is a hundred and twenty-five to a hundred and thirty feet. There are a few lots that are a hundred feet in width and that is along the curves of the streets. O ,r plans are to have our in house custom builder to be the principle builder in the subdivision. We do not preclude the possibility of selling some lots to other • custom builders, but we do intend to start the subdivision off. Ch,r nrice range will start at two hundred to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars and go up from there. We have met with some of the homeowners and talked about their concerns, and 1 understand many of their concerns. One of the principle concerns is the Brush Creek Road access. Frorn our perspective as the developer we want very much to have this. Our access on Brush Creek Road is important to us. We feel that Brush Creek Road offers the rural residential type character that we are going for. If access was • limited to Hwy 377, we feel that has more of a commercial feel and doesn't convey the quality of • O residential development that we are trying to achieve here. We do recognize that are polat of access on Brush Creek comes against the comer of one existing house across the street and we have volunteered to help screen the house across from our access in order to minimize car headlights shining in that home. We do not have any driveway access to Brush Creek Road and we only have this one access point. The homeowners also expressed concern about the type of entry monument that we would do on Brush Creek and their preference was that it not be a typical north Dallas brick 9- i • • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page I1 entry. We also agreed to look into doing a more natural entry feature and possibly using stone work. Concerning the drainage, we have addressed all of those through HEC 1 and HEC 2 modeling for FEMA. It addresses both the stream characteristics as well as the runoff characteristics. It is my understanding from our engineer that we have complied with all of the city requirements in that regard. 1 would like to clarify also the relationship with the Denton Country Club. We are not affiliatee in any way with the Country Club. We had extensive meetings early on with the general manager of that facility on o~tr plans. That gentleman is no longer there and we have no agreements. We like the idea of being adjacent to the golf c.nrse. There is anarea on our plat that is labeled as golf easement and the intent was to provide the capability to expand the fairway which was an expressed concern. It is my understanding that the new board has no interest in pursuing that so that easement may never be used. Regarding the variances, these are all acre minimum lots and we are trying to enhance a rural character here. This is a low density subdivision and we feel that sidewalks would preclude rural feel of the area. On the drainage issue we are leaning toward the grass Crete that would allow grass to grow through. We expect to have around a forty foot separation between houses. The front setback is thirty-five feet. The depth of the lot is up to three hundred and fifty feet. Dr. M.D. Williamson: My name is M.W. Williamson and r-ty address is 920 Brush Creek Road. I have lived there since 1974 and I was the first house on Brush Creek Road. I have no problem with the development. My ox concern is the entrance on Brush Creek Road. My neighbor lives across from their entrance and the lights will shine into their bedroom, Brush Creek Road has never been disturbed in any way. It is pristine with nice trees. If that bridge is installed then they will disturb that pristine area and they are trying destroying what they are trying to prc:erve. We iou;d very much like to see their entrance moved to Hwy 377. Mr. Powell: You are asking that there be no entrance from Brush Creek Road? Mr. Williamson: Yes that is correct. Mr. David Yoder: My name is David Yoder and my address is 940 Brush Creek Road. The entrance on Hwy 377 does not occur until Phase 2. That means that everything that is built in there has to come out onto Brush Crock Road unless they complete Phase 2. Our concern is that we have watched this development start and stop at least three times. If they build Phase 1 and never build • Phase 2 then those people will never have an exit to Hwy 377. If there entrance onto Brush Creek Road was moved fifty feet to the west then the lights would not shine on this existing house. I understand their desire to have an entrance onto Brush Creek Road because it !ooks nice and it is in the country, but the fact is that we have to deal with the cars from there if Phase 2 never happens. All that we are asking is that the exit to Hwy 377 be put in when they do Phase 1. • Mr. Powell: Are you saying that you don't mind there being an entrance on Brush Creek Road as I~ O O long as the entrance on Hwy 377 is built at he same time, Mr. Yoder: That is correct. Mr. Bill Lewis: My name is Bill Lewis and my address is 900 Brush Circk Road. We talked last night with the developer ahout r least having both entrances built during Phase 1. The developer t • _ • ti-- 7_- 77 • • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 1: Page 12 f has apparently rejected that idea. We also asked if he could move the entrance to Brush Creek Road to the west and he told us that the entranca was determined by the city. I thought 1 heard somebody mention that they thought nineteen lots on a street that only had one entrance and exit was too many. In Phase 1 we are talking about thirty-eight lots that will only have one way in and out. It sees ; to us that having a pretty entrance to a subdivision is a fairly high price to pay to ruin the pristine nature of that area. We would really like to have them remove their entrance from Brush Creek Road. We would like to say that we embrace this project and I think it will be a very high quality subdivision. Ms. Susan Apple: My name is Susan Apple and my address is 8000 Woodcreek Circle. We are concerned about the drainage and if something is not done then it will be our water. We are also concerned about having thirty-eight homes that will only have one way in and one way out of this subdivision. Nis. Russell: How far is this entrance f-)m Hwy 3774 Mr. Salmon: It is right arou id a thousand feet. Mr. Cochran: What improvements will be required on Brush Creek Road? Mr. Salmon: The developer will probably have to go out and repair any exceptionally bad areas such as potholes, they will have to add a two inches overlay of asphalt, and they will have to make the road twenty-four feet wide from their entrance to Hwy 377. Mr. Cochran: In the past we have required developers to pave half of the road when they are putting in a subdivision, what makes this different? Air. Salmon: This subdivision is more than eight thousand feet from a City of Denton water line which means that perimeter paving is not required. However we do have another section of the ordinance that requires off site pavement when you have access to an unimproved road and you are going to generate more than a hundred vehicle trips per day which of course this development v id. Tlxy are being required to upgrade the road from their entrance to Hwy 377 band on that section of the ordinance. • Nis. Russell: Would you discuss the location of th,; entrance on Brush Creek Road? Pair. Salmon: We show Brush Creek Road to be an arterial on our Thoroughfare Plan. We don't know what kind of street section that will ultimately and in our discussions we made some comments that their entrance should be a minimum of four hundred feet from any other street so ® that if medians are put in at a later date they would be able to have a median cut. • a Mr. House: The city did not say that it had to go in that particular location, they just told me that 1 needed to move it west of my original location because it was too close to Kiowa Trail. 1 think where it is located now also allows for a median cut for us and possibly one more prior to Hwy 377 to serve the property that we do not own, One of the bigger factors in moving our entrance is that we have done all of our drainage analysis based on this location. All of our modeling is based on 0 , • P&Z Minutes February 26. 1997 _ ;4 t` , I~ }ly S Page 13 M this location for the entrance. Ms. Schertz: Phase 1 has thirty-eight lots and until Phase 2 is started those thirty-eight lots can only exit on Brush Creek Road? Mr. Houser Yes. Nis. Schertz: So what happens if something happens at the bridge on Brush Creek Road and ore of the residents of your subdivision needs emergency medical services? How will those services enter the subdivision? Mr. House: I think that is a situation that you face with any cul-de-sac or any one way point whether it is in a city section or estate section. 1 know that there is a concern that we might not finish out the project, that we might come in and just build the thirty-eight lots. One way that we might be able to address those concerns is if we voluntarily agree to limit ourselves to thirty building permits prior to starting construction on the connection to Hwy 377. That way we have eight finished lots which have a lot of value and that would be our incentive to put the road in.. tits. Schertz: How long do you expect it to take to finish out Phase 1? Are you looking at two years? Mr. }louse: We are looking at about eighteen months to two years. Mr. Cochran: Have you considered finishing the Hwy 377 entrance as part of Phase 1? Mr. House: It was a consideration. It is an economic burden to the success of Phase 1 to do that. It has been my understanding in working with the city, in situations like this a phase 1 temporary turn around is something that is permitted and that is where we have been directing our efforts. Ms. Russell: Let's start with the first exaction variance for sidewalks. Mr. Cochran: I move that we recommend to the City Council a variance of Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks for Lots 34-43, Block A and Lot 1, Block C of O Denton Country Club Estates based on the excessive cost to construct sidewalks on those lots. i Ms. Sch": Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Mr. Powell: I move that an exaction variance of Section 34-114(11) of the Code of Ordinance for 0 Denton Country Club Estates subdivision concerr,ng cul-de-sac length be recommended to the City Council due to the unusually large lot sirs. Mr. Moreno: Second. _ ~ 1 • i • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Cochran: I will be voting against this brcause it appears to me that the reason for having a cul- de-sac here appears to me to be for aesthetic reasons rather than based on any other criteria. There is a very simple and practical solution which would alleviate some problems on Brush Creek Road and that would be to continue that road out onto Hwy 377. Nis. Russell: Any discussion" All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-1) Mr. Cochran opposed. Mr. Powell: 1 move that a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances requiring underground drainage systems be granted for all drainage outfalls in Denton Countryy Ciab Estates that discharge onto the Denton Country Club with the condition that the above ground channels will have a ten foot wide lined bottom. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Mr. Jones: 1 move that we recommend a variance of Section 34-124(e) of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design for the drainage course on lot 1, Block B of Denton Country Club Estates as there is no reasonable connection between the need for the required improvement and this development. his. Schertz: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed saute sign. Approved. (6-0) 13, pl, air ~U • i • ~~!1 Agenda NO Agenda Item . Date rr~_ , -Q CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BULL DING 215 E. McKINNEY @ DENTON, TEXAS 70201 (817) 566-8200 • DF-W METRO 434.2529 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance DATE: February 12, 1997 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF TAX REFUND TO TITLE RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION: The Tax Department has mailed an Overp,-;,meot Letter and an Application for Tax Refund to the taxpayer. All completed forms and necessary documentation have been returned, requesting this refund, which the Tax Specialist recommends. SUMAfARY. Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $500.00. Title Resources has requested a refund in the amount of $868.67 because they overpaid Henry Rife's account #027650. BACKGROUND: Colonial Savings paid $868.67 on December 31, 1996 and Tide Resources paid $868.67 on January 6, 1997, resulting in an overpayment. A tax refund is due. • PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: I The Tax Department and the tax account of Henry Rife. FISCAL .i AfPACT: t • • • $668.67 r "Dedicated to Quality Service" • • . _ ,....';i„~1 tiA~'1?..t1,4`.:.:1vw.2:tirYkW ~`52.:LCtnz&tis:.54K.L:a'p4'.+.lu'vVrNd¢ui~r~Fnv.r.w.nw.nrv.ur.wivve.rv+.,v. City Council Report Page 2 Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESP F{1 'OUB ITTED: t ki-epared by: Kathy DuBose Executive Director of Finanoe Julie ewitt Tax Specialist Attachment: Application for Tax Refuni Copy of Cancelled C :eck Copy of Overpaymeat Report &"04 xo • • • i l Tk • • li iroo"TU Board APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUND RM1aa Appaeaeen 71.11(1112) Collecting Office Name. _~:!'d OF VIE-N• 0kl 4 r Collecting Tax For. A x 0 `?AATIIr-N 'e 1$ . f tCKINNL•Y axing nits DLN`ON, 1EgAS 75101 Address Qty, Stale, Zip Code - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In order to apply for a tax refund, the following Inlormation must be provided by the taxpayer. IDENTIFICATIOM OF PROPgRTY OWNERk . Name: _ N+ T-Z, cF- Address: ~~~~g• Tcf/f4'4T,f.. 751? fNT6rUI,•~ K ?fl30S-&z74~ Telephone Number (if additional Information is needed): IDENTIFICATION OF PROP ",R: Description of Property: ~~!TNQIDSC. 40Cx _q S0 46r L? Address or Location of Property. NF rt. Q Account Number of Property: -~sf~-7(0 0 or Tax Receipt Number. INFONMATION ON PAYMENT OF TAXE& Name of Taxing Unit Year h,f Amount of From Winch no and Which F;:und Date of the Amouni of Tax Refund Is Requested Is Requested Tax Payment Taxes Paid Requested 1 ['Irivo-F-D,urc419 ?6 !"!o ! 19 97 S Lg (P 7 = _8(0 b'.lo"1 2C~ry or to 19 !4 (~3+ /19_J<._ S ~5~2 t t 3. 19 ! 19 S _ frxpeyer's reason for refund (attach supporting doeumentedwy. (iTL ~f 5~w ece's ~N r~ 6 avtirol- ~5,4ul mcr5 CA-eti 1 a rt4c_ fkX~ ; ew n4n PAaGzc cxc2Ce5 !b 'g./or.J 0fs;Illf sr/,214 ~fFuND ~F 7+dE. nyiet 1y/r[tu'T~ "I hereby apply for the refund of as abov"escribed Was d certify that the information I have givbn on this form is true and correc " fcw.' T rcc £so r Cc+s (!Yl i`i 1uc z` !1!e 7Acc 4~ ek ' + 7- 97 Signature R'°J', T Date of Application for Tax Refund - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --u°v DETERMINATION FOR TAX REFUND: Approval Cisapproval o gnature of Auth „i2ed Officer Date • Signature of Presiding Officer(s) of Taxing Date ! • • Unit(s) Tor refund applications over S500 Any person who makes a Wes entry upon the foregoing record shall be subNct to oft of the Mawing pena7Ne 1. IrnprMom"M of t not more than 10 years nor lees than Z yeen and/err a fine of Rol mare Than 15.000 of goal such I" onA i,nprleonment; 7. 1:onanemenl In Ia0 for a )arm up to 1 year w s One not to exceed 03,000 of both such Ara and krrprleomaM ere sN forth In Section 37.10, Penal Code, 3 4 . ice. l 4 mobam i . s 011275 rIAST STATE BANK OF TEXAS TITLE RESOURCES Mralw ESCROW ACC.OUNJ Fx"~*•*~ nm DENTON Orr?Cc 11275 IM DALLAS DRrvE• SUPE 02 DENTON• TEXAS 7SM a1n m+-10M VOID AFTER 0 MOMS PAY E1GI1T IMMRED SIXTY EIGHT AND 67/1D0 DOLL M54tRfs~tAAttt+.~R~treAA/rf♦ s _ 563.67 DATE THE 4cember 30, 19 G ` DTHE CITY OF DEhTON TAY OFFICE I 961019S9 0),l ~P50 O'011275p' 1: i 1 19 14 74 21: r'C+4 [1 21 50' OOD86ii6?F' IrCU^rr rFn~+i!!F'!q rvp iM lMrlfP.O~l.Y n! [RbR n', dn.. mrfCiµ r.alnir.e vln5f lJJF 4'sS+U rPhV!,lK.'.~F rCfn ~~.l~Y'W.YC.~ .ice f~~.. ~'Yi r • ...e ~ S. ~ u.. r .•1. i •.I _u~ ' F % j 1 . ( v MY IY tr IQ1IpFiNI tfP 10 AOISISS FIRST ST41F N1R ? 1 1 17147421_,.. §1.96,97_•: 17 i t" I' r;..>: rl~i:ri34i :•:.r_ a~T,)r{.►7...1 AS - { • • e REPORT FIOR05DW 02/06/97 AT 18;47 O V E R P A Y M E N T S PA ACCOUNT NO. RECEIPT NO. NAME ADDRESS AMOUNT STATUS OF PA 07699800000 96/03/31-0075 DAVIS, WALLACE E JR ETAL 0.01 OVERPAY 02328400009 96/03/31-0145 JOLLY, LEO M BUCKINGHAM DR 0.60 OVERPAY 02900500000 96103/31-0164 HIGHT, ROBERT LEE DONNA RD 4$.18 OVERPAY 03452300000 96103/31-0199 DENTON BIBLE CHURCH BANDERAST 0.01 OVERPAY 10514700000 96/03/31-0334 HILOR£TH, EDDIE JR INDIAN RIDGE D 131.84 OVERPAY 03559100000 96/04/02-0065 BLAKE, FRANK C W HICKORY ST 72.00 OVERPAY 03332900000 96/04/02-0196 HARWELL, HELEN ANNA ST 200.00 OVERPAY 90736100000 96/04102-0245 BURKHARDT. DAVID R DDS S LOOP 288 0.01 OVERPAY 03463700000 96/04/03.0184 ATKINS, MARK H HIGHLAND PARK 100.00 OVERPAY 02124600000 PS/04/C6-0087 EVANS, TIMOTHY O NORMAN ST 159.65 OVERPAY 0225990D00^ V6104/06-0284 BURS(, B. DEAN THOMAS ST 415.83 OVERPAY 02275000:00 98/04/06-D283 SMITH, DOROTHY J OAKHILL OR 54.06 OVERPAY 02430P'o000 96/04/06-0484 MCCLURE, ERIC CHAMBERS ST 26.41 OVERPAY 0265Pd00000 96/04106-0644 SCHENCK, YI L JR TIMBERGREEN CA 53.46 OVERPAY 02711700000 96/04/06-0740 KAY, GEORGE J MEADOW VIEW CT 624.47 OVERPAY 02740600000 96104/06-0767 WITHERS, JAYNE P PEMBROOKE PL 53.45 OVERPAY 03065700000 96104106-1132 CRAFT, DWENNELL FREEDOM LN 81.13 OVERPAY 03153900000 86/04106-1276 JOHNSON, DONALD K CHERRYWOOD LN 392.76 OVERPAY ` 03409700000 96/04/06-1469 MARQUEZ, TOMAS 8 MARIA WILLO'WWOOD ST 33.18 OVERPAY 03566800000 96/04/06-1513 SPECTOR, DAVID M III A JANET L LINWOOD.OR . 26.42 OVERPAY 07619200000 96/04/06-1670 HARDIN, ALANA 8 WINDSWEPT CT 27.53 OVERPAY 10302700000 96/04/06-1811 HARTSFIELD, DEREK J WINDBROOK ST 26.42 OVERPAY 10325700000 96/04/06-1852 MODROW, CHRISTOPHER L OAK TREE DR 26.42 OVERPAY 10332500000 96/04/06-1679 SWEATMAN, GARY D DIANE CA 53.45 OVERPAY 11670000000 96/04/06.2105 CROUSE. WILLIAM C KENWOOD ST 53.46 OVERPAY 12835300000 96/04/06-2169 MARSHALL, MARK A NOTTINGHAM DR 26.41 OVERPAY 14607300000 96/04/06-2255 OESJARDINS, RAYMOND TARTAN CR 565.09 OVERPAY ; 17738000000 96/04/06-2374 9ALLOM. KENNETH T 'N SELL AV 26.42 OVERPAY 18016500000 96/04/06-2387 FISHER, HOWARD P SAINTS CA 26.42 OVERPAY 18296700000 96/04106-2391 BURNEY. MITCHELL G LIDO WAY 63.40 OVERPAY 18297000000 96/04/06-2392 OLIVARES, ADOLPO LIDO WAY 63.40 OVERPAY 02765000000 96/04/07-0285 RIFE, HENRY STONEGATE OR 868.67 OVERPAY 13051700000 96/04/08-0094 KING d KING P/S N ELM ST 86.65 OVERPAY 03583100000 96/04/09-0201 DDUGL45 6 ASSOCIATES LLC LOOP 288 1 488.86 OVERPAY 12622100000 96/04/13.0181 TEXTRON FINANCIAL CORP - .239.87 OVERPAY 02545700000 86/04/13.0229 ZAMUDIO, MELQUCADES FOKCROFT CR .178.15 OVERPAY • 03704100000 96104/16~D144 PASS. JULIA A STUARTRD 0.28 OVERPAY 90657200000 96/04/21-0067 STICKER STATION S LOCUST ST 1.00 OVERPAY 03409000000 96/04/21-0159 RPS VENTURES INC WILLOWWOOD ST 1.00 OVERPAY ' 03196800000 96/04/21-0176 CRAWFORD, LARRY P KINGSTON TC 1.00 OVERPAY 02179201000 96/04/21-0379 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS BERNARD ST 228.06 OVERPAY 02926400000 95/04/21-0384 MORRISON, VIRGINIA N BELL -1909 A 0.10 OVERPAY 91615100000 96/04/22-0166 OPTIONS SALON - SELM OK ST 3.02 OVERPAY 03407000000 96/04/25-0025 WILLIAMS, JOHN PAUL NLOCUST ST 0.80 OVERPAY 03439500000 96/04124-0147 NW REALTY INC SHAOY.OAKS OR 157.10.OVERPAV 03439400000 96/04/24-0148 NW REALTY INC SHADY OAKS OR 394.46 OVERPAY 03439800000 96/04/24-0149 NW REALTY INC SHADY OAKS DR 154.46 OVERPAY 0 03439600000 96/04/24-0150 NW REALTY INC SHADY OAKS DR 138.71 OVERPAY 02466700000 96/04/27-0011 DOSS, WILLIAM B AVE C 0.01 OVERPAY 03724100000 86/04/27-0089 CHISM, JIMMY 0 - N CARPENTER RD 0.20 OVERPAY 03758600000 96/04/27.0197- JUNCTION 289 PARTNERSHIP - N LOOP 288 0.02 OVERPAY 51605700000 96/04/27-0446.. JOHNSTON, MARK 0.14 OVERPAY:. . 5 , e • Agenda No to Agenda Item _ /?0 ORDINANCENO. __Date_ -3-Y-97 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 emp!oyee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 1996 ALL WEISLE.R AND ASSOCIATES, INC. S 22,683.60 1 SECTION U. 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 III. 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 herett.: rrevided that the written O O J 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 • • S . SECI10N-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 bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SEC'IION1. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY i BY: - - - - SUPPLY.OBD • l 2 • DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 CITY_COUNCELREPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID N 1996 - OVERCURRENT RELAYS RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Weisler and Associates, Inc., in the total amount of $22,683.60. SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of sixty solid state overcurrent relays, which will replace existing electromechanical relays that no longer coordinate with the distribution system. These overcurrent relays protect the circuit feeders into the Substations by tripping when the current reaches pre-detarmined setting. Prices for the relays will be held firm for three years. Proposals were received from four vendors in response to eighteen bid packages mailed to prospective vendors. PROGRAMS..DEPARTMENTS__OR.GROUPSAEFECTED: Electric Substations Department, Electric Utility, Electric Customers of the City of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted funds for Capital Improvements 97-98.99. Account #610-132.1032-3620-9217 Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Memorandum from Ray Wells dated 2.11-97 Respectfully submitted: ~ E. a ~~yy D se Exect~ive hector of Finance ;Prepared by: ` ~ I d~~Td ~Op~ Name: Denise Harpool Title: Senior Buyer i Approved: Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent ers.rGENDA i 3 1 ,A dLl • • s ua3 rr I9x I - h~ 1311) NAME OVERCLRRF.NTRELA1'S tiViSCO PREEF.RRE.D 7E<'MANE. APOLLO %EISL.ER TEMPLE ` SALES INC INTL & ASSOC (OPEN DATE JANUARY14,W N ANNUAL. DESCRIPEION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR -VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR 1. 60 EA 5MI SOLID STATE OVERCURRENT RELAYS 1161.00 NO BID S379.00 NO BID 199].00 SJ70.06 PRICE FIRM 1 1'R 3 VRS S IRS 1 VR DELIVERY 21 DAYS 30 DAYS IS DAVE 13 DAl'S +E06 APPROXFRT a ' i - J - 1 It 0 • r - I 11UNIORANDUAI TO: TONI SHAW, PURCHASING AGENT FROM: Ray D. Wells, Superintendent of Substations, Operations and Marketing 1 SUBJECT: Bid 1996 DATE: February 11, 1997 RECOMMENDATION: Award Bid 1996, Over Current Relays to Weider and Associates, Inc. 60 relays at a cost of $378.06 per relay for a total of $22,683,60. SUMMARY: After evaluating the bids for the 60 Overcurrent Relays. We recommend award of bid to Weisler and Associates, Inc, They were low bid meeting specifications. The price of these relays will remain firm for 3 years. This bid quotes a 15 day delivery of relays. The relay changeout is Phase 1 of our program to upgrade our facilities to meet the changing system characteristics. REASON: The relays will replace our existing eleciro-mechanical relays. This is a six year project starting FY 97/98, Overcurrent devices represent the largest installed quantity • of protective equipment on our power system. Overcurrent devices are the first line of the protective strategy. The 1996 Tippett & Gee Relay Coordination Study has determined that the range of settings of the old relays cannot coordinate with the eRi~t;r, distribution system, These changes should be made to coordinate the system, thus reducing customer power interruptions and the possibilities of equipment damage. ~.-__.M _.u.;...,.. • • p The placement of solid-state relays will lower maintenance cost and give us the flexibility to coordinate the protection of our system scheme. In FY 97198 we plan to replace 60 Overcurtent relays on distribution feeders starting st Spencer Substation, plus do parts of Kings Row and Hickory. We have 60 distribution feeders with four relays each. f 1 E PROGRAMIDEPARTMENT OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Capital Improvement Plan No 97-1032-04.98-1032-03 and 99-1032-02 FISCAL IMPACT: $114,000 Current Revenue t'. elct~htlLLil'77G • + • 0 i i i E; • racer _ yr.l~" . J) • 0 Agenda No._ 7` D/a Agenda Item ~q ORDINANCE NO. Cale_ 3-V-27 _ 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, 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 accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO- YENDOR AMOUNT 2004 1,2 TEMPLE EXHIBITA 2004 3,11 WESCO EXHIBITA 2004 4,5,9,10, 12 TECHLINE EXHIBITA 2004 6,7 PRIESTER EXHIBIT A 2004 a PREFERRED EXHIBITA • SECTION Il. That by tiie 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. tit SEC11OM1II. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and O O of the submitted bids wish to Miter 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. i • • SEC17 N-LY. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items bf 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. SECTIOIN Y. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1497. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY. CITY ATTORNEY BY: - SUPPLYARD • i • • O I 2 1 a; oil • • BID q 2004 BID NAME ANNUAL DISTRIBUTION EXHIBIT "A" TRANSFORMERS OPEN DATE JANUARY 30, 1997 k TY DESCRIPTION PRICE VE WOR_ 1. 7 TRANX, OH, I3KVA 120/240 ! $324,001 TEMPLE 2. S TRANX, OH, 25KVA 1204240 $446.00! TEMPLE 3. 0 TRANX, OH, 50KVA, 120!240 $744.00 WESCO 4. 5 TRANX, UG 25KVA 120/240 $783.89 TECHLINE 5. 20 TRANX, UG SOKVA 120/240 $1,020.41 TECHLINE 6. 20 TRANX, UG 75KVA 120!240 $1,112.00 PRIESTER 7-- S TRANX, UG, IOOKVA 120/240 $1,406.00 PRIESTER a 0 TRANX, UG, 167KVA 120/240 $2,075.00 PREFERRED 9. 4 TRANX, 3PH UG ISOKVA 1201208 ' $3,837.76 TECHLINE lO. • 1 TRANX.3PH UG 300KVA 120/208 $5,401.00 i TECHLINE I1. ' I TRANX.3PH UG 500KVA 120/208 $6,699,00! W.ESCO 12. • 1 TRANSX. 3PH UG 150KVA 277/290 53,934.70 , TECHLINE • I ~ I I I , J . 3 • • DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 C1TY_COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, E ecutive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID #2004 -ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DISTRIBUTION 1RINSFORMERS RECOS12NIENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder for each items as listed: BID TEEM DESCIt MON - ' VENDOR VNTT COST 1. TRANSFORMER OH 15KVA TEMPLE 5324.00 2. TRANSFORMER OH 25KVA TEMPLE 5446.00 3. TRANSFORMER OH 50KVA WESCO 5744.00 4. TRANSFORMER UG 25KVA TECHLINE $783.69 5. TRANSFORMER UG 50KVA TECHLINE $1,020.41 6. TRANSFORMER UG 75KVA PRIESTER $1,112.40 7. TRANSFORMER UG 100KVA PRIESTER 51,406.00 8. TRANSFORMER UG 167KVA PREFERRED $2,075.00 9. TRANSFORMER 3PH UG 150KVA TECHLINE $3,837.76 l0.' TRANSFORMER 3PH UG 300KVA TECHLINE $5,401.00 11. • TRANSFORMER 3PH UG 500KVA WESCO $6,599.00 12.4 TRANSFORMER 3PH UG 150KVA TECHLINE $3,934.70 (277/280) * Not included in annual price agreement • Total annual estimated expenditure of $287,624.85. r SUMMARY: This bid is for an annual price agreement for the purchase of Distribution Transformers. These transformers will be purchased on an as needed basis for use by the Electric Distribution Department throughout the electrical system and in new developments. These transformer • proposals are evaluated using load loss figures to show the most energy efficient units along with the purchase price. The last three items of this bid will be one time purchases, the larger sizes are not O O required often enough to justify an annual price agreement and will be bid on an as needed basis. Bids were received from eight vendors in response to twenty-one bid packages mailed to vendors. 4 t • 0 • CITY COUNCIL REPORT MARCH 4,1997 PACE 2 OF 2 PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR (_RO TS AFF'FGTEn: Electric Distribution Department Electric Utilities, Electric Customers of the City of Denton. C A I AI.IMPAf:T: Budgeted funds for 1997 Distribution transformer purchases. Account #610-103-1031-3680-9222. Attachments: Evaluat;on - Don McLaughlin TabWrtian Sheet Respectfully submitted: _ ~ ~oSf Kath se Executive Dire.tor of Finance Prepared by: Name: Denise Harpool Title: Senior Buyer Approved: Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Pumhasir:g Agent 636.AGENDA 1 • 5 k 0 fir- • • . I Bid Evaluation $idNamber 1004 Description 9990:1!102 TR4NX. ON, 1SKVA 1101240 Quantity 7 Load Factor 0.5 Vendor NL W1, Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Temple 50 187 $324.00 64 12,29016 Prlester 49 150 5406.00 64 52,402.07 KBS 49 150 $418.00 84 52,446.01 KBS2 45 180 1405.00 70 $2.493.72 W ESCO 45 165 142500 77 12,496.85 Cummlra 45 192 5405,60 56 12,545.74 Techlins 55 161 1421.65 105 12,554.16 Prelbned 55 143 1469.00 96 12,706.62 SESCO 60 250 1440.00 40 53,028,62 Description 99900003 TRANX. OH, 25KVA 1101240 Quantity 5 Load Factor 0,5 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Temple 62 281 1446.00 84 $3,194.71 , Cwnmins 65 268 1492.96 56 13,315.84 Nester 58 303 1469.00 64 $3,379.11 0 W ESCO 75 184 1577.00 77 51,341.70 KBS2 70 237 1531.00 70 13,365.36 r' Toehilne 79 214 1544.31 105 53,38959 KBS 59 303 1486.00 54 13,396.57 Preforred 66 241 1575.00 98 $3,514.08 SESCO 85 3% 1535.00 13,974.62 + Monday, February 10, 1097 6 Pale 1016 II ' • e ;.r Description 99900005 TRANX. OH, 50KVA 1201140 Quantity 0 Load Factor 0,5 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost- WESOO 97 456 $744.00 77 $5,222.52 Cummins 124 414 $73424 56 $5,239.62 Temple 111 464 $700.00 84 $5,254,30 Preferred 115 398 $792.00 98 $5,293.21 Priester 106 $31 5656.00 94 $5.312.62 KBS2 131 429 5736.00 70 $5,366.39 KBS 106 531 $679.00 84 $5,390.36 TecMne 126 410 S02887 105 $5,559.47 SESCO 16n 550 $770.00 40 $6,257.44 Description 99900010 TRANX. UG 25KVA 1201240 Quantity 5 Load Factor 0.5 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evatuated Cost Terhline 61 215 $783.69 84 $4,223.62 Preferred 78 220 $834.00 96 $4,385.34 KBS2 72 228 5850.00 70 $4,422,75 Prlester 65 217 5882.00 126 $4,426.76 KBS 65 217 ' $914.00 126 54,53422 W ESCO 83 177 5945.00 91 $4,648.03 • , Temple 67 283 $954.00 112 $5,003.40 l Cummins 66 254 $1,124.24 56 $5,408.01 1 SESCO BS 350 $1,270.00 70 58,479.20 Atonday, February 10, 19,97 7 Papt 2 old q! { • • r. Description 999010'011 TRANX. UG SOKVA 1201240 Quantity 20 Load Factor 0.5 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Tertdine 121 413 $1,020.41 84 56,177.72 Preferred 115 392 $1,063.00 98 56,18419 Prieater 91 480 51,026.00 126 56,22577 WESCO 112 318 $1,186.00 91 $0,258.32 KSS2 116 440 $1,038.00 70 $6,307.99 KBS 91 480 $1,064.00 126 56,354.21 Cummins 104 477 $1,245.92 56 87,064.92 Temple 94 524 $1,275.00 112 $7,275.69 SESCO 160 550 $1,462.00 90 $8,565.98 Description 99900012 TRANX. UG 75nA 1201240 Quantity 20 Load Factor 0.5 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Peester 151 629 $1.112.00 126 $7,637.11 Preferred 150 495 $1,312.00 98 $7,748.53 WESCO 140 560 $1,259,00 91 $7,75468 Teehline 152 566 $1,222.45 84 67,756.30 KBS 151 629 51,152.00 126 $7,772.31 KBS2 14.1 588 $1,352.00 70 58,219.18 • Cummins 142 634 $1,454.96 56 $8,742.15 Tempe 133 787 $1,36400 112 $8,997.12 I SESCO 220 800 $1,941.00 90 $11,388.42 Monday, February 10, 1997 Aqe 3 of6 8 sti • • Description 99900013 TR4NX. UG. 104.7KV4 1201240 Quantity 5 Load Factor 0.5 Vendor NL OIL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cast. Pnesler 196 686 11,408.00 126 $9,243.23 Preferted 184 727 $1,418.00 98 191354.61 KBS 198 686 11,458.00 126 $9,418.99 WESCO 157 754 $1,460.00 91 $9,467.41 Techlins 183 762 11,468.37 84 $9,662.34 KBS2 196 832 11,435.00 70 69,949.48 Cummins 193 549 11,76512 56 $10,280.62 Temple 169 1004 61,588.00 112 $10,951.45 SESCO 230 1200 $2,151.00 70 $14,18594 Description 99900014 TRANX. UG. 167KVA 1201240 Quantity 0 Load Factor 01 Vendor NL li'L Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Preened 275 1017 62,07500 98 $13,541.62 Has!& 266 12% 61,874.00 98 $13,824.59 Techline 289 1023 62,177.58 112 $14,029.92 KBS 266 1266 61,942.00 98 614,054.43 WESCA 227 1389 $1,889.00 91 614,062.76 Cummins 279 1148 62,230,80 56 614,647.30 • KBS2 245 1369 $2,186.00 70 $15,133.27 Temple 295 1319 $2,51300 112 $18,446.83 SESCO 400 1500 12,595.00 70 $18,352,90 Mandan, Febraaq 10, 1997 9 Pa`e 4 of d a it • • Description 99900015 TRANX.. 3PH UG 150KVA 110/108 Quantify 4 Load Factor 0,38 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Tealine 321 1281 $3,837.76 98 Si9,702.05 Prtesler 457 1076 $3,912.00 126 520,437.07 KBS 451 1076 S4,055.00 126 S20,9M 41 WESCO 399 951 $4,38800 77 521,160.17 Temple 283 1164 $4,748.00 70 $22,091.61 SESCO 400 1600 $4,519.00 70 $23,672.98 Description 99900016 TRANX.. 3PH UG300KVA 1101208 Quantity 1 Load Factor 0.38 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Techline 554 2112 $5.401.00 98 529,558.24 WESCO 470 2348 SS,461.00 77 $29,806.38 Temple 168 1903 $7,01700 70 $31,309.08 SESCO 623 2400 55,719.00 60 $32.116.46 Prowler 568 2360 $6,661.00 126 $34,782.22 KBS S68 2380 56,868,00 126 535.461.88 Description 99900017 TRANX., 3PH UG 500KVA 1201,108 Quantity 1 Load Factor 0,38 Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost WESCO 894 3261 $6,599.00 T7 540,078.28 r Tethline 816 3480 $6,880.82 98 541,07344 Pdwt" 937 3361 $7,108.00 126 542,473.59 • KBS 937 3361 $7,292.00 126 543,095.51 Temple 254 3365 59144.00 70 $43,677.18 SESCO 1108 5300 $7,878,00 70 552,833.38 Monday, February 10, 1997 post 3o/6 10 14 , . • • , Description 99900020 TRANXS, 3PH UG 150KVA 1771480 Quantity 1 Load Factor 0.38 ` Vendor NL WL Cost Delivery EvalaWed Cost. TocMine 321 1128 $3,931.70 98 $19,54529 PAester 322 1364 $3,87100 126 $20,13029 KSS 322 1364 64,075.00 128 $20,775.05 WESCO 328 1288 $4,293.00 77 $21,314.92 Twoo 343 1001 $4,677.00 70 $21,835.48 SESCO 400 1600 $1,428.00 60 $23,368.68 i 1 • a Atonday, February 10, 1997 Pole if of it 11 dL r • • Sheetl TOW Cost Evaluation Bid 2004 Stock 0 DESCRIPTION A Venda NL M Cost Days Totd Cost 99900002 TRANX. ON, 15KVA 120/240 7 Temple 50 187 $324.00 84 $2268 99900003 TRANX. ON. 25KVA 120/240 5 Temple 62 281 $446.00 84 $2.230 99900005 TRANX. OH, SOKVA 120/240 0 WESCO 97 456 $744.00 77 $0 99900010 TRANX. UG 25KVA 120/240 5 Techline 81 216 $783.69 84 $3,918 99900011 MANX. UG SOKVA 120/240 25 Techihe 121 413 $1,020.41 84 $25,510 99900012 TRANX. UG 75KVA 120/240 25 Nester 151 629 $1,112.00 126 $27,800 99900013 TRANX. UG. I OOKVA 120/240 10 Nester 196 686 $1.406.00 126 $14,060 99900014 TRANX. UG. 167KVA 120/240 0 Referred 275 1017 $2075.00 98 50 99900015 TRANX.. 3PH UG 15OKVA 1201208 6 Techline 321 1281 $3,837.76 98 $23.027 94900016 TRANX.. 3PH UG 300KVA 120/208 1 Techline 554 2112 $5,401.00 98 $5.401 99900017 TOM.. 3PH UG SWKVA 120/208 I WESCO 894 3261 $6,599.00 77 $6.599 • 99900020 TRANXS. 3PH UG ISOKVA 277/480 1 TechlEne 321 1128 $3,934.70 96 $3.935 i Tofal_511~,748 12 . • C~- • • • • IIID M 7001 it ~ 111 ~ I 411DNAMF, ANN U A L DISIR Ibt IT 'I ON PREFERRED PRusrER SFSC'O TEMPLE TEVIPLF. WFSCO CUMMINS TECKLINE KBS j k109 T RANSF'ORMERS SALFS SUPPLI' A B OTEN DAI E JANUARY 30, 1991 k CIO QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR { VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR _ VENDORLNDOR 1. 7 TRANX,OH, ISKVA 120!710 $09.00 ~ 5105.00 S440;00 5321.00 5419.00 3425.00 5105.60 S121.63 5410.00 5403.00' 2. S TRANX, ON. 25KVA 12070 $575.00 516900 3535.00 $4160 5605.00 ~ $577.00 5191% 351133 1136.00 $531.00 $736.00 3. 6 TRANY, ON, 50KVA, 120!!40 3792._001I1 U%00 317900 37".06 595100 51,137$779.6.00 0 _ 39$74415.60 06 31,512121 13414 332 31631.0,1! 7 $111.00367!.00 f6S0.00 1. S TRA.NXUGISKYA 111 , 120 R10 533/.00 536100 51.27600 5. _ 20 TRANX, U G SOKV A 120/240 31.63.00 311026.00 . 31,167.001 31.275.00 51,117.00 SI,116.1* _ S%24S.92 31,420.11 31,061.00. 31,030.00 6. 20 TR\NX,lC75KVA220R45 f1,31].00t{ 51,111001 SIA4100 $16400 f1,60700, -f1,1SlN f1ASl.li_- 31,2]145 113 51157,00 :1.352 00j - - 1 f - - -I 7. 5 G,100KVA170a4$ 51,113.00` 31,/06.001` $2,151.00 S1A5600 $2,136.00 SIA60.00 $1,765.921 1 SIA6U7 S1,4M.00 f1,US.00~ 3. 0 TRAN'X,1C 1111 KVA 120/249 32A73.00~ 51,171.00 32395.00 12,513.00 52,635.00 11,3"m 5],=30.10 31,11736 51,912.00 $2,136,001 ~9. 4 TRANX,3?HUGI50KVA120408 33,732.00 53,01100 11.519.00 31,743.00 56,013.00 $4A/6.09 NOSID 33,137.74 _._34,055.00.,._ 10, 13 _ TRANX3PH UG 300KVA 120/200 55,079.06 5601.00 ~ 55,716.60 37,017.00 _ ._$1,323.00 S5t141:00 1. •1 TRANX3PHUGS00KVA120/201 34,311.00 37,101.00 17,176.60 59,114.00 SIA3000 S6S9l.M NODID 36,11062 - 37.292.00 11 ' 1 [ RANSX. 3PH UG I50KVA 2771 33,!1!.00 S3,Y/3." $1,429.00 3/,677A0 56,131 % 34.293.60 NO DID _5!1!31.76 1/.079.00 „ .t._. MFG: CENTRAL COOPER SESCO GE MAGNETIC KUHLMAN! COOPER ERMCO • MELONLY f DBLIVERV: %D.AVS I 126PAI'S 10•%DAVS 70.113DAIS~ 26~63DAI'S 31 DAYS 16.15N'KS "1240A1'S 70 DAIS NO BID RESPONSES: 9'9-17 - - - POH ER SUPPLY P70 DIEts '9 i 7; • • - i Agendr No.,,,_,~ 1-O!O Agenda lt#rn ORDINANCE NO. Data AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR TFIE 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, 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 numbcred bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2010 1,2,7 DPCIND. EXHIBITA 2010 3 PENCCO EXHIBITA 2010 4 HARCROS EXHIBITA 2010 S ADVANCECHEMICAL EXHIBITA 2010 a FE 3 INC EXHIBIT A 2010 9 SCHOLLE CORP. EXHIBIT A 2010 10 CYTEC EXHIBITA SECTION 11. 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 r 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 III. That should the City and persons submitting appruved and accepted items and 1 • • of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agrcement 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. 1 C"- • r O E k SECTIOM IY. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: SUPPLY ORD • ~ I k I • ,m • • r- BID # 2010 WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS EXHIBIT G°A" 'a ~ o a 1 a}da ~ a TTE?M ` b~.SCRIP`f~t~i+~ x ~ J ` • ~plt ~ ~T (SST 1. LIQUID CHLORINE DPC IND. 0.16220 2. SULFUR DIOXIDE DPC IND. 0.21500 3. FLUROSILICIC ACID PENCCO 0.08170 4. _ 50% CAUSTIC DLkPHRAGM GRADE HARCROS 0.09700 5 50% CAUSTIC RAYON GRADE ADVANCE CHEMICAL 0.20800 6. POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE (NOT AWARDINO AT PRESENT TIME) 7. ANHYDROUS AMMONIA DPC INC. 017500 8. 50% FERRIC SULFATE FE 3 INC 0.04900 4 SULFURIC ACID SC 4OLLE CORP 0.03200 10. CATIONIC POLYMER CYTEC 0.58540 • i 3 DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 + CITY-COUNCIL REPORT ` TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID # 2410 -WATER TREATMENT CHEMICALS RECOMMENDATION: Council approve award of Bid #2010 - Water Treatment Chemicals to the low bidders meeting specifications for the unit prices as shown on Exhibit A. SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of chemicals used in water treatment by the Water Production, Water Reclamation and the Electric Production Divisions. Based on the approximate annual usage of each item, the total purchases are estimated at $360,000.00. The lowest bid on item 7 was for a product that is not NSF60 certified as requested in the bid specification. The lowest bid on item 10 was for a polymer that has not been tested for use in the city's plant and is not on the approved product list. The award on each of these items is going to the next low bid. Item 6 is still under evaluation and may be awarded at a later date. PROGRAMS.-DEPARTMENTS _OR GROUPS-AFFECTED. Water Production, Water Reclamation, Electric Production. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in operating budgets for purchases as needed. Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Memorandum from Randy Markham, Water Production Supervisor of Operations Respectfully submitted: Kath B Executive Director of Finance f Prepared By: / Name: Mela ie Harden Title. Buyer i Approved:` Name: Tom D. Shaw,C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 838.AGENDA 4 • • • 111111 71119 I , _ 1II1) hNIV 14AIFR IAFAIMENFI IIFMII'AUS %110141,F A%ISH INI.S 11 kilt All( C111'(' 1,04 1 DM' PA 1N 1. I 11, 7IN( MIDLAND AMF,RII'AY, ((INP. SIJ11'K ('IIEMUAI. IND L[ND IND LNG. ALSO('RCts INt'L twl N DAIt PTORI',AAY It, IPP7 I SER1'K'EA I ('ORP CHEMICAL MGt IOF1 F QTI' DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VINDQa ILNDOR VENDOR IENDOK VENDOR VENDOR 'L I 500,000 LIQUID CHLORiM1'L II TN CYLINDERS) ~ SIA.MI ~ .I(7i/ ' Lu NSFf1CLRTIFIID7 YISNO I_ES f its ' 11 TON 1. 100ffi D-1ONIF" XlDt (I CYLINDERS) ERS) ss9LI1 ,IL3 + 1, ~ I I d PRICE "RM MONTHS I1 MOS I7 MOS I 1 I , L IHm FLUOROSILICIC ACID TON f i f N ti 165 (4000-/ 400 GALLON TALC KLOADS) 5174.01 I M.M T.N { NSFWCERTIFIED'1L5'NO I is I ES PRICE FIRM MONTHS i 11 M OS i 17 M . MOs 1 'I I{ I. A 1,000,00 LIQL"ID C 4I'STIC SODA SHORT DA\'T!41 DRY TON CERTIFI { DIAPHRAG DRI' L0.4 517400 .0M { I fff NmO its Ytl PRI [ i1RMD [DMON117NJ L~) {S SMOS .DO~ 77 MOS 11 INOS 1 I { i L 11,000 LIQ. CAUSTK SODA- RA1 ON GRADE ORI' LIS DRY 11,1515 POUNDS I .1(75 / f NS F/1 CtRFInED!Y L"O Ili US I FAKE FIRM _ MONTHS Ii MOs ll V1 f. MAN !il POTAS51 I M PERMANG.1.NAt E Ld5 KILOGRAM R CAN NSF70 CLRT l"tD! I TS+N0 1 [S its YES MONTHS It 17EIOS 4 i 12140 I ` 1 1 MOS PRIC .2m 0 7. 7L1S N F/1 C LATIFILD; IIFSNO NO _ 17t3 • PRICK FIRM _ MONTHS _ O was { I] MOs , L 030.000 L IIDPTRRICSULFA,L N[T1,115 l/ .17910 VI Cf LDs, NSFAL CE RTIFI E D.\FS(NO f its its PRwI FIRM MONTHS, 4 4 _ 74 M06 _ 11 mm P. IStOW SELFL'RICACID-TLCHNICALGRADE TON TRUCK) f S"m 1 LOS (SHWID MY TANK 00 0 NSF61CERTTFIED7 I LS'NO NO I { { 1Lf I PRICK FIRM MONTHS 11 MOS ' 17 MOs II . IL CAT"ICPOLIMER NSFN C ER Ip • TIfIED!lE5JY0 515/ 610 - I _ NF { 1 f9,Da 11l' LK AN IPAI E NTS(t.500-1,704) GAL7 f 1 I'tS Its ` I Yp J LOS PRI(I F]RM _ MONTHS 11 MOS I 11 MOS { 11 MOS 0. 41400 sl GALLON 601140E SHIPMENTS i I .4.l!/ ,7!/ I .Q/ 1105 PRICE "R.M _ MONTHS I 17 MOs 17 MOs I7 MO6 If DRUM MLN { I • • e • 1 ' xu,f vn1 ~ j i I i i DID NAM[ N',111. R I RFA I MINT( 'IIFMI('AIA PANE'S SNTF. I"A11'.R FI NIC'O UFI,1A AMSIS'i pllNG PIUN[[R ('OIL ADV,VN('L I'LNTRAI. TICIINULOGIEs INC, DIST. RAl IR CHEMICAL CHEMICAL CHEMICAL; GARDEN (IPFN D:1T[ FINAVART It, IMT TECH •PIT PAG[ZOF7 QTI' DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR I VENDOR VENDOR VW,DOR VENDOR I. I NEON LIQUID CHLOR IN I(I FN CILIN DIMS) I1f 1 Iles NSFN CIRTIFlEDI I LVNO VES 11 PkIC I FlAMT MONTHS 1 If M05 I 1. j 100.N0 SULFUR DIOVIDLi1 TNCILINDCRS) I t Les NSFN CERTIFIED} 1 LSNO _ I PR7C9 PIRM_MONTH_S t 1 ` {N 130,00 FLLOROSILCIC ACID fI 1111151 (4.0064-IN GALLON TRL<KWA DS) _ I .N17/ .13158 .NV/ NSFN C[RTIFI L D• Y LSNO _ Its _ its PRICE FIRM MONTHS I I] was 33463 ` II MOS A D I UPS DLAPHRLIQUID CAUSTICSODA- AG C[RADI]DDRYBAS ULlS) l .11/11 I 1,} 11 TS: T711I1T'IAD ;IC 51 ts_... { PRICE "AM_ MOM.I I! N O 1 1_t310.5 I7 _U OS _ d MNOOS L] 1 MO_S M _ S, I IS,ON LIQ. CAUSTIC SODA-RAYON GRADE f I TRL'C7(LOAD DRVIUVS7S POUNDS 21751 435.71 _ 43705 TN 1131 NSFN CI RTIFI E D! YISNO 1L NO _ I'FS PRICE FIRM MONTHS 4 11 MOs 77 M06 is MOS_ 1!MOS NO I L 50,000 POTASSIUM PFRMANGANAT[ NN/MIN L[S I (25 KIlOGRAMCANISTFR) 1.1111 1101 1.3:1 1.71/ Ulf Ibl I NSFN CLMTIFIlD!Y[SNO IEs lit 1[5 VLS ►Ls _LS _ PRICE FIRM_ MONTHS ~ II M09 ( 11 M06 17 NOS,.. _ IT MOS _ 17 MOS _ IT 5106 E 7. 71,11 A.Y111DROlSAMMOM1IA _ XMIF LOS NSFNC[RTIFIID!YESlNO • 1 PRIG L FIRM_... MONTHS { IT os j I ~ _ rMLCU.aeo ~ ~ , 1. 1,5.11,01 LIQUID FERRIC SULFATE I% IT LeSI 1I .OnI 11I _ I - _ 1 Am 0 N NSFN CERTIFI ED! I ES10 II _ E T Ll13 PRN:I FIRN-MONTHS YFb I Ma6 f. I50,DN SVLFU' RIC AC ID- TECHNICAL GRADE I TRUCKLOAD LRS (SHIPPED P TANK TRUCK) • NSPW CERTIFIED! 1't5M0 1 • I PRICE FIRM-MONTHS I 4 11 mos- is. ) CATIONIC SH]PMT POLYMER ISM GAL MW S TI J LFILD!Y LSNO .SNF 1211 SII 460 I.NI I AS/ .511 A. fU i I RICEF %f (fa00.1.71CLL1 i IYS I ILE I Its YES Its 1'IS In N DO/ i el'L K SHI METI I N~MON17O fl M(» ~ 17 MCI f 111106 { Il MOS I I1 MCUs 11 MOS I I. _ I I ( if DRUM MIN B. N,ON SS WLION eARIi[U SHUM[NT! .711 1.11 .40 31 1 1157 ~ .710 .f5/ Les PR1Ct FIRM MONTHS 17 MOE 17 MOS ) 82 MO[ 13 M06 11 MlM II MOs . ' NO D1DS:. ...y , 1 GLNERALCHIMICAL -,INIF , AE tHtM c N,NMMIX I i I i • • DENTON t t TEXAS t CITY of DENTON, TEXAS WATER PRODUCTION / 1701 B. SPENCER / DF=011 TEXAS 76205 February 17, 1997 TO: Melanie Hardin, Buyer FROM: Randy Markham - Water Production Supervisor of Operations THRU: Tim Fisher, Water Production Plant Manager SUBJECT: Chemical (Bulk) Bid # 2010 - Bid Openings 2/11197 In reference to Bid # 2010, Items # 1,2,3,4,5,8, and 9, all these items are to be awarded to the respective low bidder as listed below: STEM. ' CHEMICAL VENDOa'~+y`~* NS<=-60 ME I~rl~spPeriod R UNIT Cart f SCtYYT ? 1 2 ~.x f lp ~fv 1 Chlorine DPC 0.1622 / lb Yes 12 2 Sulfur Dioxide DPC 0.21501 lb Yes 12 3 Flurosilicic Acid Pencco 0.08171 lb Yes 12 4 50% Caustic Harcross 0.0870 /1b Yes 112 Diaphragm Grade 5 50% Caustic Advance 0.2080 / lb Yes 12 Rayon Grade Chemical • 8 50% Ferric Sulfate FE3 Inc 0.04801 lb Yes 24 t-7 9 Sulfuric Acid Scholle 0.0320 / lb No 12 Bid item #7 and #10 should not be awarded to the low bldders, Ammonia Services and Armstrong Water Technology, respectfully. Ammonia Services' product Is not NSF 60 • approved. Armstrong Water Technology's product was not an approved polymer that was • • specified. All approved polymers have bean tested against the currently used polymer for its effectiveness. Any polymer that has not been tested at the plant, first by bench test, then by a full scale plant evaluation cannot be approved for use. Therefore, the following table list the next low bidders for bld items #7 and #10. 7 • i • Chemical Bid #2010 Recomendations Page 2 I 90, 7 Anhydrous DPC 0.2750 / lb Y 12 Ammonia 10 Cationic Cytec 0.5m/lb Y 12 Polymer Bid item #6, Potassium Permanganate, should not be awarded at this time. The low bidder, DPC, Is bidding a Spanish product that we have no experience using. We would like to purchase a small quantity of this product to see how it will work with our equipment. Bid items #1,2,5 and 9 have been discussed with Individuals from the Electric Production and Water Reclaimation and reflect their recommendations. Therefore, I would recommend awarding the above bidders for chemical bid #2010 at the March 4, 1997 City Council meeting. Sincerely, Randy Markham Supervisor of Operations cc: Tim Fisher Tom Shaw Denise Harpool Vince Richardson B.J. Kiser s e • • Agenda No- Agenda !tern.-~T Date ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WItEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive sealed proposals 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 proposals are the best responsible proposals for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Proposals" submitted therefor; 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 I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted :_nd approved as being the best responsible propo" for such items: RFSP ITEM NUMBER NO. VENDOR AMOUNT 1914 ALL TMG CONSULTING INC. $49,530.00 SECTION 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted proposals, the City cepts the offer of the persons submitting the proposals 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 Invitations, Proposals, and related documents. SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted proposals wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the 0 acceptance, approval, and awarding of the proposal, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; • • J provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, ! standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. 1 • • SECTIONIV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted proposals, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved proposal or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECT'IOMY. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: A r i t ~ • t _ 2 3~ s • DA'L'E: MARCH 4, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: RFSP # 1914 -CIS UTILITY BILLING STUDY PHASE 11 RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the Phase 11 portion of the CIS Utility Billing Study for Customer Information and Utility Billing Needs be awarded to TMG Consulting Inc. to the total amount of $49,530.00 ($40,000 fixed fee and $9,530 expenses). SUb1111ARY: Phase 1 of this project was awarded to TMG Consulting Inc. by Council on September. 17, 1996. The first phase of the study consisted of researching and assessing the feasibility of out-sourcing, partnering with other utilities or selecting a new CIS System. Phase 11 will involve the selection of a specific source, software or firm to meet our utility billing needs. Phase 11 is expected to be accomplished in four (4) months. The Public Utility Board considered this second phase and recommends award to TMG Consulting Inc. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Utility Department, Customer Service Division and the Citizens of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this phase of the project are available from 1996-97 funds set aside for implementation of Information Services Long Range Dian. Respectfully submitted: at sc - Executive Director of Finance Approved: • voS- Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 839 AGENDA . 1 1 3 , • • a.~~rxa~oan~ec w.ou Auends No.- I ge~ Agenda Item_ Dale 3f -q7 - j ORDINANCE. NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH BLACK & VEATCH FOR COMPLETION OF A UTILITY MANAGEMENT STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement %,ir:~ Black & Veatch, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION 11. That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attached agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION 111, That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of 2997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: • HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 1 • • r PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY MANAGEMENT STUDY STATF OF TEXAS S COUNTY OF DENTON 5 THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of 1997, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Municipal Corporation, with its principal office at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201 (hereinafter referred to as "OWNER") acting herein by and through its duly authorized City Managers and Black & Veatch, a partnership with its principal office at 8400 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri 64114 (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT'), acting herein by and through its duly authorized representative. WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein cc-itained, the parties hereto do mutually AGREE as follows: ARTICLE I ENGAGEMENT OF CONSULTANT The OWNER hereby contracts with CONSULTANT, as an independent contractor, and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Project as stated in the sections to follow, with diligence and in accordance with the • professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas. The professional services set out herein are in connecti^n with the following described project: / Management Study of the City of Denton, Texas Utility t - Department (hereinafter referred to as the 'Project') • • The Project shall ir.:lude without limitation , the preparation of a management study of the City of Denton, Texas Utility Department, expressly including a general management review of the City's Utility Department, as well as a comparative analysis of the City's a • 0 Utility Department with other publicly and privately-owned utilities. ARTICLE II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall perform the following services in a professional manner! A. The CONSULTANT shall perform all those services as necessary and as described in OWNER'S Request for Sealed Proposal #1966 (Opening date January 14, 1997), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", as if written word for word herein. B. To perform all those services (hereinafter referred to as the "Basic Services") set forth in CONSULTANT'S Scope of Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Scope of Services") is attached hereto and incorporated by reference and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B", as if written word for word herein. C. CONSULTANT shall perform all those services set forth in individual task orders which shall be attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof for all purposes as separate agreements. Any and all pre-printed terms and conditions shown on any task order shall be null and void. D. CONSULTANT shall furnish to OWNER the Project Deliverables which are set forth on the List of Project Deliverables (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Deliverables"), which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C", as if written word for word herein. 0 E. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement 0 and the exhibits attached to this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will control over the terms and conditions of the attached exhibits or task orders. 3 • • ARTICLE III ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services to be performed by the CONSULTANT, if authorized by the OWNER, which are not included in the abr.-.•e l described Basic Services, are described as follows: A. Assisting OWNER or Contractor in the defense or prosecution of litigation in connection with or in addition to those services contemplated by this Agreement. Such services, if any, shall be furnished by CONSULTANT on a fee basis negotiated by the respective parties outside of and in addition to this Agreement. B. Sampling, testing or analysis beyond that specifically included in Basic Services. ARTICLE I PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the OWNER and the CONSULTANT of this Agreement and upon issuance of a written notice to F-nr the CWNER, and shall remain in force for the period whi.'i .:j,.vnably be required for the completion of the Project, inr.. Additional Services, if any, and any required extensions approved in writing, by the OWNER. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the 1 provisions hereof. Time is a material consideration in this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule established by the OWNER, acting through 1 its City Manager or his designee. OWNER requires that CONSULTANT perform its management study in accordance with the Project Schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "Project Schedule"), which B is attached hereto and incorporated by reference and made a part • hereof as Exhibit "D", as if written word for word herein. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delays in completion of the Project which are attributab:A to circumstances beyond its reasonable control. 4 • • r ARUC V COMPENSATION i A. COMPENSATION TERMS: 1. "Subcontract Expense" is defined as expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in engagement of others in outside firms for services incident to the completion of the Project. 2. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense for any assignment incurred by the CONSULTANT for supplies, transportation and equipment, travel, communications, i subsistence and lodging away from home and similar incidental expenses directly incurred in ccnnection with that assignment. B. BILLING AND PAY14ENT: For and in consideration of the professional se:fices to be performed by the CONSULTANT herein to fully complete the Project in a professional manner in accordance with the Scope of Services, the OWNER agrees to pay a total fee (including reimbursement for direct non-labor expense) not to exceed ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($160,000.00). CONSULTANT has prepared a preliminary estimate of the cost detail anticipated in its completion of the Project which is shown in Exhibit "E" consisting of eight (8) pages, which Exhibit is attached hereto and incorporated by reference • herein, and made a part of this Agreement as if written word r for word herein. The parties acknowledge that said estimate is - a good faith preliminary estimate of the anticipated work and expense to complete the Project, and is not the sole basis upon • which the total fee is established. Partial payments to the CONSULTANT will be made on the basis of detailed monthly statements rendered to and approved by the OWNER through its City Manager or his 5 T. 77T7 • s designees; however, under no circumstances shall any monthly statement for services exceed the value of the work performed at the time a statement is rendered. The OWNER may withhold the final 5t of the contract amount until completion of the Project. Nothing contained in this Article shall require the OWNER to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory, as reasonably determined by the City Manager or his designees, or for any statement which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The OWNER shall not be required to make any payments to the CONSULTANT when the CONSULTANT is in default 4 under the terms of this Agreement. It is specifically understood and agreed that the CONSULTANT shall not be authorized to undertake any work, or perform any professional services, pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by the OWNER for any charge, expense or reimbursement above the maximum not, to exceed fee as hereinabove stated, without first having obtained prior written authorization from the OWNER. The CONSULTANT shall not proceed to perform the services listed in Article III. "Additional Services", without obtaining prior written authorization from the OWNER. C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES For additional services authorized in writing by the OWNER in • ' Article III, the CONSULTANT shall be paid based on the Schedule of Charges at an hourly rate shown in Exhibit "E". Payments for additional services shall be due and payable upon submission by the CONSULTANT and shall be paid in accordance with Article V. S. hereof. Statements shall not be submitted ® to OWNER by CONSULTANT more frequently ® O than monthly. J 6 • r • f i D. PAYMENT i i If OWNER fails to make payments due the CONSULTANT for services and expenses within sixty (60) days after receipt of the CONSULTANT'S undisputed statement thereof, the amounts due the CONSULTANT will be increased by the rate of one percent (It) per month from the said sixtieth (60th) day, and in addition, the CONSULTANT may, after giving seven (7) days' written notice to the OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until the CONSULTANT has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges provided. However, nothing herein shall require OWNER to pay the late charge of one percent (14) set forth herein if OWNER reasonably determines the work performed by CONSULTANT is unsatisfactory, in accordance with this Agreement. In the event OWNER questions some portion or element of an invoice, that fact shale be communicated in writing by OWNER to the CONSULTANT immediately. CONSULTANT will reasonably cooperate to effect resolution of the problem and shall transmit a revised invoice to OWNER as is necessary or appropriate. Amounts not questioned by OWNER shall be promptly paid to CONSULTANT in accordance with the above payment provisions. ARTICLE VI OBSERVATION AND REVIEW OF THE WORK The CONSULTANT will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the OWNER any defects or deficiencies in the work of the CONSULTANT cr any of CONSULTANT'S i subcontractors or aubconsultants on the Project. ARTICLE VII • OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS • • All documents prepared or furnished by the CONSULTANT (and CONSULTANT's subcontractors or subccnsultants) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service and shall become the property of the OWNER upon the termination of this Agreement. The 7 u. • • CONSULTANT is entitled to retain copies of all such documents. The documents prepared and furnished by the CONSULTANT are intended only to be applicable to this Project and OWNER'S use of these documents in other projects shall be at OWNER'S sole risk and expense. In the event the OWNER uses the Agreement in another project or for other purposes than specified herein any of the information or materials developed pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT is released from any and all liability relating to their use in that other project. CONSULTANT shall retain its rights in its standard drawing details, designs, specifications, databases, computer software and any other proprietary property. Rights to intellectual property developed, utilized, or modified in the performance of the CONSULTANT'S services under this Agreement shall remain the property of the CONSULTANTS. ARTICLE VIII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT shall provide services to OWNER as an independent contractor, not as an employee of the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall not have or claim any right arising from employee status. ARTICLE IX INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the OWNER and its officers, agents, and employees from and against any and all liability, claims, demands, damages, losses and expenses, including but not limited to court costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred by the OWNER, and including without limitation, • damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, to the extent caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the CONSULTANT or its officers, shareholders, agents, or employees in the execution, operation, or performance of this Agreement. • • ' Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create a 0 liability to any person who is not a party to this Agreement and nothing herein shall waive any of the party's defenses, both at law or equity, to any claim, cause of action or litigation filed by s Nil • • anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly reserved. i ARTICLE X INSURANCE During the performance of the professional services by CONSULTANT under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain the following insurance coverage with insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Texas by the State Insurance Commission, or any successor agency that has a rating with Hest Rate Carriers of at least 'A^- or above: A. Commercial General Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each occurrence, and not less than $500,000 in the aggregate; and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each occurrence, and not less than $100,000 in the aggregate. B. Automobile Liability Insurance witli bodily injury limits of not less than $500,000 for each person, and not less than $500,000 for each accident; and with property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements and Employers' Liability insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 for each accident. D. Professional Liability Insurance with policy limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. E. CONSULTANT shall furnish insurance certificates at the OWNER's request to evidence such coverage. The insurance policies shall name the OWNER as an additional insured on all such policies, except for the worker's compensation and professional liability coverage, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) • days prior written notice to OWNER and CONSULTANT. In such • event, the CONSULTANT shall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, deliver to OWNER substitute certificates of insurance which furnish the same coverage. 9 • • ARTICLE XI ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION The parties may agree to settle any disputes under this Agreement by submitting the dispute to arbitration or other means of alternate dispute resolution such as mediation. No arbitration or alternate dispute resolution arising out of or relating to, this Agreement involving one party's disagreement may include the other party to the disagreement without the other's approval. ARTICLE XII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. B. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in the event of either party substantially failing to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. No such termination will be affected unless the other party is given (1) written notice (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate this Agreement and setting forth the reason or reasons specifying the nonperformance, and not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure; and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. C. If the Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the ser- vices to be provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all .ervices and shall render a final bill for services to the OWNER within thirty (30) days after the date of r termination. The OWNER shall pay CONSULTANT for all services properly rendered and satisfactorily performed and for • reimbursable expenses to termination incurred prior to the date J of termination in accordance with Article V, herein. Should • the OWNER subsequently contract with a new CONSULTANT for the continuation of services on the Project, CONSULTANT shall cooperate in providing information. The CONSULTANT shall turn 10 • • over all documents prepared or furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant I to this Agreement to the OWNER on or before the date of f termination but may maintain copies of such documents for its own use. ARTICLE XIII RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by the OWNER shall not constitute nor be deemed a release of the responsibility and liability of the CONSULTANT, its employees, associates, agents, subcontractors and subconsultants for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by OWNER for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the CONSULTANT, its employees, subcontractors, agents and consultants. ARTICLE XIV NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered or mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail at the address shown below, certified mail, return receipt requested unless otherwise specified herein. Mailed notices shall be deemed communicated as of three (3) days mailing: To CONSULTANT: To OWNER: Black 6 Veatch City of Denton ATTN: John Gallagher ATTN:Robert E. Nelson 9 Title: Partner Title: Exnc.Dir. of Utilities 11900 East Cornell Ave. 215 E. McKinney Suite 300 Denton, Texas 76201 Aurora, Colorado 80014 All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party 0 to whom such notice is given or within three d ys after mailing. • 11 f' • _ • • • ARTICLE XV ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement consisting of fifteen (15) pages and five (5' exhibits constitutes the complete and final expression of the Agreement of the parties and i^ intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements, and supersedes all prior contemporaneous offers, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter hereof. I ARTICLE XVI SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not cause the remainder of this..Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the OWNER and CONSULTANT shall reform this Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a valid and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the parties regarding the stricken provision. ARTICLE XVII COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder in effect during the performance of services by • CONSULTANT. 1 `ARTICLE XVIII DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In performing the services required hereunder, the CONSULTANT ® shall not discriminate against any O • person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. 12 r • • • ARTICLE XI]( PERSONNEL A. The CONSULTANT represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required to perform all the services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees or officers of, or have any contractual relations with the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall inform the OWNER of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest in the performance of services that may arise during the term of this Agreement immediately upon discovery of any such conflict. B. All services required hereunder will be performed by the CONSULTANT or under its supervision. All personnel engaged in work shall be qualified and shall be authorized and permitted under federal, state and local laws to perform such services. ARTICLE XX ASSIGNABILITY The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest In this Agreement and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the OWNER. ARTICLE XXI MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith. No • evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received r in evidence in any proceeding arising between the parties hereto - out of or affecting this Agreement, or the rights or obligations of the parties hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing, duly executed. The parties further agree that the • • A provisions of this a::ction will not be waived unless by written agreement so providing. 13 • • • • ARTICLE XXII MISCELLANEOUS A. The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement: I. OWNERS Request for Sealed Proposal #1966 (Exhibit "A"); 2. CONSULTANT'S Scope of Services (Exhibit "B"); 3. List of Project Deliverables (Exhibit "C"); 4. Project Schedule (Exhibit "D"); and 5. Cost Estimate Summary (Exhibit "E"). B. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after the final payment under this Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documents, papers and records of the ,:ONSULTANT related to the direct cost of goods and services provided under this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary CONSULTANT facilities and shall be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct audits in compliance with this section. OWNER shall give CONSULTANT reasonable advance notice of intended audits. C. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Venue of any suit or cause of action brought under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. D. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will perform most of this work hereunder are as listed in the Appendix of CONSULTANT'S proposal. However, nothing herein shall limit CONSULTANT from using other qualified and competent • members of its firm to perform the services required herein. E. CONSULTANT shall commence, carry on, and complete any and all projects with all applicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, efficient manner; and, in accordance with the provisions • hereof. In accomplishing the Project, CONSULTANT shall take • J such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with any related work being carried on by the OWNER. F. The OWNER shall assist the CONSULTANT by placing at the 14 _ z` • • CONSULTANT's disposal all available information pertinent to the project, including previous reports, any other,data relative to the project and arranging for the access to, and make all provisions for the CONSULTANT to enter in or upon, public and private property as required for the CONSULTANT to perform services under this Agreement. G. The captions of this Agreement are for informational purposes only and shall not in any way affect the substantive terms or conditions of this Agreement. XXIII. LIMITATIONS To the extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall not be liable to OWNER for any special, or indirect damages resulting in any way from its performance of the services under this Agreement. XXIV. THIRD PARTY RIGHTS Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to confer any rights or benefits to any person or entity other than OWNER and CONSULTANT. , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager; and CONSULTANT has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized Partner on this the day of 1997. OWNER CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS A Municipal Corporation • BY: TED BENAVIDES, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: Is 4 win • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBE~R~T~ L. PRODU~T~Y, CITY ATTORNEY By: CONSULTANT BLACK & VEATCH A Partnership By: ATTEST: JOHN GALLAGHER, Partner • O t:~raoxs~reavura.c y ~ • • 16 a. « A • DATE MARCH 4, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: "FSP k 1966 - UTILITY DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT STUDY RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this RFSP #1966 for a Utility Department Management Study be awarded to Black and Veatch in the not-to-exceed amount of 5160,000.00. SUMMARY: This proposal is for a professional consultant group to perform a management study of the Utility Department. The study is a requirement of the City Charter and is to be performed at ten year intervals. Five proposals were submitted in response to twenty five solicitations mailed. Those submitting proposals ware: Arthur Anderson Deloitte & Touche, LLP Black and Veatch Barrington Wellesley Group Schumaker& Associates Black and Veatch and Schumaker and Associates were selected for presentations to the selection panel.. Black and Veatch was selected by the panel and the recommendation presen.edto the Public Utility Board. The Public Utility Board approved the contract subject to legal review on February 17, 1997. The management study will provide a general rntnagement review of the utility includinThthe responsibilities and functioningof the City Council and Public Utility Board in their oversight of the utility. e study will encompass die functions of the Electric, Water, Wastewater (includin storm drainage), Solid Waste, and Fleet Services. The study will also review the services provided to the Utility It ment by other city departments such as Accounting Customer Service, Information Services, Purchasing, Warehousing, Legal, etc, Another component of the study will analyze the costs of each function that the various utility and support divisions provide and compare those costs to other utilities, both publicly owned and privately owned. The study is anticipated to begin by mid-March, with a workshop planned for March 31 st, a general management review report on April 2lst, a comparative cost analysis and outsourcing candidates report on Slay 19th, with the final report presented to the City Council and Public Utility Board on July 7, 1997. The contract is based upon a scope of services with an estimate ! tim- assigned to each task. Project billing will be based upon actual hours spent on the project. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED. Denton Municipal Utilities FISCAL IMPACT: This project is limited to a not•to-exceed 5160,000.00 and will be funded from Utility Department Funds. Attachments-. Minutes from Public Utility Board dated February 17, 1997 (Item 15) Respectfully submitted: y u e Exec uTive rector of Finance a Approved: Name: Tom Shaw. Title: Purchasing Agent 840 . AGEMMA 17 e e CITY OF AENTON PUBLIC uTELITtES BOARD ANNUAL PLANNING SESSION February 17, 1997 Minutes Vxcerpt - 15. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH BLACK AND VEATCH CONSULTANTS TO PERFORM A UTILITY MANAGEMENT STUDY Mr. Nelson presented this item. He said that the draft contract was being completed by the Legal department with revisions in the special provisions area, minor format changes and a thorough review of the newly received project deliverables A Management Study Oversight Committee was sanctioned and will meet on a weekly basis with Utility management to provide feedback and information as the study progre n. Mr. Hopkins made a motion to approve the corrtsaot subject to Legal review. W. Thompson seconded the motion. All ayes, no lays, motion approved. • 18 Al ,r iYTwY,MMy _t I t gift • • Aoenda No __A apeada Item 3 ORDINANCENO. Oate____ - AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 1999 H AND J CONSTRUCTION $34,903.50 SECTION 11. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. i SECTION Ili. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written r contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms. • conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. • 1 • SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the kLq of ,1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: , HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY • BY:------ { 2 • • DATE: MARCH 4,1997 CITY. COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID H 1999 - SOUTH CENTRAL SIDEWALK REPAIR RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, H and J Construction, in the amount of $34,903.50, with project completion in 10 working days. SUMMARY: This bid is for the replacement of 4' wide sidewalk, curb/gutter, driveway approaches and handicap ramps along the south side of Greenlee Street, from 135 to Bernard. Included is the i removal of old concrete and the installation of approximately 600 square yards of sod as well as all necessary barricading, erosion control and excavation. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS-OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens along Greenlee Street FISCAL IMPACT. This bid is a Community Development Block Grant funded project. Account #1219-05C•CDCJ-8502 Attachment: Tabulation Sheet Respectfully submitted: J~ K 5 Ka a se Executive 151rector of Finance Approved: Name: Ton, D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent ® B]4.AG ENDA f ~ • ~ i i 3 • • i o L r, • , r Dn) a Irri ~ j :1111) NAME SOU771CEN'I'RALSIDEWALK FLOYD III II&J EC"?F.C DBR ~ REPAIR GLENN CONST. CONST ~OPEN DATE JANUARY 13, 1497 SM11i711 'N QTY DESCRIPT ON VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR... VENDOR_._ VENDOR L TOTAL 81DAWARD $46,091.50 $34,903.50 $41,136.1! 513,676.00 R BOND VES VES VES VES I I I i d I I tirw.rw~.e.+,.rnv e .Y n • • Agenca No. O Awda Itsm_ ORDINANCE NO. _ Date_3~ -?Z AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR' THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the pro-. edures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AN10UNT J H AND 1 CONSTRUCTION $28,570.90 SECTION 11. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. • SECTION IH. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, • conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. f • I 1 ...rte... W4.nA • • SECIlON 1Y. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thercto. SECTION V. 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: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY • BY: 1 ,i 2 k • 11 1 to won. V z i.;•__,. :nr~a • • { DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM. Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID # 1000 - SEQUOIA PARK SIDEWALK REPAIR. RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, H and J Construction, in the amount of $28,570.90, with completion in 15 days. SUNJ31ARY: This bid is for the replacement of a 4' wide sidewalk, curb/gutter, driveway approaches and handicap ramps in various locations in the Sequoia Park Addition. Repairs are primarily located on Boyd, Redwood and Shawnee. Also included is the removal of old concrete and the installation of approximately 360 square yards o[sod, as well as all necessary barricades, erosion control and excavation. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS- OR GROUPS_AFFECTED: Citizens in the Sequoia Park Addition. FISCALIMPACT, Thk bid is a Community Development Block Grant funded project. Account # 219-05C-CDCC-8502 Attachment: Tabulation Sheet Respectfully submitted: 7 Ka Du se Executive irector of Finance Approved: • Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 833.AGEnA • • • 3 • • IIIU N NMI I IHIDNANIF; SEQUOIA PARK SIDEWALK EclCC IIB+J DBR FLOED REPAIR CONST. CONSF. GLENN (OPEN DATE JANUARY 23, 1997 I SMITH I 0 I QTY ! DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR, _ VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR. VENDOR VENDOR I. f ! TOTALBIDAWARD 53!,257.10 S28170.90 M106.00 534,163.50 BOND YES YES YES YES i I I a i • • 0 • ,genQa Itern_. _ ~s , 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 herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2011 ALL HERD'S CONTRACTING EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 11. 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 !I 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 shml 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 0 SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the Ck 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 ruthorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1497. JACK MILLEP_, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: - - - - SUPPLY,ORD 2 A BID 9 2011 - MOWING, TRASH REMOVAL AND EROSION CONTROL ^ EXHIBIT "A" ITEM DESCRIPIION PRICE 1. STOWING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS UP TO 12,000 SOFT. $30,00 PER PARCEL 2. MOW INO UNRESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS 12,000 SQ. FT. OR MORE $50.00 PER PARCEL 3. MOVING RESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS UP TO 12,000 SQ. FT. $40.00 PER PARCFL 4 MOWING RESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS 12.000 SQ. FT. OR MORE $50.00 PER PARCEL CEL 5. TRASH & CEBRIS REMOVAL CUDIC YARD CALCULATED $2300 PER Ep 6. EROSION CONTROL CLEAN-UP $ 5.00 PER R FT . b 3 L•.;wx.x~Mk~BMGF~i6filr'i1~n1'.~aa, r~~r~. • • :.r DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 CITY-COUNCILREPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID N 2011- MOWING, TRASH REMOVAL AND EROSION CONTROL RECOA131ENDA ION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Herd's Contracting, in the unit prices as follows: ITEM DESCRIPTION PRICE I. MOWING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS UP TO 12,000 SQ,FT. $30.00 PER PARCEL 2. MOWING UNRESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS 12,000 SQ. FT. OR MORE $50.00 PER PARCEL 3. MOWING RESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS UP TO 12,000 SQ. FT. 540.00 PER PARCEL 4. MOWING RESTRICTED ACCESS PARCELS 12,000 SQ. FT. OR MORE 550.00 PER PARCEL 5. TRASH R DEBRIS REMOVAL CUBIC YARD CALCULATED 525.00 PER PARCEL b. EROSION CONTROL CLEAN-UP S 5.00 PER LINEAR FT Total estimated annual expenditure of $22,000.00. SUMAMLRY: This annual contract is for all labor, equipment and materials necessary in mowing, trash removal and erosion control cleanup for the Code Enforcement Department. Twenty-five notices * bid were mailed to vendors, with two bidders responding. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS ORGROUPSAFFECTED: Code Enforcement Department, Engineering Department, Citizens of Denton in the affected areas. FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted funds for 1997 for mowing and trash removal. AccountO 100-050-0014-8533 Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Memorandum from Robbie Baughman Respectfu!ly submitted: -'A ViLV a L e Execul i ve rector of Finance Prepared by: 44 Name: Denise arpoo Title: Senior Buyer e • o Approved: Name: Tom Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 4 037.AGEnA A, ~~y • • BID 0 2011 BID NAME MOWING, TRASH REMOVAL, LAWN HERD'S EROSION CONTROL (RE-SID) KING CONTRACTING OPEN DATE 2-11-97 p QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR UNRESTRICTED ACCESS (SUCH AS VACANT LOTS) 1. PER PARCELS OF LAND UP TO 12,000 SQ FT PARCEL 550.00 530.00 2. PER PARCELS 12,000 SQ FT TO AN ACRE OR PARCEL MORE $100.00 SS0.00 RE.STRICTE ACCESS (EQUIPMENT MUST FIT THRU (3) FOOT OPENING) 3. PER PARCELS OF LAND UP TO 12,000 SQ FT PARCEL 575.00 S`10.004. PER PARCELS 12,000 SQ FT TO AN ACRE OR PARCEL MORE 5150.00 550.00 S. PER TRASH & DEBRIS REMOVAL BASED ON PARCEL CUBIC YARD CALCULATED BY CITY OF SOLID WASTE DEPT FORMULA $15.00 $25.00 EROSION CONTROL- 6. PER EROSION CONTROLCLEANUP (DIRT, LINEAR DEBRIS, ETC) ON PUBLIC STREETS FT 57.00 55.00 THIS AGREEMENT TO REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL FEB. 15, 199S J , 5 Y • FFB-10-1997 13x2? CITY OF DENTON RAFNIN"i P.02/'02 k lern6ess.9s~o • arwMVM431-2its CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Cnrxau ffST ► 221 N a M • DENTON, TFX/43 7=1 ,Baring lnpclian m z H 0 R A K D 0 M DATgs February 1B► 1991 TO& Toe Slav - [nrebasing Agent FROMt Robbie Baughman - Asaistant Building Official 113 Bid 2011 The Code EnfOrCement staff has reviewed all the bids for ■oving, trash removal and erosion control (Bid 2011). We are recommending that the City of Denton accept Bard's Contracting as the vendor. Re appreciate your assistance With the bidding process. • , 6 "/irIrv.lr~Iw ~.n~Pw.Sini.v► 1, , . , • • ORDINANCENO.._ Agenda item__ ffQL_. Date 4N ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFEC7lVE DATE. WHEREAS, state law and ordinance require that certain contracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $ 15,000 be by competitive bids, except in the case of public calamity where it becomes necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens, or to preserve the property of the city, or it is necessay to protect Lbe public health or safety of the citizens of the city, or in case of unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the City Council that it is necessary to purchase goods or services due to the following emergency conditions outlined in the memorandum attached hereto as Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the City Council hereby determines that there is a public calamity that makes it necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens, or to preserve the property of the city, or to protect the public health of the citizens of the city, or to provide for unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment, and by reason thereof, the following emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders" attached hereto, arc hereby approved: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 73327 ANTS PUMP & SUPPLY S 15,117.00 • SECTION II. That because of such emergency, the City Manager or designated employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases by the City from the requirements of competitive bids. ® • 1 ~1.r s SECTION 1H. That this ordinance shall become affective 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: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 1 0 0 Z i, • s DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER N73327 - EMERGENCY PURCHASE ORDER TO AMS PU,% IP & SUPPLY RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this emergency purchase order to AMS Pump & Supply in the amount of S IS, 117.00 be approved. SUMMARY: This purchase is for a replacement bowl assembly for the low service raw water pump # I at Lake Lewisville . This pump has developed an unexpected problem with the oil dripper system and the top bearing has Cailed. The ongmal bo" assembly was installed in 1967 and internal erosron has occurred. The bowl assembly has been scheduled for replacement in 1997 budgeted funds. Now that the pump has failed, the bowl assembly must be replaced to save the expense and down time of later replacement This pump must be repaired prior to the peak water use period this summer, The bowl assembly Crom AMS is in stock subject to pnor sale. The be st possibe delivery for another bo vl assembly should the stock it besold is 12 weeks. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS. OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Water Production Department, Water Utilities, Water Utility Customers of the City of Denton. FISCAL INIPACT: Budgeted Funds for Pump Repair 1991; account #620-081-0460-8339 Attachments: Purchase Order #73327 AMS Quote Respectfully submitted: a uo Executi i ector of Finance Approved: • Name: om Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent i Al1.AGENDA ` i C 1 A4 • • MmCIIANI! urll,l It N(J; Y ClI fins IS A XHX 11114 111au6nl IIxHI 1ilpnM nn aA CONFIRMING ORDER hrvolces, Anllvnlr 11412, coins, OD) (IF MARKED) ctris., boxes, packklp slips rd bills. DO NOT DUPLICATE Ay No: Bid Nix Sett 02 17 97 Pape No. Ol CITY OF PURCHASM OWSIION II 901-B TTEEXXAS) 5 ~Nt TOEEWOR TEXAS 76201-4354 AN9 PUMP i SUPPLY 8171383-7100 D/FW METRO 6171267-0042 FAX 8171383-7302 rIDOR %ME/ P.O. BOX 560403 DELIVERY CONFIRMATION ONLY C06 )DRESS ADDRESS WATER PRODUCTION PLANT DALLAS TX.75356-0403 1701-6 SPENCER RD a DENTON, TX 76205 BILL KING VENDOR NO. ANS49650 DELIVERY QUOTED 03 15 97 FOB DESTINATION BUYER TS TERMS y )01 1.00 LS VENDOR CAT. 418HH MFG NAME 15,117.000 15,117.00 CITY f 93662 REPLACEMENT BOWL ASSEMBLY FOR LOW SERVICE PUMP 11, PEERLESS 16HH, 4 STAGE, IMPELLER 2621975, OIL LUBRICCATED LINESHAFT, WITH STAINLESS STEEL BA31KET STRAINER. s P GE TOTAL s 15,117.00 • OR MD TOTAL s 15,127.00 • 11 620 081 0460 8339 15,117.00 d00A MSIAUCTIONt I. Terms Nil 70 2.Mn1 .e-l„ w.e,u Senl wllliilT brek! i d. Sni~by Mntredlolx #.0.9 oeslineliie Frepprd 1161,,, .liw,l„ swo.4 r 6111 V Aa rF+ s L Me federal or Nab Wes ha OA N bcNw 2S6 E McR ~t- In rkes NO" Amdw" s r~ r_ Or!iw~'~T6 1•_I!~ sw •I t_ t • • J"l v (v 1f" LJI I" ` x..rC1~'~F.719 u--11•. - - - Fdou,uy 13. 1997 City of D mtma weer Pndnaim 17019 Spmmr Mild Won. Tmu 76201 Auwtian: Tim Refer StJjm: Vwdcg Tw6fat Bmwi "bommt AM$ Pump A: 9%* Inc fs pleas to aft tft WOMBS VoWdca 16t VW omridormion. QUANTITYr ONR (1) VXPLACZhWTBOWL ASSPMOIN PIi:RPOx"CLLr fia ATTAa= TMM CALCULATION PROGRAM MANUTACTURM PEERLESS Kw S1ZPi 12 LK 4 Sup CONSTRUCLTON: TIRONLE noci wj BRONLB CAR WBAR M405 4161.& BOWL SHAPT KEYED pAnMIAN BRON28 BOWL BBARDTOS om LLOWICATDD BNCLOSED LINE3HAFT ACCRSSORMi S.S. MUM STRADM YOUR 0051' 115117.00 DATA 11 ATTACHED POR YOUR RKVIEW. SITTPMZNT APTLR R11CWT OP AFFROVSD MAWIIM 3.4 W KLt. SHIPMBiTfTMCONTDIGZfl1 UPON MORSAM Ali priew Brt FOB DnLIK T#= wHb 6A. prsI l l b Dw61mv T4ftL AM3 Pump o&vJord t*= of saH wM sP0Y. PsioM tOdRt 3O d M f10m date Of Ibis Yt►s •ilin NO KNALTIES, RETENTION OR DISCOUNTS WR1. BS ACCIUM. I f yw lure.By 9uwtlonr pIMM eaaud mO r ttis ofBoa ~ NIIKy 8949 Diplomacy Row • Da lm Taxes M47 • P.O. Box 66040.3 • Dala4 Tow 759560403 • O (214) 6304141 • FAX (214) 9064603 • 8*63647% 90 3DVd SVTMtS - C*UIH S N v E0S0-506->tZ 60:41 l66L/EL/ZB 5 C:, ppi • • r Aradtia~ ~a _ -97- ono _ IJ e7 Agonda i!e f-_= Date_ L ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER 1997 PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF DENTON FOR SOLID WASTE PERMIT FEE WFM TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMINUSSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, in order to comply with contract commitment to T eras Natural Resource Conservation Commission, the City of Denton is required to pay Solid Waste Permit Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has reviewed and recommended that the Council approve the payment of such fee; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CuUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SEMOX1 That the expenditure of funds in the amount of 530,837.50 to be paid to Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, is hereby authorized. SEMON11, That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 0997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY s • a BY: ras.Onn 1 • • DATE: MARCH 4, 1997 CLT-Y COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: CHECK REQUISITION TO TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COitiIl14ISSION (TNRCC)IN THE AMOUNT OF S 3u,5: 7.50 RFCOMMENM33f) b We recommend this check requisition to Texas Natural Rescurce Conservation Commission in the amount of $30,837.50 be approved for payment. SUMN ARY; This check requisition is for the first quarter 1997 payment of the City of Denton Solid Waste Pemdt Fee. The amount is calculated by a formula based upon the number of tons of solid waste received by our landfill. A 3.5% additional charge is applied to our refuse collection rates to offset this fee payment. PROGRAMS. DF.PARTMEMCS OR GROUPS AEEF Solid Waste Department, Denton Municipal Utilities, Citizens of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available from Account #630-024-0803.8982. Attachment: TNRCC Invoice #SWD0004627 Respectfully submitted: /u ~ SL Ka Executive Director of Finance Approved: r Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent MAGMA 2 • • V11='id1\ .~f.:~LJ i.7~ i IL11V •'!Lr 11 L.19 ~'i~ J PAY TO: Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 01ta1awtea P. 0. Box 13089 $30,937.50 Y1011Nr Austin, Texas 78711-3089 Solid Waste "PARn"w 2/12/97 pan DIYOTCE DATE. NUMBER AN 01001 I"LANATION ACCT. NO. { NET INV. AMT. i Reference - 5WD0004627 Permit 0000001590 FY97 1 4 630-024-08fid-8982 $30,837.50 Ordinance 95-181 authorizes staff to nay TNRCC without further approval PLEASE RETURN CHECK TO: Anita Ferguson, Solid Waste Dent. • TOTAL $30,837.50 THE ABOVE HAS BEEN REVIEWED NO RECOMMENDATION FOR BILLING IS MADE BY THE UNOERS1aNE0 ~c.:aunn~q ~..wrw taw~rwt , CRr .uwWtll A"fora. MtCTOA 01 Iw •MG Arw0r A, 3 ' ti' r r r %LLING DATE: JAN29,97 ACCOUNT NO. BALANCE DUE DATE DUE J'r'TACH THIS PORTION AND RETURN WITH 0708496 30, 837.$0 FEB28.97 CHECK OR-MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO: ❑ CHECK HERE IF YOUR ADDRESS HAS CHANGE- ri TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE PLEASE INDICATE ADDRESS CHANGE ON BACK CONSERVATION COMMISSION INVOICES NOT PAID BY DUE. DATE, r WILL ACCRUE PENALTIES. DENTON, CITY OF SOLID WASTE SUPT. 215 E MCKINNEY ST DENTON TX 76201 000070849L 0273551 00030837500228975 TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PASE Fa uuu OW.®eo4p DETACH TOP PORTION AND RETURN W rH PAYMENT - KEEP 90TTOM PORTION FOR YOUR RL'CCFCS DATE REFERENCE DESCRIPTIOW AM UN ":1' ALANCE AN29,97 SWD0004627 PERMIT 0000001590 FY97 Q1 30,837,5J 30,837. SOLID WASTE FEE l 0 ?R TECHNICAL •INFOAI!Il1TION PLEASE CI►;.L ELYI ESPIIR2A AT $12-239-6700. 0 ~ ACCOUNT NO. THIS STATEMENT REFLECTS ALL PAYMENTS LATE FEES BALANCE DU RECEIVED THROUGH 0708496 JAN30,97 0.00 30,837.1, BILLING DATE: JAN29, 97 See REVERSE SIOE for Explanation o1 Charges PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT t and TNRCC Contact Telephone Numbers. q av rc g q4 ov u,n• I ,nc r t. • • J:\"?DCCS\AFS\TLROSZS.RCS O Q Agenda No. a~ Agenda Item Date RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER SHALL EXERCISE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE YL ROSES OF TEXAS REPEATER ASSOCIATION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution of the City Council, on the 16th day of December, 1986, the City of Denton, Texas and the YL Roses of Texas Repeate- Association (the "YLRTRA") entered into an Agreement Between the YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association and The City of Denton, Texas (the 'Agreement") providing for emergency communications cooperation in meeting emergencies or disasters arising from enemy attack and certain other causes; and WHEREAS, with the passage of time, both the City and YLP.TRA have benefited from their participation in the Agreement, but the activities of the City and YLRTRA under the Agreement have wholly ceased, and the parties have treated the Agreement as inactive for some time; and WHEREAS, the City desires to terminate the Agreement and is empowered to do so under the provisions of Section X of the Agreement, which permits the City to do so, upon 30 days written notice to YLRTRA as provided therein; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CI'.'.Y OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION I. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute a letter notifying YLRTRA that the "Agreement Between The YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association And The City Of Denton, Texas" will be terminated effective thirty (30) days after said letter is deposited by the City in the U.S. Mail, Certified, Postage Prepaid, Return Receipt Requested, directed to YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association. A copy of said notice letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof. • SECTION II. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of , 1997. • • 0 - JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _ f I p s s APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: r V Qr r s • i • i CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members or the City Council FROM: Robert E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities DATE: February 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Resolution that the City Manager exercise the City's right to terminate the agreement between the City of Denton and the YL Roses of Texas Repeater Association. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends termination of agreement . YL Roses of Texas Repeaters Association recommends same. SUMMARY: An agreement has existed between the City of Denton and the YL Roses of Texas Repeater Association since the mid 80's for use of antenna space and a Repeater site located at the City's NfeKenna Park tower site. The YL Roses of Texas Repeater Association no longer utilizes or requires this site and the City of Denton desires to remove this tower. BACKGROUND: None PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OR GROUPS AFFECTED: None • I FISCAL IMPACT: None i J i 3 1 ell - t • r • City Council Report Page 2 i Please advise if I can provide additional Information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 1 Executive Director of utilities Prepared Kay D. V Is Ray s Superi ndent, Electric Substations, Dispatch Opera ns, and Marketing f ):)boss T • r • CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BULDING • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TEL EPNONE (817) 566-=7 Office of the City Manager February 7, 1997 Sent Certified Mail RRR# P 445 130 514 YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association Attention: Maureen B. McClain Box 1051 Sanger, Texas 76266 Re: Notice of Termination of "Agreement Between The YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association And The City Of Denton, Texas" (Executed December 16, 1986) Dear Me. McClain: The purpose of this letter is to provide YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association with written notice that the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas has resolved to terminate the above agreement under the terms of Section X of said agreement. The City Council of the City of Denton has adopted a resolution empowering me to terminate said agreement. This termination shall be effective 30 days after the date of this letter. We understand that YL Roses Of Texas Repeater Association owns one remaining antenna which is currently in place on the McKenna Park Tower owned by the City of Denton. Tom- ^ity has no objection to your rerrival of said antenna. We are requesting that you make arrangements within the next thirty (30) days to recover and remove said antenna at your expense. Please call Ray Wells, Superinten- dent, Substations & Metering, and he will arrange access to the tower at an agreeable time for removal of the antenna. • Should you have any questions, please advise. i Sincerely, ' i i A _ • • ' Ted Benavidea f City Manager pc: Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities Ray Wells, Superintendent of Substations & Metering Michael S. Copeland, Assistant City Attorney J:\MP OW C(AWAOSES. LET J "Dedica:ed to Quality Service" SI. ~M1..I~...r..-an-.•....i~r-r. • 5rM W IJ • t l a<<„aa rao 7=0 ~o Agenda [fern CITY COUNCIL REPORT Date TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy OVBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: NOTICE OF SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS RECOMMENDATIOW Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached ordinance which authorizes the issuance and publication of the notice of sale for the $4,700,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 1997. SUMMARY: This ordinance provides the Notice of Sale of General Obligation Bonds which will occur on Tuesday, April 15, 1997, The bonds will provide funding of $4,700,000 for three purposes (i.e., Street/Transportation projects . $3,275,000; Drainage projects - $675,000; and Parks & Recreation projects - $750,000). All of the projects were approved in the 1996-2001 Capital Improvement Program ICIP). The specific listing of items to be funded is as follows: PROJECTED DIVIDEPT. DESCRIPTION COST Drainage Avenue "G" 200,000 Drainage Good Samaritan Village Drainage 100,000 Drainage Carroll/Crescent Culver Imp, 250,000 Drainage Misc. Drainage Capital Imp. PH 11 125,000 Parks & Rec. Upgrade Existing Parks PH It 350,000 Parks & Rec. Athletic Facilities Renov. & 400,000 Oev. PH I StreetlTrans. Southeast Denton Sidewalks PH 11 60,000 • Street/Trans. Avenue "D" Modification 290,000 i StreetlTrans. Phase 11 Nottingham (Mingo 590,000 to Paisley) StreeUTrans. Lp. 286 Bypass-Right-Of-Way PH If 341,000 Street/Trans. F/W Drive Paving & Drain (PH 1&II) 1,400,000 t Street/Trans. Sidewalks/Bikeways PH 1 142,000 0 O J StreetlTrans. Street Construction PH 11 452,000 • • F'EB-17-97 is .6'"S FROH~HcCALL PARKHURST a HORTOH ID. 2147549250 PACE 4/S ORDINANCE NO.97- AN ORDINANCE DQMECTING THE ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SALE OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBUOATfON BONDS; AND PR(ZVIDINO FOR AN EFfEC7TVl; DATE THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF DENPON HEREBY ORDNNS: Section L That the City Secretary is directed to issue a Notice of Sale of floods in substantially the following form: OFf1 :JAL NOTICE Of SALE CITY OF DEMON, TEXAS S4,700,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SEWS 1997 The City Council of the City ofDentm Denton County. Tams, will receive sewed bids at the Municipal Building. 215 E. McKinmy Sway in the City of Denton until: 11:00 a.m., C.D.T.. Tuesday, April 15, 1997 for the purchase of $4.700t+ Oftadon Bondy Ssies 1947 to be dated April t, 1997, and to mature serially February 15 each year 1998 through 2017. Sealed bids, plainly marked "Bid for Bonds', should be addressed to 'Honorable Mayor and City Council, City of Derdm Texas", and must be submitted on the'Officad Bid Form* to be made available by the City Council prior to the date of We. All sealed bids will be publicly opened and tabulated befort: the Council. Copies of the 'Official Statement", "Notice of Sale", and "O>icial Bid Form" are bang . • prepared and will be mailed to prospective bidders on or about April 1, 1997, and will be funnisbed to any prospective bidder upon request, by Fast Southwest Company, 500 First City Center, 1700 Pacific Ave., Dallas, Texas 75201, Financial Advisor to the City. Tba City resevrs the right to reject any and all bids and to waive M and all irregularities- By By order of the City Counca of the City of Dentort, Texas. • O J U4NIFER K. WALTERS City Secretary City of DemtoD, Texas • !'G!t-IY-HY IU:GU FRUNiMCCALL PARXHUREiT 6 HUX TON ._..'t U,2147640260_._ PAGE. X6/6 Section II. That said Notice shall be pobfithed one in The Bond Buyer, New York. New York, which is a national pubGaaion regulady and ply carrying fins a news and municipal bond sale nodom and said Notice also d a be pubGshod once in the •Dmton Record-Chronicle", which has been designated as the ofaal newsp% w of the (sty of Dimon. Said publications aha11 be made at keg thirty days prior to the day set for receiving bids. Section W. That this Ord owce shall bwome efibcthv immedisteiy upon its passage am approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this 4th day of March, 1997. Jack biller, Mawr ATTEST: J=Ufer waters, City Secretary By APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney By. • y S ~~Mnwr.+.•..wN..,u,.. r rr , V•Yx • i • • Agenda Nu Agenda Item O safe CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: February 12, 1997 SUBJECT: Proposed Adoption of the 1996 Edition of the National Electrical Code with Local Amendments I RECOMMENDATION: I The Electrical Code Board recommends Sections 28-61 and 22-62 of Article III of Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances be amended to adopt the 1996 Edition of the National Electrical Code as amended locally. SUWARY: The current electrical code for the City of Denton is the 1993 Edition of the National Electrical Code with local amendments. This proposed ordinance adopts the 1996 National Electrical Code as amended locally. This ordinance would also delete a local amendment which requires that construction personnel using :.5- or 20 ampere receptacle outlets on temporary power poles provide their own ground fault circuit interrupter protection. If adopted, the NEC would now require the installation of (around Fault Circuit Interrupters Receptacles on all temporary power poles. This should be of no impact to contractors since it is the current practice to install this type of receptacle. The new ordinance would also eliminate Section 505 in the 1995 National Electrical Code. Article 505 is currently under appeal to be removed in its entirety from the electrical code. The North Texas Council of Governments has also recommended this article be removed by local municipalities. There will be no impact to either the Building Inspection Division or electrical contractors if this article is removed. We believe deletion of this article will eliminate confusion and provide safer wiring installations. O BACKGROUND. I~ • O J The Electrical Code Board has reviewed the 1996 National Electrical Code along with staff, and forwards this proposed ordinance to Council for consideration. 1 _ .r«e- 7 • • City Council Report Page 2 PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Building Inspection Division, electrical contractors and electricians. Fiscal Impact: None Please advise if I can provide additional information. RE E LILLY UBMITTED: Rick veh a Deputy City Manager Pr6pared by: L tGreg tchell Plans Examiner Attachments Doc. s 1. L ~ i 4 • • FROMI PEHTCN CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO. 0173027923 02.10-97 01,438 8.03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTIONS 28-61 AND 28-62 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILiTY CLAUSE, AND DECLARING ANY EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINST SECTIOSI I. That Section 2e-61 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Denton, Texas, is hcreby amended to read as follows: i i Bee. 28-61. Adoption of electrical code. The National Electric Code, 1996 Edition, as published by the National Fire Frotection Association, a copy of which shall be filed with the office of the city secretary and available for public inspection, is hereby adopted and designated as the electrical code of the city, the same as though that edition of such code were copied at length herein, subject to th6 deletions and amendments enumerated in section 28-62. i SECTION IT, That Section 28-62 of the Code of Ordinances, j City of Denton, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows; all provisions of this division not specifically changed herein shall remain intact and in full force and effect, Sec. 28-62. Deletions and axIendmenee. The National Electrical Code adopted by section 28-61 is amended as follows: 11) (text unchanged) • (2) (text unchanged) 1 (1) (text unchanged) (4) (text unchanged) ~ O • (S) (text unchanged) t Y:. e • FPCN, CIEN70N C11V WTTORNEV FOX No 0173027923 0l-1e-97 01t43P P.04 III (6) [text unchanged] (text unchanged) (8) (text unchanged) (9) (text unchanged) (10) Article 505 - Class I, Zone 0, 1, and 2 Locations. This article is deleted in its entirety. SECTION III. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the valid- ity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Coun- cil of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTIO Iy. 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: _ •1 AFFROVED AS TO LEGAL FOAM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY'-74NEY • BY• ~ • • J I 1 PAGE 2 I O C- • 'rl!t! 7 _"k Rolm • • # MINUTES ELECTRICAL CODE BOARD JANUARY 31, 1996 300 P.M. Members present: John Hardinger; Chair, Doug Grantham; Vice-Chair Robert Hicks, Fred Reed, Greg Mitchell; Building Inspection Staff Members absent: Don Pox, Terry Schertz, Perry McNeill Item 1. Approve minutes of December 13, 1995 Motion made by Grantham to approve the minutes of December 13, 1995 as written. Seconded by Hicks: Motion carried unanimously Item 2. Elect a chair and vice-chair Motion by Reed to elect John Hardinger as Chair of the Electrical Code Board. Seconded by Hicks: no discussion Motion carried unanimously Motion by Hardinger to elect Grantham as Vice-Chair to the Electrical Code Board. Seconded by Reed: no discussion Motion carried unanimously Item 3. Continue the review of the 1996 National Electrical Code Mitchell began with a brief summary of where the Board was in its review. Mitchell suggested that the Board continue viewing the video on changes to the Electrical Code. Hardinger agreed. After viewing the video Mitchell asked if there were any quastions or concerns regarding proposed changes. Hardinger stated that the new change to section 300-11(a) would cause considerable problems as well as challenges for contractors. • Grantham agreed, but also acknowledged that electricians have been utilizing the ceiling wires in a fashion that put the integrity of r the ceiling in question. Reed agreed that it may be a problem but it is needed and should not be deleted from the code. ® Mitchell stated that many of the changes that were in the video • O would be of no impact to electrical contractors. Mitchell told the board that staff would support the adoption of the 1996 National Electrical Code as written with one exception. Mitchell stated that the new Section 505 regarding the wiring methods for hazardous T 77 • r • locations should be deleted. The new section is currently under appeal with the N.F.P.A. Board of Directors and that it caused more confusion for an already confusing section of the code. Hardinger asked what would be the specific problems associated with this section. Mitchell stated that under the new section 505 that an engineered designed electrical installation for hazardous areas could be reclassified to a less restrictive occupancy. The code already states the requirements for installation in these areas and that to deviate from them would cause confusion for both the inspectors and plan revie.+ers. The City of Denton requires that these types of installations be engineered currently and that any changes to sections 5,1, 502, 503 by section 505 would result in a less safe electrical system regardless if it is engineered or not. Hardinger agreed and suggested that the board remove Article 505 from the 1:96 National Electrical code. Reed stated he would be in favor of deleting Article 505 also. Hardinger suggested that the Board move on to the local amendments and vote later on the deletion of this Article. Mitchell told the Board that the amendments that were given to them pertain mainly to the use of aluminum wire. Section 300-22(c) dealing with the installation of romex through return air plenums has been amended to allow both vertical and horizontal installation without the use of a sleeving device. Grantham a7:eed that amendment should stay as written. Hardinger _.'.so was in favor of this amendment. Hardinger asked when section ?!5-6(a) was amended to allow non-GFCI protected receptacle. on construction sites. Mitchell stated he was not sure of the date, but it had been an amendment for quite some time. Mitchell also stated that the inspectors had suggested deleting this amendment and requiring GFCI receptacles on all construction sites the way the code is written. • Grantham stated that this was originally amended because of nuisance tripping and that he would be in favor of returning to i what the code said. Reed mentioned that he was unaware of any contractors providing GFCI protected cords as required by the amendment. ® Hardinger said all of his cords are equipped with GFCI protection W • but he had yet to see any plumbers or other craftsmen supply their own GFCI protected cords. He said he was in favor of deleting this amendment. 0 • Hicks stated he would support returning to what the National Electrical Code required. A motion was made by Grantham to delete item 10 from Section 28-62 of the Code of Ordinances. Seconded by Hicks No discussion Motion Carried unanimously. Motion was made by Reed to maintain the current amendments 1 through 9 in Section 28-62 and that staff would update the correct section numbers where they had changed. Seconded by Hicks No further discussion Motion carried unanimously to maintain the current amendments 1 through 9 of Section 28-62 of The Code of Ordinances as amended for new section identifications. Mitchell stated to the Board that it was the opinion of the Building Inspection Staff that the City of Denton stop giving electrical exams and join other cities participating in the S.B.C.C.I. program. Hardinger stated he had been a long time proponent of this exam and would recommend the city begin participating in the S.B.C.C.I program. Hicks asked what impact this would have on local electricians. Mitchell stated that there would be no negative impact to any local electricians other than traveling to the metroplex to take the exam. However, this would be offset by the ability to take the exam twice a month. Motion by Grantham that The City of Denton stop giving local electrical exams and enter into an agreement with S.B.C.C.I. to administer all electrical exams and that the city would recognize any person who has passes a particular S.B.C.C.I. exam as meeting i the testing requirements for that particular license in The City of Denton. Seconded by Hardinger. • No discussion. O • Motion carried unanimously Motion was made by Hardinger to delete Article 505 from the 1996 _ • 0 17 • National Electrical Code. Seconded by Hicks No discussion Motion carried unanimously Motion by Hardinger to adopt the 1996 National Electrical Code as amended. Seconded by Grantham No discussion k Motion carried unanimously Item 4. New Business No new business Motion by Reed to adjourn Seconded by Hicks Motion carried unanimously Meeting adjourned at 4:35 P.M. • ti i ® i • • 8 • • J:\WPD0CS\GPO\1904W1.4:P ORD n rO~ A Agenda Nu._ V Agenda Item_ ` Date-. =~Z ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING THE RELEASE OF PAVING LIENS ASSESSED AGAINST HOMESTEAD BY ORDINANCE NO. 61-16 RELATING TO THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1904 WHIPPORWILL, CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; AUTHOEIZING THt MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID RELEASE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas, has heretofore, by Ordinance No. 61-16, duly enacted or. July 11, 1961, determined the necessity for and ordered the improvement of various streets in the City of Denton, Texas; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton declared the liability of adjacent property owners for a portion of the cost of improving portions of various streets described in aaid ordinances, and declared the same to be a lien upon the abutting properties; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has cross-referenced Denton County Tax Records for the appropriate time periods with City paving lien records, and has reviewed additional land title records in some cases, and ;etermined that a portion of the liens assessed against abutting properties were assessed against properties which were claimed as homestead at the time the improvements ware ordered, and no mechanic's lien contract was executed prior to the commencement of the improvements; and WHEREAS, on the 24th day of October, 1995, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas duly enacted Ordinance No. 95-211 providing for approval of the release of certain tracts of land situated in the City of Denton, Texas from paving liens assessed against homesteads by Ordinance No. 61-16, as well as for other subsequent street improvement ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton desires to release the liens which were assessed against that certain lot or parcel of land commonly known as 1904 Whipporwill, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, which was claimed as homestead by the record owners thereof at the time the above-referenced paving improvements 1 were ordered, and for which no mechanic's lien contract was ever filed of record as required by lai; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby approves the release • O of paving liens assessed against the lot or parcel of land commonly known as 1904 Whipporwill, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, by Ordinance No. 61-1.6, for which no valid mechanic's lien contract was ever filed of record as required by law. • SECTION II. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the release attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth at length for the above described property which was determined to be assessed against homestead by cross-referencing the records set forth hereinabove. 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: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: l~~ d • i r . • t ~ O O • r • At\GORDON. AEL RELEASE OF PAVING LIEN ASSESSED AGAINST HOMESTEAD BY ORDINANCE NO. 61-16 I THE STATE OF TEXAS S COUNTY OF DENTON S WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, has heretofore by Ordinance No. 61-16 duly enacted on July 11, 1961, determined the necessity for and ordered the improvement of various streets in the City of Denton, Texas, in the manner and according to the plans and specifications therefore; which plans and specifications have heretofore been approved and adopted by said City Council; and WHEREAS, a notice duly executed in the name of the City of Denton, Texas, of the enactment of the above-described ordinance has heretofore on the 29th day of August, 1961, been filed in the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, in Volume 472, Page 144; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, by Ordinance No. 61-24, duly enacted on the 10th day of October, 1961, declared the liability of the adjacent property owners for a portion of the cost of improving portions of various streets described therein and in Ordinance No. 61-16, and declared the same to be a lien upon the said abutting properties; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 61-24 has heretofore on the 21st day of October,. 1966, been filed in the Deed Records of loenton County, Texas in Volume 543, Page 233; and WHEREAS, a portion of the properties abutting the various streets described in Ordinance No. 61-16 and Ordinance No. 61-24 were claimed as homestead at the time the improvements were ordered; and WHERFAS, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein as if set forth at length is a description of one of those propert_es which was claimed as homestead, according to Denton County tax records, at the time the improvements were ordered and for which no mechanic's lien contract was executed and filed for record; and WHEREAS, pursuant to TEX. CONST. art XVl, S50, a lien declared upon abutting property is void if the property was claimed as a homestead at the time the improvements were ordered and no mechanic's ien contract was executed by the owner prior to the work being performed; and ® WHEREAS, pursuant to TEX. PROPERTY CODE S13.001(a) (Vernon 1984) in order to be a valid lien, enforceable as to a subsequent • purchaser for valuable consideration, and without notice, a mechanic's lien contract must be acknowledged and filed for record in the County where the affected real property is situated; and 3 • f. . WHEREAS, although a mechanic's lien contract was executed and acknowledged by R.D. Gordon and wife Janet Gordon on the 15th day of September, 1961 respecting the street improvements referenced above, the said mechanic's lien contract was never filed for record in the appropriate Denton County records; and WHEREAS, by Warranty Deed filed on the 31st day of July, 1963, and recorded as Document No. 6731 in the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, R.D. Gordon and wife, Janet Gordon conveyed the subject real property to Charles W. Fikes and wife, Lila Ray Fikes, who are bona-fide purchasers of the subject realty, for value, and without notice of the existence of the unrecorded Mechanic's Lien Contract; and WHEREAS, for the foregoing reasons, the said Mechanic's Lien Contract is not a valid and enforceable lien against the subject real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; NOW, THEREFORE, The said City of Denton, Texas, does hereby forever RELEASE the real property described in Exhibit "A" from any and all special assessment liens and claims arising by virtue of the improvements described in the aforesaid ordinances by the City Council of said city, in the aforesaid notice recorded in volume 472, Page 144 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and in Ordinance No. 61- 24 recorded in Volume 543, Page 233 of the Deed Records of Denton, County, Texas. Notwithstanding the foregoing matters, the City of Denton, Texas, expressly reserves, and in no way releases or discharges the personal' liability of R. D. Gordon and wife, Janet Gordon, the record owners of the real property described in Exhibit "A", and commonly known as 1904 Whipporwill Lane, Denton, Denton County, Texas, at the time the above referenced ordinances providing for street improvements were enacted. EXECUTED this the day of , 1997. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY r BY: • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY O • BY; L~ PAGE 2 C./ • CORPORATE ACKNOWLBD=M sTATa Of TIXAM S COMITY OF Dims S This instrument was acknowledged before tie on the _ day of 1997 by Jack Miller, Meyor of Denton, Texas, a municipal corporation, on behalf of said city. Notary Public in and for the State of Texas my commission Sxpiresi I 1 14 0 Ii • N ~ M aH~ qfo.~~ p MO ~Rf ~ ~ oN~+~ FQ~2' gQg . p~ ~ ~ • Wt~~ A ~ oOO i}oV~ o pXONX~ ~ 7yC H i ~ ~tnHa Ile Whaw • • • ~IAIS °A• PAYING LILT PROPLlTT AJALPGND -ORD. 61-16 OLD ru n2$mrf NSRM ADDRNNN Cl" YAP ORIGIYAL C3AALIY CORRMT On=,# ACCOCKS nx ACCOOMS A"NCSND NS RZFMMCS OMMNR Ow3ru YAILIMG ADORS" NO. NO. PAVING LINK LOS KLOCR R.D. Gordon 6 wife, Barbara Pikes Denison 1224 Bryn Mavr 35143 03960100000 1904 Whipporvill 10 399 Janet Gordon Denton, T% 76201 I • • ,5 . ~_..._.,.,..,a...r..+.:;r:m.nv.:...a.e>nrnn,rr~w a..:a.aeuww,Y»twana,vnsstwtnt,~ltoWar!ye~• agenda No. 0 Agenda Item Z CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDINO DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TELEPHONE 817.566.8309 Ofrroe of the City Secrelary MEMORANDUM DATE: February 270 1997 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary SUBJECT: Board/Commission Appointments The following is a list of current Board/Commission vacancies/nominations: Council Member Biles has nominated Sara LaGrone to the Keep Denton ; Beautiful Board. If you require any further information, please let me knot. Jen r Wa ers Cit ecretary ACCOOOF4 i r a, 'Drduared to Quality Service" it 6~4 !AY}T.I_ 'YV' to }u: A Air" 4 it h4iw;ii; e s i i 1 N D OF., I L ' i r 1 . J ~ • 1 4 , i .