Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-01-1997 C ity Council Agenda Packet April 1, 1997 J ~ v _ I • • Agenda ke,„"_ AGENDA Agenda Item CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Date 1~479 1 April 1, 1947 Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tnesday, April 1, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered: NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO CLOSED MEETING AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM FOR WHICH IT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. 1. Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.074 Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, April 1, 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: 1. Pledge of Allegiance A. U.S. Flag B. Texas Flaa "Honor the Texas Flag - 1 pledge allegiance to thee. Texas, one and indivisible." 2. Consider approval of the minutes of January 21 and January 28, 1997. 3. Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Denton Gospel Mission until 12:00 midnight on Thursday, April 17 and April 24, 1997. CITIZEN REPORTS • 4. Dick Stewart regarding the City of Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction. 5. Dessie Goodson regarding the City of Denton. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6. Public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance approving a detailed plan of 16.047 acres • in Planned Development 34 (PD-34) for detached, single-family residential development. The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-1.) i l • • City of Denton City Council Agenda April 1, 1997 Page 2 7. Public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance to rezone 1.97 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial (U) zoning district. This tract is located on the south side of University Drive, approximately 600 feet west of Cindy Lane, 3921 W. University Drive. (Z-97-001) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-1.) 8. Public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 11.40 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject property is located approximately 1,500 feet south of Robinson Road, at the Denton/Corinth city limit line. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) VARIANCES 9. Exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks along Spencer Road for the Waterford at Spencer Oaks. The subject proper(), consists of 42.613 acres in a Multi-Family 1 Conditioned (MF-1[c]) zoning district, and is located bet%een Spencer Road and Loop 288, just cast of the abandoned railroad right-of-way. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial 6-0.) 10. Exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning interior sidewalks for Planned Development 34 (PD-34). The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial 6-0.) ll. Exaction variance to Section 34-116(e) pertaining to fire flow and Section 34-116(c) pertaining to fire hydrants. This 143.027 acre tract is located in Division One of the City of Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction on the southeast corner of Green Valley Circle and Shepard Road. (Blue Sky Estates) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) 12. Exaction variance to Section 34.114(17) concerning sidewalks for the Connell Addition. The 20.345 acre tract is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, west of FM 2181. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-0.) y CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items tl 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 13-19). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items 13.19 below will be approved with one motion. A citizen may not speak or fill out a "request to speak" form s • City of Denton City Council Agenda April 1, 1997 Page 3 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. 13. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. (Bid #2001 - Tractor, Loader, Box Blade, Mower - Items 2, 2A and 2B) 14. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. (Bid #2014 - Furniture Hid - City Hall renovation) 15. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the pur^hase of materials, equipment, supplies or services; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. (Bid #2017 - Distribution Transformers) 16. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. (Bid #2019 - Trailer Mounted Boring Machine) 17. Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. (Bid #2029 Playground Structures) 18. Ordinance prescribing the number of positions in each classification of police officer; prescribing the number of positions in each classification of fire r.•=,hter; and repealing all prior inconsistent ordinances and resolution to the extent of any such conflict. 19. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the Denton Independent School District and all additional documents and agreements, as required, to obtain funding for the 1997 sununer food service program; and authorizing the expenditure of funds to administer the program. • ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION i 20. Ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment Number Four to the agreement between , the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for prulWs ional engineering services for the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Development relating to Fhase III and Phase IV thereof; and providing for the expenditure of funds therefor. • • • 21. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional services agreement with Emcon. Inc. regarding services related to preparation foi Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Administrative Hearing for landfill permit; and authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor. y r L 7 7 • s City of Denton City Cour•.cil Agenda April 1, 1997 Page 4 22. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an employment contract for professional legal services with Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C. for legal services relating to the amendment to the City of Denton's Municipal Solid Waste Permit No. 1590A and related activities; and authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor. 23. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a first amerdment to the contract for professional legal services with the law offices of Jim Boyle; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore, and providing a savings clause. i 24. Resolution approving tl a assignment by Bruce Brown of the "Tract A" lease of airport property to Dwayne E. Hatcher and David W. Austin, said property consisting of 19,122.84 square feet. 25. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 26. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items: A. Legal Matters B. Real Estate C. Personnel D. Board Appointments 27. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 28. Possible Continuation of Closed I feeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 531.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sm. 551.074 • CERTIFICATE 1 certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the city of Denton, Texas, on the __day of , 1997 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) • O • CITY SECRETARY 0 0 • • City of Denton City Council Agenda April 1, 1997 Page 5 NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE. ACCOJ~'77 Ii 1 • 1010 1 • • ABea9a ua _ „D 13 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agenda Item 07-- January 21, 1997 Date_ _ - The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 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, Durrance and Young. f ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered the following in a Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 1. Discussed claim of Jonathan T. Hodges and proposed settlement. B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Considered purchase of land fear the City of Denton Wastewater Treatment Plant. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 21, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Durrance and Young. ABSENT: None 1. Pledge of Allegiance The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The council considered an ordinance canvassing the sales and use tax election held in the City of Denton on January 18, 1997. The following ordinance was considered: • NO. 97-013 AN ORDINANCE CANVA';SING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS ~ OF A SPECIAL MUNIC.:PAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON JANUARY ld, 1997 TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE VOTERS WOULD APPROVE ADOPTION OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN THE CITY TO BE USED FOR THE PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AND EXPANDED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES; AND O PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "nay", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 2 3. The Council considered an ordinance canvassing the special election held in the City of Denton on January 18, 1997 to fill the vacant City Council District 2 seat. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-014 AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON JANUARY 18, 1997 TO FILL A VACANCY ON PLACE 2 OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance with an amendment to the total number of ballots cast to read 2,447 to reflect only those ballots cast in District 2. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and mayor Miller "aye". Notion carried unanimously. 4. Oath of Office administered to newly elected Council Member. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, administered the oath of office to Neil Durrance - District 2. 5. Council considered approval of the minutes of November 5, November 12 and November 19, 1996. Biles motioned, Beasley 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. 6. Presentation of "Planning Advocate Award for 1996" to Mayor Pro Tcm Brock by the American Planning Association - Midwest 1 Section, Texas Chapter. Mayor Miller presented the award to Mayor Pro Ten Brock. • Presentation of the 1996 "Certificate of ?.chievement for Planning Excellence". Mayor Miller presented the Certificate of Achievement to Reek Svehla, Deputy City Manger, accepting the award on behalf of the Planning Department. i • 8. Presentation by Texas Engineering Extension Service to the • • Electric Utility on achievement of the Municipal Electric Safety Accreditation. I Sharon Mays, Director of Electric Utilities, stated that Denton was one of first three municipal utilities in Texas to earn this award. -TOT!! I • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 3 Aside from keeping city employees safer, a 78% reduction in reportable accidents with a large savings to workers compensation was realized. Team work and morale improved with better service to the citizens of Denton. Jessie Watson, Texas Engineering Extension Service, presented the award to the City employees. 8A. The Council considered a Resolution of Appreciation for James III Dotson. The following resolution was considered: "RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR JAMES DOTSON" Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Miller presented the following proclamations: UNT Eagles Day Ms. Mature Denton CITIZEN REPORT 9. Citizen Report from Dessie Goodson regarding SPAN and the City of Denton. Ms. Goodson stated that she had requested certain records from the City. The area she had to work in was too cold for her. She found discrepancies in the records she was given. one in particular was a letter written July 24, 1996 record by Erika Lissberger. What was in her letter was not what was in the tape recording she made of the conversation. The City had received funding for shelters and benches and she wanted to know why none had been built. It was not right that the benches and shelters O were not built. The City had twice spent $2,500 on map routes which no one could understand. The citizens spoke on January lath that they did not need any further sales tax. She was going to proceed in Federal Court with the two cases she had filed against SPAN and Denton public transportation and the Denton Police Department. The next case she would file would be against the Denton Utilities as she had been disconnected with no explanation • and then her home was listed as vacant. The City had not received I, O 0 a written request from her to disconnect her utilities. 7 7 • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING 10. The Council held a public hearing and considered an ordinance to rezone .4892 acres from the General Retail (GR) zoning district to the Planned Development (PD) zoning district and approval of the development plan. This tract was located on the south side of McKinney Street, approximately 450 feet west of Woodrow Lane. (A- 96-020) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6- 1). Council Member Durrance stated that he would abstain from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Ric.; Svehla, Deputy city manager, stated that this was a request to change the zoning from general retail to planned development. The lot in question did not have access to a public street and by city regulations, each lot had to have access to a public street. If it did not have access, a planned development must be done. The petitioner was working with the County Commissioners for access to the main driveway into the County Jail complex. The real issue was not whether to build the offices but rather the access. Council Member Beasley stated that it was not clear whether there was a condition that the zoning would only be passed if access was approved by the County. 7 Svehla replied that originally staff had suggested that best that was before a review of the access to the east. There was some question as to whether the access to the east met the City's standards for a private street. It was determined that it did but there was still the requirement to zone a planned development. There were no conditions imposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Pro Ten Brock asked if the easement would be a private agreement and would it be possible to grant the zoning and then there would not be a street access which met City standards. • Svehla stated that the easement to the east met that standard. The i driveways into the County also met those standards. In either r case, there would be no problem. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if there would be the possibility that the County or a private property owner might, at some time, withdraw that easement and the use of that easement. s o ~ Svehla stated that he had not seen the final wording from the County. The easement to the east would not apply in that case as it was granted to all of the landowners. The Mayor opened the public hearing. J c:.= , • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 5 Jack Bell stated that he would answer any Council questions. The easement in place could not be removed by the landowners. He had received approval from Commissioners Court for access to the road. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE GENERAL RETAIL (GR) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION BY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A .4892 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY STREET, FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY (450) FEET WEST OF WOODROW LANE; APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN ` EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Hiles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye", Motion carried unanimously. 11A. The Council held a public hearing on 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 the Planned Development. The subject property was located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. Mayor Miller stated that Council postponed this item after the last public hearing was closed. It was decided to place this item on the agenda again with a public hearing for citizen comment. The • next item on the agenda was the companion ordinance with this item. Council Member Cott indicated that he would be abstaining from this item due to a potential conflict of interest. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that a public hearing was held on January 7th and that public hearing was closed during the • meeting. The developer net with the neighborhood on January 15th 0 W and since that meeting Dr. Hersman had visited with staff a:.1 proposed a change in the request. The changes included changing the planned development from 5,000 square foot lots to 6,000 square foot lots; changing the office from 4.4 acres to .7 acres; changing the other 3.7 acres of office to SF-30 and changing the SF-7 to SF- • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 6 10 around the two western cul-de-sacs. Those proposed changes made two changes in the analysis. Part of the Development Plan indicated that neighborhood service concentration could not be more that 3 acres. Originally the 4.4 acres c: office was in violation of the Development Plan. The .7 acres was well below that standard and conformed to the Plan. The intensity trip3 changed from complying with the plan to being slightly lower and :till conformed with the Development Plan. Staff had heard that there might be more opposition to this case. Cur_ently a super majority was not required for passage. Four affirmative votes by Council were ' needed for passage. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Jake Hersman stated that tha neighborhood meeting opened with representatives from the various homeowner's groups listing the items most important to the neighborhoods. The first item on the list was to reduce or do away with the office zoning. The second was the SF-30 and SF-16 zoning along Lillian Miller. There was a request for an average lot size of 10,000 square feet and several individuals were against the planned development. He made significant changes in the original proposal due to the dialog at those meetings. He lowered the conditioned office to .7 acres from 4.2 acres. The reason one section was kept office was to allow a cul-de-sac to be built in that area. He also offered to change the planned development from 4,000 to 6,000 square feet. Another item discussed vas the minimum square footage allowed for the homes. There was a lot of discussion regarding a road going north to the Hunters Ridge subdivision.. With the removal of the conditioned office, the area could to a cul-de-sac so no traffic would be in that area. It was proposed to create a bend in the lake in order for it to be seen from Lillian Miller. That would avoid the stark screenirg in that area. There would be breaks in the fence with cul-de-sacs close to Lillian Miller. This proposal would also allow for the park system originally proposed. Council Member Young asked how big the lake would be and what changes were made to the lake. • Hersman stated that the lake system was similar to the original proposal. The northern extension of the lake would be changed to bend toward Lillian Miller. Council Member Young asked about the masonry edge and walkway around the lake. • 0 0 Hersman stated that for ease of maintenance along the lake, there would be a hard edge along the entire lake system. There would be a sittoualk adjacent to that edge. . • 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 7 Council Membe_ Young asked about the water from Lillian Miller to the feeder lake. Hersman stated that there would be a discharge under Lillian Miller which would feed the lake system. It was proposed to drill wells to keep the lake at a constant level. The water source in the northern extension would provide a constant level of water. Council Member Young asked if the City Engineers agreed with the proposal for a pipe system to help control flooding in the area. Hersman replied correct that they had met with Jerry Clark and David Salmon regarding this system. They would also have to submit a Fk74A study regarding the proposed lake system. Council member Young asked about the number of acres in the park with trees and how would it be maintained. Hersman stated that it would be a 16 acre park maintained by a homeowners association until the City was ready to take it into their system. Funding would be es-crowed or delivered to the City for park maintenance. Council Member Young asked about the roads ar9 sidewalks. Hersman stated that the road was a 411 collector street with sidewalks on both sides of the road with landscaping. The road was approximately 3500 long which would hopefully provide traffic 3 relief for future development. Alan Wasserman stated that he represented the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. He realized that there was give and take in the proposal and was in support of a new project. There were two conditions from the last zoning proposal he did not want to be for?>`.ten as they were very crucial. They would not be in support of she proposal if those conditions were removed. One condition was that there would be no windows on the second floor of the commercial property. The second condition was that all conditions • which were proposed at the last zoning request should remain with this zoning request. In addition, there was the condition Dr. r Hersman suggested of not having a collector street on Lillian Miller, allowing the SF-10 facing their subdivision and allowing the planned development to equal Ellison Park. Brennan Gourdie stated that he represented the Homeowners ' • Association for Indian Ridge, southridge and Beazer Developmentr,. + • They had two concerns regarding the new proposal. One was the commercial expansion in a residential area and second was the density of homes on the property. The result of this proposal would be a negative impact on traffic, noise and schools. A group of the homeowners met with Dr. Hersman last week and listed their -712 0 r s City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page S concerns regarding the proposal. A vast majority of them requested a mixture of SF-16, SF-30 and SF-7 with no commercial buildings and a lower density on the property. Dr. Hersman presented an updated proposal which did little to address their concerns about the property. Twenty five of the homeowners developed a unanimous set of conditions which if added to the proposal would gain their support. The first was to widen the collector street to match Teasley in size and capacity. in order to minimize the impact on schools and traffic, the number of homes should be reduced to under 400. Their starting point for this development would be SF-16 and not less. The group was opposed to the planned development with 5,000 square foot lots. A minimum lot size needed to be 7,000 square feet with a minimum home size of 1600 square feet. They were opposed to any commercial office buildings on Lillian Miller. There should be only one entrance or exit to the development to minimize traffic and congestion. The park, was not an issue. If it were a real park why was there no parking for others to have access to it. The park was proposed with nothing concrete. Dr. Hersman indicated to them that he felt he had made enough concessions but the neighbors felt he had not made enough. They had the signatures of 125 nearby residents who agreed with these points in addition to I the original 25 who worked on the proposal. They asked Council to deny the proposal or to have the developer meet the conditions asked for. a Tim Peters stated that he had a concern from a global perspective. He agreed with the points previously mentioned. The development as proposed was not designed to fit in with the current nature of the subdivisions in this area. Part of planning was to provide consistency for growth. The proposed road was 410 wide while Teasley Lane was 71' wide as a four lane undivided road. Wind River was proposed to extend through the next development with a connection to I-35. That much traffic could not be carried on a ts,o lane road. The proposed park system was required to handle drainage. It was not a sacrifice to give that park area. There ~4ere no assurances that there would be a homeowners association. The land to the south was rezoned for approximately 500 homes. If this zoning for 455 homes was approved, there would be close to 2700 people living in that combined 300 acres. Of that, about a third would be children. Sam Houston School was already overcrowded and this proposal would only add to that overcrowding. This development would not improve the quality of life for the residents in this area. Roland Vela stated that he moved to Denton and this area with the _ 6 intention of living in a neighborhood which would not be A overcrowded. He had put his entire financial ability in his home and was very happy there. He felt threatened by a high density neighborhood. There was already a high degree of traffic in tho area and now Lowes and Walmart :added to that traffic. The City could nr)t keep adding houses and 1:ars and people to a small area of • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 9 land without trashing out the area. Their neighborhood and the place where they lived were being threatened with development. Development did not only mean add more and more, it also meant add quality. This might be a good plan for Dr. Hersman but it was not good for the residents in the area. The neighbors had developed five points which were a compromise for the residents. There was a need for a balancing of quality of life with the profit of an individual. He urged the Council to turn down the proposal as j presented and to consider their five points for the proposal. ii Vera Gershner stated that the proposal added up to smaller lots, more homes and more money for the developer. The issues they had concerned the neighborhood such as home values, traffic congestion, increased traffic and duplication of the neighborhood. One particular point was a great deal of concern for the children going to Sam Houston. School. Sam Houston was overcrowded at this point in time. To add this amount of houses to the area would be too much for the school. She had two recommendations for the Council. One was to not pass the proposal as presented and the second was to have an ongoing dialog between the Council and the members of the School Board. Curtis Ramsey stated he would speak on the quality of life issue. This kind of high intensity impact deteriorated the immediate neighborhoods and added to demands for city services. The quality of life varied with each individual and varied over time. He felt J that one of the finest developments in Denton was one here in this area. This proposal would significantly change the quality of life for all in Denton. He urged the Council to change the zoning to SF-16. Council Member Durrance asked if Mr. Ramsey concurred with the other comments regarding the impact on the schools. Ramsey stated that he was here as an individual and not as a member of the school district. Council Member Young stated that each child in that area was not • bussed to any other school. Curtis replied no but that the proposed addition alone would represent enough children for an entire new school. Marvin Jeffries felt this development would be built and the only situation was the conditions of the proposal. His main concern was ® the crowding of the streets. Teasley Lane in front of Sam Houston • School was 71' wide. A 41' collector road would not extend that road. He felt part of the Council's responsibility was to have an adequate width in a street to prevent congestion in traffic. He suggested having the developer build a wider street in the area or have the right-of-way for the area so that it could be widened in • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 10 the future. He also felt curbing should be on one side and the street lights on that side and take out the other curb later when it was widened. John Kokalis stated that he was not against a project or a subdivision or a development. He was against the way it was being done. Denton would be getting development in the future and the question was whether or not the Council could handle it. He asked what kind of development would be helped in Denton and what kind of community did the Council want. In every place he had lived which had a planned development, smaller lots were mixed in with larger lots with a lot of green space. This proposal was to hide the small lots in an area. The Council's job was to make sure there was a great community for people already here and for people to come. It was time for the School Board and City to work together on projects. If a project was coordinated ahead of time, it would be a better idea for Denton. Bill Claiborne stated that he was not in strong opposition but had some questions on the proposal. He wanted to make sure that the ingress/egress for the proposed SF-10 lots would be from inside the subdivision. He felt this street should be dedicated as a secondary arterial with projected plans to connect to I-35E. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that he had not seen a final plat at this point in time. He understood that access from the cul-de-sacs would be internal to the subdivision. Hersman replied correct. Peter Richardson stated that he was in support of the petition that Brennan Gourdie presented. The issue was density, not parks. All the speaker cards from the last meeting reflected density, traffic and schools. He did not like the portables at Sam Houston School. He did not like not being able to travel on Lillian Miller even on the weekends. He was concerned about the expansion in the area. He was in favor of development if the infrastructure could keep up with the development. He asked Council to consider the density • issue and the impact on the traffic and the overcrowded school. Elizabeth Gourdie stated that this proposal would change the natural flow of the water in the area and many homes would be built on previous channels of water. Dessie Goodson stated that the trolley routes were revised due to • the high traffic on Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane as the trollies • • could not get in and out. She questioned why the Council would want to put something back which was already taken away. Mayor Mille;: stated that he had speaker cards from the following individuals who did not which to speak but who were in opposition • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 11 to the proposal: Sandy Kristoferson, Ray James, Richard Bragg, Marian Hutsell, Joe Samek, Walter Wells, William Benjamin, Mary Benjamin, Shirley James, Charles Tailant, Karen Connor, Janell Trachta, Larry and Tami Hall, Patricia Cukor-Avila, Sal Avila, Wanda Samer, Claire O'Hearn, David Pearce, Michael Skrnak, Leslee McMorrough, Mary Woodruff, Mark and Gina Replogle, Pam Storaci, Ron Wang, Terry Garland, Betty Garland, Frank Connor, Linda and Ray Stephens, and Douglas Ebersole. The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal. Hersman stated that he would propose one further change which would be a less dense change. The planned development would be changed to 7,000 square foot lots. The planned development lots would be eliminated and become SF-7. One item would need to be added to the list of conditions for the office zoning for no windows on the second story facing east. The square footage condition with the planned de• elopment would not apply as the lots would be 7,000 square feet which had a 1,600 square foot minimum conditioned on the plat. Denton averaged approximately 300 new home per year. This was a 6-8 year project and would be brought on very slowly. Denton needed 2400 lots over the same life span and he was providing 440 lots. He was meeting a need of Denton. The screening walls would be a choice of the neighborhood with privacy issues. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-016 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING FOR 136 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER 1 PARKWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY 16 (SF-16) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (O[c]), SINGLE FAMILY 7 CONDITIONED (SF-7[c]), AND SINGLE • FAMILY 10 CONDITIONED (SF-10[c]); 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 second ordinance which incorporated the earlier changes with additional changes as indicated by Dr. Hersman. The planned development would change to • 7,000 square foot lots with 1,600 square foot minimum homes and no 0 A windows on the second floor of the commercial property facing east. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Durrance "nay", Young J "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. • e City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 12 i 11B. The Council considered of an ordinance rezoning 136 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning district to the following zoning districts: Office Conditioned (0[c]), Single Famil,'1 10 conditioned (SF-10[c]), Single Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c)), Planned Development (PD) and approving a detailed plan for the Planned Development which was postponed at the meeting of January 7, 1997. The subject property was located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. This item was considered with Item 11A. VARIANCES I` 12. The Council considered approval of the following exaction i variances for Redgate Pecan Estates: Section 34-116(e) requiring li adequate water capacity for fire protection purposes and Section 34-116(c) requiring fire hydrants. The subject property was located partially within the city limits and mostly within the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the City of Denton. The tract consisted of 57.53 acres between US 377 and Country Club Road at Thornridge. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that there were two variances associated with this proposal. One was for fire protection capacity out of the water line and the second for fire hydrants. The proposed development would be served by a water line from Argyle. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval for both variances. A condition of the variances was that there would be no buildings within the city limits of Denton. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the variances with the condition. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA • Beasley motioned, Biles seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and associated ordinances as presented. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye,, and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 13. Tax refund to Fleet Mortgage Group for $730.55. • CONSENT AGENDA ORDINANCES i~ O ~ 14. NO. 97-017 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR • s City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 13 SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 01987) 15. NO. 97-018 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. (RFSP 11970) 16. NO. 97-019 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING AN INTERRUPTIBLE NATURAL GAS SALES AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND NATIONAL ENERGY & TRADE, L.L.C. FOR THE PURCHASE OF SPOT MARKET NATURAL GAS; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid 11971) 17. NO. 97-020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION EXPENSES FOR LAKE LEWISVILLE BY THE CITY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 18. NO. 97-021 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF CORINTH FOR THE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSITION OF DOGS AND CATS AND THE COLLECTION OF FEES PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 19. NO. 97-022 I AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT USE CONTRACT RELATING TO THE USE OF • UTILITY POLES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 20. NO. 97-023 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND THE GREATER DEN-PON ARTS COUNCIL, RELATING TO THE LEASE OF • • THE CAMPUS THEATRE BY THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AS PROVIDED IN THE AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 14 J 21. NO. 97-024 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HFALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON STATE SCHOOL ROAD AND KNOWN AS BRIARCLIFF PARK; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 22. NO. 97-025 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE DENTON PARKS AND RECREATION STRATEGIC PLAN WHICH PROVIDED FOR SPECIFIC INITIATIVES TO GUIDE THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH THE YEAR 2000; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 23. The Council considered an ordinance approving settlement of the claim of Jonathan T. Hodges. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 97-026 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM OF JONATHAN T. HODGES IN AN AMOUNT NOT EXCEEDING $30,000; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF IN PAYING THE SETTLEMENT, SUBJECT TO THE EXECUTION OF A RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS APPROVED AS TO FORM BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND DECLARING 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 with Council Member Durrance abstaining as he was not familiar with the material. • 24. The Council considered a resolution adopting a policy setting guidelines regarding the naming of parks and facilities. (The Parks and Recreation Board recommended approval.) Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that staff was seeking approval of a new policy for naming parks and facilities and parts of parks and facilities. This new policy replaced an • existing policy which had been used for some time but never • formally adopted. In February of 1996 the Council approved the naming of a room in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center. ~ At the time Council noted that the current policy did not address the naming of a part of a facility or the part of a park. It only addressed entire parks or entire buildings. Council asked staff to i • 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 15 review the policy to incorporate that possibility. During an examination of t.,e policy other problems were found such as how to rename a facility and the possibility to sign or mark a piece of a facility that was given. The Park Board would receive requests, make a recommendation through committee action and staff would brinq that forward to Council for consideration. Mayor Pro Ten Brock stated that the new policy stated that "upon approval, the recommended name would be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration". She assumed that that meant consideration and final decision. Hodney replied correct and that was the way that the policy had been working. Mayor Pro Tem Brock suggested including the words "and final decision" in that section. Council Member Biles stated that one item set a criteria for dollar values as well as a percentage as it comprised a part of the whole. The policy did not seen to allow for the process of citizens purchasing parts of facilities or parks such as a project similar to the brick pavers in the Downtown area. He suggested adding that to the policy. Hodney stated that there was an intention was to allow for that kind of project and to encourage as much participation as possible. Council Member Cott suggested a long period of time for a name change perhaps as much as six months before that change was made. Hodney stated that the Council could change the policy to whatever they desired. In looking at various policies around the metroplex, the period of time was no longer than 60 days and the proposal compromised with 45 days. Mayor Miller stated that there was a provision to involve the community which would take care of that. The following resolution was considered: NO. R97-003 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING A POLICY SETTING GUIDELINES REGARDING THE NAMING OF PARRS AND PARK FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING AN _ • EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. { i J c.. . • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 16 25. The Council considered an appointment of two City Council members to a Management Study Selection Panel. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that on January 14th the city received five proposals by qualified management firms to do the management study. The Public Utilities Board had selected one member of their board to be on a selection committee. The City Manager, Executive Director for Finance and he would be on that committee. Staff was asking for two Council Members to be on the committee. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that Council Members Beasley and Biles had indicated a willingness to serve on the committee. Cott motioned, Brock seconded to appoint Council Members Beasley and Biles to the selection committee. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 26. Nominations/appointments to Boards and Commissions. Mayor Pro Tem Brock had nominated Hark Dickenson to the Cable Television Advisory Board at a previous meeting. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried a unanimously. 27. Miscellaneous matters from the city Manager. The City Manager did not have any items for the Council. 28. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items. 29. New Business The following items on New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: • A. Council Member Hiles asked for a special call meeting accepting the resignations of the Board of Directors of the EDC. B. Council Member Bilee asked for an ordinance dissolving the FDC and an ordinance assigning the EDC's contract for marketing with the Chamber to be assumed by the City. • C. Council Member Young asked that staff work with Dr. • Kazura regarding flooding on his property. 30. There was no continuation of the Closed Meeting. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. k - • 0 • • a City of Denton City Council Minutes January 21, 1997 Page 17 JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACC0035F • I 'f I r i d; • • CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 28, 1997 The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 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, Durrance, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council 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 Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, January I 28, 1997 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Durrance, and Young. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered approval of a resolution authorizing the dissolution of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. ("EDC"); assuming the EDC's contract with the Denton Chamber of Commerce for economic development services and any other obligations of the EDC; directing the City Attorney to file Articles of Dissolution with the Secretary of State; authorizing the Mayor and City secretary to sign said Articles of Dissolution; and authorizing all other things necessary to dissolve the EDC. City Attorney Prouty stated that this resolution authorized dissolution of the Economic Development Corporation by authorizing the Council to execute Articles of Dissolution which would be filed with the Secretary of State. Upon the Secretary's of State issuance of a Certificate of Dissolution, the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc. would be dissolved. In addition, it authorized the Council to assume the current EDC contract with the Denton Chamber of Commerce for economic ! development purposes. The Economic Development Corporation Board had met this afternoon and passed a similar resolution of dissolution. r The following resolution was considered: NO. R97-004 ! A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE DISSOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DFVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF DENTON, INC. ("EDC"); ASSUMING THE EDC'S CONTRACT WITH THE DENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER OBLIGATIONS OF THE EDC; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO FILE ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY SECRETARY TO SIGN SAID ARTICLES OF DISSOLUTION AND AUTHORIZING ALL OTHER THINGS i . • I • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 2 NECESSARY TO DISSOLVE THE EDC; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution plus incorporate the changes as prepared by the City Attorney and that the assumption of the contract with the Chamber of Commerce would be extended at the present level of funding through September 30, 1997. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council considered approval of a resolution accepting the i resignation of the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Corporation of Denton, Inc.; and expressing appreciation for these Director's service. Mayor Miller stated that the Council had received the resignations of the Board Members on January 21, 1997. City Attorney Prouty stated that the resignations would be effective when all actions were completed necessary dissolve the Corporation. The following resolution was considered: NO. R97-005 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF DENTON, INC.; EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THESE DIRECTORS' SERVICES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the resolution. The Council Members thanked the members of the Board for their work and for the voters who took time to make their wishes known. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor ?filler "aye". Motion carried unanimously. • Following the completion of the Special Call Session, the Council convened into a Work session at which the following items were considered: FRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Beasley, Biles, Cott, Durrance, and Young. _ • ABSENT: None • • 1. The Council received a presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended September 30, 1996. f • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 3 Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that George Scott of Deloitte and Touche would present the report. Mr. Scott stated that several documents had been distributed to Council. The audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and with generally accepted federal auditing standards. A variety of tests were performed to make sure that the financial statements of the City were not materially misstated. In the firm's opinion, the City's financial statements presented fairly the financial position of the City as of September 30, 1996. A second document was the single audit report which addressed a variety of compliance issues with federal and state laws. The reports identified no situation which was a reportable compliance issue. As a part of the audit, the firm reviewed the internal control structure over the federal and state programs and the city as a whole. Those two reports stated that there were no situations which were felt to be a material weakness over the programs. Part of the audit was to render a report to management which identified forward looking control issues to enhance the control environment of the City. During the course of the audit, there were no disagreements with management as to the proper application of accounting policies and procedures. Throughout the process, the firm received outstanding cooperation with staff and management. The fourth document was a letter which was a statement of auditing standards. It was a required communication which summarized the role of the audit and of the auditor. In the course of preparing a financial statement, the City used estimates and accruals and the application of those were consistent with the previous year. The audit also reviewed the transmittal letter for consistency with the current financial statement. DuBose stated that this document would be available for public review. Page 19 through page 48 of the audit report were notes of financial statements. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about the difference in the roles of an internal auditor and the external audit firm. DuBose stated that the internal auditor looked at operations plus external contracts. The external auditor gave an independent opinion on • the City's financial statements. Scott stated that an internal auditor could vary from organization to organization. It involved more operational and compliance issues as opposed to an external audit. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff • direction regarding the 1997-98 City council budget priority O questionnaire. Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated staff would be sending to Council the budget priority questionnaire which was a listing of service areas. With those different service areas, the Council would provide two rankings. One would be the Council's opinion as to the • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 4 current effort in a particular service area. Whether to keep the effort as it was, increase it, decrease or do a new effort. A second ranking was a priority of those areas. Council Member Cott stated that only one year could be done at a time. He knew that Councils tended to think alike and asked if it might be beneficial to project three years all of the time. The first year was the only one which could be implemented but the other two could be followed. He felt the funds could be used differently and better if it was planned in that manner. 3. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the proposed annexation of a 286 acre tract located ! north of Brush Creek Road and east of HWY 377. (A-75) Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that as per policy, this property recently went through the Development Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning commission approved a preliminary plat in December. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations required a review of this type of development for a determination of whether to annex the property into the City. An analysis of the services which the City would provide as well as infrastructure needs from the developer was done and given to council as well as an estimate of a build out rate. Points in favor of annexation included increased tax revenues, increased control over the area, increased demand for this type of growth in the southwest corridor and an easier process to annex before development occurred. Denton's services would enhance the quality of life for this subdivision. Points against annexation included a higher than average response time for fire and EMS and an isolation of the site from the developed area. Mayor Miller stated that there were already some homes in the area which were in the city limits. Svehla replied correct that there was a small area already developed in the city. Council Member Beasley asked if fire and EMS services were provided to • that area. Svehla replied that the City did not provide fire service outside the City limits. EMS services were provided to particular areas. Police services were not provided outside the city limits. I Council Member Beasley asked if the area were annexed, would the • residents have to have city service or could they continue to use their • septic tanks and wells. Svehla replied that they could still build a septic system or could tie into the city sewer if available. • • w City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 5 Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that she would like staff to analyze those areas near the proposal which were still outside the city limits. She suggested a study for a schedule for possible annexations. Brock motioned, Biles seconded to proceed with the annexation. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the NASCAR Committee's activities surrounding the April 1997 NASCAR race at the Texas Motor Speedway. Jane Jenkins, Main Street Coordinator, stated that this would be a large facility and as it was only 15 miles from Denton, there was a need to determine how it would impact the community. In the fall a community committee was put together and it made contact with a consultant who had experience working with races. The consultant was hired to help with the process. Three subcommittees were formed to deal with promotions, marketing and special events. Promotions and marketing would be dealing with the media, printed materials and signs and banners. Educational information was being developed for specific businesses which might be impacted such as hotels, restaurants, etc. Two events were planned in connection with the first race. The Chamber breakfast in February would discuss the NASCAR track and what to expect from the race. On March 29th a large event would be sponsored by Miller of Denton in the parking lot of the Golden Triangle Mall. Issues dealing with transportation and traffic dealt with additional rent cars, shuttles, park and rides and expanded taxi service. Helicopter rides were available as an alternative to driving to the track. i%ll of the hotels were already booked for the race weekend. It was not known at this point in time how far the back up of traffic would be. The Committee was looking at alternative routes and signs and the impact on the Denton Police Department. A preliminary report indicated a $10,000 impact on the Police Department. In addition to additional traffic, there might be increased crime in the area. Council Member Young asked if the Black and Hispanic Chambers were involved in the events. • I Jenkins replied not at this point in time. Council Member Young suggested having those Chambers involved. He asked about having Denton's citizens working at the event. Jenkins replied that she was not aware of any active effort to secure • jobs at the track. The Committee was looking for volunteers for information booths at the track. • Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if there was any way of knowing how much this would cost the City. The. City would receive some tax rrvenue but was there any way to measure the benefits. It seemed that this was going to cost the City quite a bit upfront. • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 6 Jenkins stated that the only costs she was aware of were the costs which would be occurred by the services which the City offered and the additional police patrols. It was the Committee's understanding that there would be no increase in sales at the mall and Downtcwn area. The individual who would be here would go to the races, eat, sleep and drink in Denton but not provide other sales. Council Member Cott asked for a break even analysis and to show what could be done in the future. Council Member Beasley was concerned about increased costa for city services and paying for additional judges with these costs. Council Member Durrance asked if a projection had done regarding increased air traffic. Jenkins stated that there was anticipated additional traffic because of the race but that to date there was no increase in inquiry as to landing at the Denton airport. Mayor Miller stated that the race and its effects would be here and the City could not do anything about it. At this time it was not known how big the event would be. He thanked all for their efforts to begin looking at the aspects of how the race would effect Denton. He understood that the highway patrol would not police the area. He asked if that had changed. Mike Jez, Executive Director for Public Safety, stated that as far he knew, that had not changed. It was still the position of the DPS that they would not be actively involved in traffic control. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the planning. S. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding the extension of Scott Street. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that in the last budget, the Council had set aside money to build Scott Street and to buy the right- of-way for Scott Street. Two neighborhood meetings were held for citizen input regarding the proposal. There was not much input on which option to use. Staff felt the western alignment would be a better connection with the streets. A second issue was whether or not to build the street. If Council decided to not do Scott Street, it was recommended to take the money and still spend it in the area for a number of projects. ® O O Young motioned, Cott seconded to proceed with the Scott Street extension using the western option. This was an important road in the community and would provide better public safety for the well being of the neighborhood. Many in southeast Denton agreed with the extension. V • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 u..] e 7 Council Member Biles stated that at present there was $133,000 for Scott Street from one-time money. Svehla replied correct. Council Member Biles stated that if a crown span was used on Robertson and in order for quint clearance, there would be a need to lower the top elevation of the crown span. In order to do that it would be necessary to run the channel downstream. At present, the crown span was estimated to cost $500,000. To do the downstream channel work in order to achieve the underpass clearance for the quint at the railroad, would cost an additional $200,000. Svehla replied that final numbers had not been run yet but $200,000 would not cover ultimate solution. There would be additional costs which would be in the range of $150-200,000. Council Member Biles stated that if the $133,000 were used from the Scott Street project for the Robertson street situation, would it facilitate Robertson time-wi-ae and allow more room with the downstream project. Svehla stated that one of the items for discussion regarding Robertson was the ability to move ahead with the design of the crown span. With the scenario presented, the crown span could be built across Robertson to the channel. It would take time to design and build that project. In the interim there was a need to design some way to drain the water as the crown span would be too low for the existing channel. Another option was for more channel downstream with existing funding in thi CIP from the last year of the CIP. The crown span could be built in sections and then stop the project to determine how to drain the water out for several years and then ultimately build the channel. If the whole channel work had to be done right away, it might cost more than $200,000. If the Council did not want to build Scott Street and wanted to use that money for Robertson, the ultimate solution was easier in terms of timing. Council Member Cott felt that the same issues were not being dealt with. • He felt these might be two serious safety issues. He did not see these as competitive dollars. i Council Member Biles stated that if instead of building Scott Street, the money were use for Robertson, it would enhance the time and funding for Robertson and downstream. ® Svehla replied correct. • • Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that extending Scott Street would create a cut through for traffic and would create a safety issue for children in the area. A fundamental issue was whether the whole neighborhood was a valuable residential neighborhood. If the area were opened, it might open it for commercial development. For a number of years this I • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 8 community indicated that this was a valuable historical residential neighborhood. Much money had been put into the area to help make it a nice place to live. If this project was approved and the street built, it would damage the residential quality of the neighborhood. At a recent NICE meeting, there were complaints about trucks on Morse Street. Extending the street would make that problem worse. She had attended many meetings regarding this issue and she had never heard that Scott Street was a project which the community at-large wanted. She was concerned about traffic and the impact on the whole area. The children needed a safe place to get to the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center and to school. She suggested building sidewalks through that area. She urged the Council to not vote for the motion as it would do permanent damage to the area. Council Member Young stated that Mayor Pro Tem Brock was wrong on the issue. People were not afraid of this becoming a commercial area as it currently was multi-family. There were only homes in the area. People wanted to have greater access to the Martin Luther King Center and to the school. The residents did not want their children to walk through a trail in the area. He had heard that Scott Street was needed. The extension of Scott Street would enhance the quality of life in the area. In a twelve month period, the Denton Police Department had 270 calls in the Willowcreek area. one of the main reasons for that was because there was only one way in. Undesirables go in into places like that as there was only one way to get in. The road was needed for a better quality of life for protection in the area. Money was already allocated i in the CIP for the Robertson Street problem. It did not make sense to divert the money. Scott Street was in this year's budget the same as the bridge at the Civic Center. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that at the first neighborhood meeting about the extension of Scott Street, all of the people on Scott Street attended and were against having the street in the area. They were concerned about the increased traffic and the safety of the children because of increased traffic. Council Member Beasley asked about the process for the proposal. mayor Miller stated that this project would not normally require an ordinance and would not normally come back for Council consideration. r Council Member Beasley stated that she had attended both public hearings on this issue. The neighbors who lived there did not want the street. It would help with access to the area for police and fire but when the • neighborhood did not want street, it made it hard to vote in favor of • the motion. Those who lived there did not want thi street. ® • Council Member Cott felt that Council had to be very careful of renter versus owner. A person renting there did not have any investment in the area. I • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 9 I Mayor Miller stated that in this case, the people who lived there had children in the area. He asked if adequate police and fire protection was currently provided. Mike Jea, Executive Director for Public Safety, stated that ite~Ds such as streets had less of an impact on the Police Department because the officers were not working out of a building. Response time was dependent on where the officer was located when responding to a call. There were two quays to look at it in terms of one way in and one way out. Sometimes that did create a problem but on the other hand there was still only one way out as well. I Ross Chadwick, Fire Chief, stated that from a fire perspective, the area was within the target response time of five minutes. If Scott Street were extended, only a minute to a minute and a half would be added. Council Member Young stated that all of the people in neighborhood were not against the extension. Only two people spoke against the project. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that no one who lived on the street wanted the street. When the vote was taken, the people who lived on the street voted against it. ` Council Member Young stated that many people were undecided at the time. Mayor Pro Tem Brock was talking about a small number of people. Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that those who wanted the street were not at either of the meetings. Council Member Biles stated that he could not support the motion. Many months ago Council had had discussions about funding for the project. At that time, Council gave direction to use one-time funding to address the Scott Street issue. He saw at this meeting, a changing of priorities as a council Member. Scott Street now needed to take a back seat to the Robertson street drainage issue. The public safety issue of Robertson was more pressing than the Scott Street access. The Robertson underpass was more beneficial for the area. • Mayor Miller was concerned about putting a street through which could become a cut throuch in the area. He was concerned about the people who lived. He wanted the money to be used for drainage but to also have money dedicated for L, sidewalk to connect the area for those walking to the Martin Luther King Csnter and to Rivera School. on roll vote, Beasley "nay", Brock "nay", Cott "aye", Durrance "nay", • Young "aye", Biles "nay" and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 2-5 vote. • • Council Member Biles asked about the cost for sidewalks in the area. City Manager Benavides stated that staff could prepare an estimate on the cost to acquire the property and install the sidewalk and that the • • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 10 remaining funds could be allocateci for drainage. Staff would prepare a report on that estimate. Biles motioned, Brock seconded to direct staff to take a look at the acquisition of the land and installing the sidewalk and return the remainder of the balance to drainage. On roil vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "nay", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote. 6. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding Robertson Street. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the last time Council discussed this proposal, there were three different options presented. There was a concern with the crown span as it reduced the clearance in the underpass that would eliminate that as a route for the quint. Staff still felt that the way to build the structure was to eliminate any of the water in the underpass. At the same time, staff heard the Council's concern about the quint's access to that part of the city. Staff was still working on the numbers for cost estimates of the project. If the project could go to Skinner Street, it would be possible to change the channel bottom or provide an alternate piping system and ultimately build the channel lower with the crown span lower under Robertson. When the crown span was lowered, the clearance for the quint was achieved. Staff was seeking approval to continue with the design of the crown span at the ultimate lower grade for quint clearance. The final cost for all of the downstream channel work and for the pipe system was not known at this point in time. Staff was looking at various funding strategies and was suggesting looking at all those types of funding and bring a recommendation back to Council for consideration after review by the CIP Committee. Council Member Young asked if the design of channel would go across Bell Avenue with the creek on the west side and then run straight through the underpass. Svehla replied correct and that the pipe system would round out the corner better. • Council Member Young asked if the creek would be widened or would it stay the same size. Svehla replied the entire channel would be wider and lower. Council Member Young stated that that would create flooding at the 8 church and the small house at the 45 degree turn. j Svehla replied that that was why the downstream channel needed to be considered. council Member Young asked how long would the underpass be blocked. • ! City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 11 Svehla replied approximately 40-45 working days. Council Member Durrance asked if the proposal was to go with the crown span back or in reverse. What would be the order of projects. Svehla replied that it would take time to determine the engineering of th#e crown span. At same time funding scenarios would be studied. Council Member Biles asked if the downstream piece were added, would the Robertson underpass continue to retain some water if the first option were done. If the extra step were taken would there be any standing water. ` Svehla replied correct and that it would be better tr:kn it was now. As f` soon as the downstream improvements were built, the intersection would be dry. Council Member Cott suggested costing out the price for putting a fire engine in that location which would solve both problems. Council Member Young asked if the house next to the church would have to be removed. Svehla stated that staff had not been able to look at all of that yet. There might be room on the other side of the channel to widen that area b rather than on the church side. Council Member Beasley felt that Council was asking staff to go back to the CIP for answers. Council was looking to correct a drainage problem in that area and to provide an entrance for emergency personnel. Beasley motioned, Biles seconded to send the project back to the CIP and staff for an ultimate solution to the drainage problem, for access for emergency vehicles and for funding recommendations. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young flayell, Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye" Motion carried unanimously. 7. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff O direction regarding addendums to existing contracts between the City of Denton and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD): v a. Addendum to the Existing Water Treatment and Transmission Contract for Treated Water Service by Denton to the City of Sanger and by the District to Corinth and Lake Cities Municipal Utility Authority (LCMA). ! b. Addendum to the Joint Ownership and Operations Contract O Regarding Participation in the Sanger Transmission Lina. Howard Martin, Director of Environmental operations, stated that staff was seeking firection on two addendums to existing contracts between the • City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 12 City and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District. One was to the water treatment and transmissions contract which was approved in 1992. This addendum would identify the volume and the conditions under which the City would provide water to Sanger. The second addendum to the joint ownership operations contract provided the level of participation which Denton was proposing in the pipe line. Both worked in conjunction to provide water to the City of Sanger. The City was proposing to construct a pipeline from Loop 288/I35 up to a point on Milam Road where a metering point would be established and from that metering point to Sanger. Denton's participation in the pipeline would be the oversizing of the line from a 12" to a 16" pipe to the Milam Road point. The addendum to the water treatment and transmission contract maintained water quality integrity of the Denton water system by maintaining system separation. It established an emergency connect between the two systems and established the volumes to the City of Sanger. It identified a commitment by the District to provide revenues to Denton equal to the treated water sales revenues that would have been realized. The addendum on the joint ownership and operations contract established Denton's participation in the Sanger transmission line and its share of the regional treated water project. it identified the capacity and proportionate cost of the Sanger transmission line for each entity. It also reaffirmed the agreement to sell treated water to the District for delivery and relay to Sanger on a wholesale basis. Council Member Young asked if all of the money for the pipeline came J from the utility fund and none from the general fund. Martin replied correct. Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked about the necessity for having the water in separate systems. Martin replied that Denton was concerned about having Upper Trinity water going through its system. It was felt that in order to maintain Denton's water quality and system integrity, the water would first go into a ground storage tank to test it and to monitor it before repumping. That would be a fairly expensive procedure. In order to not expend those funds, a disconnect system was installed in the Lillian • Miller pipeline. That took District water directly to the customers and provided Denton water up the Sanger pipeline. By doing that, the r control of Denton's water quality was maintained. Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to direct staff to prepare the formal documents for adoption. on roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". _ • Motion carried unanimously. • 0 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. a.......rrwwar.~a~.4r • Ja f City of Denton City Council Minutes January 28, 1997 Page 13 JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I ACCO0360 J • f • ~ s e r I „ r ♦ e. l ApneAe No._ Agenda Ittelfn . Data_[~~1 CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING DENTON, TEXAS 76201 @ TELEPHONE(817) 566-8307 Office of the City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROMi Ted Benavides, City Manager DATES April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Request: For Exception to the Noise Ordinance for Denton Gospel Mission until 12:00 midnight on Thursday, April 17, 1997 and April 24, 1997. i BACKGROUND Alan Bias, representing the Denton Gospel Mission, has requested that the City Council grant an exception to the noise ordinance for the use of amplified sound until 12:00 midnight for two concerts, Thursday, April 17 and Thursday April 24. The concerts are scheduled to take place at the intersection of Hickory and Fry Streets from 7:30 p.m. until 12:00 midnight (Attachment 1). 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 public 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). In effect, the ♦ closure results in the loss of approximately eight metered parking spaces for the duration of the event. The property owners affected by the closure have signed the organizations request and no i opposition was noted. i PRQG.FAMS. DEPARTMENTS.--OR-GROUPS AFFECTED: ♦ Area Residents. ♦ ♦ "Dedicated to Quatip- Senice" A;1 ♦ C r,. ♦ S • • .r Fiscal Impact: Revenue from eight r^etered parking spaces. i Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: I Ted Benavides City Manager Prepared By: Veronica S. Rolen Administrative Assistant II Attachments: 1. Request from Denton Gospel Mission 2. Noise Ordinance 3. Request for Street Closure 4. Map CC: Betty Williams, Assistant to the City Manager • J I z • DENTON GOSPEL MISSION HOMELESS SHELTER INC. LETTER OF REQUEST TO: The City Manager FROM: Alan J. Bias Board Member Denton Gospel Mission Inc. SUBJ: Request for Street Closure The Denton Gospel Mission is requesting a temporary btreet closure of the "No Thur Traffic" portion of Ave. A. In front of the Karma Cafe, adjacent to the corner of Ave. A and Hickory St.. This is not the section of Ave A leading up to the intersection of Fry St. and Hickory St. This will not hinder the flow of traffic to the Fry St., Hickory St., Ave A St. Intersection. We would like this portion of street to be closed on April 2 Wth and 17th, from 7:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. This includes the time from, the beginning of set-up to the end of the free concert. We intend to have a live band performing from 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. The band will conclude at 12:00 a.m. sharp and clean-up will begin, The purpose of this event is to increase awareness of the Denton Gospel Micsion in the community and specifically among the students of U.N.T. This will be a free event and we will not be selling anything. We do not anticipate a large gathering of people. Typically, only a few people gather at one time and then they move on. • I have given a copy of this letter to business who signed the attached form. If you require any further information, please contact me at 387-0021. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely Alan J. las • ' - - • _ _ • • REQUEST FOR STREET CLOSURE Person or Persona RpueadN Street Closure: Alan Bias agartixeaore Denton Gosoel Mission Homeless Shelter Inc. (D.G.M.) Addrua: 715 Welch Street Plane Nunnber: 3A9-nn71 NamelPhone Number Ahensts Contact Person: Lucie A. Bias 387-0021 No Thru Traffic portion o ve n r Street To Be Cloud: Cafe, adjacent tothe corner of Ave. A and Hickory Street _ Cote and Trine To Be Closed: April 17 and April 24, 1997 from 7:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Intersecting Struts: Hickni-g aria ry crroat R. non For Clcsure : Live Music Pea r+ m-lat he secompanled by srgnstures of as affected property owners. IS" Attachmand Pluae list the rype acuvrbss to W conducted during the even: Free live music. A band will be playing, with information about O.G.M. given to increase awareness of D.G.M. THIS SECTION FOR STAFF USE ONLY VEPARTMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS APPROVING SIGNATUREMnE I CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FIRE DEPARTMENT - POLICE DEPARTMENT T RAN SPO R TAT IO NI ENG I N E ERI NG DOES THIS REQUEST REQUIRE: YES NO City Council Approval? i Exception to the Noise Ordinance? Parade Permit? • Other Conditlona/Requlrements7 - O Request Approved By: Narne/Title - INfMtrutbt M reewr r repen6 teNO e+sae M eraDUtr1 r rp.A11+e sewWnurD ION AaaM Droetrwa i - _ _ _ _ _ •r...,..... ~ , . rn■easa..F~'~..eat..FFawe■~pirl!MM • !Sl propwrf.wows ",oc tonontl Owed by tM rboof GIOwo:• MUTT a cwns vd and mN Npr plow wrdt w ndc~ or ,n hvw a ~n op"Odhort to fH f trMf tic"*. Noma of 9ro9w1, Owtwl Afftoom Awif Ooled flwl , Twtwtt of "N 1, fi rf 09pon 2 . -3T ~J~U /Elt ~✓C~ lV ~ ~TL4G. ~ ~ ^4,~ /i4 f f~/ 7. i t. S. b. 7. a. 9. 10. 11. , 12. 11. 14. 15. 16 . 17, 1 If. • 19. 20. - / 21. E 22. • O J 21 . _ j 26. 2s. - • • r! f y N Fy:€ I1 h: E.. i it 1{; ~/~r~ ~hI l ' ~1 ~9~ ~~L J I I{EE ~ Il ~ ~a I S5/y P~.{'~IIIf'I! n ~ll~,l ~~fll'€P 'Irll;`"fir N I' i~f~' II fI'I'INS r! h I €I f;r I,I IL- Vr~, qnl :'t:~l l'I': f!` r l .ri Mum I~Y iE I{ R"''I ' If K ! 'r~ '1 : : J I : I r r 111 : l r I kj I L 13 it I II I :II: Ii 3f~ J € E 'lill!i ~ I I' ~ ~ Ih~ i ~ :III I`I k ` I I• III{ Iii' ' ~pl ~ ~r 1 r~4 h r '!i II !,l ~6 N I"~ Fl Il. ppf~fri, : rhl .~'1'ja € ! (I€ fN~ : d~ I: € f f, x aa F I , yq, ~ ! !i I!~~r € ~rF fi' 1It I!~'I , I I ,n I , xl i r,. r I~ € Ilk,p NI' I I'f' fi d5' . ' '1.,_.ur' ! f ipy,i' : I ~ , il;,, I I !I+ r r ! r! ~4 GI{F} , a a IFldtihi,lul{45;~ WI HICKORY / rN~IE!!E!I r 4 hE~f ~I:~V'ILI r ~ , r,~+I ~ n ~ i~ n u a ''fr I r I . I'u'I~ fll~L 4 f as r!~ ! E 5,k firs€ilt ~ !I ,c , ! I I rill' I~a, ~I ! ~i t E:Ir 91 i1~~ r~.l? n l:I 'I'N! 1 F ,l f 1~ it fly I I Ir;!II'€„Il~,,ff~hf~llrll~rlll p II 1", It 6fI: {II 7~'~~iJ€r,+ € I I II+l :~'r I n€ i I,111:-ry r F h t { I{ ~,I~Ilkx€ F ~F Jl rN^I r : ti i'.L~~~Ilrhkx ,4+! I ,i h, E~ irh~ll 11 ,1f~~€ F li, T4 r N :I ?N IIl,3FU fF~F I I€. r aR f i N . h:l€r 'fJ : 11! '~:I !E f ,l I~~ry rL L ` f 4 A ~.a , k'li I 1 Ilrjf Jf r !I: I i~ I',I {~I Rrl'. PIT, I r i € !rl l~ nlr LIhI,E:! I N I.1 1 l F , Mid • : uh`!p I'a P.~: ;frl aI rf:f ,y, p r hl~lflw Idl~il ~ tr!, 5r €r 'ul,'P ! i jj ~,r I ! I1~'1~''Il~II Ip''t_!€~ki I: LLJ Jhll G ~ ~ ,61~~ IW^i' '~IIIE ifI~paM IR~4! ll8'~ ~ ~l 14 1 N 111YYY Y' i': ,~r~l, J' L ylar I{ l~InrI€ Mhrl: r Jlar!'Ir + rlr! rd rl I, Ill.. IyN';i r ' ~tl ir:: d11u`r M~Sk Q4 ~~[[w~! it !i r L€€r !Ifll'nI I+ir It r 1" r W' , ~ N'~Fa n• €I! ~ 4~d F~EyI! ` ! E~~a ~4 ' E ~~r h ~ : ! € x : { r r 'ref {I .991! ' € ill! ~I'rlj' °'i lu tl L ihf , 0 d r ( [I', r34y 11 ~ IJY ,P jr r r ui! JJ k j><~ ~ r k y €Ild~IH~I'~tflE~~l hr ,I i~hlnN '91,,~'~'~k ld'hl : . I r ! r ff : + r ,€a!€rC "I ~llrlr i€ r~rJ 6: ' %It Nli • • Apendo f:a,. 1 1 `Dl 3 i Agenda Item.( pn~ ` Data CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance approving a detailed plan of 16.047 acres in Planned Development 34 (PD-34) for detached, single-family residential development. The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Cristopher Drive. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (5-1). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: ,i See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GRQPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None, , • r ..w x • • Ii 1 j 1 Please advise it I can provide additional information Respectfully submitted: Rick Svehta City Manager i Prepared Uy: E Walter .Reeves, Jr., AIC Urban Planner Attachment #L• Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Ordinance (draft). Attachment #3: Draft minutes of March 12, 1997 P&Z meeting. • I- i 1 a; • • ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT j To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: April 1, 1997 Subject: Z-97.043 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Planning t? Zoning Commission 221 N. Elm Street Denton, Texas 76201 Owner: Mr. Art Kramer 5910 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1155 Dallas, Texas 76250 Action: Detailed plan for 16.047 acres of Planned Development 34 (PD-34). Location: The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive (Enclosure 1). Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: LOCATION ZONING LAND USE North: Sea Enclosure 2 Singe family rasldantfal use. South: Sea Endosure 2 Single family residonbal use. East: Sea Erxlosura 2 Vacant lend. West: Sea Enclosure 2 Single family residential use. Denton Development an: ow intensity Area N17 /o a ocate . SPECIAL INFORMATION The subject property is vacant and unplatted. Public improvements will include; streets, water and sewer lines, drainage, and fire hydrants. BACKGROUND The subject property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning district by Ordinance r 69-01, which adopted a new zoning ordinance and zoning map for the City of Denton. August 11, 1981 29.2125 acres are rezoned from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to Planned ® Development 34 (PD-34) by Ordinance 81-74 (Enclosure 3). The proposed use was 0 • for single family residential development on 6,000 squara foot lots. Page 1 • • ,r. w. f November 16, 1982 29.2425 acres are rezoned from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to Planned Development 34 by Ordinance 82.96 (Enclosure 4). The approved site plan is for single family residential development on lots developed to SF-7 standards, and 198 multi-family units. NOTICE Ninety (90) notices were mailed on February 28, 1997. Twelve replies have been received in favor, eight replies have been received opposed, and one reply was of no opinion. ANALYSIS The table below will provide a summary of the Plan related Pnalysi: for this project. Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Area Development Raling VS Polley POLICY COMMENTS a11111,s1"itly 90'""e'Y errorohlnl bCVUYI.e To be consistent with the Plan, a Aifocated Intensity . 063 Intensity trips. development should not exceed lb Proposed Intensity . 660 Intensity Irlps. X altocaled intensity, StrM site plan control within 1,600 tow density residential use within 1,600 feet loot of 6xistng low density Deteled plan proposed. X fasld9ntlal, Traffic design to ensure that Multi- Not applicable Famih or Non-Resldenllal k-ses have access to collectors or larger arterials with no direct access through residential streets, Sufficient green space, recreational None proposed. Park policy Is voluntary. facil itlos aM diversity of parka aro provided. Inout Into planning by neighborhood Neighbodood mea tlngs have been hold, assoclatbns and ooundts is al0ough this detailed pfan may not be the oneoureged. same plan presented at those meetings. Neighborhood service center Not appfcable. conC9nlratwn Nonresidential 'ti mile separation Not applicable. Any roan of continuous strip Not applicable, • commercial oavalopmant Is strongly discouraged in or near bw Intensity 0 areas Page 2 1 w ~,rc.nq...*,.,,q.... 7120 • • I . Required on Detailed Plan (Enclosure 5): 4. Acreage. The acreage in the plan as shown by a survey, certified by a registered engineer. Provided. 2. Land Uses. Permitted uses, specified in detail as determined by the department, and the acreage for each use. Proposed land use is for One Family Dwelling, Detached. 3. Off-site Information. Adjacent or surrounding land uses, zonings, streets, drainage facilities and other existing or proposed off-site improvements, as specified by the department, sufficient to demonstrate the relationship and compatibility of the district to surrounding properties, uses and facilities. I Provided. 4. Traffic and transportation. The location and size of all streets, alleys, parking lots and parking spaces, loading areas or other areas to be used for vehicular traffic; the proposed access and connection to existing or proposed streets adjacent to the district; and the traffic generated by the proposed uses. Provided. 5. Buildings. The location, maximum height, and minimum setbacks for all buildings, and if nonresidential, the maximum total floor area. Provided. 6. Residential development. The number, location, and dimensions of lots, the minimum setbacks, the number of dwelling units, and number of units per acre density. • Provided. 7. Water and drainage. The location of all creeks, ponds, lakes, floodplains or ' other water retention or major drainage facilities and improvements. Provided. Page 3 J- 1 • 10 0 s 8. Utilities. The location and route of all major sewer, water, or electrical lines and facilities necessary to serve the district. Sewer and water lines are shown. 9. Trees and landscaping. The location of all protected trees and a landscape plan as required by the city's landscape ordinance. Provided. 10. Open space. The approyimate location and size of greenbelt, open, common, or recreation areas, the proposed use of such areas, and whether they are to be used for public or private use. None proposed. if. Screening. The location, type, and size of ail fences, berms, or screening features proposed between different land uses or adjacent properties. No screening of adjacent land uses is required by the Landscaping, Screening, and Tree Preservation Ordinance. 12. Signs. Location, type, and size of all signs regulaled by the City's sign ordinance. None proposed. 13. Sidewalks and bike paths. Sidewalks or other improved ways for pedestrian or bicycle use. Sidewalk, is proposed only along the Mockingbird frontage. An application for variance has been made. If not granted, sidewalks will need to be shown on the detailed plan throughout the subdivision. RECOMMENDATION 0 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request (6-0). r ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval without conditions. i 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 0 4. Postpone consideration. 0 Page 4 6 i . i 0 ~ " - ! • - I , ATTACHMENTS 1. Location map. 2. Surrounding zoning. 3. Ordinance 81.74. 4. Ordinance 82.96. 5. Detailed plan. j e v - Page 5 7 r • • ENCLOSUREI ~x Z-97-003 Leta BEVERLY DRIVE ,.BEVEPQCQBIVB 1626 28M I --t 020 2805 l•T~ l ANYSA LN - _ _ :ANYg/1'LN \ n" , i I~e i1101 PWa l ~ I all SIT 3 HHOWAROC7 rT:HOwMP.~T__ 1 t 0 1616 `200 !yy 1230 IIII ,ays{ra4 J`.hil,~~'t~ti^J -i•:~iji~cr-y_~=: 110 0 Y00t Y906 P Q 2` 1~,' L f~>~ Yom' _ - - 1310 251 b 4212 • 2 a R.j.~ Y,~'` ftr y, C Y ~I 1208 Y5 1200 i J {L3~~r 4 p 1200 - w 1118 2000 2 r'. l}~ ?,61''1 TRAIC_-. 1010 000 s u 10 4 _N roaJlE8DR' cFwST o _P EAD II 21181 • p 001 r a M -~rP' Si 1 i ~ 8 001 ~ !00 i 6]3 fir' • ! 1 V Q • • • ENCLOSURE2 ~ v o1a 1 acw i + a. M a I I ff - - a N ; Ids 1 I I i I I LL ONO ITJ'/1~ 4 k A C l ~ 3 Y J I 1 di , °p ii .3* n a 6 pax ~Y crj ~ ' 9p 111 ~+t r - VA C,4 w ~ ~ ~ 113.18 a ' ; - R O O n ~ ~ cam in N\` Q a. co L' NNIN • • ENCLOSURE3 172 No. AN ORDINANCE 'AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OP THE CITY OF DENTON, TEARS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 59-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 29,2125 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, IN THE CITY OF DENTON, AND MORE PARTICw LARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1, The Zoning Classification ani Use Designation of the following described property, to-wit; BEING a tract or parcel of land situated in Denton County, Texas, and being in the M.E.P. a C.R.P. Company Survey, Abstract No. 1473, known as 701 Mockingbird, in the City of Denton, Texas; and containing 29.2125 acres of lands and being part of a tract conveyed by W. C. Grant, Jr., to J. C. Wilson recorded in Volume 33S, Page 512, Deed Records, Denton County, Taxes, and being part of a tract conveyed to Leroy Whitlock by the Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas, recorded in Volume 387, Page 554, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; said tract or parcel of land being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows BEGINNING at ■ point in the west right of way line of Mockingbird Lane, a 38.0 foot wide right of way by measurement, said point being 1180.5 feet south of the south right of way line of Audra Lanes said beginning point being the intersecting point of the said west right of way line of Mockingbird Lane with the north line of said Leroy Whitlock Tracts THENCE south along the said west tight of way line of Mockingbird Lane and along a fence line, a distance of 1259.19 feet to the south line of said Leroy Whitlock Tract, being point for corners THENCE south 690 45' 11' west along the south line of said Leroy Whitlock Tract and along a fence line a distance of 1041.1 feat to a point for corners being the southwest corner of said Leroy Whitlock Tracts THENCE north 020 31' 15' east along the vest line t! said Leroy Whitlock Tract and along a fence line, a distance of 1257.19 feet to the northwest corner of said ferny Whitlock Tract, being point for corners • THENCE north 890 42- 38' east along the north line of said Leroy Whitlock Tract and along a fence line, a distance of , 985.21 feet to place of beginning and encompassing 11272,497.4185 square feet or 29.2125 acres of land, more cc leas. is hereby changed from Agricultural 'A' District Classification Use to Planned Development 'PO' Ito be used for single-family residential development (typical lot size 60' X 100'1) District Classification and Use under the Comptshensive Zoninq ordinance • of the City of Denton, Texas subject to the following conditions and restrictions, to-wit: • 1-1501-JOSEPH BURRIS a • :ter ENCLOSURE3 173 1, The proposal for detached, single famlly homes 0n lots totalling 6,000 square feet in sire stall observe minimum requirements specified for Single Family (SF-71 development (e.g. setbacks(. The Zoning map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 19690 as an Appendix to the code of ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas under Ordinance No. 69-1, be, and the same is hereby amended to show such change in District Classification and Use. SECTION If. That the City Council of the City of Denton, •exas hereby finds that such change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the t~ City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration, among other things for the character of the district and for Its peculiar suitability or particular uses, and with a view to - conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, Q and encouraging the most appropriate uses of land for the Q maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citizens. SECTION 1Lt. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately after its passage and approval, the required public henrLngs having heretofore been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, after giving due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day 0_ , 1951. JA IC AAD IE WA , A CIT OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST B AAS MOLT, IT SECRETARY CITY OF DEN'TON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL roRxr C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNSY I CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS J f 0- (a LA 9--d Syr I Z-1507-JOSEPS BUPRIS l ..,...ww . I• -1w.r ~ k t.. x„xrlNYilue j • ENCLOSURE3 174 t Z -l5cy 1 ! •'u I N8.N1LLIAMSSfIRYt:y f H w~ ABSTRACT ' c • .t n.. N > N(kWR 1417 S 1 r I ~i Sr ii 1~'Q 1 „ 1wl f .VI _ . 1 ,4~Y wr •'t.tO r•.:': N . 1 ~ r ~ 1 © 1 fl T .I r I 1 C i' 1{ ! V t l` ~ l Q • JJCCG• q gnu ! , 0' .flesh . • ~ ~y or. Ix I , ~ ' ' • 1 t• l:. fill' ' P'~e',i~'-•-•~ ! 1µt^e ~ ~t+ 1 j 11 ,_V2 •fot'L`` rr•u9r 1~i ` _Ih--•_,! Spji..b2 . M t r. y.. I L tJJ' .f it Y~ 1 ri I ''r ♦ , I d.T. JI 7.-.r+I Q~l j ri O 1 !}~1 l 1 6- L{ tr t c,i T 1 ~`...■.rG-"L r i.~y i'tt-t1 ~x .e it-rr~..~ r i ~f • s I ENCLOSURE 4 129 No._9!r AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF CRDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO. 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES Or LAND OUT OF THE M.E.P. a A.R.R. Ci. SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1473 OF DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE FAATICULAALY DFSCRISED HEREIN? AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, HEREBY ORDAINS[ SECTION I. The Zoning Classification and Use designation of the following described property, to-wit: Lf) 0 Being a tract or parcel of land lying In the M.L.P. a P.X.R. Co. Q Survey, Abstract No. 1471, Denton County, Terms; known as 701 G Mockingbird Lane, City of Denton, Texasl and being part of a tract conveyed bt w. C. Grant, Jr. to J. C. Wilson, recorded in Volume 335, Page SL2 Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and being pact of ■ tract conveyed to Leroy Whitlock by the Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas, cecorded in volume 383, Page 554 of said Deed Recordsj said tract or parcel of land + being more paaticularly described by metes and bounds as follown BEGINNING at a point in the west right of way i:tee of Mockingbird Lane a 38.0 foot wide right of way by measurement, said point being 1160.5 feet south of the south right of way line of Audra Liner said beginning point being the intersection j~ point of the said west right of way line of Mockingbird Lane with the rgnth line of said Leroy Whitlock tracts THENCE south along the said west right of way line of Mockingbird Lane and along a fence line, a distance of 1255.49 feet to the south line of said Leroy Whitlock tract being point for ccrnecr THENCE adutn 89045'13" west along the south lim- of main Leroy W'nitlock tract and along a fence line a distance of :041.1 feet to a point for a corner being the southwest corner of said Leroy Whitlock tract? THENCE north 02031115" east along the west line of $aid Leroy Whitlock trait and along a fence line, m distance of 1257.19 foot to the northwest corner of maid Leroy Whitlock Tract being point for corner: 0 THENCE north 89042'38" east along tha north lint of mail Leroy Whitlock tract and along a fence line, a distance if 985.21 feet to the place of beginning encompassing 29.2175 acres of land, more or less. is hereby changed from Agricultural "A" District Classification Use to Planned Development "PD" District Classification and Use under the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of DentOn, Texas oubject to the following conditions S 1. The single family detached areas ahalI be developped 0 In accordance with building code and aonlnq ordinance requirements specifie3 for single fanlly "SF-7" development? 2-1543-CAPITAL CONSULTANTS-PALE ONE /3. W Oil ON- • • S ENCLOSURE 4 , 130 2. Adequate screenirg consisting of a living screen or a $is foot wooden fence shall be erected along any property line where multi-family development abuts singgle famllr residential housing, when the single family area Its developed. The Zoning Map of the City of Dalton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 1969, as an Appenlix to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, under Ordinance No. 69-1, be, and the same Is hereby amended to show such change in District Classification and vac. SECTION 11. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such change is In accordance with a comprehensive i plan for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable considaratlon, among other thInge •for the character of the district and for its peculiar suitability or particular uses, and with a view to conserving the value of the buildings, protecting human lives, and encouraging the most appropriate uses of ,and for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citltens. ` SECTION 111. f That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect Immediately after its passage and approval, the requlreA public hearings having heretofore been held by the Planning and Zoning - Commission and the City Council of thr City of Denton, Texas, after glvLng due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 16th day of November, 1981. 1 C1 OP DE~ TON, TEXAS ATTEST/ 1CRI WESTL G DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL POA4, C. J. TAYLOR, JR., CITY ATTORNEY • C17Y OF DENTON, TEXAS Byr C. s 1-1543-CAPITAL CONSULTANTS-PAGE TWO i~ • • ENCLOSURE 4 13i ~111y ~h ~ I ~I . 00 ~t - ! s ..s a Oil a s+ 0 1es s Ss a s o a a r fir: !I' • J O • ~1 0~ O • 9 • • 0: FI r 0. O I9 J O 1 9'.`~i O a' 0 0 i a I ~ A~erom 21ais P. D. r } w 1 1 I Y..r,/MI ,w .1 IN _ ti.' u, r. r _ 11 F . ANCX/MdQO L,tn'f .rLXYTAY R <ti r r... ry e • • ENCLOSURES I l ui~w. :~n-~tn•~a '.•.-n~~.o,.n r.n, v.no~.nnva 'ra.•w n.uu . nu-~Vr{t h'•. y.P irc-n• w a`N "0 N 7d 31IS Q3711~130 fI W[tl F•L~ -3'd60YMJI 0r3 xpS lily tt~l •y M~ ~.I, ~~rN NK i I 0340 'dN00LJlKd077A30l7PY5 Nlr~d d y p nrr~.! 'nlNno S1HOf3H3d1r7738 i ,E :I ~ ; i i Wz~e ~ E~ s 11 II 1 1 1~ Z W Ada ~1 fll~I.ll~ f;; J a ..li.J• }'ar M Y•!~ IN ♦ dr. .y t.~N MI 14 .,,...•r__.. .I-.'_~Ht...~r'daTa_:_~.~5_J ~_i...-~z+.....cn.,. y - -i 3N M70dIB0N01~0lY. R i J33 ! ~ I rt ;'~I ` ~ r J.- E F I ! I , r vuasr7ir r X"A IV- R=-~`~I` 1 _ A R oynr .,~.u ruw un XDO N.W9 f h ? ~ ,Y rIYA .h 'KO M'•.r r.r4 OMkrL. 7/! 71 7~•~' nv !•V -F-1 rnu ItM • • ATTACHMENT 2 I , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE DETAILED PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 34 (PD-34) WITH RESPECT TO 16.0453 ACRES, AS SHOWN IN THE ATTACHED DETAILED PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MOCKINGBIRD LANE, NORTH OF CHRISTOPHER DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY 1N THE MAXINIUNI AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. W H EREAS, Mr. Art Kramer, has applied for epprovat of a detailed plan for 16.0453 acres described in Exhibit A, and located within Planned Developmer.. 34 (PD-34), a planned development district established by Ordinance 82.96; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested detail plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this detailed plan will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That Ordinance No 82.96 as it relates to Plam, d Development District 34 (PD-34), a planned development district comprising 29.2125 acres of land, is hereby amended with respect to 16.0453 acres of land located therein, and more particulariy described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporate, terein as Exhibit A, by adopting a detail plan for said 16.0453 acre parcel, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B for all purposes. SECTION 11. That the provisions of this ordinance, as they apply to the 160453 acres described by Exhibit A, govern and control over any conflicting provisions of Ordinance No. 82.96, as it relates to the subject property, but all the provisions of said ordinance as it applies to the remainder of the planned development district not herein amended shall continue in force and effect • and shall apply to the remainder of said district i SECTION Ill. That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 82-96, showing the amendment herein approved. SECTION IV. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon • conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is • • J violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be • published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1497. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 1 . T,updaVzMO da PAGE 2 , * Q7". Niv 0 • EXHIBIT A ALL THAT CERTAIN LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IM THE A. E.P. 5 P.R.R. COMPANY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMLtR 1473, CITY AMU COLNTY OF DENTON. TEXAS) SAID TRACT BEING PAX? Of THE TRACT DESCRIBED IN A DEED TO CAPITAL CONSULTANTS CORPUAATIOM, TAVSICE AND PECOND"D IN VOLUME M. PAGE 715 OR THE DEED NRCOPDS OF DEWTON COUNTY. TEXAS, AND BEING AORt PAMTICULAPLY DEFCNIPED AS FOLIAM$7 BEGINNING, POP THE MONTHLXST CORNER OF THE TRACT BEING DESCPl OED NERYIN AN IRON PIN SET FOR CONNEN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE CAPITAL CONSULTANTS COPPOPATIUN TPAC'T, SAID POINT BEING IN THY MOST RICNT-OF-NAB Of MOCPINOU)PD IJHX AS PAEFCNTLY OCCI'A II'D; BEING NORTH 59 DECREES 14 PINUTES II FECUb L'S FAST 1.92 FETT FPfM TFtE SOUTHEAST CORNER Of LOT 55, UIOCV N VY NELLPIPE 4MA75,PRASE F1VF, AN AUDITION TO THE CITY OF 0l:NTDN AS PfCONAFO IN CABINET 0, PACK 211, PLAT RLC'OPDS Of DENTON C1'UNTY, 'FFAAFt TIIAPCE SOUTU 00 DECRIES 00 AINUT65 :6 SYCOWDS EAST AlkHr IRE WFST IINE Of 40CRINCBIND LANE A DISTANCE OP 591.20 1XET TO AN IRON PAN SFT FO! CO/NEN7 THENCE SOUTH 19 DEGNEES 14 MINUTES 17 SECONDS MEET PASSIBO AT 11.96 FEET THE NONTALAST CONNCR CF LOT 11, BLOCS IV OP 11FLLAIPE HEIGHTS, PHASE THREE, AN ADDITION TO TNt CITY OT DENTON AS RICONDED IN CABINET D. PAGE 152, FLAT FCCOADS US UENTON COUNTY, TEXAS AND CONTINUING ALONG THE NON" bOUNDAAI DINE OF SAID BLOCK IV A TOTAL DISTANCE OF 14/.X0 YX17 TO A 61, T FOUND IN A FENCE Cl, ER7 THENCE SOUTH 64 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 26 SLCONCS CYST ALONG THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY LINE OR SAIC NLOCX IV A BISTANCE OF 121.61 FEET TO AM INCH PIN POUND CON CORNER; THENCE SOUTH 11 OKGAEF,S 10 011MV79S 51 $CCVNDS EAST ALONG THE 60UT11WEST SOUNOAAY LINE OR SAID FLOCK IV A DIFTANCR OF 1X0.25 YLL'T TO AM IRON PIN rXND ?CA CORNER AT THE 501-7111NIST COANLA OF LOT 1. BLOCK 2V IN THE MONTH RICNT-OF•NAY OF CHPISTORUtN DRIVE; THENCE SOUTH it DEGREES MINUTES )7 SECONDS NEST ALONG 5MX WORTH XIONT-OF•NAY OF CNPISTVPIIIR DRIVE A DISTANCE OF 114.54 FELT 70 AN IRON PAN SET FOR CORREN IN THE LAST BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT I, BLOCK 1 OR NELLAIRE SLIGHTS, PHASE THREE AND IN THE WEST RIGHT- OF-MAY OF PACE DRIVE] THENCE NORTH 02 DEGRERS 34 MINUTES 03 6f{OMDS LAS? ALONG THE UST BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 A DIHTAXCt OF 19.11 FEET TO AN IRON PAN SET FOR C'OMWEAI THENCE SOUTB S$ D6GRtXS 11 MINUTES 37 $:CORDS NEXT ALOM) THE NORTH bOUNDAXT LINE OR SAID LOT 1 A DISTANCE OF 100.12 FEXF TO AN IRON PIN FOUND ROP CORNEA AT TSS NORTNWE0 CORNER OF SAID LOT I AND IN ?MD NEST BOUNDARY LINE OR SAID CAPITAL CONSUI.^,ANTS C'ORPON06TIOll TRACTS THEACL MONTH 02 ORCPCLS 37 MINUTE/ 16 SPCOXUS EAST ALONG THE WVS1 0011HANY LDMC OF NASD CAPITAL CONSULTANTS CORPORATION TRACT AND ALONG A FLNCE A DIFTANCB OF 131.36 FtET TO AN ]ROM PIN FOUND FOR COPNEP AT A PENCE CDNNERI THENCR NORTH IR DEGNEES 11 MINUTES 11 SECONDS CAST ALONG A FCNCX, VASSIMC PT 166.91 FELT THE SOOT01`47 CORNEA OR LOT 61, BLOCK B OP • DILLAIVE BEICNTS, PIIA3„ FIVE AND CONTINUING ALONG TILL SOUTH DOONUA)Y IIMF OF SAID P7.OCP DA TOTAL DISTAMC'V. OF 961.05 F7.)T TO 169 VO.NT OR UF'CINNING AND CONTIIMING IN ALL 11.015) ACRES OF IAND. / SVAVF FI'R'S CERTIYICATE TU RESOLUTION 71 'T COMVCRATION. AS CONSLPVATON Of SI'NNLLT' EEDERAI. SAVINGS, -,P. AS TPANS►RNLC Of RESOLUTION ?MUST D TI LE Cff VCR OC NONDPL SAVSNGS, FSb AND SOV TIIVESt f LAN TJCC LAND TITLE CA NY off I'-30 or S DCNSVM IANO. 1, 6ANY M. FAAMETT, DO HFAF'.BY C'EPT11'Y THAT 'MIS SIIAVtl WAS THIS • DAY HAUF. ON Ti'E GPOUNO OF THE I'NUPXRTY DE$CMIAEU IIENFOM AND TIFFMt AIR NO IVISIPLEF CNCMDACIIMENTS, PNO?PUFIOWS, DVL'ALAPPDNO OH IPPROVEMEN I, LASEIIENTF, FACEIT AS SHOWN HINFoX. I i CAA A ^ , ~L. / ~►.W ~~i~'i OAAI N, FIAAFMATf ~ iN 1819 A~•h • • • I I I I../A Y.111v /AI.I•. ow lo. J.rr ro olerar ~ i IJ ..\.~.nu w..•r. i 1 I I ~Y~•u W I .I ..gl~,l;Llf"!~"!i"!I" "!1'11'!1'.1'.1• . I, I a: 1 1' L._.:i - a .E Foor- i. ' f I Ja i 1 V I n y , . i„ r .I J I~, j ~ i J i I I ~ i rr. w.►~..r w m..... T ~ IL 1 .J I. i ~ I, ~.rYT.w..'~. r•. ri. rrL w. 4 „ i II l 1 - i 1 -111FIT F-I 1r-,I r a i E - l I+{ yS 1{III ~*0'y I1 ulq a fp {q !n II.~I ,.'IM ,,n tJ~! fti~:p i r I,• J~ 1~ f L~ ` -=n - ' I - i -J L L + I (I ~~t~ _ I ~ _ _ ..LL y 1 ~ ~~.li j •J r `II ' n ! 111 , ~I ~Ls~ I 1.• ^If 1 I,I I u Wed. J01ol,oll pop 1 Ml W [1SO r ! - - - ' - ,leant, Lu If {I , ~ ~ ~ ; T.I. a i 'J~I~T 1 11 II { MI M i 1 ~ 1`- 4 EIGHTS ~c - - - -sr«►oowtwoavr,.L J i t 8ELL41REN PHA GE IV ni. 1 w'w i 4' 7N t .I ` - I ~aterJr~meauar I A . ` . , I an a•aortwt wKrorawn. rua, ~•~~-,J~,.,IJ III; • • P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 March 12, 1997 Page S = ! of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalk construction for Pellaire Heights, Phase II be denied as there is a reasonable connection between the sidewalks and the need for the development. Ms. Schertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) d. ]fold a public hearing and consider a detailed plan for 16.047 acres. Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. Mr. Hal Kemrite: My name is At Kemrite and my address is 625 Pace Dr. Is it right thlt you approved above ground drainage? Nis. Russell: Yes sir we did. Mr. Kemrite: Does anybody really understand the seriousness of the drainage problem that we have out there and the danger it represents to the children out there? We have a large culvert out there and the bottom of that property is very low and something needs to be done about it, Nis. Russell: Yes sir, I believe we understand and I believe that most of us have been out there hJ to look at it. We rely on our city engineer who spoke to that issue and advised us. Mr. Cochran If I may make a suggestion, a good place to bring that up would be at the Capital Improvement hearings. Nis. Russell: That hearing will be on March 26th and we welcome you to come and discuss this. Mr. Reeves: This is Z-97-003 which is a detailed plan for eighty-four lot single family detached development on the west side of Mockingbird, approximately two hundred and fifty feet north of Christopher Drive. There are only two policies of the plan that really apply to this request. One • is the intensity allocation and the other is the strict site plan control within sixteen hundred feet of existing low density residential. This is consistent with both of those policies. The allocated , intensity of the property is nine hundred and sixty-three intensity trips and the proposed intensity of this project is eight hundred and forty. The site plan policy is met because that is what we are doing. We sent out ninety notices on February 28th and as of this aftemoon we have received five in opposition, ten in favor, and one with no opin;on. We have received at least two more that are • in opposition tonight. It is not at twenty percent right now. This is proposed to be five thousand J square foot lots with two story homes. his. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Greg Edwards: My name is Greg Edwards and my address is i 116 Sandpiper. Basically we have had some meetings with people from the neighborhood and we shnwed them the plans for the subdivision. We are trying to meet many of the concerns in the property as it relates to ai. _ f4l" s • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 Page 6 zoning. There are development issues conceming the property and we are still working on those. I understand that there are drainage concerns because this land is very flat. I worked on the subdivision next to it and it was a challenge to get the water drained. By down zoning this from multi-family to single family we should be reducing the potential drainage. By doing the channelization and directing the water we can try to address the concerns of the neighbors. I read the concerns of the neighborhood and worked on a plan that would make this property marketable for the property owner and also address the concerns of the neighborhood. I feel that we came up with a pretty good compromise. Ms. Russell: Are all of these homes going to be two story? Mr. Edwards: I don't know. We don't have a particular builder in mind. SF-7 allows for two stories and that is what the adjoining property allows. We just want the same option as our neighbors. We are anticipating that this is going to be a lower dollar product, eighty thousand to a hundred and ten thousand dollars. Ms. Russell: I believe there are some two story houses on Howard Court and the rest are One story. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition? have the following cards from Nis. Marilyn Cartamore, 1200 Oak Valley doesn't wish to speak but says that she only wants single family One story directly behind them. Linda Strube, 1100 Oak Valley, she wants only single family One story homes in PD 34. Michael Cartamore, 1200 Oak Valley, wants only single family One story houses on existing streets to the rear. Ms. Betty McCoy: My name is Betty M~Coy and my address is 1112 Oak Valley. We are in the East Oak Addition and we are the last street running north and south. `;'e are opposed to the way PD 34 w Ms. We do not want two story houses behind us. They would be looking down in our yards and we would lose our privacy. We do not mind two stories in the it terior but we do not ~ want them on the perimeter. We are also concerned about the Lone Star Gas line easement. Are they going to be building on the gas line'? There have been several explosions across the state and we are concenA about our safety as well as theirs. We have been there for a year aid we would like to have our privacy. Mr. Cochran: What your rear setback? A Ms. McCoy: From our property line to the back of our house is about twenty feet. r Ms. Russell: Mr. Reeves when you make your final remarks would you address the gas line. Mr. Hal Kemrite: My name is Hal Kemrite and my address is 625 Pace Dr. I would like to give O a little history. This PD 34 started with a hundred and ninety-eight apartments. It was developed 6 0 according to a 1982 plan and they were trying to develop it in 1996 with those codes. In October the owner called together the principals in this community association that we had established and three people attended. At that meeting the owners said that they probably could not build these apartments and they proposed a rezoning. They presented a plan with sixty-eight lots. Tonight they are presenting a plan for eight-four lots. That is a twenty percent increase over what we were shown. We don't feel that this is in harmony with the neighborhood. tea. • • t P&Z Minutes i March 12, 1997 Page 7 J-• Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Ms. Sue Houghton: My name is Sue Houghton and my address is 712 Diane Circle. Our house is ten feet from our fence and if they build ten feet from their back setback, that's not much backyard. Can you make the zoning so that along the outside it would only be one story? Mr. Svehla: Members of the Commission, I believe you can because this is a PD and you could consider that as a requirement as part of the final detailed plan. Ms. Cindy Bighaus: My name is Cindy Bighaus and my address is 2800 Christopher Dr. My reply was the one with no opinion and I was waiting to hear more information. I am pleased that we are looking at changing this to single family. I am concerned about the two story. It is not going to affect me as much as the others. W.- talked last summer about trees but they take time to grow and they are not always green. I hope that we can come to some agreement and we are moving in the right direction. I have One comment about the meeting that they called. It was during the day and Mr. Kemrite went for me. I am a school teacher and I work during the day and could not take off to attend. 1 think when meetings are called it should be planned around those people who work. Not everyone is retired. Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else that woulJ like to speak in opposition? The petitioner has five minutes. Mr. Edwards: The initial meeting was to look at going from multi-family to single family. In reviewing our initial plan, Choice Homes is doing some homes on fifty-five foot lots in McKinney. They have four house plans that would fit this project. We did send out a letter in January advising them of the new plan and the increased lots. We heard from one of the neighborhood representatives and they did not have a problem with the new plan. They were concerned about the two stories. The people that are concerned about two stories have the same option for their property. We feel that we have made considerable compromises and we just want to have the option for two stories. Mr. Cochran: You said that you are looking at some similar homes being built in McKinney? Are they One or two story houses? • Mr. Edwards: One of the plans is for a two story house, the others are for a single story house. Normally with a two story home it is set farther from the rear property line because the depth of the building is a little bit less. Mr. Moreno: What if we were to restrict two story hones to the interior of the property, it would _ • still be possible to have thirty-six two story homes. Would that degrade the marketability of the O O property? i Mr. Edwards: We don't know who is going to want a lot along the perimeter and who is going to want a two story house. It could cause a problem and at this point the owners don't feel that is acceptable. Ms. Russell: We will close the public hearing. Mr. Reeves please talk to us about the );as • • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 Page 8 easement. Mr. Reeves: There is a gas easement that runs through the property. The applicant is required to show all of the setback lines and the detailed plan does show that there will not be any structures in that easement. There is nothing that we can do about people planting gardens over the gas easement or tilling their garden. WWe will not issue any building permits for easement. The required rear yard setback in all of our residential districts is ten feet. Mr. Cochran: I am a little uncomfortable with a ten foot setback and a two story house. Could we increase the rear setback for two story houses? Mr. Reeves: Side yards in SF-7 is six feet and the proposed side yard for this plan it is five feet. All of our residential districts allow for two and a half stories. I understand the concern about two stories but the vacant lots in the surrounding subdivisions could have two story buildings. Mr. Cochran: Do you see any problem if we increase the rear yard setback to twenty-five feet for the lots with two story houses? Mr. Reeves: The setbacks represent the building envelope and if you increase the setback then you are decreasing the building envelope and the ability to place the building cn the lot. There could be some potential problems with the layout on the lot. Mr. Cochran: What 1 understand is that the maximum coverage is fifty percent? Mr. Edwards: That is correct. Increasing the building setbacks limits the architectural features that you can have on the house. Mr. Cochran: l move that we recommend approval of the detailed plan for 16.047 acres of PD 34 with the following condition: Lots 18-32, Block A have the condition attached that the rear setback for a two story house be twenty-five feet. Mr. Moreno: Second. • Mr. Jones: We have our ordinances and regulations for Single Family-7 and we are now adjusting that to make some concessions for an existing neighborhood and I understand that as well. How that we have done that then we have to look at Block B because they back up to other lots. 1 am not discounting the concern but where do you draw the line? We are over regulating now and I will not be voting for this. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. • Motion fails. (2-4) Opposed Ms. Ganzer, Ms. Russell, Ms. Schertz, and Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones: I move we recommend approval of the detailed plan for 16.047 acres in PD 34. Ms. Schertz: Second, ` Ms, Ganzer: I am going to vote in favor of this. As Mr. Edwards did state, the surrounding ay • • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 Page 9 neighbors could have built two story homes on their lots. We have made it a point to ask developers to get input from the neighborhoods and I have talked to severpl developers that have had meetings during the day on purpose so that people who were working could not attend. I think this is underhanded and I would like to see some developers work on that and be more fair minded towards that neighbors, Ms. Russell: I would agree with that. I will vote in favor of this because I think the market place will dictate what is built on those lots. I think that will control what is being built and I think that is the way it should be. I understand the loss of privacy but I also don't think the person building the two story house is going to want to see into your backyard. Mr. Moreno: I am going to vote against this, not because I am opposed to the development but because 1 am disappointed in our lack of respond:ng to the concerns of the neighborhood and our lack of compromise. Mr. Jones: 1 think the developer has done a good job of compromising and redesigning this and trying to take the concerns of the neighborhood into consideration. I see a tremendous amount of cooperation here on the part of the developer. i Mr. Cochran: I appreciate the tremendous amount of down sizing of this project from what we first saw. It is a good faith action on the part of the developer. 1 know that there is a lot of fear involved when you have something new going in next to you. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5.1) Mr. Moreno opposed. V. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with regard to the annexation of a 285.57 acres tract located north of Brush Creek Road and east of Hwy 377. (A-75) Ms. Russell opened the public hearing. Mr. Persaud: This tract is located on the east side of Hwy 377 and the north side of Brush Creek • Road. You will recall that the Commission approved the preliminary plat on December 11, 1996 showing a hundred and forty-two lots in this location. There is a requirement in the Subdivision Regulations which requires staff to conduct an annexation study and report to the City Council when developments of over five single family lots are proposed in the city's ET). We started this process back in January. City Council gave staff direction on January 21, 1997 to proceed with this annexation. We have had two public hearings before the Council and we are now hear to get your recommendation, • Mr. Svehla: I would just like to add that Council has reviewed this as Harry said, and reconunended to move forward. Staff sees this as beneficial to the city and is recommending it. his. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the annexation? i Mr. Glenn Monroe: My name is Glenn Monroe and I live on Brush Creek Road. I would just as: • • Aoanda No, -01-3- - Agenda Item Date CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance to rezone 1.97 acres from th; Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light lndustrial (LI) zoning district on property located on the south side of West University Drive, approximately 600 west of Cindy Lane and also known as 3921 W. University. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request (6.1) at its meeting on February 26, 1997. SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND; See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. I PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: • i -Do Ana Bateman Senior Planning Technician • Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from -ebruary 26, 1997. • • Attachment #3; Ordinance. d • • ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING; COMMISSION REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: April 1, 1997 Subject: Z-97-001 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Richard Gibbons Starting Over, Inc. 531 Londonderry Suite 100 Denton, TX 76205 Owner: Caro( Greaves 2460 F.M. 2001 Buda TX 78610 Action: Request to rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. Location and Size: The subject property consists of a 1.97 acre tract located on the south side of University, approximately 600 feet west of Cindy Lane. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: LOCATION ZONING LAND USE North: Agricultural (A) Cross Timbers Girl Scouts, vacant land, and Veterinarian. South: Agricultural (A) Vacant Land. East: Planned Development Single Family residence. (PD-97) for C and MF uses. West: Agricultural (A) and Vacant Land, CBS Mechanical, and gravel storage. Ught Industrial (LI) • Denton Development Plan (DDP): Moderate Intensity Area #113 (77% allocated). SPECIAL INFORMATION The property is not platted and platting the properly will be necessary to divide the tract into two or more lots, as proposed. The zoning on the property will not effect the requirement to , • plat. Public improvements needed to support this development may include the extension • 0 of sewer lines to the property, one on-site fire hydrant, sidewalks, turn lanes, easement dedications, and possibly extensive drainage improvements. These issues will be addressed during the platting phase. i Page 1 Mob SIMAWN6 • • BACKGROUND October, 1970 = A portion of the property is annexed into the city limits and given the zoning classification of Agricultural (A). February, 1984 = The remaining portion of the property is annexed and zoned Agricultural i (A). NOTICE Eight (8) property owners were notified of the request on February 13, 1997. As of this writing, one reply form has been returned in favor and two returned in opposition, totalling seventeen percent (17%) opposed. ANALYSIS The table below will provido a summary of the Plan related analysis for this project. Denton Development Plan i Policy Analysis Summary Moderate Intensity Area Development Rating vs. Policy POLICY COMMENTS S-grdc r V sonewnet Cons*t" Inconsistent InconCsters To be coraisterw with lM Plan, a Allocated "amity - 630 trips (Existing) daveiopmerd should not exceed Ils Actual traensdy . 153 trips (Proposed) X allocded ktarrally. Moderate centers are located al the I IMersect'on of two pri nwir artsrlas and The property abuts a primary aAer;al 1 d strdegic locat'ans abutting a freeway stree4 University Drive Is also defined as x s are sexed y mils a date funded prinwy aAerlat highway, we e 2 s maximum of spa ml. These canmtws ers s' 60 acres. Diversity: Land Use diversty shall be defined as uses other than Nra dcminwd The proposed use It for • hatlway land uses In the area such as house,Vedrrwnt fasildy for Alcohol W4 X commercial, retail, light Industrial and narcotic pdierns. Of1Ke, Divarsdy Bonus: An Intensity bonus for mixed use developments that Include Not applicable • pubic or noTprold community hPe rocoo es or uses. r CommerciaVralal limned to 1/3 of the Less than 113 of the center is X total acreage of the canter. commercial"RoW use. High Denslly Housing: a Tranedion between lend uses. a Vacant to the west and SF to out • e Access to arterial streets a Access is to one Moral street. X a Concenlydion d 750 unI sa maximum of 6 bedroom u"s. • • e 112 M14 sepmdion, a LI toning wd" 112 We e Sde cosign, a No itch olan has bean submited' Page 2 NEW r • Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Moderate Intensity Area Development Rating vs. Policy POLICY COMMENTS SignMk:avy somewhat cons,sl.m Inc onslslenl Incondsl ent Low deusy residential voce should be prdsded by strict ate design cortrd Low densty residential adJaunt on the x with setbacks. perking, buMerhp, and oast side of the property. landscaping requirenwnh. Strip Commer,;lsl: The irtensMy d the plan Is to encourage centers of actlvlies Not Applicable. and to discourage strip comnwcW. Location d proposal In relation to public facddies avelabie to property. x existirg or proposed public fac0eies Sn considering the disproponlontle share allocation of Intensity, the Planning and Zonlog Commfsslon and City CouncM should oonslJer the following Items, but are not Wild to these Memo. Surrounding Land Use Surrounding uses include: Single Famly to the east; vacant to the west and Correwc W/General Retail to the norLti Drainage is a concern wth Line majorty d the prop" in the floodplain. A drainage, Topography, study would need to be conducted. during Iles planing stage, to "vie adverse ' reedans to adjoining propMies. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request, i ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the request. 2. Approve the request as submitted. 3. Approve the request with other conditions. 4. Postpone consideration. ENCLOSURES 1. Location Map. • 2. Surrounding Zoning Exhibit. 3. Surrounding Opposition. 4. Zoning Schedule of Uses. • 0 • i Page 3 j rr i n ~I • f 3921 W. Univ filt~p ENCLOSURE i Loo A Z•97-001 - I3850~J, 1 1 1918 1813 5912 1913 1913 I 1912 1A ~'m' 1907 1■07 11906 d , ■ 0 1901 ! 900 39N '.5 L3 8 3 A 4728 I - - - _ uauc m - _-g " ~ ,■9 - 1go r 907 X007' ■ 13 3807 3801 4000 ■ ■ 33 1 4728 390% 0 I - 3901 3812 evtasmcs - - _ 3808 3808 183 01 S7 13 3105 ■ 420 19 - - 3815 311 0 2520 SITE i f lip, • • • NO WA -Al ■ R e ~l z Kv" ago LI G - N ■ LI LI -_w_..____._ A as ■ al - • 'now LI o .m PD A o - 84 e • 3921 W. University/ _ ENCLOSURE 3 Z97-001 0 1 University Drive VAAA ~V`VA VAA;AA AA VA ~A: ~A A~~ AA\AA . SITE Area of opposition to i l • • ENCLOSURE 4 § 35-77 DENTON CODE X DESIGNATES USE PERMITTED er DI.`;MCT INDICATED. h DESIGNATES USE PROHIBITED IN DISTRICT L`-DICATED. S DESIGNATES USE MAY BE APPROVED AS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. SECTION 35-106 ET SEQ. A SFIls SF-113 SF-10 SM 5-F MP.R 347•1 10~y1 p OAA O N'3 CR C Ce Lt HI PD ?YPL USL „c s.a ~c ao°d F F sdV ??V ?V -rV '.o VyQr,, 3`O 00 ? ~yl Su e ° i -z Z€_€ 6Z TO. ! ° ZV y~ gt s 73: i3 01 eg 8F ~3'+ Fl530 Fg N 1J R soh e cc cc 0e 00 Xei? o n a ox~ 0 zw ux 00 e c Mo ° E PAEMARY RLSm LMAL t3 E5- OA'L-m%uy DR'ELLLNG Dr, TACKED % % X % X % % I X % % ON'L rAM[LY %TLLLNG AF TACKED S J 3 3 E I X X % % C%t,FAMILY DIVELLLVO M 5TRICTED x x x X x x x Ta'OFAMILYD%ELUN'O x x I x x X MULTIPLE-rA.MILY DWELL x x x x x NO OR AFARTW." COfMIMTY UNIT DE1i6 OPMLNT S S S S S S % % S X x i I X I DORMITORY IOAADLNG OR x x % x % R X % AOOMNO HOLSL x MOTEL OR MOTEL 3 x % Mx x ts TRAILER CAMP OR Mosaz 3 S HOME PARK C EDUCATIONAL, WSIiTUT10NAL AND SPECIAL USES UT C; RI YOR MUS ELM 3 S 3 3 ! 3 3~ 3 x x x x x x x x x CEMETLAY OR MAVSOLr U'Nt 3 S 3 S 3 ! 3 3 S 3 6 S x x x x CHLRCH OR RECTORY x x x x x X x x x x x x % x x CLLLLOLORLNAtRST'OR S PRIVATESCHOOL S 5 E S 3 E S X X X X x x X x CO.LLMUNITY CENZLR 1PU6 LICI x x X x x x x % % R - CQRMCSIO,7ALFACILrr1L! J J J X DAY CAMP ! S ! 3 S 3 ! S ! x x X OAY rt1fRSEAT OR xINDER f J S S S J ! i J X R i i x x k 11 GAAYEN SCHOOL rMTERNITY. SOROAITY, ! • LODGE ON MIC CLf A E E f S E S D S X OROLP KOMLS x S S E 3 x x x x x x X x x x % HALPM'AY HOUSE ! E S E E ! J E a ! % X I Mr or x HOME rOR CAAE Or A.,CO HOLIC, NAACOTIC OR PSY~ E S x x x x x x CHIATAIC PATIEN73 HOSFrTAL LNTRLL ACL7 E S J 3 S x x x x x x X x x CARE) Q HOSPITAL ICHRONIC CAPLI 3 S E ! ! x k I i I I X x 0 IN3TITIi IION'3 Or RLLI~ CIDUS OR PHIMSTHROPIC X S E f S E S J R x x x k % X I VArvu 'Note-See Ordinance No. 85.156, which permits the u3torcertata rwdeotial uses in nonresidential dGtrlcta if an application for a building permit b made oD or before December 31, 1988. Supp No a T • s I P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 February 26, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Powell: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) III. Consent Agenda: The following item is recommended by the staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of staff recommendation. Approval of the consent agenda authorizes the staff to proceed with each item in accordance with the staff recommendation. a. Consider the final plat of DISD 3rd Middle School. The subject property consists of 13.351 acres, is in the Single Family-16 (SF-16) aid Light Industrial (LI) zoning districts, and is located at the end of Jason Street, south of Londonderry Lane. Mr. Powell: I move approval of the consent agenda. Mr. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) IV. Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning a 1.8 acre tract from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district. The tract is located on the south side of University Drive (U.S. 380), approximately 600 feet west of Cindy Lane. (Z-97-001) Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure and opened the public hearing. Ms. Bateman: This property is on the south side of West University. This property is a portion of what used to be the miniature horse farm. This property is where the house and the barn are located. Mr. Gibbons with Starting Over, Inc is the applicant and he is requesting Light Industrial zoning for the purpose of a half-way house and narcotic treatment facility. The property is a little less than two acres and is in a moderate intensity area, number 113 which is seventy-seven percent allocated. The property has not been platted and since it is going to be subdivided it will have to • be platted. Some of the improvements that will be discussed are fire hydrants, turn lanes, easements, sidewalks and all of the other issues associated with the platting process. A portion of the property was annexed and zoned Agricultural in 1970 and the remainder of the property in 1984. We sent out eight notices to property owners within two hundred feet. We received one reply in favor from the owner of the property and two replies in opposition. In reviewing the analysis the property is consist_nt with the Plan. Moderate intensity areas are located on two 0 primary arterials, or at an intersection. The reason why I checked that as being somewhat 0 inconsistent is because that particular piece of property is not located at an intersection even though the moderate intensity area is at an intersection. The reason that the high density housing was j somewhat inconsistent is because they can have more units than what the applicant is proposing which is six units. At this point in time the applicant has no plans to do any construction or additions to that property. i • • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 C Page 3 Nis. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Sir. Rick Gibbons: My name is Rick Gibbons and my address is 723 Schmitz. We have received a grant from the Conrad Hilton Foundation to purchase a house for the purpose of building a residential treatment facility for a~_vhol and drug abuse for women and women with children. We have a grant from the Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse which we have only been able to moderately utilize because the grant that we wrote was based on opening a half-way house or a residential treatment facility. At the present time there is no similar facility in Denton. I think it is greatly needed and I think it will be an asset to the city. We want to buy a house because we don't want to institutionalize these women and children. I am the Executive Director for Starting Over, Inc. which is an outpatient drug a.-id alcohol rehab. It is located at 531 Londonderry Lane and we have been there for approximately three years. We are chartered through the State of Texas and we are a non-profit organization. Nis. Russell: What would be the maximum number of people that would be in your facility at one time? Mr. Gibbons: We are looking at the maximum being twenty people and one fourth of those would be children. There are six bedrooms in the existing house. There is a large bedroom upstairs that could be set up dormitory style. We are also looking at the garage and either turning it into office C space or an extra bedroom. The maximum length of stay would be about three months. The first month of stay would be for residential treatment and they would not have to worry about working. We will also be taking people from primary treatment as a half-way house. It is based on the twelve step program. We also expect that in the last rrknth of their stay they would be establishing themselves by getting a job and putting together enough money to go out on their own and becoming independent. Initially my intentions were to make this a half-way house. The Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse discontinued those so we had to be licensed and certified as a treatment center adhering to all of their regulations. , Mr. Powell: If this is accomplished will this property remain on the tax roll? Mr. Gibbons: My hope is to take it off the tax roll because we are a non-profit organization. • Mr. Cochran: What is the time frame on the grant? i a Sir. Gibbons: The Hilton Grant is based on our performance. They want us to come up with a model program that can be used on a national level. This facility will try to get their continued support. • Mr. Cochran: The reason that I am asking is because this zoning change is permanent and I am just • • trying to find out if this use is going to be permanent. Do you have male patients as well? Mr. Gibbons: We do have men in our outpatient program but this will be specifically for women patients only, Mr. Powell: Where is the nearest Light Industrial? c ._1 • 0 • • 0 P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 4 Nis. Bateman: It is just to the west. Also PD 97 that is to the east of this property is approved for both commercial and multi-family uses. Mr. Powell: Why are they requesting Light Industrial zoning? Is there not another zoning that this use could be used on? Ms. Bateman: Based on the zoning ordinance this is actually two uses, a half-way house and a home for the care of narcotic and alcoholic patients, when the two are combined then the lowest most restrictive zoning district that this would be allowed in is General Retail. Mr. Cochran: What other type of uses would be allowed in Light Industrial zoning? Nis. Bateman, Other residential type uses would be a dormitory, rooming house, hotel, or motel. Commercial related uses would be the most intense. The heaviest use would probably be the mixing and sale of concrete, or light manufacturing. Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? Mr. Larry Bailey: My name is Larry Bailey and my address is 3819 W, University. I own about six and a half acres and my property is the directly to the east of this property. We bought the property in 1992 and I thought my property was already zoned for Light Industrial. In 1996 1 found out that is was zoned PD 97. Mr. Gibbons did come to my home to discuss this and he did a very good job presenting it. I have mixed emotions about this. We need these kinds of facilities, It sounds like they have their financing which is one of the things I was concerned about. We do have Shalom Today which is an alcoholic treatment place and their parking lot is always full. I have a steel fence that separates my property from this property and I am a little concerned about their people crossing the fence. Mr. Gibbons has said that he will takr, care of that situation so with that I would like to say that I am for it, but that I do have some reservation, Dr. T.K. Hardy: My name is Dr. T. K, Hardy and I have the eighteen acres across the street from this. I have been there for twenty-eight years and 1 have always tried to be a good neighbor. When I met with Mr. Gibbons he didn't tell me that it was drug and alcohol rehab. I am a State ® veterinarian for the Texas Racing Commission and 1 have to travel. I am looking out for my wife. All of the drugs that people take were first tried on animals. There is no way of knowing how each person is going to react to drugs and what it will take to help them. The place down the road has really been good for the alcoholics in town and you don't hear anything from them. It is a half a mile away and there are one or two small homes near there. Over here we have Ranch Estates and it has been here for thirty-five years. We don't have any trouble here and that is the way that we • would like to keep it. I don't want to deprive anyone from being rehabilitated or helped, but I am • J selfish enough about the value of my land and 1 don't want this across the street from my property. Nis. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition? Would the petitioner care to speak in rebuttal? Mr. Gibbons, regarding the financing, have you closed on the property? Mr. Gibbons: We haven't closed on the property, it is pending the approval of the zoning change. • • P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 5 T,ie money is in escrow and we have until June to purchase property and get started. The grant is for two hundred and fifteen thousand dollars which is in an interest bearing escrow account. Ms. Russell: What will you do about the fence on the east side of your property? Mr. Gibbons: There is a pipe and cable fence between the properties and there is also a chain link fence on our side. What I told Mr. Bail:y is that we could set up a DMZ area and that anyone that passes that and leaves our facility would be subject to arrest for trespassing. Ms. Russell: Will there be staff there all the time? Mr. Gibbons: Yes. We have to have one staff person per twelve clients so there will be at least two staff members there all the time. Ms. Russell: Will your patients go someplace before they come to you? Mr. Gibbons: Our policy is that they would have to be sober for at least seventy-two hours. Our plan is that they would stay at this facility for three months. Ms. Schertz: Would it be possible for someone with a criminal record to be at your facility? ` ~I Mr. Gibbons: We screen people involved in violent crimes and they are not allowed at our facility. We don't take parolees either. Mr. Jones: You said that there would be women and children there. What is the age limit for children Mr. Gibbons: The children can't be older than fourteen years of age. This is not an adolescent treatment center. Mr. Cochran: Dr. Hardy brought up a point that a lot of people feel concerning drug abusers in society. We do need to have places for folks with problems. Are there any statistics conceming centers such as yours and any criminal or nuisance problems? Mr. Gibbons: I have worked for four years in the City of Dallas at a residential treatment center. We were always a good neighbor and never had any problems. Our goal is to blend into the ' neighborhood. Ms. Russell: Will there be any signs? O • O ? Mr. Gi'k,)ns: There will not be any signs. Our intention is to keep it low key and a family type of setting. Mr. Cochran: Will the people be there because they want to be there or will they be assigned there? ~r. • Y P&Z Minutes February 26, 1997 Page 6 Nit. Gibbons: It is an open door policy and the people will be there because they need to be there. It is strictly voluntary. Dr. Hardy: From this place to the place on the corner it is less than a half a mile. If there are going to be twenty people in this house that is going to be full. This house is twenty-four hundred square feet. Ms. Russell: 1 asked the applicant what the maximum number of people there would be and he said it would be twenty people, fifteen adults and five children. He also said that it would bedormitory style which is different than my house or your house. Mr. Bailey: To the best of my knowledge there is about thirty-six hundred square feet in the house. As far as location, myself and Dr. Hardy are the closest and it would be hard for them to get across the street. 1 think this is probably as good a place as they are going to find to put this type of facility because there aren't very many houses in the area. Ms. Russell: We will close the public hearing. Are there any final remarks. Ms. Bateman: With the two replies we received in opposition it is at seventeen percent opposition. Staff recommends approval. C Mr. Cochran: I can understand both sides of this issue and I personally had some concerns about zoning this to Light Industrial. When 1 found out that Mr. Bailey bought his land assuming that it was Light Industrial then that took away that argument. I can understand the feelings of Dr. Hardy because there is a lot of fear about bad things happening and a lot of those are associated with drugs and alcohol. On the other hand we do have to deal with the problem and it appears that Mr. Bailey is in favor and it is in his backyard. Mr. Powell: 1 plan to vote against this because I don't think it is wise Io put two treatment facilities for drug and alcohol so close together. Mr. Moreno: 1 am sympathetic to Dr. Hardy's concerns but I can't help but feel that a facility of this nature will be good for the community. • Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of Z-97-001. Sir. Moreno: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. _ • Approved. (5-1) Mr. Powell opposed. • • V. Hold a public hearing and consider a detailed plan for part of Planned Development 14 (PD-14). The subject property consists of 0.549 acres, and is located on the south side of University Drive (U.S. 380), approximately 850 feet west of Old Norn Road. (Z-97-002) Nis. Russell opened the public hearing. !a. • • A1\z-97-001.0RD ATTACHMENT 3 i ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 1.97 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY SIX HUNDRED (600) FEET WEST OF CINDY LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Mr. Richard Gibbons, on behalf of Starting Over, Inc, initiated a change in zoning for a 1.97 acre tract of land from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on February 26, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the change from the Agricultural (A) zoning district and use classification to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district and use classification; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 1.97 acres of land described in Exhibit A is changed from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to the Light Industrial (LI) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is hereby amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION III_ That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and d.stinct offense. SECTION IJ. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City • Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance ; • 0 to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. I~ ~3 ~ I 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: der j i • t ~ • e /;6 • • EXHIBIT A. 1.97 ACRES, MORE OR LESS FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the William 3ryan Survey Abstract Number 148 of Denton County, Texas and being all of the 2 acre tract described in the deed from John L. Davidson to Eleanor Jean Davidson recorded in Volume 832, Page 816 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas which is also a part of the called 6.000 acre Tract I described in the deed from Ben M. Durr et ux to Tony Greaves et ux recorded in Volume 1234, Page 506 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas; the subject tract being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING for the Northeast corner of the called 6.000 acre Tract I also being the Northeast corner of the eaid 2 acre tract at an iron rod on the South line of the right-of-way of U.S, Highway 380; t THENCE South 00 Degrees 00 Minutes West with Lhe East line of the 2 acre tract a distance of 485.1 feet, more or less, to a fence corner post at the Southeast corner thereof and the Southeast corner of the 6.000 acre Tract I; THENCE North 88 Degrees 49 Minutes West along the said fence with the South line of the 6.000 acre Tract I a distance of 177.2 feet, more or less, to a set nail at a fence corner; THENCE North 00 Degrees 06 Minutes East along the fence severing the 6.000 acre Tract I a distance of 481.5 feet, more or less, to a fence corner post at the Northwest corner of the 2 acre tract in the South line of U.S. Highway 380; THENCE South 88 Degrees OD Minutes East with the South line of U.S. Highway 380 a distance of 176.4 feet, more or less, to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing , 1.97 acres, more or less. i • slh jd59/97D14 .r ji Oil • • Agenda No. Agenda Item Date CRY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance rezoning 11.40 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject property Is located approximately 1,500 feet south of Robinson Road, at the DenlWCorinth city limit line. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the request (6-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: J Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT, None. • • Et~ I Please advise 0 1 can provide additional information Respectfully submitted: 1,0 6 Rick Svahla City Manager Prepared by: Walter E. Reeves, Jr., AICP Urban Planner Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #i2: Ordinance (dreft). Attachment #3: Draft minutes of March 12, 1997 P&Z meeting. i j ' i t, j `E •w~wr • • ATTACHMENT 1 i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: April 1, 1997 Subject: Z-96-026 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: The Lexington Group 5646 Milton Street, Suite 421 Dallas, Texas 75206 Owner: Timberglen Co. 5910 N. Central Exwy., Suite 1470 Dallas, Texas 75206 Action: Rezone 11.40 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. Location: The subject property is iocaled approximately 1,500 feet south of Robinson Road, at the city iim is line (Enclosure 1). d Surrounding Zoning and Land Ilse: LOCATION ZONING LANO USE D North: See Enclosure 2 Largo lot residantal. vacant tend. South: Sea Erdosura 2 Vacant land. East See Enclosure 2 ResidentaRy used land in Rw Gy of Corinth. West See Enclosure 2 Vacant land. DDI enton eve opment an: ow intensity Area # e a ocate . SPECIAL INFORMATION The subject property is not platted. The proposed route of Loop 288 runs through this property, a substantial portion is in the floodplain, and no direct public access except I • that provided through a subdivision in the City Corinth. The property presents considerable challenge for development. I ~ i BACKGROUND The subject property was recently annexed (February 18, 1997) by the City of Denton. As with any annexation, the subject property is automatically placed into the • Agricultural (A) zoning district. • • J Page 1 3. f • i C NOTICE Six (6) notices were mailed on February 28, 1997. No replies have been received. ANALYSIS The table below will provide a summary of the Plan related analysis for this project. Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Area Z-96-026 Development Rating VS Policy POLICY COMMENTS s«+wW ca"u sxa,w r.,t tan.M.e To be consistent with the Plan, a Allocated Intensity . 684 Intensity trips, development should not exceed its Actual Intensity . 479 Intensity trips. X allocated Intensily. Strict site plan control within 1,600 Tt:are Is resldenL'al use within 1,600 feat of x feet of existing low density the project, rasidential, Traffic design to ensure that li Not appricable, Family or Non-Rssidenbal uses have access to collectors a larger x arterials with no drecf access through residential streets. _ Sufficient green apace, recreational Noe proposed, The Gtys current ; 16 faeiirnes and diversity, of parks are regarding the donation or parldand is aid. i provided. voluntary. Input Into punning by neighborhood No neighborhood meeting has been held. associations and councils Is encouraged. Neighborhood service center The site Is 1 f A037 acrss of proposed SF-7 concentration developmenL This policy Is not applicable. Separation Not Applicable - My form of continuous strip Not Applicable. commercial development Is strongly discouraged In or near low Intensity areas 1 • Localron The property is located approximatafy 1600 feet wain or Robinson Road, on ue r DantWCorlnth city limits. Robinson Road Is classified as a Secondery Arterial, and the future a8gnment of Loop 288 will be in this area. r Topography About half the subject property Is In on undefined Ilood:one. VrMe not a topographic feature, to property had no droct aoass to any city of Denton sh, Page 2 E k , . 1. i i i i I RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request, subject to the following condition: That a ten foot wide bufferyard consisting of a six (6) foot wooden fence, as well as six (6) canopy trees and ten (10) understory trees per every 100 linear feet, or part thereor, be constructed in the required setback along any Loop 288 frontage. Said bu feryard is to be installed at the time building permits are issued for each individual lot having frontage along Loop 288. ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend approval without conditions. 2. Recommend approval with additionaltother conditions. 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone consideration. ENCLOSURES 1. Location map. 2. Zoning map. { i i t i _ Page 3 f S E • r' • • • Mir 4r 4 • ws m 'ej 4' nf'r•`r.', LAC. / ` • ~ ~wr K:i1 -/~:1LG1.'m'r ~sr uM wvmrw .FE&L$ A r L'ja~ / w1~..~Cw. rtiw ` m rrw.n,.,i^-~b:T.',~?'•r.--.... r.. w_.r..,..w~.. rw.+.w.~.~ 9 J i i w... nrn i ZONiNC EXHIBIT i i 11.10 ACRES BERRY NERCHAN I SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 000 CITY OF DENT , DENTON COUNTY. TEXAS I gyn. I • r POST, avC[ILY. ww.'wwra~ .w.r sr.nmw~ o • mom ! JE R, NIGGAF.IN^. w~6riLwr. w.n ww wain .r wri r...rrr.rr.r.ra r • • a i1 -P 40, 100 i S 35 F-7(c) wkj 9 or II ETJ ' ' . ICI : . ' I~ C*4 - A _I I I A PD I •t • ~ l A • • ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO A SINGLE FAMILY 7 CONDITIONED (SF-71CI) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 11.40 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET SOUTH OF POBINSON ROAD ON THE DENTON/CORINTH CITY LIMITS LINE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIIIIUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Lexington Group, on behalf of Timl,erglen Co, owner of the subject property, initiated a change in zoning for 11.40 acres (Exhibit 1 located approximately 1,500 feet south of Robinson Road from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on March 12, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a change in zoning from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c]) zoning district classification and use designation, and; F WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this change in zoning district will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, 7 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation I i 40 acres is changed from the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to a Single Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[c]) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following condition that a ten (10) foot wide bufferyard consisting of a sir (6) foot wooden fence, as well as six (6) canopy trees and ten (10) understory trees per every 100 linear feet, or part • thereof, be constructed in the required setback along any Loop 288 frontage. Said bufferyard is to be installed at the time building permits are issued for each individual lot having frontage along Loop 288. SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning / district classification 0 SECTIQ'q III That any persco violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon • conviction, be , , sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall conbk • a separate and distinct offense. 0 r - 0 • I • SECFION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WATERS, CITY SECRETARY t BY: a APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L, PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY J BY: • Twpd,n'Z%26.bK 2 • .~C I EXH1BIT I ATTACHMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING a tract of land out of the BERRY MERCHANT SURVEY, Abstract No. 800, in the City of Corinth, Denton County, Texas and being part of the 441.7629 acre tract of land described in deed to Oakmont Canadian Land Partners, Ltd., recorded in Denton County Clerk's File No. 94-80003975 of the Real Property Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a 112" Iron rod found for the southwest corner of Robinson Road 180' ROW) dedicated to the City of Corinth, Denton County, Texas by plat recorded in Cabinet E, Slide 278 of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texas and the easterly most northeast corner of the beforamentioned 441.7629 acre tract; Thence with the west line of the sold 441.7629 aaa tract, South 03'39'46' Wsst, a distance of 1275.48 feet to a 112" Iron rod found for corner; Thence continuing with the said west line of the 441.7629 sere tract, South 03'05'30' West, a distonce of 176.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE leaving the west line of the said 441.7629 acre tract, the following courses and distances to wit: South 03'44' 15" West, a distance of 719.41 feet to a point for corner; North 86'55'29" West, a distance of 690.54 feet to a 618" iron rod found for a corner of the said 441.7629 ' acre tract; f THENCE with a westerly line of the said 441.7629 acre tract, North 03'44'15' East, a distance of 719.41 feet to a 112' Iron rod found for corner; THENCE with a northerly line of the said 441.7629 acre tract, South 86'55'29' East, a distance of 690.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 11.40 acres of land. F Q0 rZOOpSALW03a.MLL • If • i •Y- ..1 - • I , 4. IBM- i r.r rr-.p n L. -SaT • • P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 March 12, 1997 Page 2 DIF AFT Nis. Schertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand, Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Mr. Cochran: Concerning the change in the rules, as I understand the new rules it is no longer necessary to publicly announce what items are on the consent agenda? Nis. Russell: That is how I understand it but if there is something that you want to discuss we can still remove it from the consent agenda. Mr. Cochran: At some point I would like to discuss that issue because there are some implications to that I didn't think of last time. III. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to rezone 11.40 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject property is located approximately 1,500 feet south of Robinson Road, at the city limit line. (Z-96-026) Nis. Russell real the rules of procedure and opened the public hearing. Mr. Reeves: This is case Z-96-026 and it has been on hold for eight months while this property was annexed into the city. The annexation was completed a few weeks ago so now we are here i taking care of the zoning. This is a pretty straight forward request, the applicant wishes to rezone this property from the Agricultural zoning district to the Single Family-7 zoning district. The property consists of slightly more than 11.4 acres and is about fifteen hundred feet south of 1 Robinson Road right on our city limits line. Staff recommends approval with one condition. We are putting in a condition for a bufferyard for any lots that will have frontage along the proposed Loop 288 extension. A portion of Loop 288 will run through this property. This property does f not have access to any City of Denton street. We covered that last year when it went to DRC and the Engineering Department made a recommendation to take access from another subdivision in the City of Corinth. That is a detail that we will work out through the plat process. • Ms. Russell: Woula the petitioner care to speak? Nis. Amy Homoly: My name is Amy Homoly and 1 am with Post, Buckley, Schoe, & )emigan and I am representing the client, which is Lexington Properties. We have talked with TXDOT about Loop 288 and it is fifteen to twenty years out. We are currently working on our preliminary plat. We are looking at getting our access through a subdivision in Corinth. • Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in O O opposition to the petition? Any final remarks? We will close the public hear;,1g. Mr. Cochran: Are you aware of the extra condition concerning the bufferyard? Ms. Ilomoly: Yes we are and there is a portion of this property that is in the floodplain so that will work well with the bufferyard. e • P&Z ~sinutes March 3 12, 1997 11 ,i JLJ A FT Page J Mr. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of this single family request rezoning 11.4 acres from the Agricultural to the Single Family-7 zoning district subject to the following conditions that a ten foot wide bufferyard consisting of a six foot wooden fence as well as six canopy trees and ten under story trees for ever hundred linear feet and part there of be constructed in the required setback along any Loop 288 frontage. Said bufferyard is to be installed at the time that the building permits are issued for each individual lot having frontage along Loop 288. Ms. Ganzer: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. L Approved. (6-0) r IV. Planned Development 34 (PD-34). The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive. (Z-97-003) a. Consider waiving the $175 fee for variances of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. Mr. Reeves: At a previous meeting a request was made to waive the thousand dollars fee for the I® detailed plan for this piece of property as well as to waive any variance fee. The Commission did grant a waiver of the thousand dollar fee but left the variance fee question open for a later time. At this point we have not received any kind of reason that we could support for granting a waiver of the variance fee. Staff recommends that it not be granted. Mr. Cochran: I would agree with the staff recommendation. It would be nice to have a reason to give away goods and services. In absence of any I would say that we should go with the staff recommendation and not waive the fee. It is not a prohibitive fee at all. I so move. Mr. ]ones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) b. Consider a variance of Section 34-124(f) regarding drainage design. c. Consider a variance of Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. Mr. Salmon: Our ordinance requires an underground piped drainage in this instance. The • subdivision directly to the south where this subdivision will drain has above ground drainage ` • because that was allowed when that subdivision was constructed. It would be physically impossible for this subdivision to install underground drainage and be able to drain into the 4 existing drainage system which makes this a physical hardship variance. If all five of the criteria are met then the Commission can grant the variance. Staff does agree that all five criteria have been met. The second variance concerning sidewalks is for the interior sidewalks. The applicant proposes to build the perimeter sidewalk on Mockingbird, however proposed no interior sidewalks. They are requesting this variance due to the cost and the marketability of the property Agenaa Pitt, _ Apendr Item Date_ j . CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Maycr and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalk along Spencer Road for the Waterford at Spencer Oaks. The subject property consists of 42.613 acres, is in a Multi-Family i Conditioned (MF-l[cj) zoning district, and is located between Spencer Road and Loop 288, just east of the abandoned railroad right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a variance of Section 34.114(17) concerning sidewalk along Spencer Road for the Waterford at Spencer Oaks (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. i r~ ~ t 1, ~ • Q k i < :tA• YI i • _r i Please advise it i can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted: , Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: -w f Waiter E. Reeves, Jr., AICP Urban Planner Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of tfa March 12, 1997, P & Z meeting. i j I • • • ATTACHMENT 1 I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission Date: April 1, 1997 Subject: Variance to Section 34-114(17), concerning sidewalks along Spencer Road for the Waterford at Spencer Oaks Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a variance of Section 34- 114(17) for the Waterford at Spencer Oaks (6-0). Background The Waterford at Spencer Oaks is a 42 acre multi-family development located between Spencer Road and Loop 288, east of the abandoned railroad line (Enclosure 1). The owner of the proposed development 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 applicant proposes no sidewalk aiong the Spencer Road frontage. An exaction j variance may be recommended to the City Council if the following criteria is met. Section 34-6(b) Criteria for varia ices from development exactions. Where the commission J finds that the Imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benell 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 wa" such exactions, so as to prevent such excess to the city council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the city council. Staff could not recommend a variance for sidewalk along the Spencer Road frontage. The proposed apartment complex will consist of 208 units, all which will be 2 and 3 bedroom. That area of Denton is rapidly developing and well within walking distance of Lowes and WalMart and is adjacent to the Rails-to-Trails. While the subject sidewalk will not connect to any existing or currently proposed sidewalks, it could in the very near future. The subject property has approximately 1,300 feet of frontage • along Spencer Road, and the cost of providing sidewalk along that frontage would be about $13,000, or $62.50 per dwelling unit. The cost range for sidewalk in front of most homes in Denton ranges from $800 to $1,250 per lot/house. The Commission recommends denial of the variance as there is a reasonable connection between the required sidewalk and the needs of the development. b Enclosures J~ • 1. Preliminary plat. 2. Letter from applicant. • • ENCLOSUREI VA : w.. L'lrt.Lr L `'t'T' „171Y L MIUd!' / M M NLr LHLS'!!I P•tWI~TlYL til II qr~ I~_Irl' a.~'' _r RE bw~; Iii I I •~r•1• r ulr.r 1 r/.{Ik':.°.r. iLr i tF I} i +t r + r~ l r C.. i ' 1 1 1 IJ4. 1 1 ~L3.~d41 4. ~ l i 1 1 r 4~yL .~ry r. r VctrrT bw I 1 I` i L i I ~-e+l' ~;.~n ur. uir ~ ~•Ir, Il~w r, ~I 1111\ ~i. ► i~~:'L ,.L`, I 1,~,- ~ r 01 ..I ' 1 b'1 rww~in rur \ C i 1' ?'1 i ~ M 'I(1 f I LOT L ROCK A %t TK WATLAf01D Sr.. 1 ,1 r . u.r ; j AT VEPO II OAR7 M 4fI Y Lortp, IOnM {OUrR, t[YOL 4 ~ d. J _ _ i.. _ _ _ . _ Y I 1 ~ r. I , \`.7.'8'x"'. i!?' i-'__.`C: N ~I rr Yll CAM, oil Vol I y C r✓ ~ r • i • ENCLOSURE 2 M. MYE?S DEVELOPMENT, INC. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT March 4, 1997 Planning and Zoning Board City of Denton RE: Variance Request Dear Board Members: M. Myers Development, Inc., requests a variance from the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations for providing new sidewalks along the existing roads of our development, The Waterford at Spencer Oaks. Variances requested are as follows: 1: Delete the requirement to Install a new sldewalk along Highway 288 at the south edge of the property. The highway at this location is situated at the top of a steep embankment leading up to a bridge crossing the abandoned railroad track right of way. No provisions are made for pedestrians to cross at the bridge. Furthermore, due to the existing, large drainage easement/ditch, there Is no access from the property. 2; Det_te the requirement to Install a new sidewalk along Spencer Road at the north edge of the property. The deve!opment Is in a rural seriing surrounded by either light industrial or agricultural zoned property. If Installed, the walk would terminate at either end into a "bar ditch", as there have been no other Improvements in this area. The property on the west Is an extremely narrow piece of land owned by the City of Denton with limited development potential. The properties to the east consist of an existing golf course and a homestead, neither of which have sidewalks. There are no shops, stores, etc. on Spencer Road, and hence, there Is no pedestrian traffic on this road. As such, the sidewalk would have minimal if any use, and provide no real benefit Your consideration In reviewing each of these r quests Independently is appreciated. ♦ Sincerely, Gre~. Powell I ry Construction Administrator O 0 • t l DALLAS; 3100 NtKNNON STREET, SI ATE 1060 / DALLAS. TEXAS 75201.7003 / (214) 969.7328 / FAX (214) 969.1560 S iy~;. Y..1 .`.:':."5.. .ewe r- ..41. ry .i.M • • s P8Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT March 12, 1997 Page l2 have to be on the ground prior to the annexation. Mr. Jones: Sly point is that with this type of development and the people that would be buying houses in this development, they may not want to come under some of these city rules and that could affect the ability for this developer to market his project. Mr. Cochran: It might also offer a level of security to folks and make the property more desirable. Mr. Persaud: We checked on the police and fire services. The services from Argyle would take fifteen to twenty minutes to reach the site. From the City of Denton it would take seven to eight minutes for fire and it would be about twelve minutes for emergency police services. The Sheriffs department would take twenty to thirty minutes to respond. We feel that our emergency services would enhance the quality of life for this development. We will be providing water to this development and around the year 2000 we will run a sixteen inch water lime along Hwy 377. We will be providing water through the Argyle Water Supply Corp. Ms. Schertz: I would like to reinstate my motion to recommend that the city proceed with the annexation of the 286.57 acre tract located north of Brush Creek Road and east of Hwy 377 as proposed by staff. Mr. Cochran: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-1) Mr. Jones opposed. Recess at 7:15 p.m. Reconvene at 7:25 p.m. VI. The Waterford at Spencer Oaks, The subject property consists of 42.631 acres, is in a Multi- Family I Conditioned (MF-1[cj) zoning district, and is located between Spencer Road and Loop 288, just west of the abandoned railroad right-of-way. • a. Consider a variance of Section 34.114(17) requiring perimeter sidewalks along Loop 288 and Spencer Road, { Mr. Salmon: The applicant has applied for a variance from perimeter sidewalks. This property F does have frontage along two streets, Loop 288 and Spencer Rd. The applicant has based their • variance for Loop 288 on the unusual topography of the property. The proposed sidewalk along • tD the loop 288 frontage would be situated at the base of the highway embankment and adjacent to J the creek. There would be no access to the sidewalk from the subject property. Construction of a sidewalk in this area would be difficult considering the steep slopes and narrow construction area. Staff feels that all five criteria have been met for the variance along Loop 288 and we recommend approval of that variance. The variance along Spencer Road is an exaction variance and the applicant has based their request on the cost versus the benefit to the property. Staff cannot recommend this variance based on feasonable nexus. There are several sidewalks in the ..W...._..... _ . , w t, • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 1/[1 Page 13` area and we are currently working with several developments that have proposed sidewalks on the far end of Spencer and on Colorado Blvd. Although the sidewalk won't connect up with anything at this point, it will at a future date. This sidewalk would tie into the Rails to Trails project that the city has to the west of this development. The cost of the sidewalk will be thirteen thousand dollars, but considering the number of apartment units it works out to sixty-two dollars and fifty- two cents per unit, Normally we are talking about hundreds of dollars p:r unit for sidewalks in a single family residential subdivision, I think that it is reasonable to think that anyone who lives in this deve'. --tent might like to be able to walk safely to Walmart or Loew's since they are so close. ks that there is a reasonable connection between a sidewalk at this location and the type - opment that we are looking at. There really is no unreasonableness in terms of the cos i aes of compensation of the property. Mr. Cochran: What school district is this property in? Mr. Salmon: Rivera is just a little bit to the northwest. Mr. Greg Poweti: My name is Greg Powell and I work for M. Myers Development. We feel that we are looking ai a sidewalk that would have no demand. This property is across from the electrical power plant. The Rails to Trails is behind this property and to the right of this property is the golf course. There is nothing to generate pedestrian traffic from either side of this property. You would have a sidewalk that just leads to a bar ditch and we feel that this would be more of i a hazard and the pedestrian would then have to walk along Spencer which is an unimproved road. This is a subdivision of four plexes and we will have extensive sidewalks in the interior. Mr. Cochran: I would say that I agree with staff's assessment concerning the sidewalk along Loop 288 in that it seems unnecessary. On Spencer Road I can see a reason for having them tl cre. The sidewalks on Spencer Road will meet up with the Rails to Trails and that would be a good place to link up to. We don't plan on that area of town remaining stagnate and we anticipate some growth there, I move that a variance be granted of Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning the sidewalks on Loop 288 for The Waterford at Spencer Oaks based on the unique and difficult topography along Loop 288. Ms. Gamer: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. 1 Approved. (6-0) Mr. Cochran: I move that the variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks along Spencer Road be denied as there will be a reasonable _ • connection between the sidewalks and the needs of the development. • • J Ms. Ganzer: Second. Mr. Jones: Are there any plans to widen Spencer Road in the near future? Mr. Svehla: The is nothing in the CIP. As other developments come along there would be perimeter street improvements required. 7• • • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Salmom Spencer Road is a collector street and it will eventually be widened to forty-five feet. The applicant is dedicating the right-of-way for a collector street and so we will want the sidewalk to be towards the outside of the right-of-way so that when the street is widened it would not be torn up. The applicant is also doing perimet=r paving. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) b. Consider the preliminary plat. Mr. Reeves: This is a preliminary plat of the Waterford at Sherman Oaks. Because sidewalks a,e required to be shown on the preliminary plat your approval should be conditioned on the approval of the sidewalk variance along Spencer Road., Mr. Svehla: Could they recommend approval subject to the developer submitting a preliminary plar that shows the sidewalk along Spencer Road? Mr. Reeves: At this time if they just move for approval subject to the variance being granted by the Council then the applicant doesn't have to make any changes to the document. If the Council grants the variance then everything is okay. If they don't grant the variance then the applicant will have to submit a new preliminary plat showing the sidewalk. Mr. Powell: We don't have a problem submitting a new preliminary plat with the sidewalks shown. Air. Cochran: I move we approve the preliminary plat of the Waterford at Spencer Oaks subject to a corrected plat showing the sidewalks along Spencer Road. Sir. Jones: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. r Approved. (6-0) • VII. Connell Addition. The 20.345 acre tract is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, west of FM 2181. i a. Consider a variance to Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. Mr. Salmon: The owner has applied for the variance regarding sidewalks. The applicant is O proposing to construct two single family homes that will be two to three acres in size. The subject j~ O O site has three hundred and thirty-six feet of frontage on which a sidewalk would be required along Hickory Creek Rd. The applicant does own property to the west of here. The application is based on cost of the sidewalk versus the benefit to the property which makes it an exaction variance. Staff doesn't support the variance in this case because we are talking about a cost of thirty-four hundred dollars and divided by the two lots would be seventeen hundred dollars per lot. That is a little bit more than the cost of sidewalks in a normal SF-16 but it is not grossly more. There are additional sidewalks in the area, the Oaks of Montecito, and there is another subdivision that l 91-0~ Apenda No. I Agenda Ite 40 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider an exs^tion variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning interior sidewalks for Planned Development 34 (PD-34). The subject property is located on the w6st side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a variance of Section 34-114(17) concerning interior sidewalks for Planned Development 34 (PD-34) (6-0). SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACK. R~ OUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None. - e f i , Ep{{E • Please advise if I can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted: Rick Svehia Deputy City Manager Prepared by: Walter E. Reeves, Jr., Al Urban Planner r Attachment #1: Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft minutes of the March 12, 1997, P & Z meeting. j . r Oz • • ATTACHMENT 1 i PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT To: City Council From: Planning and Zoning Commission { Date: April 1, 1997 I Subject: Variance to Section 34-114(17), concerning interior sidewalks for Bellaire Heights Phase IV Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of a variance of Section 34- 114(17) for Bellaire Heights Phase IV (6-0). Background Bellaire Heights Phase IV is a proposed 84 lot subdivision located in Planned Development 34 (PD-34), which is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive (Enclosure 1). The owner of the proposed development 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 applicant proposes no interior sidewalks. An exaction variance may be recommended to the City Council if the following criteria is met. D Section 34-6(b) Criteria for variances from development exact Ions. Where the comrnission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefe Ic 'he property owner or Is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, d may recommend approval of valances 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. Staff could not recommend a variance for interior sidewalks. The cost of the sidewalks would be approximately $650 per lot on average, as compared to $775 for a SF-7 lot, or $EOO for a SF-10 lot. Additionally, the required sidewalks would also serve a safety an recreational purpose, made more important as the proposed minimum lot size is 5,000 square feet. • The Commiss on recommends denial of the variance as there is a reasonable ! connection between the required sidewalk and the needs of the development. Enclosures 1. Detailed plan. • 2. Leber from applicant. ~ • • 3, I 0 Y I.,MrI MIV Mil, lw IM1llelr r11.M I ' ' aL wl iyi we„ K I.r NflnlwLl w L 1. O „III ,l0 I' I' I _IL L_I _ L .',I~ '=a= L~I .K IL iLJ .....n'.~... riirr , ~ e'. y _ ! . - i• jl err: «::.:~r._r_.,.w o`# -a5 W A J f', w n 'i I Il a It . 1 1 1 1 I I I f 1 L , I f , .w S 1 ,.rnu...rw.u...~ ` 7 li I 11.1 .J '1 .I, ~ Y ~~r=r-irrwrH wr -E r~ NO 1 ~ ~ Y_ n - I -'Ih-l ~ ?li f'• (-1 1 1~•I iSd !•q; 1~c' ~ IL :L-:l _J L I JL 1 J ! ! ttCC■w ddd`! I,1 ' 1 - j' 1 w ! '-11-11 r I 111i lf`i'~ d' It W 1y~r ,1, '-11 NNAAA [ 8 ,Y - •ll 1 it -1 F ❑ L • - I • 14P9~i470 1 I .1 r. ~J.l!N~ ~ I wl w w 'IL ` M ~ a.nrvr 0 BELLAIREHEIGHTS s `.f + ~r 1 {NRfS rOVNERd1lYEj P}U$Fry i inL+ l v•~•;.- + '~wlrn ElNaEruat L~ e[nerran O(Mton,art w+a AMA , Ei.erxRnwrtr,iun 1i ! 7~ .e~NU n.r. 1~ r,l~ 1~ "arm a t° ea'ruK or~~ou 7` MWA r 1 Iliwa ~aw wp A~J'V i rw.~ws • • ENCLOSURE2 G s~ 1116 Sandplper Denton, TeMas 78206 Phone: (817)591.9481 PAX: (817)591-0562 Sunday, March 02, 1997 City of Denton Attn.: Dave Salmon City Hall West Ref: Variance request for Bellaire Heights Phase IV Dear Dave, As you know, we have t:ad discussions between the adjacent homeowners and the current owners of the property to discuss ho% -e might obtain single family residential development on this property. We feel that it is in t„e best interest of both the adjacent homeowners, and the current property owner to design the proposed development in such a way that gives it significant economic advantages over typical single family development in Denton, so that the property can be I developed in the immediate future, thereby resolving the current zoning issues. The current zoning allowed for development of the property as a single lot. The flat slopes on the property were suited to the private drainage improvements which would allow open channels on the property. A variance to the underground drainage provisions of the subdivision ordinance would be needed to make a single family subdivision of the property economically feasible. The property has direct street access to Bellaire Heights Phase III, which was constructed without sidewalks. Waiving the requ;rement for sidewalks on the interior of the subdivision would make this development compatible with Bellaire Heights Phase III. Waiver of this requirement would be an economic benefit to property, and would make downzoning of the property to address • Neighborhood concerns more palatable to the owners. Under the current zoning, surface drainage facilities would be allowed as private facilities on a single lot, and no public sidewalks would be required on the interior ofthe project. It is very difficult for property owners to participate in downzonirg of their property when they view it as something that will reduce the ultimate return on their investment. Spending money to facilitate this downzoning is an even more distasteful. The cooperation ofthe adjacent neighbors, City staff ® personnel and the r!anning and Zoning Commission have played a big part in getting to this potential compromise. We appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commissions initiation of this case and hope that you will continue to do whatever is appropriate to resolve the zoning problems on this property. i Page I 5- • c - • ENCLOSURE2 Since the variants requested would not be t.ecessary under the current zoning, and the property owners are considering the downzoning to single family residential at the neighbors request, we would rlso request that the City of Denton waive the fees for the variance request Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Gre~.EdwardsP. E. s k I I Page 2 } s i P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 March 12, 1997 - ~ I Page 3 Sir. Cochran: I move we recommend approval of this single family request rezoning 11.4 acres from the Agricultural to the Single Family-7 zoning district subject to the following conditions that a ten foot wide bufferyard consisting of a six foot wooden fence as well as six canopy trees and ten urxier story tre.. ,or ever hundred linear feet and pan there of be constructed in the required setback along any Loop 288 frontage. Said bufferyard is to be installed at the time that the building permits are issued for each individual lot having frontage along Loop 288. Ms. Ganzer: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) [V Planned Development 34 (PD-34). The subject property is located on the west side of Mockingbird Lane, approximately 250 feet north of Christopher Drive. (Z-97-003) a. Consider waiving the $175 fee for variances of the Subdivision and Land Development Reg-.ilations. Mr. Reeves: At a previous meeting a request was made to waive the thousand dollars fee for the detailed plan for this piece of property as well as to waive any variance fee. The Commission did grant a waiver of the thousand do lar fee but left the variance fee question open for a later time. At this point we have not received any kind of reason that we could support for granting a waiver of the variance fee. Staff recommends that it not be granted. Mr, Cochran: I wrild agree with the staff recommendation. It would be nice to have a reason to give away goods and services. In absence of any 1 would say that we should go with the staff recommendation and not waive the fee. It is not a prohibitive fee at all. I so move. Mr.lones: Second. his. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Y b. Consider a variance of Section 34.124(f) regarding drainage design. ` c. Consider a variance of Section 34.114(17) regarding sidewalks. Mr. Salmon: Our ordinance requires an underground piped drainage in this instance. The ® subdivision directly to the south where this subdivision will drain has above ground drainage 0 because that was allowed when that subdivision was constructed. It would be physically impossible for this subdivision to install underground drainage and be able to drain into the existing drainage system which makes this a physical hardship variance. If all five of the criteria are met then the Commission can grant the variance. Staff does agree that all five criteria have been met. The second variance concerning sidewalks is for the interior sidewalks. The applicant proposes to build the perimeter sidewalk on Mockingbird, however proposed no interior sidewalks. They are requesting this variance du to the cost and the marketability of the property 1 • • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 Page 4 which makes this an exaction variance. Staff does not recommend this variance based on reasonable relationship. The average cost per lot to install sidewalks is in the seven to nine hundred dollar rknge. In this case the cost for sidewalks in this subdivision will be less because the lots are smaller and some of them have as little as fifty foot frontage. Therefore, staff cannot support this variance based on reasonable nexus. Staff also feels that there is a need for sidewalks in this subdivision where you have smaller lots and are probably marketing to young families with small children. These houses will have small yards and sidewalks create a means for exercise and recreation inside the subdivision. Staff feels that there, is a need for sidewalks and recommends against the variance. Mr. Jones: Does Pace Drive have sidewalks? Mr. Salmon: No, it was platted before we required sidewalks. Ms. Russell: Would the applicant care to speak? Mr. Greg Edwards: My name is Greg Edwards and my address is 1116 Sandpiper. 1 am representing Sable Development. On the two variances, one of the things that we are trying to accomplish is to establish some economic advantages for the property for a single family development. One of the problems that the neighborhood has is that the property is currently zoned under PD 34 for multi-family use which would allow up to a hundred and ninety-eight units if built in accordance to the approved detailed site plan. The owners prob'em is that he has to find someone that wants to build the property according to that detailed plan. It is a compromise to make the property more valuable. If we weren't requesting the down zoning If we weren't down zoning then the variance for the surface drainage would not be required because the property could be developed as a single lot. Also the interior sidewalks could be allowed with the street patterns that are very similar to this, in the multi-family concept no sidewalks would be required. I know that our justification might be a little weak, but basically the things that the client is giving up in order to come from a hundred and ninety-eight units to the eighty-five single family lots is worth your consideration in granting the variance. The applicant will be doing perimeter street paving and the perimeter sidewalks. The interior does connect to a subdivision that does not have s?dewalks and to stay consistent with the development requirements of that development and to provide a similar product is what the community is asking us to do. We don't feel that the • sidewalks are necessary. Nis. Russell: Let's address the variance concerning the drainage design first. i i Ms. Schertz: I move to grant a variance of Section 34.124 of the Code of Ordinances conceming drainage design standards to allow open channel drainage in the proposed Bellaire Heights, VI • subdivision due to the physical circumstances on the adjacent downstream property. • • Mr. Cochran: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved, (6-0) Mr. Jones: I move that we recommend to the City Council the variance of Section 34-114(17) • • P&Z Minutes March 12, 1997 rl I~, Page S of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalk construction for Bellaire Heights, Phase 11 be denied as here is a reasonable connection between the sidewalks and the need for the development. Nis. Schertz: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion to deny please raise your right hand. f Opposed same sign. App,oved. (6-0) d. Hold a public hearing and consider a detailed plan for 16.047 acres, his. Russell opened the public hearing. Mr. Hal Kemrite: My name is Al Kemrite and my address is 625 Pace Dr, Is it right that you approved above ground drainage? Nis. Russell: Yes sir we did. Mr. Kemrite: Does anybody really understand the seriousness of the drainage problem that we have out there and the danger it represents to the children out there? We have a large culvert out there and the bottom of that proper,y is very low and something needs to be done about it. Ms. Russell: Yes sir, I believe we understand and 1 believe that most of us have been out there to Inok at it. We rely on our city engineer who spoke to that issue and advised us. Mr. Cochran: If I may make a suggestion, a good place to bring that up would be at the Capital Improvement hearings. Ms. Russell: That hearing will be on March 26th and we welcome you to come and discuss this. Mr. Reeves: This is Z-97-003 which is a detailed plan for eighty-four lot single family detached development on the west side of Mockingbird, approximately two hundred and fifty feet north of Christopher Drive. There are only two policies of the plan that really apply to his request. One • is the intensity allocation and the other is the strict site plan control within sb teen hundred feet of existing low d-nsity residential. This is consistent with both of those poli,Jes. The allocated intensity of the property i> nine hundred and sixty-three intensity trips and the proposed intensity of this project is eight hundred and forty. The site plan policy is met because that is what we are doing. We sent out ninety notices on February 28th and as of this aftemoo:i we have received five in opposition, ten in favor, and one with no opL ion. We have receiver! at least two more that are • in opposition tonight. It is not at twenty percent right now. This is proposed to be rive thousand j • square foot lots with two story homes Nis. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Mr. Greg Edwards: My name is Greg Edwards x i i,1y address is 1116 Sandpiper. Basically we have had some meetings with people from the neighborhood and we showed them the plans for the subdivision. We are trying to meet many of the concerns in the property as it relates to 9 • r 0 Agenda No.- 3 Agenda Item Date CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Consider approval of exaction variances to Section 34-116(e) pertaining to fire flow and Section 34116(c) pertaining to fire hydrants. This 143.027 acre tract is located in Division Cne of tha City of Denton's ETJ on the southeast corner of Green Valley Circle and Shepard Road. (Blue Sky Estates) i RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission rocommended approval of the variances E SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. BACKGROUND: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: J Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: None Please advise if I can provide additional information. Respectfully submitted, o Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager Prepared by: Do a Bateman Senior Planning Technician 0 0 Attachments #1.2: Planning and Zoning Commission Reports. Attachment #3: Draft P&Z Minutes from March 12, 1997. 1 1 0 L -L • • ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONt"G COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the Ciy Council FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34-116(e) CONCERNING } WATER CAPACITY FOR FIRE FLOW FOR BLUE SKY ESTATES. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. I BACKGROUND: The applicant requests an exaction variance from Section 34-116(e), of the Code of Ordinances, pertaining to fire flow. This section 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 following minimum water capacity (calculated with twenty (20) pounds of residual pressure). 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. This 'exaction variance" was recommended to the City Council because the Commission determined that: Where the commission finds that the imposition of an de.L-nment exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property o; -et or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommc I approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to the city cour, 'I Walver o1 developmental exactie.is shall be approved by the c'ty council. t Adequate water capacity could be achieved by connecting to the City's existing water line at the intersection of Hercules and Sherman Drive, which is approximately 4 • miles away. At the average cost of $25 per linear foot, the total cost of assurifg adequate fire flow would be approximately $530,900. I ENCLOSURE: 1. Location Map. 2. Preliminary Plat. z xr:w 'may..: A W. t • r• • ENCL0-CURE 1 Blue Sky Estates NORTH ® r' I j I { 'n ~ WWW e • ~ e r VICINITY MAP j t- Location Map Date: 3/12/97 Scale: None • • A i rRom my Irgr A-05319 4 ROAD - rr au`n O i I SHfP R ~ k 4. e for f ~m rwr e. 1.717 Am„ - , • e ~ Oa i r. 1. LOBO Pal t Low Agn ~ to? q LOtooo 170 LOIaeO`/,C1tl d J ~ ti Loea A90 yCF O lnT a lot 9 a LAM TV AG[7( Loll AD" a Le00 tl[71 / JOGao' ,a600' M 1 1a0 00 d S,7JJ SO"/' maw a,Lr7' y M,~a,9,7,ASO LOT 9 L.' } h ACH3 ad.DKY j w 7ruo ter • rATFY t ZION AM ' ISH A[1Q ,a.1u Rain Z ero ' w sew-noeotsu RiJr ocr. M BLOCK A ` z 1 na,o' \ ruu o r W M ;pp olimT M1/: 106 ■s t 77►~ (4j . I LOT A TAM \ 4 eq . N N LM Atllt] t?' a1. C i lr VL uG e~m1~llMn f~_rt N rr u' a• r ea,sr ` J~ a Seg7 le3rOr aw tv Irw 7J6JP tlfot So00%au ,S1 0`AgC1RS e njl~ 1 6 Y'Bp A9 41VRYI?' I-LtJO\ COY KALLPAY A w El tooairun eyvyd t rwm / y gpa n~~o amoron • ' J° / PRELIMINARY PLAT s LOW or r ?"SO, a u.a ' y LOTS 1-17, BLOCK A ~ i tac t I BLUE SKY ESTATES 9 E.Or A""' 143.027 'ACRES W Id IN THE . 'It, pr ! `,y or MIt70 cow ,.vt.r7 k J. THOMAS SURVEY A-1240 k torn trxvul rx nl OF R ataW. IYELYN n -my coa,es!a rT At DENTON COUNTYe TEXAS O rAn 2W or s anrr 4*14 I-W A'TM • VOL ~ W Oeff011, TO'h! 70107 GRAPHIC ICALL wort. "u to aa~rtLa~1 F Ym ~0N Rem ![r im lia+et/ vats! on wo tvR TO! IH PAR I;M t ~t7N ~r IM_ l r r - uavx T' P1}L _ trap C WUj0 m nMffiwn..n b a _OWL i e • r. ~ r ATTACHMENT 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: VARIANCE TO SECTION 34-116(c), FIRE HYDRANTS FOR THE BLUE SKY ESTATES 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 commercial,tndustrial a;easr The request Is based on the lack of a reasonable connection between the required improvement and the proposed development. This 'exaction variance" was recommended to the City Council because the Commission determined that: p Where the commission finds that the imposition of an development exaction pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or 4 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 sh0 be approved by the city council. In order to serve tht;. proposed lots with the adequate aMOUnt of fire hydrants, the applicant would need to provide approximately sixteen (16) fire hydrants at the average cost of $2,500 each. The total cost of installing the fire hydrants would be approximately $40,000. If the variance to Section 34-116(e) is approved, it would be a moot issue to install hydrants without the necessary water lines. A variance • r however, must still be approved in order to waive the hydrant requirements. ENCLOSt1RE: 1. Location Map. 2. Preliminary Plat. s • • P&2 Minutes ATTACHMENT 3 1n~ J~ ~N March 12, 1997 LII JII ~~LI$ lI~I Page 15 V1II. Blue Sky Estates. The 143.027 acre tract is located on the southeast corner of Shepard Road and Green Valley in Division One of the City of Denton's ETJ (extraterritorial jurisdiction). a. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) regarding water capacity for fire flow, b. Consider an exaction variance of Section 34-116(c) regarding fire hydrants. Nis. Bateman: The applicant is requesting exaction variances for water capacity for fire Flow and fire hydrants. In order for the property to meet the city requirements they would need to connect onto the city water line at Hercules and Sherman which is approximately four miles away at a cost of a little more than half a million dollars. In order to provide fire hydrants they would need sixteen hydrants at a cost of twenty-five hun.'.ed dollars each for a total cost of forty thousand dollars. The Development Review Committee recommends both variances. Ms. Schertz: I move that we recommend approval of the exaction variance of Section 34-116(e) concerning water capacity for fire flow. Nis. Gamer: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) Nis. Sche-z: I move we recommcdo approval of the exaction variance of Section 34-116(c) regarding the fire hydrants. Ms. Ganzer: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) c. Consider the preliminary plat and final plats of Lots 1 thru 17, Block A. Nis. L..,eman: This is approximately a hundred and forty-three acres. The Development Review • Committee recommends approval with the approval of the variances. This is in Division 1 of the ETJ and is eight thousand feet from a city water line so sidewalks art not required. The plat does conform to the minimum requirements of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations. Mr. Cochran: 1 move approve the preliminary and final plat of Lots I through 17, Block A of the Blue Sky Estates. _ Mr. Moreno: Second. Nis. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) IX. Consider granting an extension of Section 34.117(d) and Section 34-22(e) pertaining to the expiration of the preliminary plat of Phase Ili and final plat of Phase Il-C Cr the Westgate- Hills (O t • • Agenda No. _L1= Agenda Item~-~ CITY COUNCIL REPORT Date._..___i! TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council r FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: April 1, 1997 ` SUBJECT: Consider appruval of exaction variances to Section 34-114(17) concerning sidewalks for the Connell Addition, The 20.W acre tract is located north side of Hickory Creek Road, writ of FM.2181. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the variance (8-0). 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 provide additional information. Respectfully submitted, Rick Svehla • Deputy City Manager Prepared by: D na Bateman i Senior Planning Technician _ • • O Attachment #1, Planning and Zoning Commission Report, r/ Attachment #2: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from March 12, 1997. r e w ATTACHMENT I PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Planning and Zoning Commission DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: EXACTION VARIANCE FROM SECTION 34114(17) CONCERNING SIDEWALKS FOR THE CONNELL ADDITION. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the sidewalk variance. SUMMARY: The 20.345 acre tract is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, west of FM 2181, The property Is zoned Agricultural (A) and two single family structures are proposed for the property. BACKGROUND: Mr. George Connell Jr., owner of the proposod Connell Addition has applied for a t, variance of Section 34.114 (17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks. The cited section requires that sidewalk be constructed along the frontage of the property being developed. The applicant proposes no sidewalk along the frontage. D The applicant bases t ie request on the expense of the subject sidewalk versus the benefit to the develor,ment which would make this an exaction variance, A_NALYSI S: An exaction variance may be recommended to the Council if the Planning and Zoning Commission find the following exist; I Where the Commfsslon fine.s that vie imposition of any development exaction pursuant to thaw regulations exceeds any reason.ble benefit to lie property owner or Is so excessive as to constiluts confiscation of tie tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to wofve such exactions, so as to prevent such excess, to ft City Council. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be approved by the City Council. ENCLOSURES: ~ 1, Preliminary Plat Z LL • e d • • L~ - - aa. N„kar ~ I t Iy1 ~ ~/r / S cttt +Ir , Cnik A3 l 1, !1 / / i ter Li ~,f ' CQ rrr.rw .+r\rr ry1't ;~~~t utt I + _ / / A t LM a I1~.rY r ~ 1 ]1~ r' I„ •.Y.S Vlr l11M 1 S - • N illy r OL jig Ago r Yf . a r. ra. r Y'. / ~.idi.!^... u rI ria. lw • ~ \ M V \ .l iV M Y1 .rIr. Y~ r~ • I a~af.=~.n wiry\y. ~ti! f !1/I.fY }RyI1V~ t' V I I. r ru ,arwwr /nlYt ~n.r .l..f t nmu w r~ - ....r ..esA y _ IIAOIn cttm toe 17,11'5 11 1.1! ~ `j 1 1 vtyLrw rsi_ rr r 7 CELL ADOMON . t S.M/ Mew Y 41 w Mw !r. • ra _ t rrrWr • • Mar Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 DillR March l2, 1997 A F T Page 12 Vlli. Connell Addition. The 20.345 acre tract is lc~ ated on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, west of FM 2181. a. Consider a variance to Section 34-114(17) regarding sidewalks. Mr. Salmon: The owner has applied for the variance regarding sidewalks. The applicant is proposing to construct twn single family homes that will be two to three acres in size. The subject site has three hundred and thirty-six feet of frontage on which a sidewalk would be required along Hickorv Creek Rd. The applicant does own property to the west of here. The application is based on cost of the sidewalk versus the benefit to the property which makes it an exaction variance. Staff doesn't support the variance in this case bx:ause we are talking about a cost of thirty-four hundred dollars and divided by the two lots would be seventeen hundred dollars per lot. That is a little bit more than the cost of sidewalks in a normal SF-16 but it is not grossly more. There are additional sidewalks in the area, the Oaks of Montecito, and there is another subdivision that we are currently looking and they have committed to building sidewalks along Hickory Creek Road. McNair Elementary west of this development on Hickory Creek Road and does have sidewalks. The applicant is dedicating right-of way for the expansion of Hickory Creek Road and at some point possibly Loop 288. There is plenty of room to build a sidewalk out here and there isn't an issue concerning topography. Nis, russell: Would the applicant care tai speak? 'p Sir. Bill Coleman: My name is Bill Coleman and my address is 1421 N. Elm. We have applied for a variance of the sidewalk on this development. The reason for the development is two single family residences on twenty acres. There is a large portion on the west side of the property that is in the tloodplain and is not develop able. No perimeter street paving is required because the road has recently been upgraded and it probably won't be developed until it is a state highway and Loop 288 comes through there. This sidewalk would not be connected to anything until it became a state highway. Lot I has the majority of frontage and Lot 2 is in the back with a thirty foot easement to the street. Lot 2 won't have any sidewalk because most of its frontage is for the driveway. They are dedicating over six tenths of an acre for right-of-way. Mr. Jones: How far is Lot 1 from Teasley? Mr. Coleman: It is about 600 ft. r Ms. Russell: The property that is adjacent to this, will they be dealing with sidewalks? Mr. Salmon: Yes, they have been to DRC twice and at this point they have committed to building • the sidewalk. It is proposed for fifty-two half acre lots with curb and gutter streets. O @ Mr. Jones: If I am looking at this right, in reality even though it is two lots, this sidewalk is really only serving one lot. Mr. Salmon: Correct. Mr. Jones: If this were just one lot would the recommendation have been different? 7 ~~A • • P&Z Minutes r March 12, 1997 A F T, Page 13 Mr. Salmon: If we were talking about one lot and thirty-four hundred dollars for the sidewalk then we probably would have found that the benefit did not meet the cost of the sidewalk. We try to keep the cost close to what it would cost to build sidewalks in town. Mr. Coleman: Mr. McDaniels is the owner of Lot 2 and he would like to address the Commission. The sidewalks in green are just proposed and the developer does not have control of the land yet. Mr. Lane McDaniel: My name is Lane McDaniel and my address is 2716 Spyglass. The reality of this transaction is that we are planning on building two homes and a large portion of this property is in the floodplain. I am going to try to purchase the lot on the comer. We request that the city not make us urbanize this area. There are several large roes that the sidewalk would interfere with. This will be two home sites and it will never be developed around it. Ms. Schertz: I live in the Oaks of Montecito and I drive by this site everyday. There are arguments for both sides. 1 am usually in favor of sidewalks near schools and you know that the area around it is going to develop, &vause I do drive down this road all the time I have never seen children walking down Teasley and Hickory Crtck Rd. Where you see children is where you E see houses and where there are sidewaiks proposed to be. If the other side of the street is developed then the sidewalks could be put there. You see children in the subdivisions where there are sidewalks. In this case 1 am going to vote to approve the variance. Mr. Cochran: You are right about this being one of those ambiguous deals and you're argument would be perfect if you could assure me that there was never going to be any developments out there. The whole point is not to take up a deficiency in sidewalks now but to anticipate what might be coming down the pike. It is close to a school and there is all that raw land out there. We have been seeing a lut of development on Teasley Lane. Ms. Schertz; The distance from Teasley to McNair is three quarters of a mile. I agree with you because 1 am an advocate for sidewalks, I just felt that if there is development across the street then that would be the better place for sidewalks. Nis. Russell: That an excellent point. In looking at the zoning across the street and seeing that • it is probably going to develop more fully that would be a good place for sidewalks. Sometimes we lose site of the total picture when we are focused on one project. Mr. Jones: If I understand this right, the three hundred and thirty-seven feet is just the right hand comer of this man's property and he is telling us that he is not going to put sidewalks on the extra five hundred feet so it will never connect to the next property. • • o Air. Svehla: The city could build a sidewalk on the right-of-way. In the past as things have developed we have built sidewalks. Mr. Bucek: I want to be sure that we don't lose sight of what you have the authority to do here. An exaction variance means that the cost of what you are asking the applicant to do has no reasonable relationship to the development of their property. The question of sidewalks on both sides of the street or one side of the street is a legislative function of the City Council. You need • • M P&Z ar Minutes March 12, 19 , 19 U I~ G~ 97 g Page 14 to focus your discussion totally on can you rationalize if this is one lot or two lots. If you rationalize that it is one lot and you don't think thirty-four hundred dollars is not reasonable then make your motion based on that. Don't make your decision based on just wanting one sidewalk on the road. That is not what the ordinance says and we can't impact the ordinance. Mr. Jones: In my mind this really is one lot even though they show two lots. The benefit will just be to the one lot. 1 move that we recommend to the City Council that a variance of Section 34-114(17) of the Code of Ordinances concerning sidewalks along Hickory Creek Road be approved as there is no reasonable relationship for sidewalks in the residential development. Ms. Schertz: Second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-0) i Ii I E • 0 • • t.O 4 - • 0 • 1 - Agenda No.. (+QL,~_ Agenda Item 3 Date - ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AIVARDING A CONTRACT FOR TEIE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. EQUIPMENT. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES: PROVIDING FUR ]TIFF SPEND1Tt!RE OF FUNDS THEREFOR: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS. the City has solicited. received and tabulated compcti6%e bids for the purchase of ncccssar\ materials. equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE II la%% and City ordinances: and 11"IIEREAS. the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the loa+cst responsible bids for the materials. equipment. supplies or sen ices as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore: and P.'1IFREAS. the City Council has provided in the Cite Budget ti)r the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials. equipment. supplies or ser%ices approved and accepted herein: NOW. THEREFORE:. i'IIF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DLNTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SLCTION 1. ']'hat the numbered items in the folloasin¢ numbered bids for materials. equipinew. supplies. or sm ices. shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto. are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NLMBLR NO VENDOR AMOUNT tool 2 A.'_B G do G TRACTOR S:O.I;S JS SECTION It. That by the acceptance and appro%at of the above numbered items of the submitted bids. tho City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrccs to purchase the materials. equipment. supplies or services in accordance %Nith the terms. spcciticutions. standards. quamitics and for die specified sums contained in the Bid lm itations. Bid • Proposals. and related documents. SLC TION 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 Ciq \tanager or his designated representatk a is hereby uuthoriicd to csccutc the written contract tthich shall be attached hereto: provided that the written co Tact is in :accordance with the terns. conditions. specifications. standards. quantities and ® >pccificd ;tuns contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. O 0 l • 1 SECTION 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 v ith the approved bids or pursuant to a iwitten 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: Sk 1411Y.ORD i • • o i 2 171 • • DATE: APRIL 1, 1997 I CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Ma}or and Members of the Cite Council FROM: Kathy DuBose. Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID 4 2001 - TRACTOR, LOADER BO\BLADE, MO1N'ER, ITEM 2,2A,211 RECO\IJIENDATIO\: We recommend Item 2.4 wheel drive tractor. Item 2A. 72" mover and Item 28. Loader be aw:+rded to the lowest responsible bidder. G & G Tractor. in the total amount of 530.125.45. Item I S IA were awarded b} Council March 18, 1997. SUJIJLXRY: The tractor. mower and loader combination are Motor Pool replacements approved duringg the 1996 97 bud Let process. The equipment %sill be assigned to the Drainage Division. This nevv 4 wheel drive tractor will epface a 1975 model tractor that will be sold at auction. The addition of a mower and loader make the unit more applicable to the work assignment of the Drainage Division PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Motor Pool Operations and Drainage Division. FISCAL IMPACT: This unit will be funded from Motor Pool replacement funds and 1996,'97 budget funds: Account x 720.025.0584-9104 526.830.45 100-026-0810-9104 S 3.295.00 $30.125.45 Attachment: Tabulation Sheet Respectfully submitted: Cv 1J c~,t - at u e Executive irectorof Finance • lpproted: ~'an,a:-1 om l)-S tl a". ~15-`:T: file Purchasing Agent • as_ a • • 1 ,a T'k WWAM" • • BID 2001 _ BID wir TRACTOR. LO.IDER. BO\BLaDE. WINIERER CLEMO\S ROO G &G \I011 ER ST BOTH TRACTOR EQPT TRACTOR OPL\0l[F. FEBRC.IRI' 25\11997 + Oil DESCRIPTION I'E\DOR VENDOR I'E\DOR IE\DOR I'E\DOR I. I TIL(CTOFL LOADER \O BID \0 BID \O BID $24.64930 Ll. 1 80\ BL:(DF. S1.764.00 \0 BID NO BID S1.436.4.1 I TRACTOR F'Ol R-11 HELL DRIPE \O BID \0 BID \O BID $25331.60 !1. I %1(911 ER 72" 52146.00 NO BID \OBID $1150.85 !R. I LO IDER • Qt R K.ITT(CII DET %(II \O BID \0 BID \O BID 53,39300 E • 4 4 • • f Ayendo No. O!3 Agenda Item ORDINANCE NO. Date-(/-/ - 9 7 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE: OF MATERIALS. EQUIPMENT. SUPPLIES OR SERVICES: PROVIDING FOR 1'IIE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATF. WH[REAS. the Cite has solicited. received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials. equipment. supplies or sen ices in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances: and Will'REAS. the City Manager or a designated employee has reyicUed 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 sen ices approved and accepted herein: NOW. THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTONI HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials. equipment. supplies. or senices, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto. are hereby accepted and appro\cd as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: D BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR A\IOUNT 2014 ALL THE %1ELLS GROUP 52_69,264.:2 SECIION IL That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agroes to purchase the materials. equipment. supplies or services in accordance with the terns. specifications. standards. quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals. and related documents. • SLCTION 111. That should the Cily and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids %sish to enter into a tonnal written agreement as a result of the acceptance. approval. and awarding of the bids. the City \tanager or his designated representative is hereby authorited to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto: provided that the written contract is in accordance with the temis. conditions. specifications. standards, quantities and o speciled sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein appros ed and accepted. • • I i • • SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the { submitted bids. the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount I and in accordance vith the approved bids or pursuant to a %\Tinen 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 A-11 EST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY B I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY ,t rrt r rnio • • . 777 • • DATE: APRIt.1.1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose. Executive Director of Finance SUnJECT: BID # 2014 FURNITURE - CITY HALL RENOVAI]ON RECOJLIIENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the loscest responsible bidder meeting specification, The Wells L;. ojp, in the total amount of $269.284.22 with delivery as follows: Phase I June 16 - June 26 Phase 11 July 16 - July 21 Phase III August 15 - August 20 SU,%V*IARY: This bid is for the furniture required for the renovation of City y Hail. The colors, styles and arrangements were chosen by Corgan Associates to maintain as much as possible the Oneal Ford Architectural concept. The bid includes all cost of the fumiture. assembly, placement and disposal of cartons and packing. The Wells Group took no exceptions to the bid specification so the items to be furnished are the same as reviewed by the renovation committee. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Employees at City Hall, the Council, the Citizens of Denton and the renovation of Cite Hall. FISCAL MPACT: The bid amount is within the budgeted amount for furniture acquisition. Funds are available as follows: Account 4 450-032-CHAL-9646-9101 $ 79.285.22 457-032-BLDG-9724.9101 5115.000.00 454-032-CHAL-9661.9101 S 75,000.00 Total Award $269.285.00 Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Recommendation from Corgan Architects Respectfully submitted: • 4 ! i Fat V u se Execu n e irector of Finance 0 • O Approved: i Name: om Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent B55,AGENDA 3 t, • • 0 TABULATION SHEET BID # 2014 FURNITURE -CITY HALL RENOVATION PHASE 1,11,111 f t Suggested Quantity Mfg. Item Description WELLS GROUP_ TRGMAS Phase I Mayor/Council Confere ice Rm 112415 Rm 112 Council Work Rm 112 4 S_I ST3060N Sparta Series Conference Tables 664A0 676.45 w/Laminate top and Hardwood bullnose edge. 30"x60' Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak 2 SSI ST3096N Sparta Series Conference Tables 968.00 985.60 wlLeminate top and Hardwood bullnose edge. 30"x96" Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak 12 SSI Top connector Top connecting devices. 49.50 50.40 6 SSI ST6333N Sparta Series Conference Tables 760.10 773.92 wll.aminate top and Hardwood bullnose edge. 60"00"00'Sc30". Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak • 1 Magna CRL Lecterns. Finish: Georgia Oak 644.00 682.64 165.78 30 Srylex 860090 Bounce Stacking Guest Chair w! 165.78 Arms. Fabric Design Tex Auberge 116 M02/Violet (1 114 yd per chair) . 1 Arcadia 1215 Stack Chair Dolly 101.50 105.00 O 4 k ! w I i E 20 Arcadia 775 Cypress Series Low Back 503.14 505.00 Conference Chairs wlKnee Tilt, Stack Urethane Arm, Black Base, Pneumatic Lift Fabric: Momentum 09502336!Marco Polo, Evening 1 Magna X-FDS-3630 36"x48" Stationary TV Cabinet for 560.50 594.13 42" TV X=to hold 21Olbs, Finish: Georgia Oak. j 1 Magna MTS-3630 Modular Top. 36"Wx30"D. Finish: 261.00 276.66 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna X-CR-Cart Overhead Projector Cart. 24"x24". 780.50 827.33 Finish: Georgia Oak. i Finish: WPOt Georgia Oak. Edge. Detailed Rm 113 1 Magna SS-3672 System 8 Desk Shell w/ Modesty 628.00 665.68 Panel 36x72. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna 53.2272/GRR System 8 Desk Shell w/ Modesty 5 7100 606.32 Panel. 22x72. GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8- System 8 Modular top. 24x48. 295.50 313.23 2443(GRC GRC. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna P8-OB16 System B Pedestal. Box/Box/Fite. 327.50 347.15 Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna P8-DF 16 System 8 Pedestal. File)File. 327.50 347.15 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna Do-3619 Storage Cab, wl Hinged Doors wi 457.50 484.95 System 8 Door Pulls. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna CDS Center Drawer. Veneer Front Putt. 54.50 57.77 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna T042-CYL Round Table. 42"0. Finish: $77.00 611.62 O Georgia Oak. 1 Magna VDB4848 Visual Display Board, Finish: 896.50 950.29 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna X-ST-V8- Storage Cabinet for TV and VCR 883.00 935.98 Mobile 3629- wt Hinged Doors and Casters. 24 Finish Georgia Oak. • e o 5 1 i • ;.t I Arcadia 881G Mirage Leather High Back wlKnee 922.34 930.00 tilt, Beech wood arms and base, and Pneumatic. (G=Gathered Fab.) Fab: Chateau Leather EL- 914 Burgundy. 4 Arcadia 374 Serenade Side Chairs wlArms, 411.42 415.00 upholstered back Fab: Maharam 404301 Tangier. 004/Tomado Blue. Finish: to match Magna Georgia Oak. Finish_ WP01 Georgia Oak Edge Detailed Rm 114 1 Magna COB Center Drawer, Black. Finish; 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Manna DE8.2242L Desk Extension. Left 22x42. 408.00 432.48 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-OB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/Re. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S8-3060-GRR System 8 Desk Shell. 3060. GRR. 602.50 638.65 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SPL Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 408.18 410.00 Chair wlForward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lift. - CCt.1 Fabric: Design Tex Auberge, 116M02/VioleL Finish: WPO1 Georgia Oak Edoe' Detailed Rm 115 1 Magna SS-3066-GRR System 8 Desk Shell. 3602 GRR. 610.00 646.60 . Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8-2472 Modular Top. 24x72. Finish: 315.50 334.43 Georgia Oak. 2 Magna PT8-OB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/BoxrFi'e 2 • 48.00 262.88 • O Finish: Georgia Oak. 6 ti • • I 2 Magna FOS3624 Storage Cab. wl Hinged Doors w/ 485.50 514.63 System 8 Door Pulls. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Magna CDs Center Drawer. Finish:Georgia 54.50 57,77 Oak. 1 Magna T042-CYL Rotind Table. 42"D. Finish: 577.00 611.62 Georgia Oak. 3 Magna ST8-4LF-3653 Four Drawer 36W. X=Each 1,191.00 1,262,46 24 drawer locks independently . Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 88 tG Mirage High Back wlKnee Ut. Beech wood arms and base, and Pneumatic. (G=Gathered Fab.) Fab: Momentum 09502336 Marco Palo. Evening. 4 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 371.56 380.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: Design Tex Auberge. 1169- 602Violet. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Finish! WPOI Georgia Oak. Edge Detailed Municipal Services Department Rm 116-1123 , Rm 116 1 Arcadia 130-303020 130 Series Aria 20" Rec Table. 441.38 450.00 Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. 4 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 383.60 390.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: Maharani 403601. Honeycomb 002/Concord Grape. Finish to match Georgia Oak. • Rm 117 1 Magna SA8.3672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell 792.00 839.52 24R/GRL 36x72x24 RighVGRL wiMcd, Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna 0E8- Desk Extension. 2406 Right. 309.50 328.07 • 2436RlGRC GRC. Finish: Georgia Oak, • • 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/BoxwFile, 248.00 262.8a Finish. Georgia Oak. 7 I .~w.t..........R!Yf1 '...V 1 " y in. Y4'. .1" u.':.. .1 ~I 7_ • • 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak- I Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19..61 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 24" 14.50 15.37 f 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 383.43 390.00 Chair w/Forward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lft Fabric: Design Tex Auberge. 1169- 602 Violet. Finish: W+P01 Georgia Oak Edge tandard r Rm 118 1 Magna SA8.3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell w/ 792.00 839.52 24GRR Mod Panel. 36721GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna DEB-2436 System 8 Desk Extension wl Mod 309.50 328.07 Panel. 24x36. GRC. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-OB16 Systcm 8 Pedestal. Box/BokFile. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna H8HD-72 System 8 Storage Hutch wl 3 825.00 874.50 Hinged Doors, 72'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WI-48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna FPI-72 Fabric Panel. 72'W Fabric: 2100- 91.50 96.99 390 Rose Quartz. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna COB Center Drawer, Black Finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 24" 14.50 15.37 1 6 'iex SX56616 Symetrix II Mid Back Task Chair. 328.52 328.52 Pneumatic Seat Height Adj. Back Height Adjustable back angle with infinite lock. Adjustable seat angle with infinite lock. Adjustable height arms (tapered tear drop). Fabric Design Tex Auberge 1169- 0 602NioleL ~ 0 Finish' WP01 Georgia Oak Edgr Standard 8 ~ ' rim • s F Rm 119 1 Magna DE8-2436 Desk Extension 2446. Finish: 265.50 281.43 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna H8HD-72 System 8 Storage Hutch wl 3 825.00 874.50 Hinged Doors. 72W. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna FPI-72 Fabric Panel . 72M 2100-390 91.50 96.99 Rose Ouartz 1 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna PT8.OB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna PT8-OF16 System 8 Pedestal. FilelFile. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna SAS-3672.24- System 6 Angled Desk Shell wl 792.00 839.52 24WGRR Mod. 36x72x24 Right/GRL. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MLFT-3619 Two Drawer 36" laterals. Finish: 508.50 539.01 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S8.36721GRR System 8 Desk Shell. 36x72/GRR 529.50 561.27 wlMod. Finish: Georgia Oak 2 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wre Manager 18.50 19.61 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Arcadia 916 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 383.43 390.00 wlForward Tilt Adj, Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnuemaft Lift , Fabric: Design Tex Auberge 1169- 602/Violet 1 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair wl 383.60 390.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: Maharam 403601 Honeycomb 002/Concord Grape. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak Ii WP01 Georgia Oak. Edge' t n r i 9 , s • .n i Rm 120 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTB-2436 Desk Top 2036. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. C 1 Magna HSHD-96 System 8 Storage Hutch wt 3 1,022.00 1,083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-96 Fabric Panel. 96'W. Fabric: 2100- 98.50 104.41 400 Cherry Neutral. 2 Magna WL48 Work Light48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.77 Tech 36"W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/Fite. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SA8-3672.24- System 6 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 24R 36x72x24 RightlGRR w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna SS-2472 System 8 Desk Shell. 24x72/GRL 429.50 455.27 w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Stylex SX56616 Symetrix II Mid Back Task Chair. 333.00 340.00 Pneumatic Seat Height. Adj. Back E Height. Adjustable back angle with infinite lock. Adjustable seat angle with infinite lock. Adjustable height arms (tapered teardrop). Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord, O 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 414.63 416.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: r Maharam 404301 Tangier 004 Tornado Blue Fabric. (2 yds per chair). Finish to match l lagna Georgia Oak. • Finish: 4VP01 GeorQla Oak Ede, Standard 10 g L • • r i Rm 421 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Finish 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTO.2436 Desk Top 2406. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna HSHD-96 System 8 Storage Hutch wl3 1,022,00 1,083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI.96 Fabric Panel. 96"W. Fabric: 2100- 98.50 104.41 400 Cherry Neutral 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 7x.44 1 Magna MLFTO.3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File 554.50 587.77 Tech 36'W Locks(2), finish'. Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-Da16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/BoxlFite. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SA8-3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 79100 839.52 24R 36x72x24 Right/GRR w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SS-2472 System 8 Desk Shell. 24x72/GRL 429.50 455.27 w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 14.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Magna SFB3-60 System 3 Bookcase WI Finished 394,50 418.17 Back, 3 Adj. Shelves (1) Fixed. 12"Dx36'Wx60"H. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Stylex PT56610 Pro Task, shell back. Mid Back 292.00 297.64 Task Chair. Pneumatic Seat Height. Adj. Back Height. • Adjustable back angle with infinite lock. Adjustable seat angle with infinite lock. Adjustable height arms (tapered !ear drop) Fabric: Momentem Solo # 09711172. 2 Arcadia 354 Serenade Arm Chair w/ slat back. 402.09 410.00 .7 - • open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity • #09087540. (2 yds per chairy. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak 11 • • Finish: WP01 Georgia Oak. Edge: Standard Rm 122 1 Magna COB Center Drawer, Black. Finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8-2436 Desk Top 2446. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna HBHD-96 System B Storage Hutch wf 3 1,022.00 1,083.22 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-96 Fabric Panel. 96'W Fabric: 3548- 98.50 104.41 030 Satin. 2 Magna WL46 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFTB-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File 554.50 587.77 Tech 36'W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8.OB16 System 8 Pedestal. BoxlBoxlFil@. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SAS-3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 24R 36x72x24 Right/GRR wlMad. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S8-2472 System 8 O°-!!. Shell. 24x72IGRL 429.50 455.27 w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Pull Finish: 142.00 150.52 r~ Georgia Oak 1 Magna WM Wre Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Arcadia TD42-CYL Round Table. 42"D. Finish: 577.00 611.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 787 Cypress High Back w/ Knee tll4 612.58 650.00 Closed Upholstered Arm. Pneumatic Lift Black Base Finish Fab: Maharam404301 Tangier. 004 Tomado Blue. 4 Arcadia 773 Cypress Series Low Back 578.22 590.00 Conference Chairs w/ Swivel Tilt, i Upholstered Closed arm, Pneumatic Lift. Black Base Finish. Fabric: Momentum Affinity Aubergine 09087540 Finish WP01 Geora4 Oak. Edae DeUiied L 12 f _ . W , u.., _ 141 ♦ i' I Rm 123 3 Cole 390-555 5 Drawer 36"W Metal Lateral Files. 599.50 605.50 h Side to Side Files w/Lock. Color. Black. 3 Arcadia 940 Ecilpse Series Drafting Stool w! 388.05 390.00 Forward TiIL Armless, Adj. Height Back, Chrome Footring, Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Momentum Vision Arroyo 09816210 Utilities Rm 124.135 Rm 124 1 Arcadia 135-242420 Aria Series Rec. Table. Finish to 344.54 344.54 match Magna Georgia Oak. 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 414.63 414.63 Upholstered Back, open arm. Fab: Maharam 404.301 Tangier #004 Tomado Blue. (2 yds per chair.) Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Rm 125 1 Magna TR48120•CYL Racetrack Conference Table 2,527.50 2,679.15 48x120. Edge: Detailed. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. 10 Arcadia 870GM Mirage Series Low Back 632.49 640.00 Conference Chairs w/Knee TiIL Black urethane arm, Manuel Lift. Fabric: Momentum Affinity 090S7540/Aubergine. (2 112 yds per chair.) 1 RCS UP3101 16" Dia x 18"H Wood Slat 446.60 446.60 0 Receptacle Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Finish WPCs Georaia Oak Detried E^^e 13 L • • rRm 126 1 Magna SAS-3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell wl 792.00 839.52 241R Modesty Panel. 36x72. Right GRR, Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna DEB-2436/R System 8 Desk Extension. 2038. 309,50 32a.07 Right GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8-2472 Modular 8 Top. 2072. Finish: 173.00 183.38 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PTS-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 f Georgia Oak 1 Magna CBD Center Drawer. Finish: Georgia 54.50 57.77 Oak. 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 2 Magna FLF-3624 Modular 8 Freestanding Lateral 575.50 610.03 File. 36'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna HB-HD-72 System $ Storage Hutch w/ Hinged 825.00 874.50 Doors. 72"W. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna WL48 Worklight.48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna FP1.72 Interior Fabric Panel. 2100- 91,50 96.99 424/Amethyst 1 Magna ST8-3629-15 Storage Tower. 36"Wx29"Hx15"D. 375.50 398.03 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna STS-3665-24 Modular 8 Storage Tower. 631.00 668.86 36Wx65"H. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna UHD Upper Hinged Doors for Storage 152.00 161.12 Tower Above. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna LHD Lower Hinged Doors for Storage 152.00 161.12 Tower Above. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PTCPU2419 Printer Cart Finish: Georgia Oak. 313.50 332.31 • 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 392.57 399.00 ` wlForward Tilt, Adj. Amu, Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord (1 114 Yd) Finish'. WP01 Georgia Oaw Standard Fdas - • • • 1 14 r • • r~1e+' • • Rm 127 1 Magna COB Center Drawer, Black. Finish 51.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8-2436 Desk Top 24x36. Finish: Georgia 116.5D 123.49 Oak 1 Magna 1-181-10-96 System 8 Storage Hutch w/ 3 1,022.00 1,083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-96 Fabric Panef. 96'W Fabric: 2100- 98.50 104.41 424 Amethyst. 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74,00 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 551.50 5a7.77 Tech 38'W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 6 Pedestal. Box/BoxrFile, 248.00 262.88 i Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SAB-3672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 24L 36x72x24 LeR/GRL wlMod. Finish Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SS-2472 System 8 Desk Shell. 24x721GRR 429.50 455.27 w1Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak, 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Arcadia 918 Eclipse Series Task Chair 392.57 399.00 wlForward Tilt, Adj. Arms. Adj. Height Back. Pnuematic Lift- Fabric: Momentum Solo 097 117 221Concord. (1 114) 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair, wl 414.63 420.00 upholstered back open arm, Fab Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. (2 Yds per chair) Finish'. WPOt 060mv Oak. Stand" Edae Rm 128 1 Magna SAB-3872.24• System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 24L 36x72x24 LefVGRR wlMod. Finish Georgia Oak. 1 Magna DEB-2435L System 8 Desk Extension 24x36 265.50 281.43 O Left Finish: Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. B=Box/F4 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak, 15 i 1 • • 1 Magna PT8-DF16 System 8 Pedestal. FileJFile. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna HS-H072 Modular 8 Storage Hutch. 72'W. 825.00 874.50 Finish: Georgia Oak. i Magna WL48 Work Light 48'W 74.00 78.44 1 Magna FPI-72 Interior Fabric Panel. 72'W.2100- 91.50 96,99 424/Amethyst 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wre Manager 18,50 19.61 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 i 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Senes Task Chair 392.03 390.00 wlFOrward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj, Height Back, Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Momentum Salo 09711722/Concord. (I If4Yds per chair) 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w! 350.03 480.00 Upholstered Back, open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity 0908 7540/Aubergine. Finish to match Georgia Oak. (2 yds per chair) Phsh, WP01 Georgia Oak. Slandard Edge. Rm 129 t Magna SAS-3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell w! 748.00 792.88 24IL Modesty Panel. 24x72. Left. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna DE8- System 8 Desk Extension. 2036. 309.50 328.07 24361GRL GRL. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 1 Magna PT8-D816 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-DF16 System 8 Pedestal. FilelFile. finish: 248.00 62.88 Georgia Oak. t Magna UHD-65 Upper Hinged Doors for Storage 152.00 161.12 Tower. 65'H. Finish: Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna LHD Lower Hinged Doors for Lower 152.00 161.12 Portion of Stc age rower, 65'H. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna STS-3665124 System 8 Storage Tower. 631.00 668.86 36Wx65'H. Finish: Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna S8.2472lGRR System 6 Desk Shell 24"Dx72'W. 429.50 455.27 • • GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. I 16 i • 1 Magna MLTS-3619 System 8 Undir Surface Lateral 508.50 539.01 File. 36'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna HB-HO.72 System 8 Storage Hutch wl Hinged 825.00 874.50 Doors. 72'W Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WL48 Worklight 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna FPI-72 Interior Fabric Panel. 2100- 91.50 96.99 424/Amethyst 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 392.57 390.00 w/Forward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnueri U& Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord. ( 114Yd per chair) 1 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 450.03 460.00 Upholstered Back, open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity 0908 7540/Aubergine. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. (2 yds per chair) Finish: WPOI Georgia Oak Edge: Standard Rm 130 1 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 450.03 460.00 Upholstered Back, open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity 0908 7540/Aubergine. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. 4 Magna ST84LF-3653 Modular 8 Four Drawer Storage 952.00 1,009.12 A 24 Tower. 36W, Finish: Georgia Oak. Finish WPOI Georgia OaN. Standard Ed¢e 0 _ L 0.. 17 { 2. G' YW wi • • Rrr. 131 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Georgia 54.50 57.77 Oak 1 Magna MTS-2436 Desk Top 24x36. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna H81-ID-96 System 8 Storage Hutch w/ 3 1,022.00 1; 083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna FPI.96 Fabric Panel. 96'W 2100- 98.50 104.41 424/Amethyst 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.77 Tech 36'W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PTS-0816 System 8 Pedestal. BoxfBoxlFile. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SA83672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 j 24L 36x72x24 Left/GRL wlMod. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna S8-2472 System 8 Desk Shell. 24x72rGRR 429.50 455.27 W/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT21 Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 197.00 208.82 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 2 Magna SF83-60 System 3 Bookcase W! Finished 394.50 418.17 Back. 3 Adj. Shelves (1) Fixed. 12"Dx36'W40"H. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 392,57 399.00 wfForward Tilt, Ad). Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pndematic LifL Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord. (1 114 Yd) 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair, w/ 450.03 475.00 upholstered back open arm. Fab: • Momentum Affinity 0908 f 7640/Aubergine. (2 yds per chair) Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Fnish wPOt Geomia Oak. Standard £dae ,-18 IT ZM7Zt;;aA Qj" • • Rm 132 2 Magna ST8-BC:A- Storage Tower Bookcase. 430,00 455.90 3084-12 30'Wx84"Hx12"D. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna ST8-BCA- Storage Tower Bookcase. 438.00 464.28 3684.12 36'Wx84"Hx12"D. finish: Georgia Oak. Rm 133 1 Magna COB Center Drawer, Black. finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak 1 Magna MT8-2436 Desk Top 24x36. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna H8HD-96 System 8 Storage Hutch w/ 3 1,022.00 1,083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna FPI-96 Fabric Panel. 96'W 2100- 98.50 104.41 424/Amethyst 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.77 Tech 36'W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SAS-3872-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 24L 36x72x24 LefVGRL w/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna SS-2472lGRR System 8 Desk Shell. 24x72/GRR 429.50 455.27 wlMod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19,61 2 Magna SFA3-60 36"W x 60"H Bookcase wlThree 324.00 343.44 Adj. Shelves and One Fixed. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 392.57 399.00 ,j wlForward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnuemabc Lill Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord. (1 114Yd per chair) 19 0 • 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arts Chair, w/ 450.03 460.00 upholstered back open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity 0908 7540/Aubergine. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. (2 yds per chair) Flnishr wPD1 Georaia Oak. S4ndarc! Edge. Rm 134 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Finish: 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTS-2436 Desk Top 2446. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna HBFtD-95 System 8 Storage Hutch w/ 3 1,02100 1,083.32 Hinged Doors. 96W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-96 Fabric Panel. 96'W 2100- 98.50 104.41 424/Amethyst 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.60 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 6 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 Tech 36M Locks(2). Finish Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SAS-3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.32 24L 36x72x24 LefVGRLw/Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S8-2472 System 8 Desk Shell. 24x721GRR 429.50 455.27 w/Mod. Finish: Gerogia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard ".,Pv. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SFA3-60 36'W x 60"H Bookcase wfThree 324.06 343.44 Adj. Shelves and One Fixed, Finish: Georgia Oak 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 1410 15.37 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 392.57 399.00 w/Forward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back, PnuemaUc UR Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722iConcord. (1 114Yd per 0 ~ chair) 20 ! - =710"E-3 TT - e • 1 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 450.03 460.00 Upholstered Back, open arm. Fab: Momentum Affinity 2100- 4241Amrthyst. Finish to match !Magna Georgia Oak. (2 yds per fabric) Finish WP01 04oraia Oak. Slandard Edge. i Rm 135 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Black. Finish- 54.50 57.77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTS-2436 Desk Top 24x36. Finish: Georgia 250.00 265.00 Oak 1 Magna H81-10-72 System 8 Storage Hutch wl 3 825.00 874.50 Hinged Doors. 72W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-72 Fabric Panel. 72'W 3548-040 91.50 96.99 Prism 2 Magna WL36 Work Light 36" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFTS-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.71 Tech 36'W Locks(2). Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna P-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 327.50 347.15 Finish: Georgia Oak. i Magna P88.1624 System 8 Pedestal Blank, Finish: 222.00 235.32 Georgia Oak. Magna SA8.3672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 970.00 1,028.20 24R 36x72x24 RightlGRR wlMod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT88.3672.3 Modular 8 Sow Front Top, 649.50 688.47 36"x72"x30". Edge: Detailed. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PF-OF1624 Freestanding Pedestal. File/File. 324.50 343.97 16"Wx24"D. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT21 Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 197.00 208.82 • Georgia 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 3 Magna STV8-3665- Storage Tower for Audio Visual 877.50 930.15 241GRV Storage. Vertical Grommets. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna ESH Extra Sheif. Finish: Georgia Oak 30.50 32.33 L' • 3 Magna UP065 Upper Pocket Doors for upper 65" 388.50 411.81 • • high storage tower, Finish: Georgia Oak. 21 a c:.. 14 • r • 3 Magna LHD Lower Hinged Doors for upper 65" 152.00 161.12 high storage tower. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna TVT Pull Out Tray. Finish: Georgia Oak. 157.00 166.42 1 Magna V084848 Visual Display Board. Finish: 1,042.50 1,105.05 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna T042-CYL Round Table. 42"D. Finish: 590.50 625.93 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 861G Mirage Leather High Back Chair w/ 922.61 980.00 Knee Till, Upholstered Panel Arm, Beech Wood Pneumatic Lift Wood Base. Fabric: Chateau Leather EL- 912 Ebony. 4 Arcadia 870 Mirage Series Low Back Chair w/ 632.49 650.00 Knee OIL Black Urethane Arm. Pneumatic Lift. Black Base. Fabric: Momentum 09807540. (5 yds per f chair) Finish WP01 Georaia Oak Detailed Edge. Finance Rm 136-138 Rm 136 I 1 Arcadia 130-302020 16" Rec. Occassional Table. Finish 398.04 410.00 I to match Magna Georgia Oak. 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Cf.iir w/ 408.80 420.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: Momentum Marco Polo 09502336, Lvening. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Rm 137 • 10 Arcadia 773 Cpyress Series Low Back 520.56 550.00 Conference Chairs w/ Swivel Tilt. Upholstered arm, el Lift. Black Base Finish. Fabric: Maharani 40430111 Tangier 004 Tornado Blue. I 22 - - r,. • 0 • r • ' I Rm 13B 1 Magna XST-V8- TV Can wl VCR Storage. Finish: 883.00 935.98 Mobile 3629- Georgia Oak. 24 EE Council Chambers Rm 139 I Rm 139 10 Arcadia 773 Cypress Series Low Back 511.22 520.00 Conference Chairs wl Swivel Tilt, Upholstered arm, el Lift. Black Base Finish. Fabric: Momentum 09502336 Marco polo, Evening 1 Magna TT3060-STN Veneer Table 30x60. Edge Detail. 590.00 625.40 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Claridge WAW126-4 Coat Rack w/ steel hanger rod and 190.0 193.37 hangers. 49 112". Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak 4 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Task Chair 383,43 390.00 wlForward Till Adj, Arms, Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Design Tex Eureka 1989- 403 Navy 1 Reupholster of Theatre Style Seating. Labor/Installation (One Trip-Cne Week) 114 Design Tex Yards of fabric Fabric: Design Tex Eureka 1989- 23.94 25.00 403 Navy. Legal Rm140 Rm 140 1 Magna X-ST•V8- TV Carl w1 VCR Storage. Finish: 88100 935.58 Mobile 3629- Georgia Oak. 24 PHASE II City Manager's Department Rm 101-107 • Rm 101 4 Arcadia 1631 Arden Lounge Chair. Fabric: 744.19 750.00 Maharam 404301. Tangier 004 Tornado Blue 1 Arcadia 135.482030 135 Series Aria Rectangular Table. 438.17 440.00 4840x30. Finish to match Magna ' - Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna X-ST-V8• TV Cart with Cabinet Storage. 883.00 935.98 • • Mobile 3629- Slide Doors on side. Finish: 24 Georgia Oak. 23 l I ~ . • • _ t Rm 102 4 Svex SX56616 Symetrix II Mid Back Task Chair. 333.00 333.00 Pneumatic Seat Height. Adj. Back Height Adjustable back angle with infinite lock. Adjustable seat angle with infinite lock. Adjustable height arms (tapered tear drop). Fabric: Momentum Solo. 097117221Concord. Rm 103 1 Magna SAS-3672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792.00 839.52 I 241R1GRR 36x72x224 RighVGRR w1Mod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTS-2436 Desk Connector. 2036 No'Mcd. 116.50 123.49 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S3-24721GRL System 8 Desk Shell. 24x72/GRL. 429.50 455.27 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna 1181-10-72 Storoge Hutch wit Hinged Doors. 825.00 974.50 72'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI.72 72" Tackboard, Grade B/ 2100-405 91.50 96.99 Lavender Neutral. 2 Magna WL36 Work Light 36" 67.50 71.55 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 2 Magna PTS-OB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/BoxlFiie. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna CPB Center Drawer. Finish: Georgia 54.50 57.77 Oak 3 Magna ST84LF-3053 "Four Drawer 36'W Lateral File wl 1,057.50 1,120.95 24 locks. (see notes below for Vacant Exec. Adm.) Detailed Edge. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 392.57 392,57 Chair w/Forward Tilt, Adj. Arms. Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lift, Fabric: Momentum Soto, 09711722rConcord. Finish: WP01 Georaia Oak - Standard • • • 24 ii l...L... .r • • r Rm 104 1 Magna SA8.3672-24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell. 792,00 839.52 24R/GRR 36x72x24 RighVGRR wlMod. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magra SS-2484/GRL System 6 Desk Shell, 20841GRL. 477.50 506.15 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8.2436 Desk Connector. 2436 No/Mod 11650 123.60 Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna PTS-OB16 System 8 Pedestal. BoxlBoxlFile 248.00 262.88 wllocks. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna MLFT-3619 Two Drawer 36" Laterals. Finish: 505.50 539.01 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna HSHD-84 Storage Hutch w/ Hinged doors. 848.50 899.41 84'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna WL42 Work Light 42" 10.50 74.73 1 Magna FPI.84 84"W Fabric Panel in Grade 93.50 99.11 Bl2100-405 Lavender Neutral 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Magna RKT21 Adj. Keyboard Tray. Finish: 197.00 208.82 Georgia Oak. 2 Magna ST84LF-3053 "Four Drawer 36'W Lateral File 1,057.50 1,120.95 24 w/ locks (see notes below) Detailed Edge. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna COB Center Drawer. Finish: Georgia 54.50 57.77 Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 1 Magna ST8.2LF-3065 Storage Tower 65"H, Rectangular 916.50 971.49 24 Top. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna UHD-65 Upper Hinged Doors. Finish: 152.00 161.12 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 392.57 399.00 ChairwlForward Tilt, Adj. Arm, s, Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Momentum Solo. 097117221Concord 1 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair, with 444.59 460.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fab: Grade S. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. • Finish: WP01 Georgia Oak . Standard • Eon O 0 " The Four High Lateral Files in 103 and 104 are to be Keyed Alike. 25 • 0 • i • Rm 105 1 Magna COB Center Drawer. Finish: Georgia 54.50 $7.77 Oak Pull. j 1 Magna MTS-2436 Desk Top. 2036. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak. 1 Magna H8HO-96 Storage Hutch w/3 Hinged Doors. 1,022.00 1,083.32 96'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI.96 Interior Fabric Panel. 96"W. 2100- 98.50 104.41 405/1-avender Neutral 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFTS-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.77 Tech 36"W Locks. (2). Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna PT8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File, 243.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SA8- System 8 Angled Desk Shell w/ 792.00 839.52 I 3672/GRR Modesty Panel. 36x72. GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna S8.2472/GRL System 8 Desk Shell wl Modesty 429.50 455.27 Panel. 24x72. GRL. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna RKT•21 Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 197.00 208.82 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wire Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 1 Magna STV8.3665- Sic age Audio Visual tower w/ 719.00 762.14 241GRV Vertical Grommet 65"H. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna UPD65 Upper Pocket Doors. 65"H. Finish: 388.50 411.81 Georgia Oak. 1 1 Magna LHD Lower Hinged Doors for 65"H 152.00 161.12 Storage Tower. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna TVT Pull Out TV Tray. Finish: Georgia 157.00 166.42 • r Oak Magna V084848 Visual Display Board. Finish: 896.50 950.29 1 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 392.57 399.00 Chair wlForward Tilt, Adj. Arms, Adj. Height Back. Pnuematic Lift. Fabric: Momentum 801009711722 • • 26 q • 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chairwl 450.03 460.00 upholstered back. Fab: COM (2 yds per chair). Finish to match agna Georgia Oak. Finish, wp01 Georgia Oak Edae.. . Standard Rm 106 1 Magna MT8-3672 Modular 8 Storage Top, 184.50 195.57 36"Dx72'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MPS-4029 Modesty Panel. 40x29. Finish 132.00 139.92 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna P-DF1630 Freestanding Pedestal. File/File. 327.50 347.15 16'Wx30"0. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna P-OB1630 Freestanding Pedestal. 32750 347.15 BoxlBox/Fiie.16'Wx30"D. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer, Front Pull-Georgia 54.50 57.77 Oak. Crodenaa piece 2 Magna STS-21-F-3065 Storage Towerwl Rectangular 914.50 971.49 Top. Lateral File Drawers. 65"Hx30'Wx24"D. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna UHD Upper Hinged Doors for 65" High 152.00 161.12 Storage Tower.(ST8-2LF-3065- 24). Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna 58-2460IGRL Modular 8 Desk Shell, 24"Ox60'W 399.00 422.94 Grommet Left. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna H8-HD-60 Modular 8 Storage Hutch wl 4 775.50 822.03 Hinged Doors. 60'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna FPI-60 Interior Fabric Panel. 60'W. Fabric: 90.00 95.40 1 Magna WL48 Work Llght 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna RKT-21 Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 197,00 208.82 • Georgia Oak Nell un;t 3 Magna STV8-3065- Audio Visual Storage Tower wl 650.50 689.53 24 Rectangular Top. 65"Hx30'V624"D. Finish: Georgia Oak. • - 1 Magna SN8- Audio Visual Storage Tower. 694.50 736.17 • • J 30651GRV 65"Hx3o'W. Vertical Grommet. Finish: Georgia Oak. 27 i • • I I Magna UPD Upper Pocket Doors for 65" High 388.50 411.81 Audio Visual Tower. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna UHD Upper Hinged Doors for 65" High 152.00 '161.12 Storage Tower and Audio Visual Tower. Finish: Georgia Oak. 4 Magna LHD Lower Hinged Doors for 65" High 152.00 161.12 Storage Tower. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna ESH Extra Shelf. Finish: Georgia Oak. 30.50 32.33 1 Magna M Pull Out TV Tray. Finish: Georgia 157.00 166.42 Oak. 1 Magna TD48-CYL 48" Oia Conference Table. Finish. 595.50 631.23 Georgia Oak. 1 Arcadia 881G Mirage Leather High Back w/Knee 922.34 990.00 till, Beech wood arms and base, and Pneumatic. (G=Gathered Fab.) Fab: Chateau Leather*El- 914 Burgundy. ~t 3 Arcadia 3910 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 411.46 440.00 upholstered back. Fab: Maharam 404303 Mishima 003 Tawny. f Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. Finish' "01 Georoia Oak, Edge: QF,tailed Rm 107 1 Magna TR48120- P-r- :.k i 48x120w1Two 2,820.50 2,989.73 33RDCL `n , ^ r.=r;. Grommet Thru Der r"tnish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MTS-1560 60" Modular Top. Finish: Georgia 303.00 321.18 Oak. 2 Magna FDS3015 30" Double Storage. Finish: 424.00 449.44 Georgia Oak. • I Magna VDB4872 Visual Display Board. 48x72. 2,210.00 2,342.60 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna X-ST-V8- Storage Cabinet for TV and VCR 927.00 982.62 ' Mobife 3629- wl Hinged Doors and Casters. 24 Grommet Grommet. Finish: Georgia Oak. 18 I • • 12 Arcadia 775 Cypress Series Low Sack 549.30 575.00 Conference Chairs w[Knee Tilt, Black Urethane Arm, Black Base, Pneumatic Lit Fabric: Momentum Affinity. 09087540/Aubergine. Finish: WPO1 Georgia Oak. Edoe: Detailed Lower Level Breakroom 3 SSI S4800AA 48" Dia. Sparta Series Break room 314.60 320.32 tables. Finish: Laminate lop and Bullnose vinyl edge, to match Magna Georgia Oak. 12 Protocol R-SC Renaissance Armless Chair Finish: 99.00 109.80 Veneer Seat and Back ® Clty Managets Office Rm 108.111 Rm 108 1 Magna TD48-CYL 48' Round Table. Finish: Georgia 595.50 631.23 Oak. 4 Stylex 350 Bounce Arm Chair wl upholstered 165.00 175.00 ! back, open arm. Fab: Momentum i Marco Polo 09502336/Evening F_ ,nish: WP01 Georgia Oak. Standard Edge Rm 109 1 Magna SA8-3672.24- System 8 Angled Desk Shell wl 792.00 839.52 241R/GRR Modesty Panel. 36x72. Right. Grommet Right Finish: Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna MT8-2436 System 8 Modular Top. 116.50 123.49 24"Ox36'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. i 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 1 Magna SS-2472 System 8 Desk Shell wt Modesty 385.50 408.63 Panel. 24x72, Finish: Georgia Oak. • 1 Magna 1-18-HO.72 System 8 Storage Hutch w! Hinged 825.00 874.50 0 • Doors, 72'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 29 i 5 • i • 1 Magna H8-HD-60 System 8 Storage Hutch wl Hinged 775.50 822.03 Ooors. 60'W. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MLTS-3615 System 8 Under Surface Lateral 508.50 539.01 File. 36"W. Finish: Georgia Oak 2 Magna PT8-1)816 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna PT8-DF16 System 8 Pedestal. File/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish. Georgia Oak 1 Magna S8-30601GRR System 8 Desk Shell. WOx80'W. 460.00 467.60 Grommet. Finish: Georgia Oak 2 Magna WL48 Worklight 48" 74.00 79.44 1 Magna FPI.72 Interior Fabric Panel. 2100-405 91.50 96.99 Lavender Neutral 1 Magna FPi-60 Interior Fabric Panel. 2100.405 91.50 96.99 Lavender Neutral. 2 Magna RKT Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 142.00 150.52 Georgia Oak 1 Magna CDB Center Drawer. Pull Finish: 54.50 57,77 Georgia Oak 1 Magna PT-PC2419 PdnterCabineL Finish: Georgia 313.50 332.31 Oak 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair w/ 408.80 412.00 upholstered back, open arm. Fabric: Momentum Marco Polo 095023361Evening. Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak 2 Styiex SX56616 Symetrix tl Mkt Back Task Chair. 333.00 350.00 Pneumatic Seat Height Adj. Back Height Adjustable back angle with infinite lock Adjustable seat angle with infinite lock Adjustable height arms (tapered teardrop). Fabric: Momentum Solo 09711722/Concord i Finfah, WP01 Gaomh Oak Edge Standard 30 • ..iii ~T_-.t-.-^.,...~ • • • Rm 110 I Magna CDB Center Drawer Black. Finish: 54.50 57,77 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8-2436 Desk Top, 2446. Finish: Georgia 116.50 123.49 Oak- 1 Magna HSHD-96 Storage Hutch w/ 3 Hinged Doors. 1,022.00 1,083.32 96"W. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna FPI-96 Interior Fabric Panel. 96"W Fabric: 98.50 104.41 2100 Lavender Neutral. 2 Magna WL48 Work Light 48" 74.00 78.44 1 Magna MLFT8-3619 System 8 Two Drawer Lateral File. 554.50 587.77 Tech 38'W Locks. (2), Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PT8-OBIS System 8 Pedestal, Bo)dBox/File. 248.00 262.88 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SA8- System 8 Angled Desk Shell wl 792.00 839.52 3672/GRR Modesty Panel. 36x72. GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak I Magna S8-24721GRL System 8 Desk Shell wl Modesty 429.50 455.27 Panel. 24x72. GRL Finish: Georgia Oak. I Magna RKT-21 Adjustable Keyboard Tray. Finish: 17.00 208,82 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna WM Wre Manager 18.50 19.61 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate. 14.50 15.37 1 Magna X-ST-V8- Storage Cabinet for TV and VCR 883,00 935.98 Mobile 3629- Y!, 'Hinged Doors and Casters. 24 Finish. Georgia Oak 1 Magna SFAB-60 System 8 Bookcase. 6)"Hx60'W. 373.50 395.91 Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Arcadia 918 Ecilpse Series Mid Back Task 392.57 399.99 Chair wlForward Tdt, Adj. Arms. Adj. Height Back, Pnuematic Lifl. • , Fabric: Momentum Solo. 2 Arcadia 350 Serenade Arm Chair wl 414.63 420.00 l upholstered back Fab: Maharam 4043011 Tangier 004! Tornado Blue. (2 yds per chair). Finish to match Magna Georgia Oak. • Finish: WPOT Georo+a Oak EGQa Staneary • • J ' { 31 i 1 • • Rrn 111 1 Magna MT88.3672- Modular 8 Bow Front Top. 649.50 688.47 30 36x72x30. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna P68.1624 Pedestal Blank. 16*NW4"D. 222.00 235.32 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MPB-4029 Modesty Panel. 40x29. Finish: 132.00 139.92 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna PF-DFi624 Freestanding Pedestai. FilelFile. 324.50 343.97 16'Wx24'0, Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna SAS- System 8 Angled Desk Shell w/ 970.00 1,028.20 A 3672/GRR Modesty Panel. 36x72. GRR. Finish: Georgia Oak. 2 Magna SPL24 Splice Plate 14.50 15.37 1 Magna P8-DB16 System 8 Pedestal. Box/Box/File. 327.50 347.15 Finish: Georgia Oak 2 Magna P8-OF 16 System 8 Pedestal. File/Fiie. 327.50 347.15 Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna MT8.2436 Modular Top. 2406. Finish: 250.00 265.00 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna H8-HD102 System 8 Storage Hutch. 102". 1,225.00 1,298.50 Finish: Georgia Oak. Q 1 Magna FPI.102 Interior Fabric Panel. 102'W. 101.50 107.59 Fabric: 2100-401 Blue Neutral. 1 Magna DS-3619 Storage Cab. w/ Hinged Doors wl 457.50 484.95 System 8 Door Puits. Finish: Georgia Oak. 1 Magna VD84848 Visual Display Board. Finish: 896.30 950.29 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna STV8-3665- Storage Audio Visual Tower wl 877.50 930.15 24/GRV Vertical Grommets. 65"H. Finish: Georgia Oak 1 Magna UP065 Upper Pocket Doors. 65"H. Finish: 388.50 411.81 Georgia Oak. 1 Magna TVT Pull Out TV Tray. Finish: Georgia 157.00 166.42 Oak. 1 Magna ESH Extra Shelves. Finish: Georgia 30.50 32.33 `I Oak 1 I Arcadia 880G Mirage Leather High Back wftee 905.22 990.00 bit, Black base and Open Arms, and Pneumatic. (G=Gathered 3 Arcadia 870 Mirage Low Back Chair w/ Knee 624.18 650.00 • Tilt, Black Urethane Arm. O O Pneumatic Lift. Black Base. Fabric: Maharam 32 - , • • I Magna TD42-CYL Round Table. 42"D. Finish: 577.00 611.62 Georgia Oak Flnlsh7 "01 Georala Oak. Edw Detailed 1 Magna MTS-3830 Modular Top. 36"M30"0. Finish: 261.00 276.66 Georgia Oak 1 Magna X-CR-Cart Overhead Projector Cart. 24'W4". 780,50 827.33 Finish: Georgia Oak Fhsh: WPOt Gao:als Qak Edac Deeded Public Hallway!!/Mlac, 3 Arcadia 7672 Aria Benches 72"Wx 20"D x 18"H. 635.58 635.58 Fabric: Maharam 404301-Tangier 1004 Tornado 81ue.Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak 8 RCS UP3101 18"H Wood Slat Receptacle. 418720 495.32 Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak. 4 RCS UP3106 36"H Wood Slat Receptacle. 859,20 873.52 Finish: To match Magna Georgia Oak. !i TOTAL SID: WELLS GROUP $269,284.22 l THOi4it9 CONTRACT FURNITURE $279,675.12 • i 33 r ~RnYM'wYMrM< ` -V1 R i PEAR-19-1997 11:17 copj& 2 A-Z Fax 0 1 COaa2AY ASSOCIATES. M 301 fill rr%W DAUAS, TLW 72=4354 TEL 216702X0 FAX 216 631 6 211 EYWIL CCRGAN9CORGAY.CD4 Date 18 Much 1991 To Janay Pollack With City of Denton Fix 817-566-8242 From Deborah L. Bridge, IIDA Janay- It is the recommendation of Corgan Associates, Inc. t.' st the City of Denton proceed with the awardiag the furniture bid for Phase I at City Hall Renovation to The Wells Group in Dallas. Texas. The Wells Group has an outstanding reputation for their follow through and timely delivery and lnstalladon of goods. The Wells Grou^ seeks to establish and retain long term client relationships and will provide excellent service to rite City of Denton. Please call if you have any questions. Deborah cc: Barry Wells The Wells Group Fax: 214-965.9222 • j r Mete are 1 pages, iccluding taus ore. MALIN 34 AIL h.~ a n • • Agenda Mo. _ Agenda Item E-1 9 7 , ORDINANCE NO. Date_ E-1 , AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING CONIPETMVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR 1 HE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVID!NG 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. supplici 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 i 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, sho %n 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 2017 1 TECHLINE S 10.310.00 2017 2 PREFERRED SALES S 10,021.00 2017 3 PREFERRED SALES S 12.618.00 SECTION ll. 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. r ` SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a forrnal «ritten agreement as a result of the acceptance. approval. and awarding of the bids. the Cit}• Manager or his designated representative is hereby • authorized to execute the written contract tshich 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 ~ 0.0111 • • SECTION 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 %ith 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: I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: SUPPLYDRD • ti 1 2 • r • DATE: APRIL 1. 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT T% Mayor and Members of the City Council FRO.d: Kathy Du Bose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID # 2017 - DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS RECOM!NIENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the low evaluated bidder for each item as follows: Item 1 • 2 EA - 300KVA 120x208 Techline S 5,155.00 each Item 2 - I EA - IOOOKVA 2771480 Preferred Sales 510,024.00 each Item 3 - I EA - 1500KVA 277/480 Preferred Sales 512,618.00 each for a total expenditure of $32,952.00. SUSLNIARY. This bid is for the purchase of distribution transformers for use at various new commercial construction sites and as a replacement at Strickland Middle School These transformer proposals are evaluated using load loss figures to show the most energy efficient unit, calculated along with purchase price to arrive at the lowest cost of purchase and operation. Bids w ere received from seven vendors in response to twenty-one bid packages mailed. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED. Electric Distribution Department, Electric Utilities, Electric customers of the City of Denton. J FISCAL I6IPACT: Budgeted funds for 1997 Distribution transformer purchases. Acco,;ni 4 610-103- 1031-3680-9222. Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Transformer Evauluation, Don McLaughlin 03/10/97 Respectfully submitted: w a3 5t • Keth uBo Executive erector of Finance Prepared by 06. Name: Denise Harpool Title: Senior Buyer ti A roved: % t_ Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 853. AGE 3 x! y. • • • 1 1 wr) M 2017 PII)N%S1F I)IS I RIB('110% 1 R1%St0R11LRS P11 NI, I.S 11.1 III I\F. PRIES IM St.S('O K85 11 F.."0 1L111'I I. I R%NS. OPLN I) %I F'. F ERRI'AR1'21, 1997 p QT}' DESCRIPTION ILSDOR YFNDOR 1'F.NIN)R 1'FNIN)k 1'F.ND0R }RNINIk 1't:SD0N L' 3EA IK%NSF0RMER,SUOKS'A,12U/20$V 3PII FG 55.336.00 55,155.11 MAN $5718.00 $5,270.0 $5,299.00 56,810.111 10-IIOLF. 2. I EA I IL%SSF0R19.R, IDOOKS'A, 217714801' SPADES 31,11 CG $10,024,00 59,463.65 511,025.00 SIO500.00 $11,220.00 510,134.00 SIMOM.INI 10-110LF. 3. Ito 1R.►NSF0RVER.I.Wk1'A,27714801' SPADES 31,21FG 512,618.D0 $13,344.90 514,094.00 515.750.00 514,370.00 512,639.00 511.09.3.011 , • +51011.00 8.11014'SPADES I a • • • • r , 1 Bid Evaluation Bid Nurnber 2017 Description 99900016 TKANX.. 3PH UC 300A'1 A 120/20S Quantity 2 Load Factor 0.38 ' Vendor NL {{Z Cost Delivery Evaluated Cost Techllne 505 2394 $5,155.11 98 $29,211,72 WESCO 470 2348 $5,299.00 70 $29.260.80 Preferred 474 2298 $5.33800 70 $29,267.64 Priester 713 2044 $5.169.00 1S4 $29,683.57 KIDS El ectncal 713 2044 $5.27000 154 $30,224.95 Temple 168 1903 $687000 70 530,812.22 San Angelo 623 2400 $5,71 B.00 56 532.116,46 Description 99900021 TRANXS.. 3PH UC 1000KVA 2771480 9uantily 1 Load Factor 0.36 Vendor NL "IL Cost Delivery Evatuated Cost EII Preferred 1001 6931 $10,02400 70 564,168.11 WESGO 1105 6756 $10,134.00 70 564,850.38 Tethline 1338 6975 $9,483.68 98 565,287.02 Priester 1241 6700 $11,025.00 154 568.81778 KBS Eleoncal 1241 6700 $11,220.00 154 509,478.86 Temple 423 5609 $14,308.00 70 $09.64447 San Angela 1800 10000 $10,500.00 70 582,149.20 ; • • a llonJar, Harch 1e. 1997 Pagel of 5 I` • r • Description 99900025 T&AAAS,. 3PH UG 1500KIIA 2771450 Qumrrirv 1 Load Factor 0.36 _Vendor AT {1'L Cost Deli, er.v Evaluated Cost Prelened 1441 9161 $12,618.00 70 $83.660,44 i I WESCO 1885 8554 $12,639.00 70 MS.50B.97 7echiine 1881 9003 $13,344.90 112 $89.316.52 Temple 554 8643 $17,663. DO 70 $91,681.99 Priesler 2066 9696 $14,094.00 98 595.39?41 KBS Elecln[af 2048 9698 $14.370.00 98 596.32329 I San Angelo 1900 15800 $15750,00 10 5119,091.13 I I r i i i i ttondur, March 10. 1997 Pape 2 oft 6 ~ttaW+i-err-• . a~ r 7: • • Sheet 1 Total Cost Evaluation Bid 2017 Stock a DESCRIPTION Qq Vendor Mfg. NE WL Coif Days fotof Howard 99900016 TRANX.. 3PH UG 300KVA 120,208 2 Tech Line Industries 505 2394 5,155 9P $10,3'-- 99700024 TRANXS.. 3PH UG 1000KVA 2771480 1 Preferred Pauwels 1001 6931 10,024 70 $ 10,r%, 99900025TRANXS.3PHUG1SOOKVA277/480 1Preferred Pauwefs 1441 9161 12,61870 $12,61_' Total cost $32,952 r 1 7 L b'"A" imam • • Agenda No. Agenda Item ORDINANCE NO. Date- AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS. EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR TI IF. EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. N11IEREAS, the City has solicited. received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessan materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and NVH EREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has rc%icwed 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 MIEREAS. 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 Cl FY 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 2019 1.2 WITCH EQUIPMENT $66.498 73 SECTION 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted oids, 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 Ill. 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. upprocal, 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 1 r • • SECTION 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 v.Titten contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effecti%e 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 • r 2 • • DATE; APRIL 1, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FRO,% 1: Kathy DuBose. Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID # 2019 - TRAILER DiOUNTED BORING MACHINE REC031111ENDATLON: We recommend this bid be awarded to the low bidder meeting specification, Witch Equipment, in the total amount of $66,498.73. SUNLMARY: This bid is for the purchase of a self contained, trailer mounted, horizontal directional, fluid assisted boring machine. This unit will replace a 1991 Jcv'Trac boring machine (EMIS 49122) which is being traded in as part of the bid. The boring machine is used in trenchless installations of underground electric lines in conduit, operated from a surface launch position that eliminates the need for a pit. and disruption of public and private property. The lower bid of Vermeer did not meet the specification requirements of 182 rpm spindle speed, and pullback of 80004b. The Vermeer unit offered 120 rpm and 7000 lb respectively. E Two bid proposals were received in response to four bid packages mailed to vendors. ~ i PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Motor Pool, Electric Distribution, and Electric customeisof the City of Denton. FISCAL DIPACT: Funds are available from Islotor Pool, Account No. 720-025-0584-9104. Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Memorandum from Jack Jarvis dated March 17, 1997 Respectfully submitted: • ov _ r Kath) uB Executive erector of Finance Prepared by: Name: Denise Harpool SSS Title: Senior Buyer j A roved: s= Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M, Title: Purchasing Agent • y--may^~- • • • BID _ 2019 BID NAME TRAILER MTD BORING MACHINE Witch Vermeer Vermeer Equipment Equipment Equipment OPEN DATE MARCH 11, 1997 (Alternate) # QUANTITY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR 1 1 TRAILER MTD BORING MACHINE $91,513.00 $95,995.00 $66,771.16 MANUFACTURE Oltch Wtch Vermeer Vermeer MODEL J7920.NIP11 016X20 D7X11A DELIVERY A.R.O. 60 Days 60 Days 10.30 Days 2 1 LESS TRADE IN FOR 1991 DITCH $25,014.27 $13,000,00 $10.000,00 WTCH • JETJTRAC NET AFTER TRADE $66,e96.73 $62,996.00 $56,711,16 I II I 4 { • i 97 i 7 R% : 1 6 i CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / 215 E. McK11VNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 MEMORANDUM f TO: Tom Shaw FROM: Jack Janis DATE: March 17, 1997 SUBJECT: Bid Dumber 2019 (Boring Machine) Toni, my recommendation is Witch Equipment, They are the low bid meeting specifications at a cost of $91,51300. Less a trade in of old unit for S25,014 27, makes the total balance of purchase price 566,498 for this unit. This unit is funded from accumulated Motor Pool funds, budget approved for 1997, replacing a worn out 1991 MCH, EMIS Id #9122 If you have any questions please call, • 1 k . 5 8171566.8200 0/FW METRO 434.2529 C ~ r • • Agenda No. '4/3 Agenda Item 7 ORDINANCE NO. Dateg 7 _ l 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 Cite ordinances: and I WHEREAS. the City Nlanager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bidj for the materials, equipment. supplies or sen ices as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore: and NVHEREAS, 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 sen ices approved and accepted herein; NOW. THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HERELY ORDAINS: SECTION L That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials. equipment, supplies. or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2P'9 ALL MODLIN RECREATION EQUIPMFNT $83.737,00 S1CTION 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 lm itations. Bid Proposals. and related documents. • SECTION Ill. 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 authoritcd to e:XCCWe the wTitten contract which shall be attached hereto: provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions. specifications. standards. quantities and • specified sums conained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. • • • 0 • • i SECTION 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 N%ith 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: St'PPIN ORn I i i 2 ,~r e ~cYVw...r«....rr..rvw.. i_. a u....d~ f ~•`CJ^ 1.d„~ ur'.-~-,~ ~~Jy'~ ~ , - • • DATE: APRIL I, 1997 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executi%e Director of Finance SUBJECT: BID 0 2029 - PLAYGROUND STRUCTURES RECO.NMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Modlin Recreation Equipment, in the amount of 383,737.00, kith delivery in 30-45 days. SUMN ARY: This bid is for the purchase of playground structures to be installed at McKenna Park. Fred Moore Park and Phoenix Park. The structures include slides. canopies, climbers. horizontal ladders, chin bars, arch bridges, swings and other play areas. The structures are all steel construction and car*, a full one year %varranty. Not included is installation, %ihich will be bid at a later dart. PROGRADIS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Parks Department and Citizens of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: This playground renovation project mill be funded from C1P Bond funds. account number 453-038-PART:-9629-9009 and CDBG funds account number 219-05A-CDAK- 8502, Attachments: Tabulation Sheet Respectfully submitted: I~ S t C LA 1\14 Kathy u se Executive Director of Finance Appro%cd: • Name: Tom D. Shaw. C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 95'.age nda I • • BID 0 :029 BID N\NIE PL,%%GROI ND STRI CIE RES 51ODl IN PROF ESSIO\,%L THE JIM cEA HE STER- RECREAL ION RE('RE.ITIO\ FLA%%%ELL &ASSOC. KNEPSHIELD OPEN D 11 E \LI RCII 25, 1997 EQPT INC GROLP OF TEXAS t\C. , r QI\ DESCRIPTION _ \E\DOR \ENDOR \"ENDOR \F\DOR. 1. !v% PLAN ST RI CTl RE GROIP 1 535,188.00 S42.8$3.00 $373988.00 538.592.00 546.901.00 1 EA P1 %N S TRI CTl RE GROI P2 512.63690 517341.00 $16 134.00 512,220.D0 $14.747.00 l C % ?I %N S1'RCCTI RF. GROI P3 $1.253 . DO S1.261.00 51,937.00 51,280.00 56.501.00 584.]6590 ILLORNO\T 5517.00 TOT %L BID 583,737.00 53043:00 194.247.00 590.684.D0 5115.D50.00 D1. I.IN ERI" 3045 D.\\S 35-42 D.I\S 42-49 DAYS 35 DM 30-45D\1S LL TERSATF: 536,4}4.00 $15,741.00 $1.803.00 590.453.00 , 1 • i k - , y H i ern • `~~~-+-..~rf' • ~.1 ~ ~i • • Apendd No Afienda Item Date. Y 1 7 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Mike Jez, Executive Director of Operations DATE: April 1, 1997 SUBJECT: REVISION OF POSITION CLASSIFICATION ORDINANCE 96.030 RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that the City Council approve the revision tc the existing ordinance establishing classified positions in the Fire Department of the City of Denton. SQJW MARY.• Both the City of Denton Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service Commission and Section 143.042 of t1e Local Government Code requires the City (Council to establish classified positions by ordinance. The City of Denton Firemen's and Policemen's Civil Service Commission aporoved the number of authorized positions at their March 27, 1997, meeting. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 96.030 has been in effect since February, 1996, and has not been revised since the budget was approved for Fiscal Year 1996197. The revisions that are teing made have occurred as a result of the budget and include the three (3) ,.attalion Chief positions approved by the City Council in the budget 1996197. In addition, the Fire Department is requesting an amendment to the nL'mber of Drivers and Firefighters approved in the current budget. However, the total number of Positions remains unchanged. In the 199611997 budget, the Fire Depan:nent reclassified three (3) Driver positions to Battalion Chi ;s, thereby providing the much needed mid-management positions for the daily operations of the three shifts. However, this created a situation in which the three shifts do not have the same number of Driver positions, Two shifts (A-Shift and B-Shift) have 10 Drivers each, while the third (C-Shift) has only 9 Drivers. The short shift does not have a Relief Driver to cover for Driver vacancies due to {nove-ups, sick leave, vacation, training, etc. Instead of a Relief Driver, C-Shift pays rank differential to a Firefighter position temporarily performing the duties of Driver. • Benefits of Proposal: All three shifts would have the same numbar or classified positions In each rank and would operate in the same manner. Relief Drivers are the newest and least experienced Drivers. They receive additional on • the job training as they fill in at virtually all stations and operate all emergency equipment. In addition, they gain increased familiarity with all six fire districts. A-Shift • • and B-Shift have a Relief Driver now, and C-Shift does not have a Relief Driver. This proposal would give C-Shift a Relief Driver. Posl*r doc Page 1 err- r^..~ • I • • • r This proposal presents a promotional opportunity for a Firefighter to advance in the Fire Department. Disadvantages of Proposal: A cost factor, although very minimal, is possible. Requires coming back in mid-budget for a change in authorized positions after reclassifving the three Drivers initially. Requires an ordinal ice change in the number of authorized Driver positions in the Fire Department by the City Council. Following Is a Summary of Classified Positions since February, 1996 (changes are highlighted and italicized): r•. r r r r r r A Shift H Shift C Shift Staff Total Fire Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Deputy Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Battalion Chiefs 0 0 0 1 1 Captains 6 6 6 2 20 Drivers 11 11 10 1 33 Firefi4hters 16 16 17 0 49 11TOTAL 33 33 33 6 105 I~ r r r . r r 11 INS A Shift B Shift C Shift Staff Total Fire Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Deputy Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Captains 6 6 6 2 20 nrltis Firefighters _ 16 16 17 0 49 TOTAL 33 33 33 6 105 O Iff;j r r 1 11 r r r r r r r A Shift B Shift C Shin Staff Total Fire Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Deputy Chief 0 0 0 1 1 Battalion Chiefs 1 1 1 1 4 Captains 6 6 6 2 20 ~.~~ta9K ! o a PAW TOTAL 33 33 33 6 105 GOS&P ooc Page 2 "Mal" NIRM _ v r • PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: None. FISCAL MPACT: ZMKMTI~ Salary Per Hour Salary PeK24-Hour'Shift Driver _ $11,84 $284.16 Too Steo Firerinhler_ 11.1 x_7.12 Difference 50.71 $17.04 The difference in hot -•V pay between a top step Firefighter and a Driver is $0.71 per hour, or $17.04 per 24-hour shift. The (Pave calendar for C-Shift for all of 1997 is completed which makes it possibly to accurately project the fiscal impact for an additional Driver position weighed against rank differentia! pay. 4 Shifts Without Driver Vacancy:_ Driver _ $1,13664 Firefighter_ 1068A8 Dfference 58848 4 Partial Shifts $56.80 TOTAL i -$124.96 I Through the entire year, there are only four (4) shifts where there is not a Driver absent, If no Driver takes off those four shifts (however, the possibility remains high that a Driver will also be off all or some o` those shifts) then the cost factor is $68.16 for the entire year. J There are an additional four (4) shifts where a Driver is scheduled off for part of a shift. This represents an additional cost Impact of $56.80. The combined total is $124.96 through October, 1997 as a worst case scenario. This figure represents the maximum fiscal impact of promoting (reclassifying) one Firefighter into an additional Driver position over the amount that will be already paid our through rank differential. Because of unscheduled vacations and sick leaves for Drivers, we estimate the fiscal Impact to be closer to $0. Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ~1/"(~ Mike Jez Executive Dirc4lor of Operations ' Prepared b Ross Chadwick ' • O Fire Chief Attachments: Proposed Ordinance and City Ordinance 96-030 PMIW aoc Page 3 • • ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE OFFICER; PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTER; REPEALING ALL PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF ANY SUCH CONFLICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Firefighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Denton Texas, upon the recommendation and request of the Director of civil Service, Denton Ponce department and the Denton fire Department, adopted and approved the attached schedule of Authorized Positions which relates to compensation and classification of police officers aid fire fighters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBN' ORDAINS, SEC 1ON I. That the schedule prescribing the number of positions for each classification of police officer and fire fighter in the City of Denton, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A. is hereby approved. SECTION IL That all prior ordinances or resolutions of the City of Denton, Texas, in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION 11 . That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1991. • JACK MILLER MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY. 1`' e • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: i - • f 1 Y l,'.wpdm fie l polite "awns dx Z ti.... a aeerrorw~rrwrmlJlilll~ , . _ a dy ZiJ _ :'f ate`- ..:a h.= f! • EXHUMT A ORDINANCE NO. _ CfTY OF DNfTON SCHEDULE OF AUTMORWw FO*rrKWS PONCEUEPARTMENT The Police Department is authorized jjj positions as follows: Chief of Police 1 Assistant Chief of Pam 1 Captain 2 LieutensM 7 Sergeant 12 Poke Offer (and Rom&) 88 FIRE DEPARTHENT The Fire Department N &Ahaized in Poeitlotw a wows: Fin ChM! 1 Deputy C hW 1 Captain 20 D#%w 31 Fin Fighter 48 • Posem Ax 1 • j i\wpdx Acrd\pollimord ORDINANCE NO. TP-0592 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE OFFICER; PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTER; REPEALING ALL PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF ANY SUCH CONFLICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service Commission of the City of Denton, Texas, upon the recommendation and request of the Director of Civil Service, Denton Police Department and the Denton Fire Department, adopted and approved the attached Schtdule of Authorized Positions which relates to compensation and classification of police officers and fire fighters; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the schedule prescribing the number of positions for each classification of police officer and fire fighter in the City of Denton, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. SECTION 11. That all prior ordinances or resolutions of the J CiCy of Denton, Texas, in conflict herewith are repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION Ill. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the ~ day of 1995, i BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAY R • ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: A • AP 0 D TO LEGAL FORM: HER RT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY by. • • ZXHIBIT A CITY OF DIMN 0CSmUL! OF AUTHORIZ=D POSITIONS I POLICE DEPARTMENT The Police Department is authorized 111 positions as followsi Chief of Police 1 Assistant Chief of Police i Captain 2 Lieutenant 7 Sergeant 12 Police Officer (and Recruits) 88 FIRE DEPARTMENT The Fire Department is authorized 105 positions as follows: Fire Chief 1 Deputy Chief 1 Battalion Chief 1 Captain 2D Driver 33 11 Fire Fighter 49 i • i Y ~1.pdoe~\ord\pollir~.ord • • Agenda Nd._ Agenda Item .4-- Date- CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUN1CiPAL BUILDING ~ 215 E McMNNEY@ DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (817) 566.8200 P VFW METRO 434.2529 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Mike Jez, Executive Director of Operations DATE: March S, 1997 SUBJECT: Summer Food Service Program RECOMMENDATION: Approve an ordinance authorizing contract with the Denton Independent School District's Food Services and Parks and Recreation to implement the Summer Food Service Program from May 27 - August 8 for children in the City of Denton, who are located in low-income areas between the ages of 1 and 18. SUAIAMRYr Thi3 free lunch program is designed to service children in areas of low-income populations during the summer months when traditional school lunch programs are not being served. This program is sponsored and funded by the Untied States Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. This Summer Food Service Program is a continuation of the free lunch program that is offered during the school year. The Texas Department of Human Services has made an effort through outreach to increase the number of cities participating in the program. Cold sack lunches will be prepared by the Denton Independent School District and served at the ' following locations: 1) MLK Recreation Center, 2) Phoenix Park, 3) Dania Park, 4) Civic Center Park, S) Owsley Neighbcrhood, 6) TWU Clubhouse Program, 7) Village East Apartments, 8) Fred Moore Learning Center, 9) Borman Elementary Summer School, 10) • Ginnings Elementary Summer School. The total estimated cost for this program is approximately $43,729. The Fred Moore Learning Center is being added this year at the request of the Boys & Girls Club to serve the 75 children that participate in their summer camp program. "Dedicated to Qualiryy San ice" 6 s • City Council Report Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Parks and Recreation Department first offered the Summer Food Service Program in 1992 at Denia Park, Phoenix Park, Fred Moore Park, Civic Center Park, and two summer school locations. At these six locations a total of 14,776 lunches were served to children 1 through 18 I years of age. The Summer Food Service Program expanded to eight lo. Wons during the summer of 1993. The additional locations were the TWU Clubhouse Program and the Owsley Neighboihood. The total number of lunches served throughout the summer was 14,749. In 1994 the Village East Apartment were identified as a low income area and became a Summer Food Program Site. Through the summer 15,094 lunches were served at the nine sites. In the 1995 the nine summer food sites served 15,585 lunches and spent $32,712. In 1996 the nine summer food sites served 13,511 lunches and spent $30,1111. A slight decrease occurred in 1996 because the two summer school sites were enrolled sites with lower attendance. In 1997 with the oddition of Fred Moore Learning Center, the number of lunches served is expected to increase significantly. The Denton Independent School District recommended approval to contract the preparation of cold sack lunches for this program when the issue was presented to their board on March 11, 1997. The program is scheduled for implementation on May 27, 1997. PROGRAUS, DEPARTMEN7S OR GROUPS AFFECTED: The Leisure Services Division of the Parks and Recreation Department will be administering this program. A Summer Coordinator will be utilized in addition to the Children's Programs Supervisor to monitor the program and ensure all requirements are met as well as the proper paperwork completed for all reports and reimbursements. k FISCAL IMPACT.- i All costs associated with the program will be reimbursed by the Texas Department of Human Services which administers this grant. i j z `4 r • E , City Council Report Page 3 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: e rector of Operations Mi e e Ex rv V Prepared by: Ed Hodney, Directo Parks and Recreation Department nf3597 i • 1 r ~ s r i s 0 w A:\SUF?tER.SER ' ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ALL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, AS REQUIRED, TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR THE 1997 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. f WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas will submit an application for funding under the National School Lunch Act, to the Texas De- partment of Human Services for the purpose of making meals avail- able to eligible children at the City's Summer Action Site pro- grams; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the grant, if received, the City will con- tract with the Denton Independent School District to provide the meals at the various cites; NOW, THEREFORE, I THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, an application for funding under the National School Lunch Act, and if funded, the Summer Food Ser- vice Program Agreement with the Texas Department of Human Services, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, along with any other documents and certificates necessary to obtain such funding. SECTION II. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract with the Denton Independent School District, substantially in the form of the contract which is attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, to provide meals for eligible individuals at the various sites, and such other documents and certifications as are necessary to carry out the 1997 Food Service Program, and to handle all fiscal and administrative matters relating to the application and the program. O PECTION III. That the expenditure of funds necessary to administer the 1997 Summer Food Service Program is hereby authorized. SECTION IV, That this ordinance shall become effective immed- iately upon its passage and approval. f PASSED AND APPROVED this the day :f 1997. • JACK MILLER, MAYOR F • • S . ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: ham' • I 1 Page 2 i • • AGREEMENT TO FURNISH FOOD SERVICE CITY OF DENTON and DENTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOOD SERVICES I THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and bf~ween the Djstfi and the City of Denton- Denton Indc=Went School District agrees to supply unitized meals inclusive of milk and juice to the Coly of Denton Pa_rk& sad Recreation Djp nn, n at the MLK Recreation Center, Phoenix Park, Denia Park, Civic Center Park, Owsley Neighborhood, TWU Playhouse Program, Village East Apartments, Borman Elementary Summer School, and Ginnings Elementary Summer School, with and for the rates herein fisted: J i Breakfasts SQMeach Lunches....... SIMeach Snacks .SQ,QQ each Supper........ %M each It is further agreed that the ' , pursuant to the provisions of the Summer Food Service Program Regulations, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A" and is • part of this agreement, wdl assure that said meals meet the minimum requirements as to nutritive value and content as outl,ned in the USDA's Sponsor Meal Preparation Handbook, and will maintain full and accurate recordings of such, including the following: • • • 1. Menu Records, including amount of food prepared. 2. Meals, includLig daily number of meals delivered by type. to 0 i • I These records must be reported to the institution promptly at the end of each month. Denjo Independent School District agrees also to retain records required under the preceding clause for a period of three years and 90 days after the end of the contract period. If audits, claims or litigation have not been resolved, all records must be retained beyond the required time period i until all issues are resolved in accordance with the Summer Food Service Program Agreement between The Cily ofp.enton and the Tex&j Department of Human i The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with the requirements of the 4 Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 regarding employment verification and retention of verification forms for any individuals hired afler November 6, 1986 who will perform labor or services under this contract, The Denton Independent School District agrees to allow for purposes of audit, examination, excerpt, and transcription; the USDA, the Comptroller of the United States, D.S. and any of their authorized representatives to have access to any other contractor's books, documents, papers, and E , records that are pertinent to the contract. The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with the required mandatory standards i • and policies concerning energy eftie.ency contained in the Texas Energy Conservation Plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94.163). 0 0 The D3111PD Independent School District agrees that except for small purchase contracts, it will O comply with and enforct provisions that allow for administrative, contractual, or legal remedies if contractors violate or breach contract terms, and any appropriate sanctions and penalties. 7 e • i • f The Denton Indrendent School Distdct agrees to be in compliance with Section 103 of the contract Wo:k Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 USC 327.330) as supplemented by the Departme it of Labor regulations (29 CFF, Part 5). Under this Act, contractors must compute the wages of mechanics and laborers on the basis of a standard work day of eight hours and a standard we rk week of 40 hours. Work that exceeds the standards must be compensated at least i 11A times We basic pay rate for overtime hours worked. These requirements do not apply to the purchase of supplies or materials ordinarily available on the open market or contracts for transportation. The Denton Independent School District agrees to comply with Executive Order 11246 entitled "Equal Employment Opportunity" as amended by Executive Order 11375 and as supplemented in Department of Labor regulations (41 CM Part 60). The Denton Ind,,pgdent School ' agrees to comply with all other appli cable laws, including without limitation, any additional applicable Federal Laws or regulations contained in the Summer Food Program Agreement between the City of Qenten and the Texas Department of Human Service . If the Denton Independent School District fads to provide services in accordance with the provisions of this contract, the City of Denton may, upon written notice of default to the contractor, immediately terminate the whole or any part of this contract. O O O 4 • • s The City fo Denton agrees to pay Denton Independent School District for all meals ordered on a daily basis at the rate agreed upon in this contract. The agreement shall be effective as of . It may be terminated b notice in writing 23given by any party hereto to the other parties at least 30 days prior to the date of termination. i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the dates indicated below: Agreed to this date Agreed to this date Sponsor Official School Sponsor ~ I Title City Manager Title DISD School Board President The location of the food preparation site will be: Borman Elementary 1201 Parvin Denton, TX 76205 O APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY • BY: O • If t • • i SUitIAIER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM AGREEMENT STATE OF TEXAS I i COUNTY OF TRAVIS I The Texas Department of Human Services, hereinafter referred to as TDHS, AND City of Denton, Texas, A Texas Hunicip;A Corporation at 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 hereinafter referred to as the contractor, do hereby make and enter Into this contract, as required by the National School Lunch Act (Section 13) and the Summer Food Service Program, hereafter referred to as the SFSP, Federal Regulations n Code of Federal Regulations [CFRI, Part 225). I. I a MUTUAL AGREEhIEIN" The Parties mutually agree: A. If the contractor fails to provide services in accordance with the provisions of this contract, the Department may, upon written notice of default to the contractor, Immediately terminate the whole or any pan of this contract and refuse to pay claims for reimbursement. Such termination and/or refusal to pay claims for reimbursement shalt not be exclusive remedy but shall be in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this contract. B. If federal and state laws or other requirements are amended or judicially Interpreted so that the continued fulfillment of this- contract; on the part of either party, is substantially • unreasonable or Impossible, or if the parties are unable to agree upon any amendment which would therefore be needed to enable the substantial continuation of the services contemplated by this contract, then the parties shall be discharged from any Rtrther obligations created under the terms of this contract, except for the equitable settlement of the respective accrued interest or obligations, including audit findings, Incurred up to the date,of termination. • C. This contract may be canceled by mutual consent. However, if such mutual consent cannot be attained, then and in that event, either party to this contract may consider it to be canceled I~ 0 without cause by giving thirty (30) dais notice in writing to the other party and this contract shall thereupon be canceled upon the expiration of such thirty (30) day period. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit immediate cancellation pursuant to above paragraphs A and/or B. r r O II. CONTRACTOR PROGRAM ADAl1NISTRATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT A. The contractor will comply with the SFSP Federal Regulations Q CFR, Part 225, as amended), Uniform Federal Assistance Regulation (I CFR, Part 3013, as amended), and state policies and procedures as issued and amended by TDHS. The contractor further agrees to perform as described in its application (including supporting documents and approved amendments to the application) for participation in the SFSP. B. The contractor accepts final administrative and financial responsibility for food service operations at each site sponsored by the contractor. This responsibility indudes the performance of.the conditions, ofeettlement-of, any audit.eacepilord or payment deficiency In the program and the collection and repayment of -any amount paid in excess of the proper claim amount which are found after monitoring or auditing by TDHS or the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). This responsibility applies to this contract, and all subcontracts hereunder. C. The contractor will apply to TDHS for approval of changes to its original appl!cat)on and for prior authorization for field trips if meals served on the field trips will be claimed for reimbursement. Requests for changes and field trip authorization must be :eceived by TDHS at least five (5) calendar days before the requested effective date ror the change or the field trip. Contractors will notify TDHS within five (5) days of the termination of an approved food service site. 111. SFSP RECORD KEEPING A. The contractor will keep financial and supporting docomens, statistical records, and any other records pertaining to the services for which a claim Is submitted. The records and documents will be kept for at least three (3) years and ninety (90) days alter the termination of the contract period. If any litigation, claim, or audit involving these records begins before the stipulated time period expires, the contractor will keep the records and documents for not less than three (3) years and ninety (90) days after the termination of the contract period and until ail litigation, claims or audit findings are resolved. The case Is consMered resotyed when a final order is Issued in litigation or a written agreement is signed by TDHS and the contractor. Extensions are considered as separate contract periods. A B. The conuactor and Is subcontractors will allow TDHS and USDA officials and other appropriate officials determined by TDHS to lmpea facilities mod records and to audit, examine, and copy records at any reasonable time. This M Wes access to all records of costs paid, even in part, by TDHS. k Non wind sigma a • Taae 2 l1 ; • • IV. CIVIL RIGHTS POLICY COMPLIANCE A. The contractor agrees to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88.352), and all requirements Imposed by the regulations of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR, Parts 15, 15a and 15b) Department of Justice (28 CFR, Parts 41 and 50) utd USDA and TDHS directives or regulations issued pursuant to that Act or the regulations, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Public Law 93.112), The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1994 (Public Law 101-336), and all amendments to each, and all requirements Imposed by the regulations issued pursuant to these acts. In addition, the contractor agrees to comply with Title 40, Chapter 73, of the Texas Admbilstrative. Code. Tbese provide in pan that no persons in the Untied States shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sea, age, disability, political beliefs or religion be excluded from participation In, or denied, any aid, care; service or other benefits provided by federal and/or state funding, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for wHch the contractor receives 4 federal financial assistance from TDHS and USDA: and hereby gives assurance thrt it will Immediately take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. B. The contractor agrees to comply with Texas Revised Civil Statutes Article 4419b4, Sections 5.03 and 5.04 (relating to workplace and confidentiality guidelines regarding AIDS and HIV). C. This assurance is given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all federal financial assistance, grants and loans of federal fund, reimbursable expenditures, grant or donation of federal property or interest in such property, the detail of federal personnel, the sale and lease of, and the permission to us., federal property or Interest in such property or the furnishing of services without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which Is redo-ed for the purpose of assisting the recipient, or In recognition of the public interest to be served by such sale, lease or furnishing of services to the recipient, or any Improvements made with federal financisJ assistance extended to the contractor by TDHS. This includes any federal agreennert, arrangement, or other contract whit.h has as one of its purposes the provision of assistance itch as food, cash assistance for the purchase of food, rental of food service equipment or any other financial assistance extended in reliance on the representation and agreements made in this assurame. D. This assurance is binding on the contractor, Its successors, transferees, and assignees as long as it receives assistance or reuins possession of any assistance from TDHS or USDA. The person whose signature appears on this contract Is authori2ed to make this assurance on behalf • of the contractor. .r V. TDHS CLAIMS PA"IENr • TDHS will, subject to the federal appropriation and availability to TDHS of sufficient funds for the • • SFSP, make program payments to the contractor In accordance with the terms of this contract. No reimbursement shall be made for performance under this contract occurring prior to (a) the beginning effective date of this contract or (b) a later date established by TDHS based on the date of receipt of a fully executed copy of this contract. ' Non scboa spoeaors • Pitt S t • • VI. CERTIFICATIONS A. Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 - The contractor agrees to comply with the requirements of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 regarding employment verification and retention of verification forms for any Individuals hired after November 6, 1986, who will perform any tabor or services under this contract. B. Regarding Debarment, Suspension, ineligibility, or Voluntarily Exclusion For Covered Contracts - The contractor certifies, by execution of this agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in this contract by any federal department or agency or by the State of Texas. By making this certification the contractor agrees to the following terms: 1. The above certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this contract was entered into. If it is later determined that the contractor knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the federal government, the Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Agriculture or other federal department or agency, or the Texas Department of Human Services may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. 2. The contractor shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this certification is submitted if at any time the contractor learns that the certification was erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed 6rcutastances. 3. The words "covered contract,' 'debarred,' 'suspended,' 'ineligible,' 'participant," 'person," 'principal,' 'proposal,' and 'voluntarily excluded,' as used In this certification have meanings based upon materials in the Definition and Coverage sections of federal rules implementing Executive Order 12549. Usage is as defined in the attachment. 4. The contractor agrees by submitting this cenificatica that, should the proposed covered contract be entered into, It shall not knowingly enter into any subcontract with a person who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered transaction, unless authorized by the Department of Health and Huma- Services, United States Department of Agriculture or other federal department or agency, Alor the Texas Department of Human Services, as applicable. • 5. The contractor further agrees by submitting this certification that it will Include TDHS Form 2046 titled *Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion for Covered Conuacts' without modification, in all coveted subcontracts and in solicitations for all covered subcontracts. 6. A contractor may rely upon a certification of a subcontractor that b snot debuted, suspended, Ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the covered contract, unless it knows that the certification Is erroneous. A contractor must, at a minimum, obtain certifications from Its • covered subcontractors upon each subcontract's W03tion and upon each renewal. Ka+ Schtr~l Spnn~Nf • P.re 1 . 1-3 t O • V1. CERTIFICATIONS (continued) 7. Nothing contained in all the foregoing shall be corwrued'to require establishment of a system of records In order to render in good faith the certification requited by this certification document. The knowledge and information of a contractor is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by I prudent person in the ordinary course of business dealings. 8. Except for contracts authorized under paragraph 4 of dsese terms, if a contractor in a covered contract knowingly enters into a covered subcontract with a person who is suspended, debarred, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available to the federal government, Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Agriculture, or other federal department or agency, as applicable, and/or the Texas Department of Human Services may pursue available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment. C. Regarding Federal Lobbying - This certification applies only to this contract and is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was- placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certifc4tion is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, tide 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than S10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The contractor certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that: 1. No federally appropriates} funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agretmem, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. 2. If any funds other than federally appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to Influence an officer employee of xny agency, a O member of congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this fodeally funded contract, subcontract, subgrant, or cooperative agreement, the undersif,ned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, 'Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,' In accordance with its Instructions. 3. The contractor shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all covered subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgranis, and © contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) aW that all covered subreciplems O tl shall certify and disclose accordingly. ' J ()e contractor certifies that all Information submitted pursuant to this agreement Is true Ind correct. The contractor understands that the deliberate misrepresentation or withholding of Information is a violation of this contract and may result in prosecution under applicable state and federal statutes. 7 Nom 56 1 sl+ pots - N. c f i 0 0 • r • vu. I EFFECTIVE DATE AND SIGNATURES For the faithful performance of the terms of this contract, the parties hereto in their capacities stated, affix their signatures and bind themselves. _ City cf Denton Name of the Contracting Organization (Please Print or Type) I Original signature of the authorized representative of the contracting organization Ted Senavides Name of the authorized representative of the contracting organization (Please Print or Type) city Manager Title Please print or type, in the spaces provided above, the name card title of the authorized representative signing this agreement on behalf of the contracting organization. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICESt`~~x • Effective Dates: through By: Date: • Revised February 199 ~ • • • • Awda Nei Agenda Itsm__caL0 Date -l -y 2 April 1, 1997 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: RE. Nelson, Executi•x Director of Utilities SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #4 TO THE EXISTING CONTRACT WITH HDR ENGINEERING INC. FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY IN THE LANDFILL PERMIT ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING AND SERVICES REQUIRED FOR DESIGN, ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE CITY'S LANDFILL EXPANSION IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $298,000. Recommendation: Public Utilities Board recommends approval of Amendment #4 to the existing HDR contract in the amount of 592,600 for expert ::,simony in the permit public hearing process and in the amount of $205,400 for design, engineering and construction services associated with the development of the first cell of the landfill expansion. Summary: The proposed Amendment N4 would authorize: 1. Additional services under Phase III of the existing contract required for the landfill permit hearing activities. 2. Design, engineering and construction services for the first cell of the landfill expansion under Phase IV of the existing contract. • The existing contract between HDR and the City of Denton was approved on June 15, 1993. The original contract outlined six phases of activities. The six phases are as ' follows: i I • ~ L I~ I 0 . s . I, -I'M,74 ME 115 • • " f Page 2 Phase 1: Assist With The Completion Of A Solid Waste Master Plan. Phase II: Addresses modifications to the existing Landfill Relative To Subtitle "D" and State Regulatory Requirements Phase 11L Permitting Of A New Landfill Phase IV: Design, Engineering And On-Site Construction Observation and Liner InspectiorvTesting Phase V: Obtain Any Other Permits Needed To Implement The Solid Waste Master Plan Phase VI: Design and Engineering Associated With Solid Waste Recycling Facilities Of the six phases, only Phase 11 and III activities were initially developed with anticipated tasks and associated costs. The contract strategy in 1993 (approximately one year prior to Subtitle D regulations promulgation) was to wait until Subtitle D regulations wcre approved in final form and implemented by the regulatory agency to address Phase IV contract activities. Other contract phases anticipated recycling program activities as required by the City. The proposed Phase III activities for additional services associated with the public hearing will be provided under a per-diem form of compensation. The proposal ;s based on manhour estimates provided by Kelly, Hari & Hallman for HDR's personnel time in preparation for a hearing lasting four days. The budget estimates that these tasks will require approximately 860 manhours for HDR personnel, for a total per diem fee of $92,600 including expenses. Activities associated with the public hearing include the following: document collection and review, a preliminary hearing and preparation, an evidentiary hearing, post hearing, exhibits, travel to Denton and Austin, printing, and miscellaneous direct expenses. Actual labor and direct expenses may vary from the estimate reflected in this authorization depending on the type of opposition mounted by • any landfill opponents and the nature of the hearing proceedings. The proposed Phase 1V scope of services for design, engineering, bid administration and r construction quality assurance are included in Exhibit 1. Since Phase IV services are construction activities that are well defined by regulations, anticipated change orders should be minimal. The Public Utilities Board approved Phase IV activities with a 100/0 • contingency for unexpected change orders. 0 40 0 0 Page 3 The engineering fee for the proposed services are based on the calculation for compensation on a per-diem basis provided in the existing contract for permitting activities. Estimates for subconsultant services, including liner testing and certification j are subject to revision based on actual costs. The staff recommends that the surveying activities proposed in the scope of service be handled by the City and have not been included in the total costs. Program/Department or Group Affected Citizens of Denton, City of Denton, Solid Waste Department of Public Utilities. Fiscal Impact The existing HDR contract amount, including the first three amendments, is 5663,545. The Public Utilities Board also approved two small contract modifications that were not approved by Council because of the amount; I. $5,000 modification for HDR participation in the neighborhood meeting and the landfill rendering 2. $6,000 modification for Nationwide Permit compliance activities. Amendment Number Four will add $92,600 for public hearing activities and $205,400 for design, engineering and construction services. The total amount of the HDR contract including all expenditures identified to date is $972,545. D Respectfully b ' ed, G E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities Pr ed by: Mz I Howard Martin, Direct r Environmental Operations • Exhibit I Amendment #4 Exhibit 11 Amendment #3 ..r Exhibit III Amendment #2 Exhibit IV Amendment #1 Exhibit V Original HDR Contract M.._ ='73 wf~~'LyjA mg • • A:\NDRA.CND i ORDINANCE NO. i AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER FOUR TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT RELATING TO PHASE iII AND PHASE IV THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE L,iTE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the Mayor is authorized to execute Amendment Number Four to the Agreement between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Development relating to Phase III and Phase IV thereof, a copy of which Amended Agreement Number Four is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION II, That the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed Two Hundred Ninety Eight Thousand Dollars ($298,000) is hereby authorized as specified by Amendment Number Four to the Agreement. .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: i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: i HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: I r~.~~!~~1 - EXHIBIT 1 - ti. a., 0 0 • f AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. DATED JUNE 151 1993 WHEREAS, on June 15, 1993 the City of Denton ("City") and HDR Engineering, Inc. ("HDR") entered into an Agreement for Profession- al Engineering Services for the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Initial Sitr; Development ("Project") which was amended by Ame%dra:nt No. 1, dated March 18, 1994; which was further amended by Amen.aont No. 2, dated May 16, 1995; and which was further amended by Amendment No. 3, dated February 22, 1996, (the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the Sanitary Landfill initial Site Development as amended by Amendments Number, 1, 2 and 3 are hereinafter collectively called the "Agreement"); and i WHEREAS, Sections 1 and 2 of the Agreement dated June 15, 1993 provide that Phase IV of the Project is to be completed as additional services incident to the Agreb-rent when requested and authorized by the City; and Section 5.2.2 theiccf provides that the Compensation to HDR respecting its services performed under Phase IV is to be determined and be mutually agreed upon at a later date; and WHEREAS, the City and HDR desire to define the Scope of Services for Phase IV and designate fees for professional engineer- ing services for Phase IV in the amount not to exceed $205,400.00; and WHEREAS, the City and HDR are ready to proceed with Phase IV of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Initial Site Development; and WHEREAS, the Project has progressed to the stage that a public administrative law hearing will be held before the Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission ("TNRCC") in the near future relating to the approval of the City's landfill permit. The Agreement provides that HDR's participation in the public hearing stage pertaining to the City's landfill permit will be allowable as • Additional Services under the provisions of Section 2.1 and 2.3.9 of the Agreement, relating to Task 3.7, under Phase III of the Scope of Services appended to the original Agreement dated June 15, 1993; and WHEREAS, the City and HDR have determined that it is necessary and appropriate for HDR to perform additional engineering services • for the City relating to the preparation and support for and participation in all TNRCC hearings relating to the approval of the city's landfill permit; and that HDR has proposed, and City believes that a total estimated daily services fee, not to exceed $92,600.00 including expenses, is a reasonable fee, considering all relevant factors; and WHEREAS, the City and HDR, pursuant to the provisions of • • - - _ q • • t Section 7.12 of the Agreement, providing for changes and mod- ifications, desire to Amend their agreement to provide for the completion of Phase IV of the Project and to provide for an agreement for HDR to perform additional professional engineering services relating to the public administrative law hearing under Phase III of the Project; NOW THEREFORE, f W I T N E S S E T H: Pursuant to Section 7.12 (Changes and Modification) of the Agreement, the City and HDR do hereby AGREE as follows: 1. The Scope of Services for Phase IV is for construction plans, bid administration, and construction quality assurance associated with Phase IV of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill Site Development expansion. This Amended Agreement provides for an estimated fee for providing these Phase IV services. HDR repre- sents that estimates for construction quality assurance, including laboratory testing and survey are based upon recent costs of such subcontracted services for similar projects. After plans and specifications are completed, HDR will obtain final estimates of fees for these services from qualified subcontractors. 2. The Scope of Services for Phase IV of the Project is hereby established as follows: Construction Plans and Specifications for Phase One Task One - Construction Plans HDR will begin immediately upon notice to proceed to prepare I4 construction plans for Phase One of the landfill expansion area. Construction plans will include the following eight drawings which will be produced in draft form for City review. * Cover Sheet * Base Grade, r^quence of Fill, Access to Cell, and Dewatering Slurry Wall Alignment • * Liner and Leachate Collection System Plan * Liner, Sump and Leachate Collection System Details * Access Road Plan, Profile, and Typical Cross-section * North Ditch and Pond, Plan, Profile, and Cross-sections * Dewatering Plan * Erosion Control Plan A meeting will be held with the City at the 801 completion • stage to review and discuss the City's written comments on the • • draft construction-level plans. Task Two - Construction Specifications r HDR will prepare construction specifications (Special Condi- Page 2 li 0 r - • • • tions) for construction of Phase One. Construction specifica- tions will reflect excavation to be performed by the contrac- tor, installation and testing of the liner system in confor- mance with the Soil and Liner Quality Control Plan as approved by TNRCC, leachate collection and removal system, protective cover/ballast, access road, and north drainage ditch and pond. Using General Conditions and other standard bid documents provided by the City, HDR will assemble a complete set of bid documents. Task Three -Plans and Specifications Revisions. and TNRCC Submittal A total of five copies of the contract documents, plans, and specifications will be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval at the 100% completion stage. Following the review, HDR will incorporate revisions to the plans, specifications, and contract documents requested by the City. The plans and specifications will be submitted to TNRCC. No meeting with TNRCC is anticipated regarding ?lans and spec- ifications. Bid Administration Task Four - Construction Cost Estimate Within approximately two weeks of finalizing plans and specifi- cations, HDR will prepare an estimate of probable cost of construction based on the construction plans and specifications iJ described above. The Construction Specification Institute, Inc. (CSI) format will be used and will include a breakdown of material quantities, unit costs, and totals. Unit costs will be based on recent bids received on similar projects that have been made available, as well as any similar projects in the area. Task Five - Pregualification of Bidders HDR will provide the City a list of construction contractors • with known Subtitle D landfill liner construction experience. This list will be designed to identify experienced landfill cell construction contractors who have demonstrated ability to complete similar projects within the estimated construction period. The list will include contractors who have successful- ly constructed landfill cell designed by HDR in the past. This is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all qualified ® bidders, but rather a list of contractors with successful i 0 • experience on HDR projects, for the City's use. Task Six - Bid Services HDR will assist the City during the bid process for Phase One Page 3 L • • f by performing the following tasks. * Prepare a notice to bidders for advertisement. * Issue for bid the drawings, specifications, and contract documents and addenda. * Respond to questions from bidders for a 30-day period regarding the plans and specification (up to 60 manhours). Assist the City in one pre-bid conference attended by the Chief Design Engineer and Project Marager to respond to technical questions. * Consult with and advise the City as to the acceptability of substitute materials and equipment proposed by the contrac- tor(s). * Consult with and advise the City as to the acceptability of contractors proposed by the prime contractor. * Assist the City in evaluating bids and in assembling and awarding the contract. The City will be responsible for final contractor and subcontractor selection. Plans and specifications will be provided to all interested contractors. A non-refundable fee will be charged each contractor to cover reproduction and handling costs for each set of bidding documents. Technical memoranda will be prepared evaluating the acceptability of each contractor bid. For cost estimating purposes, it is assumed that up to five bids will be evaluated. HDR will assist the City during three meetings including the pre-bid conference, bid opening, and award of contract. The bid opening and award of contract will be attended by one HDR representative. Construotion-Related Services For purposes of cost estimated, it is assumed that the duration for the construction of the dewatering slurry wall will be three weeks. It is assumed that construction of the clay liner, HDPE liner, leachate collection system, protective cover, entrance road, and north ditch and pond will be six weeks. These estimates are based on construction taking place five days per week and ten hours per ` day. I • Task Seven - Soil and Liner Evaluation Report Through the use of qualified subcontractor and laboratory, HDR will perform testing and certification of the liner system in conformance with the requirements of the approved site Soil and Liner Quality Control Plan. This includes full-time on-site O observation as required, and preparation of a Soil and Liner ® 0 J Evaluation Report (SLER). The SLER will be submitted to TNRCC approximately two weeks after completion of the last clay fit in the liner area. A revised estimate of the cost of this task will be prepared after completion of the design and selection of a qualified subconsultant. Page 4 . • • Task right - Construction Coordination In addition to liner inspection and testing activities, an HDR representative will visit the site approximately once per week during the entire construction period to observe general compliance with the design plans and specifications and facilitate the smooth progress of the work. During these visits, the representative will meet with the City to discuss i pertinent observations. Project Management and Administration in addition to meetings and reports discussed above, monthly progress reports will be provided to the City which address progress to date, budget and schedule status, and any other construction-related concerns. A project kickoff meeting at the City and a site tour, attended by representatives of the City, HDR, the Construction Quality Control subconsultant, and the surveyor will be held to discuss ti.e design and construction of the cell and any historical facts of the site. Key project issues will he discussed and pertinent maps, drawings, surveys, files, and reports will be transmitted at ' that time. The cost of this ongoing activity is integrated into the costs of the previous tasks. 3. The following are the anticipated deliverables associated with { the Scope of Services for Phase IV of the Project are: * Three sets of draft construction Plans, consisting of the following eight drawings. 1. Cover Sheet 2. Base Grade, Sequence of Fill, Access to Cell, and Dewatering Slurry Wall Alignn,ant • 3. Liner and Leachate Collection Systen Plan 4. Liner, Sump, and Leachate Collection System Details f r 5. Access Road Plan, Profile, and 't'ypical Cross-sec- F tions 6. North Ditch and Pond Plan, Profile, and Cross- sections 7. Dewatering Plan • 8. Erosion Control Plan • O * one set * draft bid documents * Five sets of final plans and bid documents * Estimate of Probable Construction Cost j * List of construction contractors Page 5 f I _ s 0 • • * Notice to Bidders * Addenda if required * Bid Evaluations for up to five bidders * Soil and Liner Evaluation Report * Weekly construction quality assurance budget reports * Contractor pay estimates verifications * As-built documentation * Monthly Progress Reports * Project Kickoff Meeting Notes 4. The total estimated professional fees for services provided under Phase IV of this Amended Agreement are in an amount not to exceed $205,400.00. The foregoing estimated fee is based on the formula for calculation of compensation on a per-diem basis provided in HDR's current contract for permitting. Costs associated with subconsultant services, including liner testing and certifica- tion and surveying, are estimates subject to revision. Plans and Specifications $ 61,740 Bid Administratioa $ 13,830 I Construction Phase (HDR) $ 19,830 Construction Phase (SLER) $110,000 TOTAL $205,400 J 5. The Scope of Services for Phase III of the Project, relating to Task 3.7 of the Scope of Services of the original June 15, 1993 Agreement, is hereby amended by adding the following services as Additional Services to the Agreement: Services relating to the administrative hearing before TNRCC respecting the City's landfill expansion permit will involve tasks which will require approximately 860 man-hours for HDR personnel, resulting in an estimated total daily services fee not to exceed $92,600.00, including expenses. HDR expects to perform the following tasks incident to the • above hearing before the TNRCC: III A. Document collection and review; B. Preparation for and attendance at a preliminary hearing; C. Preparation for and attendance at an evidentiary hearing; D. Expert testimony at the hearings; E. Assistance to the City regarding post-hearing matters; • F. Travel to Austin, Texas (assuring two days of hearings in • Austin, Texas); G. Travel to Denton, Texas; j H. Assistance and support respecting the preparation of exhibits, graphic materials and displays for the prelimi- nary and evidentiary hearings; t Page 6 f t I. Printing expenses; and J. Miscellaneous direct expenses relaying to the above tasks. 6. The total estimated professional fees for Additional Services provided under Phase III of this Amended Agreement are in an amount ! not to exceed $92,600.00. 7. The total estimated professional fees for services provided by HDR to City under Phase IV and Phase III under this Amended Agreement are in the aggregate, in an amount not to exceed $298,000.00. 8. In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as executed by the City and HDR on June 15, 1993, as amended by Amendments Number 1, 2 and 3 thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. EXECUTED this the day of , 1997. CITY OF DENTON$ TEXAS BY: JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY O Page 7 i i HDR ENGINEERING, INC. y r BY: WILLIAM R. HINDMAN, P.E. Senior Vice President ATTEST: BY: ITS: Jt\WPDoCS\K\HDRAKD.K i I • . E Page 8 • ORDINANCE NO. 9Ip ' 0 10 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the mayor is hereby authorized to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement for Professional Engineering II Services between the City of Denton, Texas and HDR Engineering, Inc., attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth at length. SECTION II. That the expenditure of funds in an amount not to exceed six hundred sixty-three thousand, five hundred and forty- five dollaras ($663,545.00) is hereby authorized as specified by the amended Agreement. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the o?O~ day of , 199. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MA R ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: , i APP VED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY • • • BY: .J 09 EXHIBIT 11 r, r... Z. ,..w.. . r.......w.r..w+r+wr.rwrbw.,.w,.W...a1 • • AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEERING SERVICES DATED JUNE 15, 1993 WEEREAS, on June 15, 1993, the City of Denton ("City") and HDR Engineering, Inc. ("HDR") entered into an Agreement Between the City of Denton, Texas and HDR Engineering, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services for the sanitary landfill initial site development, which was amended by Amendment No. I and Amendment No. 2, (the Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and HDR Engineering, Inc. for Professional Engineering Services as amended by Amendment No. I and Amendment No. 2 are herein referred to as "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to add additional services to the Scope of Services for Phase Ill for additional fees not to exceed $23,200.00; and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to add 12 months of project management for additional fees not to exceed 512,000.00; NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH: Pursuant to Section 7.12 (Changes and Modification) of the Agreement, City and HDR hereby agree: 1. The Scope of Services for Phase III is hereby and herewith amended to include the following services in addition to those listed in Exhibit A to the Agreement in exchange for the following Final Anticipated Fees: 3.9 Redesign of final landfill configuration to include an area originally determined to be a wetland - $4,500.00 3.10 Modeling of drainage from mobile home park to determine impact on flood plain - 54,000.00 • 3.11 Preparation of information and mapping for annexation and zoning of landfill site - $1,700.00 f 3.12 PUB Workshop development sequence - S -0- 3.13 Revise landfill footprint to accommodate the landscaping plan - $5,000.00 O O • 3.14 Revise FEMA flood plain map - $8,000.00 2. Exhibit A, Task 3.8, Phase Ill Project Management and Administration of the Agreement 10 s. i ° is hereby and here"ith amended to include an additional 12 months of project management and administration. Fees for said additional 12 months of project management and adminis- tration shall not exceed $12,000. 3. In all other respects, the terms and conditiens of the Agreement, as executed by the parties on June 15, 1993 and amended by Amendment No. I and Amendment No. 2 remain in full force and effect. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 199 BOB CASTLEBERRY, MA 0 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: LJ i I ° 1 C~WDOCVXMKIAMD 11 1i . V "I All I I • • RECEIVFn mAy 3 1 1955 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL INITIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the Mayor is authorized to execute Amendment, Number Two to the Agreement between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the city's Sanitary Landfill Initial Site Development, a copy of which is attached hereto. 59CTION II. That the City Council is hereby authorized to expend funds in the amount of Six Hundred Twenty-eight Thousand Three Hundred Forty-five Dollars ($628,345.00) as specified in the amended Agreement. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immed- iately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the/6e""-day of MIA-i, 1995. i BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAY) ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY • BY: r-lit" 1. d, /j ajq APPR VED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY: 1 92 EXHIBIT 113 • • AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT FOR j PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON* TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. DATED JUNE I5, 1993 WHEREAS, on June 15, 1993 the City of Denton ("City") and HDR f Engineering, Inc. ("HDR") entered into an Agreement for Profession- al Engineering Services for the Sanitary Landfill Initial Site Development, which was amended by Amendment No. 1, (the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the Sanitary Landfill Initial Site Development as amended by Amendment No. 1 are hereinafter called the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Exhibit A to the Agreement provides that Phase I is to be completed as additional services with the Scope of Services and Foe basis to be mutually agreed upon at a later dates and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to define the Scope of Services for Phase I and Designate Fees for Phase I in the amount of $12,000; and WHEREAS, Phase II is approaching completion and City and HDR desire to replace the Preliminary Man-hour and Fee Estimates and Estimated Man-hours and Fees for Phase II with Final Anticipated Fees; and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to add additional services to the Scope of Services for Phase II for Final Anticipated Fees of $32,485; and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to delete Geotechnical investiga- tion from the Scope of Services for Phase III resulting in a reduction of fees for Phase III in the amount of $27,5001 and WHEREAS, City and HDR desire to add an additional 12 months of 1 project management and administration to Phase III for fees of $19,150; NOW, THEREFORE, W I T N E S S E T H: i Pursuant to Section 7.12 (Changes and Modification) of the Agree- ment, City and HDR hereby agree: 1. The Scope of Services for Phase I is hereby and herewith defined as solid waste master planning. City shall pay HDR $12,000 • for Phase I. • 0 2. The Scope of Services for Phase II is hereby and herewith amended to include the following services in addition to those listed in Exhibit A to the Agreement in exchange for the following Final Anticipated Fees: 13 • • 2.20 Methane Precautions $ 1,100 2.21 Groundwater Certification $20,000 2.22 Height increase $ 5,000 2.23 Project Management $ 885 2.24 Gas Monitoring Training $ 500 2.25 Groundwater Sampling Analysis Plan $ 5,000 3. The Preliminary Man-hour and Fee Estimates and Estimated Man- hours and Fees for Phase II Contained in Exhibit A of the Agreement are hereby and herewith deleted from the Agreement and replaced with the following Final Anticipated Fees: 2.1 Site Operating Plan $15,000 2.2 Site Development Plan $ 3,000 2.3 Site Layout Plan $ 2,500 2.4 Fill-Cross Sections $ -0- 2.6 Geology Report $ 4,600 2.7 Groundwater Protection & Drainage Plan $13,600 2.9 Cost Estimates for Closure and Post-Closure Care $ 4,600 2.11 Final Closure Plan $ 7,000 2.12 Poet-Closure Plan $ 4,000 2.13 Landfill Gas Management Plan $22,000 2.14 Applicant's Statement $ 130 J 2.15 Certification of Groundwater Monitoring System $ 890 2.16 Certification of Compliance with Location Restrictions $20,080 2.17 Maximizing Remaining Site Life $ -0- 2.18 Regulatory Heatings $ 6,540 2.19 Phase II Project Management and Administration $15,000 Additions to Phase II Scope of Services (Paragraph 2 above) 2.20 Methane Precautions $ 10100 • 2.21 Groundwater Certification $20,000 2.22 Height Increase $ 50000 2.23 Project Management $ 885 r 2.24 Gas Monitoring Training $ 500 2.25 Groundwater Sampling d Analysis Plan S 5,000 Total Final Anticipated 0 Fees for Phase II $151,425 O • J 4. Exhibit A , Task 3.4.3 Geotechnical Investigation of the Agreement is hereby and herewith amended to delete Geotechnical Investigation from the Scope of Services for Phase Ill. Fees for Phase III shall be reduced by $27,500 as a result of the deletion of said Geotechnical Investigation from the Scope of Services. • • I 5. Exhibit A, Task 3.8, Phase III Project Management and Adminis- tration of the Agreement is hereby and herewith amended to include an additional 12 months of project management and administration. Estimated fees for said additional li months of project management and administration shall be $19,150. 6. Total Estimated Fees and Preliminary Fee Estimates for Phase III shall be $469,270. 7. In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Agree- ment, as executed by the parties on the June 15, 1993 as amended by Amendment No. 1 remain in full force and effect. Executed this L day of , 1995. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS - 1492 BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYO ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APP VIED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY 8Y • 1 HDR ENGINEERS, INC. BY : L!/ t • TITLE: L-s • O 1:kwpdoci\k\hdrow d.k 15 a• k4~bYYIiN.IkWMIJbMYMrifMM4SF14whlf.+r•Y^ • • f / ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT; AND P."VIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: ,=TION I. That the Mayor and City secretary are hereby authorized and directed to execute and attest, respectively, Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for Professional Engineering Services between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for engineering services for the sanitary landfill development under the terms and conditions being contained in said Agreement, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTIOJj II That the City Secretary is hereby directed to attach a copy of the attached Amendment No. 1 to Ordinance 93-113 and inscribe on the face of Ordinance 93-113 a statement that the Agreement has been amended by adoption of this ordinance. SECTIO III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the R day of C , 1990. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY • I BY: I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 16 EXHIBIT IV , s • • AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR PR4FESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. DATED JUNE 15, 1993 WHEREAS, on June 15 '3 the City of Denton, hereinafter called City, and HDR aering, Inc., hereinafter called Engineer, entered into agreement for the performance of professional engineering vices in connection with the sanitary landfill development, hereinafter called the Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Engineer has requested that the contract provisions relating to indemnification be amended, and the city has agreed to such changes; NOW, THEREFORE, W I T N E S S E T H: ARTICLE I. That Section 7.9 (Indemnity Agreement) of said Agreement is hereby amended to add the following section: 7.9.2.1 Subsurface sampling may result in unavoidable contamina- tion of certain subsurface areas, as when a probe or boring device moves through a contaminated area, linking it to an aquifer, under- ground stream, or other hydrous body not previously contaminated and capable of spreading hazardous materials off-site. Because the State of Texas is requiring that the City perform such subsurface sampling, the city waives any claim against Engineer for injury or loss which may arise as a result of alleged cross-contamination caused by sampling, except if such injury or loss is caused by Engineer's gross negligence. The city further agrees to defend, indemnify and hold Engineer harmless from any claim or liability for injury or loss which may arise as a result of alleged cross- contamination caused by sampling except when and if such is caused by Engineer's gross negligence. City further agrees to compensate Engineer for any time spent or expenses incurred by Engineer in • defense of any such claim in accordance with the hourly rates and expense reimbursement provisions in the contract between the City and Engineer dated June 15, 1993. ARTICLE II. In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the { Agreement, as executed by the parties on the 15th day of June, 1993 ® remain in full force and effect. • • 17 • ~ .Z t z.r Executed this day of 1994. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY: BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY BY. HDR ENGINEERS, INC. BY: TITLE: E: \L4DOCSUCIII[iD.NOE 78 V • • ORDINANCE NO. L3-//%3 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORI2ING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFES- SIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SANITARY MN DFILL DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE. DATE. THE COUNCIL. OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION i. That the City Manager :s authorized to execute an Agreement between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the City's sanitary landfill. SECTION I. That the City Manager is authorized to expend funds for the above referenced professional services to the engineering firm of HDR Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $584,025.00. SECTION I_L, That this ordinance shall become effective immed- iately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the .day of 41 , 1993. 808 CASTLEBERRY, MAY R ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPR D AS O LEGAL FORM: • DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY BY: i~~=~L LSG O ~ O O 19 EXHIBIT V • r, j t AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS OWNER AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL INITIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT i JUNE 15, 1993 • • • • 20 e TABLE.OF- CONTENTS IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES I DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT SECTION 1--BASIC SERVICES tl 1.1 Description of Basic Services SECTION 2--ADDITIONAL SERVICES 2.1 General 2.2 Subcontract Services Provide by Others 2.3 Other Additional Services SECTION 3--OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Owner's Representative 3.2 Provide Exi:;ting Data 3.3 Provide Siandards 3.4 Provide Professional Services by Others 3.5 Provide Land Surveys 3.6 Provide Access 3.7 Examine Documents 3.8 Provide Environmental Studies 3.9 Provide Accounting and Other Services 3.10 Provide Advertising 3,11 Provide Prompt Notice D 3.12 Approvals and Decisions SECTION 4--PERIODS OF SERVICE 4.1 General 4.2 Completion of Services 4.3 Bidding Phase - Not Used 4.4 Construction Phase - Not Used 4.5 Changes 4.6 Prompt Authorizations to Proceed - Not Used 4.7 Delay SECTION 5--PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER 5.1 Payment Terms Defined 5.2 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Basic Services 5.3 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Additional Services 5.4 Intervals of Payments Under Lump Sum Basis of Payment f 5.5 Other Provisions Concerning Payments SECTION 6--CONSTRUCTION COST AND OPINIONS OF COST - Not Used 21 PON • SECTION 7--GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Standard of Care j 7.2 Termination 7.3 Reuse of Documents 7.4 Engineer's Llability 7.5 Insurance 7.6 Controlling Law 7.7 Successors and Assigns 7.8 Equal Employment and Nondiscrimination 7.9 Indemnity Agreement 7.10 Construction Procedures 7.11 Authority to Execute This Agreement f 7.12 Changes and Modifications f 7.13 Severabilityty and Waiver 7.14 Extent of Agreement APPENDICES EXHIBIT A: SCOPE OF SERVICES EXHIBIT B: OWNER'S AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT EXHIBIT C: ENGINEER'S AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT f, f • 22 1 • • AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made as of this 15th day of June, 1993, between City of Denton, Texas, with principal offices at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas, 76201, hereinafter referred to as 'OWNER', and HDR Engineering, Inc., with offices at 12700 Hillcrest Ste 125, Dallas, Texas, 75230, hereinafter referred to as "ENGINEER," for engineering and professional services related to an integrated municipal solid waste management system, hereinafter called the 'PROJECT. OWNER and ENGINEER, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, agree as follows: SECTION 1 - BASIC SERVICES 1.1 Description of Basic Services 1.1.1 ENGINEER's basic services and responsibilities are described as follows and are further defined in the Appendix, Exhibit A, "Scope of Services," which is made part of this Agreement as it fully set forth herein. 1.1.2 ENGINEER shall provide professional services to OWNER as hereinafter provided. These services will include providing professional engineering consultation and advice and furnishing civil, structura;, mechanical, electrical, and solid waste engineering services and related architectural and engineering services incidental thereto. SECTION 2 - ADDITIONAL SERVICES 2.1 General The following Additional Services are not included in the Basic Services. They shall be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by the OWNER, and shall be paid for by the OWNER as provided in this Agreement, in addition to compensation for Basic • Services. 2.2 Subcontract Services Provided by Others ENGINEER shall coordinate tha services of outside professionals who are under direct contract to the OWNER as Basic Services. However, if requested and authorized as Additional Services by the OWNER in writing. ENGINEER will provide for outside ® profassional services on a subcontract basis and ENGINEER shall be compensated as mutually agreed upon between the OWNER and ENGINEER as set forth in this I~ O e Agreement. Examples of such services include but are not limited to, land surveys, aerial photography, topographic mapping, soil drilling and sampling, geotechnical laboratory services, analytical laboratory services, archaeological services and others. June 15, 1993 23 s • 2.3 Other Additional Services When requested and authorized by the OWNER, ENGINEER shall perform the following additional services and shall be paid by the OWNER as provided in this Agreement, in addition to compensation for Basic Services: 2.3.1 Performing Services resulting from significant changes in the general scope, extent or character of the PROJECT or its design including, but not limited to, changes in size, complexity, OWNER's schedule, character of construction or method of financing, reviews of redesigns, revising previously accepted studies, reports, design documents or Contract Documents when such revisions are required by changes in laws, rules, regulations, regulatory interpretation, ordinances, codes or orders enacted subsequent to the preparation of such studies, reports or documents, or are due to any i other causes beyond ENGINEER's control. This includes those services resulting from the incorporation into ENGINEER's services of the information required by Paragraph 3.2 which is furnished to Engineer after the stated time schedule. 2.3.2 Conducting bid administration services for contracted construction activities. Preparing documents of alternate, separate, or ~ quential bids or providing extra services in connection with bidding, negotiation or construction. Providing bid administration services or extra sorvices in connection with bidding, negotiation, or construction prior to the completion of the Permit Application and Landfill Design, when requested by the OWNER. 2.3.3 Providing any type of prol surveys or related engineering services needed for the transfer of interests in real property and field surveys for design purposes and engineering surveys and staking; and providing other special field surveys, except as described in Exhibit A. D 2.3.4 Preparing applications and supporting documents for private or govemmental grants, loans or advances in connection with the PROJECT, preparing or reviewing environmental impact statements and assessments, reviewing and evaluating the effect on the design requirements of the PROJECT of any such statements and documents prepared by others and assisting in obtaining the approval of authorities having juris- diction over the PROJECT. 2.3.5 Performing services to make measured drawings of, c%r to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to verify the accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by OWNER. 2.3.6 Providing project scheduling services. Q 2.3.7 Preparing documents for alternative proposals requested by OWNER for Contractor's Work which is not executed or documents for out-of-sequence work. 2.3.8 Assisting the Owner with bid protests, rebidding or renegotiating contracts for construction, materials, equipment or services. O 2.3.9 Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for OWNER in any hearing litigation, arbitration or other legal or administrative proceeding involving the • PROJECT except as provided as Basic Services. " J 2.3.10 Performing services In connection with work directive changes and change orders to reflect changes requested by OWNER. June 15, 1993 24 • • 2.3.11 Not Used 2.3.12 Performi.-,, services during construction except as provided in Basic Services. e.3.13 Performing additional Services in connection with the PROJECT, including services which are to be furnished by OWNER in accordance with Section 3, and services not otherwise provided for in this Agreement. SECTION 3 - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES So as not to delay the services of ENGINEER, OWNER shall do the following in a timely manner: 3.1 Owner's Representative Designals in writing a person to act as OWNER's representative with respect to services to be rendered under !his Agreement. Such person shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret and define OWNER's policies and decisions with respect to ENGINEER's services for the PROJECT. 3.2 Provide Existing Data Provide to ENGINEER existing data, plans, reports and other information known to, in possession of, or under control of OWNER which are relevant to the execution of ENGINEER's duties on the PROJECT. Also, provide all criteria and full information as to OWNER's requirements for the PROJECT, including design criteria, objectives and constraints, spacF,, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expandability, and any budgetary limitations and furnish copies of all design and construction standards which OWNER will require to be included in the Construction Plan and Specifications. 3.3 Provide Standards Provide within thirty (30) days after authorization to proceed with preparation of Construction Plan and Specifications, specific OWNER furnished Sranda'd Details, Standard Specifications, or Standard Bidding Documents which are to be incorporated into the PROJECT. The OWNER agrees to bear total responsibility, for technical accuracy and content of OWNER-fumished documents. 3.4 Provide Professional Services by Others O Furnish the services of a driller, geolechnical laboratory, aerial photographer, analytical laboratory, land surve;or, toooggrapher, or other consultants when such services are deemed necessary by ENGINEER. Such services shall include without limitation, oorings, probings and subsurface explorations, hydrographic surveys, laboratory tests and inspections of samples, materials and equipment, with reports and appropriate professional recommendations. • 3.5 Provide Land Surveys O • J Provide land surveys to include property, boundary, easement, right-of-way, topographic and utility surveys, property descriptions, zoning, deed or other land use restrictions. June 15. 1993 25 • 0 • • 3.6 Provide Access ~i Arrange for access to, and make all provisions for, ENGINEER or ENGINEER's Subconsultants to enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER and ENGINEER's Subconsultants to perform services under this Agreement. j 3.7 Examine Documents Examine all studies, reports, sketches, Drawings, Specifications, proposals and other documents presented by ENGINEER, obtain advice of an attorney, insurance counselor and other consultants as OWNER deems appropriate for such examination and render in writing decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so as not to delay the services of ENGINEER. 3.8 Provide Environmental Studies Provide, if necessary, Environmental Assessments, or Environmental Impact Statements related to the PROJECT. Furnish approvals and permits from all governmental authorities having jurisdiction ovor the PROJECT and approvals and consents from cthers as may be necessary for completion of the PROJECT. 3.9 Provide Accounting and Other Services Provide accounting, independent cost estimating and insurance counseling services as may be required for the PROJECT, legal services as OWNER may require or ENGINEER may reason.~1y request with regard to legal issues pertaining to the PROJECT including any that may be raised by Contractor, auditing service as OWNER may require to ascertain how or for what purpose any Contractor has used the monies paid under the construction contract, and inspection services as OWNER may require to ascertain that Contractor is complying with any laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders applicable to his fiurnishing and performing the Work. 3.10 Prcvide Advertising Advertise for proposals from bidders if applicable, open the proposals at an appointed lime and place, and pay 1. r all costs incidental thereto. 3.11 Provide Prompt Notice Give prompt written notioe to ENGINEER whenever OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of any condition that affects the scope or timing of ENGIN'3ER's • services. 3.12 Approvals and Decisions r At no cost to ENGINEER, provide the above data and services and shall render approvals and decisions as is necessary for the orderly progress of ENGINEER's services. EI !GINEER shall be entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness of all • information and services provided by OWNER or at OWNER's direction. • • June 15. 1993 26 Sam...,.,.,w.-..r..b,...~.w......w:JPc.. • • t. SECTION 4 • PERIODS OF SERVICE 4.1 General The rates of compensation for ENGINEER's service.-, provided for in this Agreement have been arrived at in anticipation cf the orderly and continuous progress of the PROJECT through completion of the Services contained herein. ENGINEER's obligation to render services hereunder will extend for a period which may reasonably be required for the performance of ENGINEER's services and any required extensions thereto. 4.2 Completion of Services i ENGINEER's services under each Phase shall be considered complete at the earlier of: j (1) the dale when the submissions for that phase have been accepted by OWNER; or (2) sixty days after the date when such submissions are delivered to OWNER for final acceptance and if no actions are taken by Owner to indicate disapproval. In each case, such additional time as may be considered reasonable for obtaining approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the design of the PROJECT shall be added to that particular Phase. 4.3 Not Used 4.4 Not Used 4.5 Changes If OWNER requests significant modificallons or changes in the general scope, extent or character of the PROJECT, the time of performance of ENGINEER's services and the various rates of compensation shall be adjusted equitably. 4.6 Not Used 4.7 Delay If ENGINEER's design services or service during construction of the PROJECT are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by OWNER for more than ninety days for reasons beyond ENGINEER's control, ENGINEER shat! cn written dema,td to OWNER (but without termination of this Agreement) be paid as nrovided in para,raph 5.5.2. If such delay or suspansicn extends for more than one year for reasons '.)eyond ENGINEER's control, or if ENGINEER for any reason is required to resider services for more than one year after Satisfactory Startup and Demonstration is achieved under that • contract, the various rates of compensation including Additional Services, provided for elsewhere in this Agreement shall be subject to equitable ddjustrrient. SECTION 5 • PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER 5.1 Payment Terms Defined • 5.1.1 Direct Labor Cost • • Direct Labor Cost shall mean salary and wages at the time services are performed of all personnel engaged directly on the PROJECT, including, but not limited to, engineers, architects, scientists, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specificalion writers, estimators, Juno 15, 1493 27 r ' • a steno, clerical, accounting, and other technical and business personnel but does not include indirect payroll-related costs or fringe benefits. 5.1.2 Payroll Cost Payroll Cost shall mean the salary and wages at the time services are performed of all personnal engaged directly on the PROJECT, including, but not limited to, engineers, j architects, scientists, surveyors, designers, draftsmen, specification writers, estimators, steno, clerical, accounting and other technical and business personnel; plus the cost of customary and statutory benefits including, but not li,nited to, social security contributions, unemployment, excise and payroll taxes, workers' compensation, health and retirement benefits, sick leave, vacation, holiday pay and other group employee benefits. For the purposes of th s Agreement, the Payroll Cost is equal to Direct Labor Costs, multiplied by a factor of 1.35. 5.1.3 Per Diem Per Diem shall mean an hourly rate equal to Direct Labor Cost times an Overhead Multiplier of one and seven tenths (1.7) plus Payroll Cost to be paid to ENGINEER as total compensation for each hour an employee of ENGINEER works on the PROJECT. Reimbursable Expenses wi;l be paid in addition to ENGINEER'S Per Diem compensation. 5.1.4 Overhead Multiplier Overhead Multiplier shall mean a factor by which the Direct Labor Cost is multiplied to compensate for general and administrative overhead. When the basis of compensation is Pe. Uer., the Overhead Multiplier includes profit. 5.1.5 Reimbursable Expenses Reimbursable Expenses shall mean the actual expenses incurred directly or indirectly in connection with the PROJECT, including, but not limited to Subconsultant or Subcontractor costs times a multiplier of one and one tenth (1.1), transportation and subsistence incidental thereto, toll telephone calls, express mail and telegrams, courier services, reproduction of reports, drawings, specifications, bidding documents, and similar PROJECT-related items in addition to those required under Section 1, and, if authorized in advance by the OWNER, overtime work requiring higher than regular rates. In addition, Reimbursable Expenses will also include expenses incurred for computer time and other highly specialized equipment, including an appropriate charge for previously established programs and expenses of photographic production techniques. O 5.1.6 Lump Sum Lump Sum shall mean a fixed amount agreed upon in advance, subject to modificaliuns and amendments, for services rendered. 5.2 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Basic Services 5,21 Phase One. These services will be performed as Additional Services. Scope of • • Services and Compensation to ba mutually agreed upon at a later date by amendment to this agreement. i June 15, 1993 28 i • • 5.2.2 Phases Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six. Compensation shall be on a Per Diem basis. For budgetary purposes, the total fee for these services is estimated to be as shown below. Phase Two - One hundred, ten thousand, seven hundred fifty-five dollars ($110,755). Phase Three - Fcur hundred, reventy-three thousand, two hundred seventy dollars (S473,270). Phase Four - To be determined. Phase Five - To be determined. Phase Six - To be determined. Total compensation for Per Diem phases shall be determined based on the following formula: (Direct Labor Cost x 1.70) + (Payroll Cost) + (Reimbursable Expense, not including Subconsultani or Subcontract Costs) + (Subconsultant or Subcontract Costs x 1.1) 5.3 Basis and Amount of Compensation for Additional Services Compensation for Additional Services shall be on the basis of Per Diem or Lump Sum to be agreed upon at time of request for Additional Services. An estimate of the fee for Additional Services will be made at the time the Additional Services are requested. 5.4 Intervals of Payments Under Lump Sum Basis of Payment 5.4.1 Payments to ENGINEER for Basic and Additional Services rendered and Reimbursable Expenses incurred shall be made once every month by OWNER. ENGINEER's invoices will be submitted once ever month and will be based upon total services completed at the time of invoices. OWNbI shad promptly pay ENGINEER's invoices. 5.4,2 Not Used 5.4,3 Payments for Additional Services rendered and Reimbursable Expenses incurred shall be made once every month. ENGINFER's invoices will be submitted once every month and will be based upon total services completed at the time of b,11ing. OWNER shall make promptly pay ENGINEER's invoices. 5.5 Other Provisions Concerning Payments 5.5.1 it OWNER fails to make any payment due ENGINEER fur services and expenses • within 45 days after receipt of ENGINEER's statement, the amounts due ENGINEER will be increased at the rate of 1% per month from date of invoice, and in addition, ENGINEER may, after giving seven days' written notice to OWNER, suspend services r under this Agreement until ENGINEER has been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. 5.5.2 If the PROJECT is suspended or abandoned in whole or in part +'ar more than 30 ® days, ENGINEER shall be compensezed for all services performed prior to receipt of written notice from the OWNER of such suspension or abandonmenl, together with 0 • Reimbursable Expenses then due. If the PROJECT is resumed after being suspended for more than 30 days, ENGINEER's compensation shall be equitably adjusted. June 15, 1993 29 € l • 5.5.3 Services performed by ENGINEER at request of OWNER during periods when the PROJECT is suspended shall be considered Additional Services. 5.5.4 The OWNER's approval, acceptance, use of or payment fr all of any part of the i ENGINEER'S services hereunder or of the PROJECT itself shall in no way alter the ENGINEER's obligation or the OWNER's rights hereunder. 5.5.5 OWNER may temporarily delete any disputed items contained in Engineer's invoice, including items disputed due to lack of supporting documentation, and pay the remaining amount of the invoice. OWNER shall promptly notify ENGINEER of the dispute and request clarification and/or remedial action. After any dispute has been sottled, ENGINEER shall include the disputed item on a subsequent regularly scheduled invoice or on a special invoice for the disputed item only. 5.5.6 In the event of termination of this Agreement by either OWNER or ENGINEER, as provided in Paragraph 7.2, ENGINEER shall be entitled to payment for Services up to the time of termination, plus termination expenses. Termination expenses shall include labor, reimbursable expenses directly attributed to termination, and direct expenses associated with mobilization and demobilization of ENGINEER's personnel and facilities and anv other tests incurred by Engineer not otherwise reimbursed. 5.5.7 The amount of any sales tax, excise tax, value added lax (VAT), or gross receipts tax that may be imposed on this Agreement shad be added to the ENGINEER's compensation as reimbursable expenses. 5.5.8 ENGINEER will keep, and will cause each subcontract design professional and consultant engaged under this contract to keep, accurate books of record and account, in accordance with sound accounting principles, of all expenditures made and all costs, liabilities and obligations incurred under this contract in relation to the engagement and payment of all subcontract design professionals and consultants, and in relation It any services performed for which additional compensation will be claimed. Those mentioned accounts shall be available, upon reasonable and authorized request, to the comptroller of the OWNER or their representatives for examination and audit. 5.5,9 Records of ENGINEER's Payroll Cost., and Reimbursable Expenses pertinent to ENGINEER's compensation for Additional Services under this Agreement will be kept in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Upon request, copies will be made available to OWNER prior to final payment for EN ;INEER's services. 5.5.10 Whenever a factor is applied to Direct Labor Costs for determining compensation payable to ENGINEER, that factor will be adjusted periodically and 13quitably to reflect • changes in the various elements that comprise such factor. All such adjuslmen;s will be in accordance with generally accepted accountingg ppnnciples as applied on a consistent basis by ENGINEER and consistent with ENGINEER's overall compensation practices and procedures. SECTION 6 • Not Used June 15, 1993 30 • • SECTION 7 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Standard of Care ENGINEER shall perform all services under this Agreement in a manner which is consistent with generally accepted standards of professional engineering practice. 72 Termination 7.2.1 This Agreement may be terminated it writing by either party in the event of substantial failure by the other party to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement through no fault of the terminating party. However, no terrnina;ion for default may be initiated unless the other party is given a ten (10) calendar day period to correct any alleged failure after written notice (delivery by certified mail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate. 722 This Agreement may be terminated in writing (delivered by certified mail, return receipt requested) by OWNER for its convenience. 7.2.3 Upon any termination, ENGINEER shall: (1) promptly discontinue all Services affected (unless r termination notice from OWNER directs otherwise); and (2) upon full payment for services, deliver or otherwise make available to OWNER all documents, data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and such other information and materials as may have been accumulated by ENGINEER in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process. All payments due ENGINEER at termination shall be made as provided in paragraph 5.5.6. 7.3 Reuse of Documents 7.3.1 All documents, including Drawings and Specifications prepared or furnished by ENGINEER pursuant to this Agreement, are instruments of service with respect to the PROJECT and ENGINEER shall retain an ownership and property interest therein whether or not the PROJECT is completed. OWNER may make and retain copies for information and reference in connection with the use and occupancy of the PROJECT by OWNER and others; however, such documents are oot intended or representad to be suitable for reuse by OWNER or others on extensions of the PROJECT or on any other PROJECT. Any reuse without written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER for the specific purpose intended will be at OWNER's sole risk and without liability or logal exposure to ENGINEER, and OWNER shall defend, indemnity and hold harmless ENGINEER from all claims, damages, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees arisingg out of or rasutting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation will entitle ENGINEEP.'~ ^er compensation at rates to be agreed upon by OWNER and e ENGINEER. 7.4 Engineer's Liability ` ENGINEER shall, without additional compensation, correct or revise any errors or deficiencies in the final designs, drawings, specifications and other services ENGINEER +p performs hereunder. ENGINEER shall be responsible for actual costs of any corrective construction and repair work necessary as the result of negligent acts or omissions of • O ENGINEER. Notwithstanding, neither OWNER or ENGINEER shall be liable for any ✓I claim for consequential damages, loss of use or loss of profits incurred regardless of whether such claim is based upon alleged breach of contract, willful misconduct or negligent act or omission, whether professional or non-professional, of OWNER or June 15, 1993 31 _,~...~.a..~... • • ENGINEER or their employees, agents, or subcontractors. ENGINEER'S liability to OWNER shall be in a reasonable amount, not to exceed the total compensation paid to ENGINEER absent willful misconduct. In the event of willful misconduct, such liability shall not exceed two times ENGINEER'S total compensation. 7.5 Insurance ! 7.5.1 ENGINEER shall procure and maintain insurance for protection from claims under workers' compensation acts, employer's liability claims, claims for damages because of bodily injury, including personal injury, sickness or disease or death of any and a!I employees, or of any person other than such employees, and from claims or damages because of injury to or destruction of property, including loss of use resulting therefrom. During the performance of the Services under this agreement, ENGINEER shall maintain the following insurance: A. Comprehensive 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. 8. Automobile Liability Insurance with 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 for not less than $100,000 for each accident. C. Worker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements and Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100,000 Icr each accident. D. Professional Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000 anrual aggregate. E. Umbrella Insurance providing not less than $1,000,000 limits in excess of the limits stated in items A through D. Such policy shall name the OWNER as na addilional insured, except for Worker's Compensation and Professional Liability (subparagraph C and D above). 7.5.? ENGINEER shall maintain professional liability insurance for protection against claims arising out of performance of services undar this Agreement caused by negligent acts, errors, or omissions for which ENGINEER Is legally liable. • 7.6 Conlro!lirg Law This Agreement is to be governed by and oonsl ued in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. ' 7.7 Successors and Assigns 7.7.1 The parties hereby bind their respective partners, successors, executors, e administrators, legal representatives and, to the extent permitted by paragraph 7.7.2., O • their assigns, to the terms, conditions and covenants of this Agreement. 7.7.2 Neither OWNER nor ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer any rights under or interest in this Agreement (including, but without limitation, monies that may become June 1S, 1993 32 YY~iW e • due or monies that are due) without the written consent of the other, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting or transfer is mandated by law or the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. 7.73 Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent ENGINEER from employing such independent prof9ssional associates, subcontractors and consultants as ENGINEER may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of Services. 7.7.4 Except as may be expressly states otherwise in this Agreement, nothing under i this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than OWNER and ENGINEER, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and exclusive benefit of OWNER and ENGINEER and not for the benefit of any other party. 7.8 Equal Employment and Nor discrimination In connection with the Services under this Agreement, ENGINEER agrees to comply with the applicable provisions of State and Federal Equal Opportunity statutes and regulations. 7.9 indemnity Agreement 7.9.1 Hazardous Wabte Provision Barring any intentional wrongful acts or negligence, in no event shall Consultant be considered the OWNER or operator of any property or facility on which it performs a services under this Agreement for CERCLA or similar State environmental laws. 7.9.2 HDR hereby agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the OWNER, its officers, agents, servants and employees (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to in this Section 7.9.2 as "Indemr,~toes"), from and against damages, suits, actions, claims, losses, judgments, liability or damage of any character, and from and against costs and expenses, including attorney fees, arising out of injury to or disease, sick; ass, accident, or death of any person, or actual or threatened damage to property, including the toss of use resulting therefrom, caused by or arising from any wiilful misconduct or any negligent act, error, or omission of HDR, ;s officers, employees, servants, agents or subcontractors, or anyone else under HDR's direction and control, or any breach or threatened breach of this Agreement by HDR, its officers, employees, i servants, agents or subcontractors, or any else under HDR's direction and control. In the event one or more of the Indemnitees is oetermined by a court of law to be jointly or derivatively negligent or liable for such damage or injury, HDR shall be obligated to indemnify the Indemnitees as provided herein on a proportionate basis in accordance with the final judgment, after all appeals are exhausted, determining such joint or derivative negligence or liability (during the pendency of any appeal, HDR shall pay the Indemnitee's attorneys fees and expenses related to the appeal on a proportional basis ® in accordance with the judgmPnt from which the appeal is taken, subject to adjustment after all appeals have been exhausted). f • J HDR is not responsible for the actions of the OWNER's contractor to perform the construction of the improvements covered under this Agreement. 1 June 15, 1993 33 irrr~rrrr..rrn • • f Acceptance and approval of the final plans by the OWNER shall not constitute nor be j deemed a release of this responsibility or of liability of HDR, its employees, associates, E agents and consultants for the accuracy or competency of their designs, working drawings and specifications, or other documents and work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by the City for any defect in the designs, working drawings and specifications, or other documents prepared by HDR, its employees, contractor, agents and consultants. 7.9.3 HDR agrees that it is an independent contractor and not : n noenl of the OWNER, and that HDR is subject, as an employer, to all applicable unemploy rent compensation statutes, so as to relieve the OWNER of any responsibility or liability from treating HDR's employees as employees of the OWNER for the purpose of keeping records, making reports or payments of unemployment compensation taxes or contributions. HDR further agrees to indemnify and hold the Indemnitees harmless and reimburse them for any expenses or liability incurred under said statutes in connection with employees of HDR. 7.9.4 HDR shall pro!ect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Indemnitees, and hold the Indemnitees' premises harmless, from and against any and all claims, suits or liens, and from and against costs and expenses, including attorneys fees, based upon or alleged to be based upon the non-payment of labor, tools, materials, equipment, supplies, transportation and management costs incurred by HDR in performing this Agreement. 7.10 Construction Procedures ENGINEER shall not specify construction or service related procedures and shall not manage, supervise, control or have charge of construction, nor shall ENGINEER implement or be responsible for health or safety procedures. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of contractors or other parties on the PROJECT and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, nor safety precautions or programs. ENGINEER's monitoring or review of portions of the Work performed under construction contracts shall not relieve the Contractor from its responsibility for performing the Work in accordance with applicable contract documents. 7.11 Authority to Execute This Agreement OWNER and ENGINEER shall each attach authorization from its governing body authorizing the execution of this Agreement. Attachments shall be Exhibit B for OWNER and Exhibit C for ENGINEER. • 7.12 Changes and Modifications The parties agree that no change or modification to this Agreement, or any attachments hereto, shall have any force or olfect unless the change is reduced to writing, dated, and made a part of this Agreement. The execution of the change shall be authorized and signed in the same manner as this Agreement. • 7.13 Severability and Waiver In the event any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon the parties. One or more waivers by either party of any provision, term, condition or covenant shall not be construed as a waiver of a subsequent breach of the same by the other party. rune 15. 1993 34 7 7- .i i i i i 7.14 Extent of Agreement This Agreement, including all Exhibits, and any and all amendments, modifications, and supplements duly executed by the parties in accordance with this Agreement, govern and supersede any and all inconsistent or contradictory terms, prior oral or written representations or understandings, conditions or provisions set forth in any purchase orders, requisition, request for proposal, authorization of services, notice to proceed or other form or document issued by OWNER with respect to the PROJECT or ENGINEER's services. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and f year first written above. "OWNS r; By: Name: Title, Addre Witnessed: / HOR ENGINEERING, INC. "ENGINEER" B/ Name: William R. Hindman, P.~ Title: ienior Vice President j Address: 12700 H;Rcrest, Ste 125 I Dal!ds, Texas 75230 • • 0 'A 35 y 0 • • EXHIBIT A FCOPE OF SERVICES ENGINEERING AfID PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO AN INTEGRATED MUNICIPAL SO'JD WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS June 15, 1993 The following Scope of Services is a proposed approach for establishing an integrated municipal solid waste management program for the City of Denton, Texas. It includes completion of the Preliminary Master Plan for Municipal Solid Waste completed by HDR in April 1993, addressing the continued operation of the current Cite of Denton landfill, and implementation of a new landfill on property adjoining the current landfill site. These major aspects of the work effort are outlined as three separate phases for clarily and organization. The scheduling for the three phases may overlap somewhat. Opportunities for review and adjustment of the Scope of Services will be provided periodically throughout the course of this program, which is expected to encompass a timeframe of several years. The Project will be initiated with a project kickoff meeting at HDR with appropriate City Staff and outside professionals to discuss project objectives, procedures, coordination and concerns. Ongoing project management functions will include attending six monthly status meetings at HDR's offices and six monthly status meetings in Denton. Additional monthly status meetings will be provided as additional services, internal project team meetings will be conducted on a weekly basis with appropriate HGR staff. Project management will include maintaining project communication and coordinating the activities of the project team including outside professionals and City staff. The Project Manager will monitor and control project scope, budget, and schedule; prepare appropriate project accounting and monthly invoices; monitor and project staffing requirements, and identify tasks appropriate for City staff to accomplish. HDR will make up to three formal presentations to City Council or other City staff and officials to communicate project status. Tne Project Manager will maintain frequent day-today contact with the Engineerirg Administrator or his designated representative. The cost for project management and administration represents a one-year period and is incorporated in the costs of Phase Two • and Phase Three. Additional cost for project management will be authorized at the end of one year. • • • .J June 15. 1997 36 ,r w • • The two major phases of the work described above are considered the primarywork efforts However, as an outgrowth of the planning process, assistance with other phases of an integrated system may be indicated Examples of such other services are mentioned as possible subsequent phases. These subsequent phases will be defined in more detail at a later time if appropriate. The City may or may not authorize each of these subsequent phases at their discretion. HDR will not proceed with any Phase without written authorization. It is recognized that the Scope of Services is developed as outlined herein based on a presumed understand? ,g of Texas Water Commission (TWC) Regulations which are currently in proposed form. These regulations may be modified prior to final publication and implementation. Furthermore, the regulation of municipal solid waste is a new responsbility of the current regulatory agency, the TWC. The regulatory program is in a state of transition as it is being established under the jurisdiction of a new regulatory body The proposed regulations have not yet been addressed in Texas. Regulatory interpretation has yet to be / fully formulated. Project uncertainty is also high due to a lack of comprehensive geotechnical and hydrogeologic data on the proposed landfill propoerty. Although a preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted by others on a portion of the proposed property in 1989, this investigation was sole', to evaluate the general feasibility of one tract for future landfill development bas;u on regulatory requirements at that time. A more comprehensive investigation of the entire property under consideration is essential prior to developing basic design concepts. i rj The following Scope of Services and associated manhour and fee estimates are preliminary in nature. They are based on a general understanding of proposed regulations, developing regulatory interpretation and policies, and recent experience in the design and permitting of other landfills in Texas. The items in the Scope of Services will be reviewed and revised throughout the course of the project. Furthermore, the level of services necessary to fulfill the requirements of each task will be established with the concurrence of City Staff as the project proceeds. Therefore, it will be necessary to review and revise the estimated manhours and cost periodically. Monthly status reports will be used to call attention to changing project ragljirements as appropriate. Manhours and f,es are presented in three categories. Those tasks which are currently • believed to ue addressed adequately in previous work or are not applicable are indicated as "Not included in this Scope of Work." Those tasks which can be reasonably well defined at this time have "Estimated Manhours and Fees" indicated. Those tasks which cannot be adequately defined orior to further site investigation or definitive regulatory interpretation, or both, reflect "Preliminary Manhour and Fee Estimates." Juec M 1997 37 - e a PHASE ONE - COMPLETION OF THE PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE This Phase to be completed as Additional Services with the Scope of Services and Fee Basis to be mutually agreed upon at a later date. PHASE TWO - ADDRESSING THE CURRENT LANDFILL RELATIVE TO SUBTITLE 0 AND STATE REQUIREMENTS II will be necessary to address the current landfill in order to comply with regulatory requirements pursuant to Subtitle D of RCRA and new Texas Water Commission (TWC) regulations. The submittals addressed in Tasks 2.1 through 2,16 must be submitted into the landfill operating record prior to October 9, 1993 if the landfill is to stay in operation after that date. It is assumed that it will not be necessary to reissue submittals which are already provided in the current permit docJmentation for the site. Those items which are already addressed and are, therefore, excluded from this Scope of Services are indicated as "Not Included in this Scope of Work." Those items which are addressed In the current permit documentation, but which may need to be updated or provided In more detail are indicated under "Preliminary Mdnhour and Fee Estimates." Such items will be reviewed and guidance will be obtained from the TWC regarding the necessity to readdress these items. If it is determined that additional work will be required in order to fulfill regulatory requirements regarding these submittals, the Scope of Services will be revised at that time to reflect any necessary modifications to the original scope. Those items which clearly are not provided in previous permit documentation are indicated under "Estimated Manhours and Fees." - • r : June 15, 1993 38 ~++ic«+e+reir r.±i~~}M ♦'rF, r< f Si. t +3; d t'r;, t r. Eli= e e :.n Submittals to TWC regarding operation of permitted sites after October 9, 1993 may be made separately. It is proposed that each submittal be provided to TWC immediately upon completion in order to expedite regulatory review. In addition. it will be necessary to ensure that the current operation will yield the maximum possible disposal capacity while the proposed landfill is being designed and permitted Phase Two includes both of these activities. Task 2 1 • Site Operating Plan Not incwded PrOminary Estimated 11 this scope Wanhow and Nanho.n rd Prepare a Site Operating Plan which includes the w following ■ Job descriptions for landfill personnel ✓ ■ Landfill operation procedures 64 MH • Procedures for the detection and prevention of ($5800) - acceptance of hazardous wastes ■ Fire Protection Plan ■ Groundwater Sampling and Analysis Plan, including the following ■ Definition of background water quality ■ Sample collection and handling procedures ■ Groundwater elevation measurement procedures ■ Statistical & analytical methods to be used 76 MH for determining groundwater sampling ($6300) results ■ Outline the sampling frequency requirements for the Detection Monitoring program ■ Lab & QA/QC Procedures • • A 0 June 15 1943 39 • Task 2 2 - Site Development Plan Not inNudeJ Preom nary Ev,T, ea Prepare a Site Development Plan which includes 1n"sto Pt M,nhovr,nd m-.- the following ■ Landfilling method ■ All-weather provisions ■ Access control ✓ 16 MM 1313501 ■ Rate of waste deposition ■ Info! 'nation on design features which function to prevent discharges Task 2 3 - Site Layout Plan Prepare a Site Layout Plan which includes the following ■ A constructed map showing' ■ Outline of units and fill sectors ✓ ■ General sequence of fill ✓ ■ Location of all roadways ✓ ■ Location of monitor wells and buildings ■ Generalized design of all site entrance 24 MH roads ($1500) Task 2.4 - Fill-Cross Sections Prepare fill-cross sections to show the following. ■ Top of levee (not applicable) ✓ ■ Top of proposed 611 ✓ ■ Top of waste ✓ ■ Bottom of excavation / ■ Monitoring wells ✓ ■ Water levels ✓ ■ Construction/design details of perimeter and ✓ loe berms (not applicable) v Side slopes ■ Gas vents r 28 MH r ■ Maximum 611 elevation ($2250) r ■ Top of final cover - 16 MH ($1130) J - Jun, 13,1993 40 • • fiat intruded Prei'rrr~y Es'^rea M~n".r 1^d V~•^c~ c r] ,n Ihe Scope nl Wnn. Fay Fa.Ta'sa Task 2 5 - Contour Mao Prepare a constructed map that shows the following ■ Contour, existing prior to work on the site • Location and quantity of surface water ✓ drainage enteringlexiting the site ✓ • OL.line the area withir the 100-year floodplain / Task 2.6 ^ Geotoov Report Prepare a geology rr_port that ircwdes the following. ✓ • Discussion of regional physiography and topography including land slope, water bodies and facility maximum and minimum elevations ■ Description of regional geology ✓ c Description of geologic processes in the ✓ area, i.e. faults, erosion, and wetland areas ■ Description of regional ari-ifers ✓ ■ Subsurface investigation ,dport (borings) ✓ • Description of geol,achnical properties of ✓ subsurface so"4 • Groundwater investigation report describing 64 MH water levels in the area and likely pollutant ($4600) migration pathways ■ Descrption of groundwater monitoring ✓ system including engineering drawings of typical monitoring well and well elevation • data • Y ~ O O Jun. 15 . 1 M 41 • • Not included C•e'.r-r~^r E~rre: in Iha ScoCe Ma"now Pd II a-':.'a r: Task 2 7 - Groundwater Protection and Drainage Plan Prepare a Groundwater Protection and Drainage Plan that includes the following ■ Diagrams showing the locations, details, and typical cross-sections of the following ■ levees (not applicable) ✓ ■ dikes (not applicable) ✓ ■ drainage channels • culverts ✓ ■ holding ponds ✓ ■ leachate collection system (not applicable) ■ Drawing showing draina;v areas and provide ✓ drainage calculations ■ Delineation of 100-year floodplain (included in ✓ task 2.16) ■ Drainage and run-off control analysis ■ Hood control and analysis 128 MH ■ Drawing showing cross-sections or elevations ($12,000) of levees tied into contours (not applicable) ✓ Task 2.8 - Final Contour Mao Prepare a final contour map showing the final elevation contours of the landfill, drainage directions, and side slopes Task 2.9 . Cost Estimates for Closure and Post- Closure Care Prepare dca ied cost estimates for the following • ■ The cost of hiring a third party to close the landfill at any time during the life of the landfill ■ The cost of hiring a third party to conduct 62 MH past-closure care, including both annual ($46001 • and periodic costs O • June 15 1993 42 • - r_.r , • • Not 'nciaded P'enmirary Ev're] f 4anno„r e,d 4r:crs a-d n Ws Scope i4.'nr~ F.• Fafun..a :eea M Task 2 10 - Sol and Liner Quality Control Plan Prepare a Soil and Liner Quality Control Plan to address the following I ■ Construction method for soil liner ■ Installation and testing of Flexible membrane liner • Testing frequency and procedure • Definition of Soil and Liner Evaluation Report and Flexible Membrane Liner Evaluation Report contents Task 2 11 • Final Closure Plan Prepare a Final Closure Plan that includes tt e following ■ Description of final cover ■ Estimate of largest area ever requiring final cover ■ Estimate of the amount of waste on-site at 64 MH final closure ($6180) ■ Written cost estimate (same as one prepared for Task 2.9) Task 2.12 - Post-Closure Care Plan Prepare a plan for Post-Closure Care that includes the following. ■ Description of monitoring and maintenance activities ■ Name of responsible person for post- closure care 44 MH ■ Description of planned use for area during ($3300) post-closure care ■ Written cost estimate (same as one prepared for Task 2.9) E O i ~ • O I , 43 l E jog • • i 401 rU~OeC ?rehmr a^~ E+' -+'z; m tha Scoct vanbcuraid Va-rc. r7 NP1nw Cu Fa... cma _ I Task 2 13 - Landfill Gas Management Plan Prepare a plan that addresses Landfill Gas Management by including the following ■ Description of routine monitoring system a Specification of landfill gas control system 200 MH ■ Back-up r:an for use if primary control ($22,000) systPtS falls Task 14 - Applicant's Statement 2 MH Prepare a statement for the signature of the (51'0) applicant which specifies that the app! cant has read the prepared plans and agrees to operate the landfill in a manner consistent with them Task 2.15 - Certfication of Groundwater 10 Mri Monitoring System I$650; Prepare a statement certifying that a groundwater monitoring system is in place at the Denton landfill that complies with the requirements of the TWC regulations Task 2 16 - Certification of Compliance with Locatton Restrictions Prepare statements certifying that the Denton landfill is in compliance w th the following restrictions. ■ Airport proximity 1 s Floodplains (100-year) 262 MH ■ Un3table Areas ($20.080) e Task 2 17 - Maximizing Remainino Site Life 18 f Review current operating methods to identify ($1475) potential modifications which might provide additional site life. Specifically, consider alternate daily cover. Calculate potential effect on ' ® remaining site life of alternate techniques if I • • appropriate. i J June 15 199] 44 i • Attend ~o'o tree regulatory meetings in Austin ~5c54G wlth City s'3`+ Task 2 19 - Phase Two Pro ect Management and 200 MH Admmis'ratlon t5!r, F2^ (12 months) TOTALS - PHASE TWO 524 MH 8C8 ($49.510) !561 41 i i h:> ^r iL~(' 15 >0~ i 45 . 't ,:e < i to 3 • • PHASE THREE • DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF A NEW LANDFILL ADJOINI4G TH_ CURRENT FACILITY The ng s an ouHre of the tasks associated Aith designing and obtai^r3 a Perm t :c . ra ale a V. ;ric pal Solid 'Haste Lardf ll 1N+S'ALF1 for a tract of lard a:,o r " g current 13ear it s le This YS'/VLF will be ether an expansion of the current iarc' ! _ sepa ate 'ane` ii Y:ate9 3dtacent to the current landfill site Subtitle D and rew T'v1/C reg ,lat ons have not been fully intefpreted by t-e •e-. community This Scope Of Service, is based on interpretation by HDR of the f r3', :ran: regulations published on March 9. 1993 It is anticipated that the final regulators s gn+f cantly different from the draft regulat ins However when the final reg_ at :-s published , this Scope of Services will be reviewed and revised if necessary to re changes As guidance and interpretations are made available from the T'AC tre 5. also be reviewed and revised as necessary Est.ma'._ 3A - Analysis Manr~niz; _ Task 3 1 • Project Inltialion and Data Collection Obtain all site information including property surveys, aerial photography, topographic mapping. floodplain information, zoning and land use information, subsurface investigations, groundNater assessments, wetlands determinations, and any other pertinent information regarding the current and proposed landfill sites available to the City Obtain all pertinent site documentation assembled during Phase Two such as documentation of compliance with locations restrictions, and such as pertinent site information provided in the permit documentation for the current landfill Determine data 72 MH collection needs ($4520) In conjunction with City Staff, identify any required techn,:al and profess,onal services required to design a landfill expansion and obtain a permit. • After rev ewing the information, determine the need for specific ouls,de services to develop supplemental site data, such as drillirg and testing, aerial photography, and topographic and boundary surveys • ~ O O `J 46 r, • • The fo lcw rg s a pre -m nary Scope of Services based on _s 'r 3, typical 'a-o',J :es~gn and permitting experience in Texas ynnrni,rs ar.1 Phase Three a:t , tes Aid be initiated immediately upon notice to p(.ceed HDR shall provide or coordinate technical and professional services lexc'u4 rg 'egal services) required to prepare a Type I municipal solid Nasle facility permit amendment for the existing City of Denton Sanitary Landfill or, alternatively, to prepare a permit apps cation for a new landfill near to, but not adjoining. the current landfill These services :'tall include the following Task 3 2 - TI/VC Conference 28 VH Meet with representatives of TWC in Austin to discuss i$3170) pertinent issues including the consequences of pursuing a permit amendment (landfill expansion) or a new permit (new landfill) Select a design concept for further development Task 3 3 - Existing Data Review 3 3.1 Develop a preliminary conceptual landfill design (landfill 55 klH footprint) as a guide for all future work efforts 35000 332 Collect the following documentation as available from the City or other puLlic sources. • Data, reports surveys, and correspondence, etc related to the site • All a;r photographic coverage including topography • Regional and site vicinity geologylh,vdrogeology studies and data provided by the City 112 h4H • Perl rent Federal, State and University studies ($9370) • Dr cumentation of regional cross-sections, test pits, • ulilily companies, borings, and water wells • Groundwater use and users, groundwater quality, and groundwater recharge areas 47 0 • • Prec c•tat on temperature word velocity and d rect cn Mannrn n; A- zzrt; evacot•a^s; rat on evaporatcn and purr d ty data S~ a.., !c;c;.aphy Pctat e hater Nell inventory keyed to a rr,_p of wells and springs Notrin ore mile of the site documenting well location, design usage water quality and other pertinent data available 3 33 Collect and compile current planning data • Populabcn and popu!aton project ors Waste quantities gerefated/accepted Curren and projected traffic counts on access routes and roaiaay limitations 44 MH ($2910) • Land uFelzoning within one mile radius • Threatened or endangered species' habitats • Saes of cultural or historic significance • General discussion of vegetation existing on site 3 3 4 Review subsurface and hydrologic work performed by 26 %1H others, if any, to determine the need for additional ($2720) investigation Assist the City in the selection of qul hied r sub-consultant and arrange for sub-consultant work such as dnlling, testing. topography, surveying, aerial 9 photography, archaeology, biological assessment, etc as necessary Task 3 4 • Field and Laboratory Investigations 92 MH 34 1 Through site visits and a literature search, develop an (58140) understanding of current conditions and prepare a preliminary soil boring plan and piezometer plan Y Consult with the Texas Water Commission (TWC) to . obtain their acceptance and approval 48 • Est- a,ec Lrar,hrnrs a!`'y = 34 2 2'ecrr cal ~rves' ealon Plan Prepare a prelim nary Cenr j p+an presented on a copy of the most recent tcpcgrapric ^ ap 13crng locations and depths will be selected based on an understanding of the most prad cab!e excavation depths anticipated depth to any aquaciude, and regulatory requirements. Piezometers 36 MH may be installed in boring locations in order to assess (52780) the groundwater surface elevation and graddent across the site Previous boring data, if any, will be used to the extent practical to estimate the desired depth of penetration for any proposed boring and as an aid to interpreting and profiling subsurface strabgraphy. Prelun na Mairl a 3B Design and Permitting Faa 7strr1,:;__ 34 3 Ceotechnicai tnvestgation The proposed boring plan 550 fA-i will allo,v the correlation of geological data revealed in ($45 CCC, any - vious boring and simultaneously provide the evaluation of subsurface conditions within the site boundaries if indicated, the subsurface investigation will include boring and testing as required to support use of any on-site soils for use in a lining system. Ail boring locations will be identified on a current topographic map of the site and will include the surface elevation determined outside this scope by a registered professional surveyor All bore holes not converted into piezometers will be grouted from the bottom up with a non shrink cement•bentonite mixture. Evaluation of piezometer data will include the • 1 preparation of a potentiometric surface map of the static t Adler level across the site and recommendations for f groundwater pressure relief and locating groundwater monitoring wells. A HDR hydrogeotogist will evaluate the results and prepare of a hydrogeologic model of the site • • • J 49 µ "Po damodmW • • Yarrour ar: Faa F •,^,a•~c _ 3 4 3 o :.a erHydre'oay Study HOR understands that 122 Yr c.~rese .r t+^e Hydrology Study is to collect t58200~ ` a ra ab'e silo data conduct field surveys. and evaluate sur4;:a ,ti;rer !ata to provide the following • Description of surface drainage systems fleod character!st+cs. and existing surface water quality • Understanding of groundwater/surface hater relationships at the site if apps cable preparation of a reliable (defensible) site plan delineating the 100-year floodpla n limits and 100- year flood elevation in keeping with ava,lab,e Federal Emergency Management Agency flood insurance maps and studies and showing all surface water within a one- mde radius of the site boundary Work efforts to perform floodway studies, engineering, documentation, and to obtain permit approval of 8oodplain reclamation can be provided as additional services if required The following define those services required to complete a typical Hydrology Study 34 3 1 Obtain available surface water data from the City, 24 M'H previous studies, the Corps of Engineers (COE), ($13u0 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U S Geologic Survey (USGS), and Texas Water Commission (TVVC) Existing ^ydrolegic and hydraulic data will be obtained from the COE, FEMA, and USGS to provide base,ine data for surface water analyses In • addition, results of currently available surface water models will be obtained for evaluation Surface water quality data will be collected from the TWC and USGS for any applicable stream segments • Existing survey data will be collected and analyzed to - • • determine completeness. 50 4 • r O Poor Qua - nt I i c :a: Sr A 3'c 5: 'S M - ? 5 - are 3 .?s:-c:~C^ ^3pS 3-J ":C:C'3 :Dograp, c r"ap ::r -a s.l*ace Water,7ua'ldy _-a'av--, st cs cased ori readily 3:3'3C ? ;3'a 4e an'y 3-adab'e supportirg d0C,r^:e'3tcn :f 'r,,_.year e!e.atioos or `C.C: a r ay surface 'Aate r n es ;r a ._c: r= r C -3C Ra4 ew prev;cus tie: 3"'. -"ra:.c,s f 3-y if necessary obtar a a^J; ? - nation -?Dort Pr?Dar3t Cn c: a-' 3 Which crescn'S a ;h ^aslc geclogc 3•. -,::;e~'cgc :r'31 nforma, _se --,i in !?,e ...e an est matc^ _r -a ..a-t t.es of ::rata .tihC.'1 may ce a.3 3c e or =,er 3 s.:_'scec.f: and reg. . ;?:i :r:ss- s and supportive data 3rJ Cr e;.car,ce collected r rng 'tee preiiminary site assess.-eat stucy The • report vil be presented in a format sultab'e for inclusion • • in the permit application 51 • • { %1- - Poor Qua ; - I l - y. g sri B~- e ,..s 1:.r a! :r 3 n,Cr!,C,n r':--a rer Iles -zi 3 -O-,tcrrg p'an Pressure re! e' :ecr. iQ.es if recessa-, '?dam':e ri7rostar:c read t-e'cw the firer j cl°r,' -ccl ca!lcrl and Land(,II Des "n Ccerate a 'i pal Soho "taste Ste Tre `~c,v,rg _ CeS ,,,rent 'ei;u laments fcf an a;,p lca::,n t0 AC for a `ce-ate a '•'un opal Solid AVaste S to Ce!a lad ;-e :,,ceded in 31 TAC 33, 5' - 330 :3 ',rant s e,, a 'n t-ese new regulations hare ^ever ceen :-j n exas Tr,e costs indicate an assornct cn of --,ear :a 5 ,e a. darlce from TWC and are cased :n early TVVC Staff regaroing a-• :cased po c es - croposed regulators -ask 3 5 x u ce -:a _ ssuance of fina'ized eigu abcna • - - -e'c'o.vng or verify ar4 , ze err-is -e ; ral cermit Appi ca' co 'or c us cn in an I; r a new Permit ~r Per- : !,-erdrnent !o ! C 31 Solid 'o7aste Site tS~!e _e,e :p-art Plan) -3'. - Exist ^ j 2ana t-ors and Character of the Ste and S:rrourd,ng Ajea _ • -art ill - Engreerrg, Investigative Reports and Screrraac Design O O Da, V • Site Operating Plan Pali V - Construction Plan and Specifications ~ r 52 '.4 7:. • 1 A / f - Poor Oua I _ _r •?_^rral'0 r: `2si . :.3 3r ,-e ':r :re eeK i _.C ^a?...'i -n 3.,'',tCr 'e:Tr,_ .'3`•=rs M1'1 cr90a;e 31 ...."ai'es.:,r:es ar? e'0 Crc_a e 3 -ea- -g and v :rl.;e tast, .,ry ~f necessary. ''-e 'r-es :f -SR's ^3t:ra~ 4ZA .vas;e staff are ava iac!e 9Ceaa~,zed fharrar'ed Beca~se to ^•_:isb;e'oerelct;he e' :r 3:cn s',:'at!on 0f Opp3sibOn at a "?arrg '.r 's 'ask hill J ?ar'y efired at a later date '3c, -,use -`,ee Pro'ect Mann'o -!=7 z' 3 r) - - THREE :.rs and fees Est, 3 ? • .rs and Fees R: • o a 53 • • v.....n.~...rw ~`'E .:a 67Y 16 • • Poor Qua J.. f. PHASE FC_- S;T: CJNSTRUCTION 06SERVAT!0.`1 AND L!`.ER ',SPt-'!:0N TESTING DURING CONS, 4i, -r 04. ;NSTALLATION r . 'i ^r3t,cn ar,d 'per CSpc ;Gr„est rg s-... _ , nstallat'on n :orrp arce n, 4n T'AC r r:•:a-, e 'e-rents Th s task w! to more fu'1y del re d 3no xT ersatcn determ red after corn ion of apo .atle .es gn 3ct v rtes and final :e!erm rat,cn of rel., atory re:_'errenis PHASE FIVE • OTHER PERMITS C-er cer^ is -ar to re~u~redl for lardfill development r; _.^g n 3^,s eared cermts 'e.ee per is a 14atcra' s:ra,ge Eiim~ration System --e•mit for 1 rev 7 scrares 'c surface water, or a pear,;' 10 ex:a.ate ar art naec!cg c3i s to HDR personeei are aua'',f ed to prepare apc Cations for s ch perm is and wAi do so f authcr+zed oy !r e City 3s aud,'Licrial services PHASE SIX • DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF ASSOCIATED SOLID WASTE FACILITIES appropriate prepare conceptual designs and cost estimates 'or s.' ,d waste faat;Ges associated with the landfill, including a 3ter at processrg facility intermediate processing center rc;sting faci ty and others. Prepare final designs incioding cc~s!~uco n plans and specifications and appropriate permit -er?aGOn This phase will be further defined at a later r i t r, A { iot i 1 • ~penea No. 97-0,~ A¢eada Item Date_ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH EMCON TO PROVIDE SERVICES REQUIRED IN THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FNRCC) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR THE CITY'S LANDFILL PERMIT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 5171150. RECOMMENDATION: The Public Utilities Board recommends approval of a contract with EMCON in the amount of $17,150 for expert testimony and associated activities at the landfill permit public hearing. SUMMARY: The proposed contract is based on manhour estimates provided by Kelly, Hart & Hallman for a public hearing. The budget estimates that ,here taskF will require approximately 155 manhoius for EMCON personnel plus expenses. actual labor and direct expenses may vary from the estimate reflected in this authorization depending on the type of opposition mounted by any landfill opponents, and the nature of the hearing proceedings. The activities include not only the hearing itself but also review of files preparatory to depositions and the hearing, participation in preparation of prefiled testimony, participation in deposition of plaintiffs expert hydrogeologist, participation in preparation of closing arguments, and travel PROGRAM/DEPARTMENT OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens of Denton, City of Denton, Solid Waste Department of Public Utilities 1 FISCAL IMPACT: • Exhibit I details the activities and the associated budget for EMCON's participation in the public hearing. i j R t ed, • RE. Nelson, Executive Director V O 0 J. Utilities Pr by Ho at or M 16iNct Environmental Operations Exhibit I: Professional Service Contract I C ty 0 La _ G • • A:\EXCONORD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EMCON, INC. ("EMCON") REGARDING SERVICES RELATED TO PREPARATION FOR TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR LANDFILL PERMIT; 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 with EMCON, Inc. regarding services related to preparation for Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Administrative H93r1ng for Landfill Permit; a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION II. That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attached Agreement is hereby authorized. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become e~.ective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the , day of , 1997. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY • BY: a APPROVED AS l0 LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: A~ii t' w(,LC rA • • Z • s STATE OF TEXAS S COUNTY OF DENTON S PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES RELATED TO PREPARATION FOR TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR LANDFILL PERMIT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of , 2997, by and between the City of Denton, a Texas Municipal Corporation, with its principal office at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Denton County, Texas 76201, (hereinafter "CITY") and EMCON, Inc., with its principal offices at (hereinafter "CONSULTANT") acting herein, by end through their duly authorized representatives. WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: ARTICLE I EMPLOYMENT OF CONSULTANT The CITY hereby contracts with CONSULTANT, as an independent 1 contractor, and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services herein in connection with the Project as stated in the A sections to follow, with diligence and in accordance with the highest professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the State of Texas. The professional services set out herein are in connection with the following', described project: • The Project shall include without limitation (hereinafter • • "Project"): Preparation for and participation in the J administrative hearing before the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (hereinafter "TNRCCII) pertaining to the City of Denton's application for landfill permit. 3 y: • • ARTICLE II SCOPE OF SERVICES The CONSULTANT shall perform the following services in a professional manner: A. To perform all those services set forth in the Estimate of Time and Costs for Permit Amundment Hearing, City of Denton Landfill (hereinafter the "Estimate"), which Estimate is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" as if written word for word herein. ARTICLE III PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by the CITY and the CONSULTANT of this Agreement and upon the issuance of a notice to proceed by the CITY and shall remain in force for the period which may reasonably be required for the completion of the Project, and any required extensions approved by the CITY. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions hereof. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. The CONSULTANT shall make all reasonable efforts to complete the services set forth herein as expedi~iously as possible and to meet the schedule established by the CITY, acting through its City Manager or his designee. ARTICLE IV • COMPENSATION i A. COMPENSATION TERMS: • 1. "Subcontract Expense" is defined as expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in employment of others in outside firms for services in the nature of support activities incident to WNSULTANTIS preparation for the TNRCC administrative hearing. PAGE ~ l2 T 'a' 2. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense for any assignment incurred by the CONSULTANT for supplies, transportation and equipment, travel, communications, subsistence and lodging away from home and similar incidental in connection with that assignment. B. BILLING AND PAYMENT: For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT herein, the CITY agrees to pay based on the cost estimate detail at an hourly rate shown in the Estimate, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part of this Agreement as if written word for word herein, a total fee including reimbursement for direct non-labor expense, not to exceed $17,150.00. Partial payments to the CONSULTANT will be made on the basis of detailed monthly statements rendered to and approved by the CITY through its City Manager or his 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 CITY may withhold the final 5t of the contract amount until completion of the Project. Nothing contained in this Article shall require the CITY to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory as reasonably determined by the city manager or his designee or which is not submitted 0 in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The CITY shall not be required to make any payments to the CONSULTANT when the r CONSULTANT is in default under this Agreement. It is specifically understood and agreed that the CCNSULTANT 0 shall not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this 6 agreement which would require additional payments by the CITY for any charge, expense or reimbursement above the maximum not to exceed fee as stated without first having obtained written authorization from the CITY. PAGE 1 .~1 • • C. PAYMENT If CITY 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 (1t) per month from the said sixtieth (60th) day, and in addition, the CONSULTANT may, after giving seven (7) days' written notice to the CITY, 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 the CITY to pay the late charge of one percent (1t) set forth herein if the CITY reasonably determines that the work is unsatisfactory, in accordance with this Article IV, Compensation. ARTICLE OBSERVATION ANC REVIEW OF THE WORK it The CONSULTANT will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the CITY any defects or deficiencies in the work of the CONSULTANT or any subcontractors or subconsultants. ARTICLE VI OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All documents prepared or furnished by the CONSULTANT (and • CONSULTANT's subcontractors or subconsultants) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service and shall become the property of the CITY upon the termination of this Agreement. The 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 CITY'S use of these documents in other projects shall be at CITY'S sole risk and expense. In the event the CITY uses the Agreement in another project or for other purposes than specified herein any of the information or materials PAGE 4 -77 • • f developed pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT is released from any and all liability relating to their use in that project. ARTICLE VII INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT shall provide services to CITY ds an independent contractor, not as an employee of the CITY. CONSULTANT shall not have or claim any right arising from employee status. ARTICLE VIII INDEMNITY AGREF-14ENT The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the CITY 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 CITY, and including without limitation damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, ) resulting from 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 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 • anyone not a party to this Agreement, including the defense of governmental immunity, which defenses are hereby expressly .r reserved. ARTICLE IX • INSURANCE • • During the performance of the Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall maintain the following insurance with an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Texas by the State PAGE 5 • • Insurance Commission or any successor agency that has a rating with Best Rate Carriers of at least an A- or above: A. Comprehensive 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 with 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 for 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 limits of not less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. E. The CONSULTANT shall furnish insurance certificates or insurance policies at the CITY's request to evidence such coverages. The insurance policies shall name the CITY as an additional insured on all such policies to the extent legally possible, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without 30 days prior written • notice to CITY and CONSULTANT. In such event, the CONSULTANT shall, prior to the effective date of the change or I ' cancellation, serve substitute policies furnishing the same coverage. • ARTICLE X • 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 PAGE 66 0 ;c • C__ .rte... 0 O O 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 XI TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate by giving thirty (30) days advance written notice to the other party. 8. 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 and setting forth the reasons specifying the nonperformance, and not less than 30 calendar days to cure i the failure, and (2) an opportunity for consultation with the terminating party prior to termination. C. If this Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the ser- vices to be provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall imrzediately cease all services and shall render a final bill for services to the CITY within 30 days after the date of termination. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for all services properly rendered and O satisfactorily performed and for reimbursable expenses to termination incurred prior to the date of termination in ac- cordancA with Article IV, Compensation. Should CITY sub- ' sequently contract with a new CONSULTANT for the continuation of services on the project, CONSULTANT shall cooperate in O providing information. The CONSULTANT shall turn over all O O documents prepared or furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement to the CITY on or before the date of termination but may maintain copies of such documents for its use. PAGE 7 9 O 0 • • .:r I ARTICLE XII RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLA.IMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by the CITY 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 work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of such responsibility by the CITY for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the CONSULTANT, its employees, subcontractors, agents and consultants. ARTICLE XIII 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 days mailing: To CONSULTANT: To CITY: City of Denton ATTN: Ted Benavides Title: City Manager 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 • All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is given or within three days mailing. ARTICLE XIy • ENTIRE AGREEMENT O O This Agreement consisting of 13 pages and one exhibit constitutes the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement PAGE 8 I7 lO f • • 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. ARTICLE XV 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 shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such event, the party 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 stricken provision. ARTICLE XVI COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they moy now read or hereinafter be amended. ARTICLE XVII DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED • In performing the services required hereunder, the CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, i color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. • ARTICLE XVIII ti PERSONNEL A. The CONSULTANT represents that it has or will secure at its own expense all personnel required to perform all the services PAGE 9 . ,oil Ell ti....r...-...~......-., L yw Y' 4 t • • required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees or officers of, or have any contractual relations with the city. CONSULTANT shall inform the CITY of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest that may arise or be discovered during the term of this Agreement. 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 state and local laws to perform such services. ARTICLE XIX 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 CITY. ARTICLE XX MODIFICATION No waiver, modification, or amendment 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 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, and unless such i waiver or modification is in writing, duly executed; and, the ' parties further agree that the provisions of this section will not be waived unless as herein set forth. • • 0 ARTICLE XXI MISCELLANEOUS A. The following exhibit is attached to and made a part of this PAGE 10 r • • Agreement: Exhibit A: Estimate of Time and Costs for Permit Amendment Hearing City of Denton Landfill B. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY 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 CONSULTANT involving transactions relating to this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees that CITY 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. CITY shall give CONSULTANT reasonable advance notice of intended audits. C. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall ba governed by, and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. D. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will perform most of this work hereunder shall be A. Richard Smith. However, nothing herein shall limit CONSULTANT from using other qualified and competent members of their firm to perform the services required herein, provided that CONSULTANT first obtain -1 the prior written consent of CITY. 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 projects,6CONSULTANT shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved • is properly coordinated with related work being carried on by • the CITY. F. The CITY shall assist the CONSULTANT by placing at the CONSULTANT's disposal all available information pertinent to PAGE 11 43 ,j; • • 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. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas ha6 -aused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager; and CONSULTANT has executed this Agreement through its duly authorized undersigned officer on this the day of , 1997. "CITY" CITY OF DENTON, 'PEYAS J By: Ted Benavides, City Manager ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY By: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY By: PAGE 1~ F XZLOA i "CONSULTANT" EMCON, Inc. By. Name: Title: ATTEST: Ar\EMCoN i i 3 l PAGE 13 ;4 • Estimate of Time ar,.', Costs for Pernut Amendment Hearing, City of Denton Landfill The following estimates of time for A. Richard Smith and supporting EMCON staff are based on a discussion with Susan Zachos about the anticipated activities for the landfill patent amendment hearing. The activities include not only the hearing itself but also review of files preparatony to depositions rO the hearing, participation in preparation of prefiled testimony, participation in deposition ofplaintifl's xpw hydrogeotogist (if arty), participation in preparation of dosing arguments, and travel. The cost estimates are based on EMCON's c urreat billing rates and actual estimated expenses. The amount of time estimated is obviously highly dependent on the activities of others, irrJuding the City, its attxncys, and its other cw&dtauiu, the piaimiffs and their attorneys, and the TNRCC. All work will be performed on a timaand-materials basis. Time estimates for A. Richard Smith: Review of documavs in preparation for depositions artd hearing 20 hours Discovery (review ofdocumrentsts) 4 Prepwation by momey for deposition 2 DaposWort by oppostion (prennsted in Denton) 3 Partwwe in daposi6on of opposing duw wim m 4 Preparation of prafiled tenimony 12 Review of opposition docutrams for hearing 12 r Preparation by uwney for hW.og 6 h6costioll 1111 hW* 40 Assist attorneys with written daft stuensents 8 Travel time (sesunte 2 trips to Austin, 3 daily trips to Denton) iQ Toni time 131 (tours Time eatirnales for EMCON junior and clerical staff: 1 Discovery (collection of documents) 8 hours Copying of documents )I Total 24 • The hourly rates associated with the time estimsta are: r A. Richard Smith $112 Junior staff 78 Clerical state 41 • • o Based on the time estimates and the hourly rates, the estimattd cost for time to be sport is expected to be about $16,000. In addition, travel expenses for A, Richard Smith are estimated to be abort S 1,150, based on 2 trips to Austin (ore with I night, one with 3 I nights) and 3 day trips to Denton. The total estimated cost is about S 17,150. I A - - Z7. 71 7 LIZ s 0 Agenda N5., 2 7 -0 Agenda Item ° Oate CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT NV1TH KELLY, HART AND HALLMAN TO PROVIDE SERVICES REQUIRED IN THE TEXAS NATURAL. RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (TNRCC) ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FOR THE CITY'S LANDFILL PERMIT IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $175,000. RECOMMENDATION: The Public Utilities Board recommends approval of a contract with Kelly, Hart and Hallman (KH&H) in the amount of $175,000 for legal representation and associated activities at the landfill permit public hearing. SUMMARY: The proposed contract budget is based on an estimated +,umber of hours required for each legal tasks associated with a typical hearing. The budget incorporates many assumptions and is an estimate of legal fee only. Some of the basic a~_ a,,ation include; TNRCC staff will not oppose Denton on any issues; that there will r:! i ..r. . -11 discovery disputes involving preheating conferences with the Administrative : that the hearing will be no more than 4 days; that the ALJ's proposal for decisio- be favorable; and that the Commission will adopt the PFD and will not remand the .or „ je taking of any additional evidence. The budget for legal services estimates 1,262 manhours required for hearing activities. KH&H allocates time somewhat equally between Mary Mendoza and Susan Zachos. The budget estimates the cost based on rate currently in effect, which are $105 per hour for Mary and $170 per hour for Susan. It is intended that Mary will perform most of the routine work or O prelimina y drafting. In some cases, paralegals will be used for such things as document and/or depositio t organization and management. i PROGRAM/DEPARTMENT OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens of Denton, City of Denton, Solid Waste Department of Public Utilities O ~ O O 1 r • • .•r Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Kelly, Han & Hallman budget for 1262 hours of legal servicea is $175,00. In addition, approximately $15,000 will be required for the City of Denton legal staff time and expenses (assuming two days of hearing held in Denton). Resp y R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities P e y Ho M n, 'r r Environmental Operations Exhibit 1: Professional Service Contract J • j r i FIL LCM1`5I TUHAGEN D'XH&H 97 L s: e • A:\INRCCORD 1 6,. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH KELLY, HART 6 HALLMAN, P.C. FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATING TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON'S MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PERMIT NO. 1590A AND RELATED ACTIVITIES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: 2K9TION I. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute an Employment Contract for Professional Legal services with Kelly, Hart i Hallman, P.C., a copy of which Contract is attached hereto and incorporated herein. SECTION II. That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attached Contract is hereby authorized. 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 1 BY: e APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY • BY: t • • ti i• 1 r. A+ 1 EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR^ PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES - ` STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § 6 This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1997, by and between KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, P.C., a Texas Professional Corporation, with Susan Zachos having full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Kelly, Hart & v' Hallman, P.C., 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000, Austin, Texas 78701, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"; and the CITY OF DENTON, a Texas Municipal Corporation, 215 E. McKinney, Denson, Texas 75201, hereinafter referred to as "City." WITNESSETH i WHEREAS, the City needs to employ legal counsel to provide professional legal services related to the Amendment to the City of Denton's Municipal Solid Waste Permit No. 1590A,; and WHEREAS, the Consultant is willing to perform such services in a professional manner as an independent contractor; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the Consultant to render the services as described below and the Consultant is willing to provide such services: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual obligations herein, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: 1. Scope of Service: A. The Consultant's client in this matter will be the City, not any of its employees or elected officials individually. The Consultant shall serve as the City's legal counsel with regard to the City's amendment to its Municipal Solid Waste Permit ! No. 1590A, now pending at the Texas Natural Rt source Conservation Commission ("TNRCC"). The Consultant's preliminary list of the tasks that may be required for this representation, and the assumptions used to prepare that list, were presented to Mr. Howard Martin under cover of our January 20, 1997 o letter. I Although the exact tasks the Consultant will perform, and the time those • O t M January 20, 1997 lever and in attached list of tasks and budget estimate contain Denton's trial strategy and must be protected from public disclosure. f 7816.1 • • Y will exceed the $175,000 authorization, Consultant will discuss the circumstances with the City and submit an appropriate request for additional funds. If the request for additional funding is denied, then Consultant shall have no further obligation to perform additional Services hereunder. C. Statements normally will be rendered monthly for work performed and expenses incurred the previous month. Payment is due within thirty (30) days of receipt of our statement. If any statement remains unpaid for more than 60 days, the Consultant may cease performing services for the City until arrangements satisfactory to the Consultant have been made for payment of outstanding statements and the payment of future fees and expenses and such default will constitute authorization for the Consultant to withdraw from representation. D. It is also expressly understood that payment of the firm's fees and costs is in no way contingent on the ultimate outcome of the matter. W. Professional Competency: A. The Consultant agrees that in the performance of these professional services, Consultant shall be responsible to the level of competency and shall use the same degree of skill and care maintained generally by other practicing professionals performing the same or similar types of work. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will be performing most of the work hereunder shall be Susan Zachos and Mary Mendoza. However, nothing herein shall limit Consultant from using other qualified and competent members of its firm to perform the services required herein. 9. Pleadings, motions, orders, notices, instruments, discovery documents, reports, and other legal documents prepared or obtained under the terms of this Agreement are instruments of the Service and the City shall retain ownership and a property interest therein. V. Establifttent and Maintenance or Records: Full and accurate records shall be maintained by the Consultant at its place of business with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. Such records shall be maintained fer a period of at least four years • after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. V1. Audits anJ Inspection: At any time during normal business hours and upon reasonable ! notice to the Consultant, there shall be made available to the City all of the Consultant's records with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement. The Consultant shall permit the City, at its expense, to audit, examine, and make excerpts or transcripts from such records, and to make audits of contracts, invoices, materiais, and other data , 8 relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. • (p VII, Indemnity and Indepgndent Contractor Relationship: I 17816 1 3 • • tasks will take, cannot be determined with certainty at this time, in general, the Consultant will represent the City, and prepare and file necessary documentation, in connection with the anticipated hearing before the State Office of Administrative Hearings ("SOAR") and will pursue that matter to an ultimate conclusion, either by order of the TNRCC or by settlement. The foregoing representation is referred to below as the "Services." B. The Consultant will coordinate with bit. Howard Martin, the Director of Environmental Operations, and those under his direction and/or his successors, regarding the Services. The City may limit or expand the scope of the Work from time to time, provided that any substantial expansion must be agreed to by the Consultant. The City agrees to cooperate fully with the Consultant and to provide promptly all information known or available to it relevant to the Work. II, Term: The services of Consultant shall commence upon the execution of this Agreement, and shall continue until all services hereunder have been performed. This Agreement may be sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph IX. i I]I. Compensation and Method of Payment: A. The Consultant's fees will be based on the billing rate for each attorney and legal assistant devoting time to this matter. Those billing rates for attorneys currently range from $70 per hour for new associates to $300 per hour for senior partners. Susan Zachos and Mary Mendoza will be the Consultant's attorneys primarily responsible for the work. Susan Zachos' billing rate is $175 per hour and Mary Mendoza's billing rate is $105 per hour. Billing rates for legal assistants currently range from $70 to $80 per hour. All billing rates are subject to change from time to time. The Consultant will assign portions of the Work to associates or legal assistants, as appropriate, in order to perform the work efficiently. With each bill, the Consultant will provide the detailed information maintained in its accounting database concerning time expended by each attorney and legal assistant in connection with the Services covered by the bill, as well as each charge item by the firm. O B. The fees and costs relating to this matter are not predictable: however, the Consultant provided an estimate of the anticipated costs for the Work of $175,000, excluding expenses (which may be substantial), and including the f assumptions on which the estimate was based, in its January 20, 1997 letter to Mr. Howard Martin (the "Fee Estimate"). The Fee Estimate does not incorporate the expenses associated with engaging other professionals, such as engineers and • testifying experts, for which the City will be responsible. Based on the Fee Estimate, the City has approved an amount up to, but not to exceed, $175,000 for O the Services, including fees and expenses. The Consultant agrees not to perform any portion of the Services that would result in its total monthly billings from the date of execution of this Agreement forward exceeding $175,000; however, if circumstances indicate that the legal fees for the Services, including all expenses, Hale /2 JO Iq Wei • • A. The Consultant shall perform all services as an independent contractor not under the direct supervision and control of the City. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating a relat.onship of employer and employee between the parties. The Consultant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and all of its officers, agents, servants, and employees against any and all claims to the extent that such claims are actually covered by Consultant's professional liability policy and Consultant's insurance carrier has issued payment for those claims. B. The Consultant agrees to malwain in effect during the terns of its services under this Agreement a Professional Liability Insurance Policy in an amount not less than $1,000,000.00 with an insurer licensed to do business in the State of Texas. Such insurer shall have 3 Standard & Poors Rating of AA or better. The Consultant will provide an insurance certificate evidencing this insurance coverage within five (5) days after the execution of this Agreement. VIII. 'termination of Aereement: A. The Consultant or the City may terminate the Agreement at any time for ay reason by written notice, subject on the I onsultant's part to applicable rules of professional conduct. In the event that the Consultant terminates the Agreement, it will take such steps as are reasonably practicable to protect the City's interests in the projects and, if the City so requests, the Consultant will suggest possible successor counsel and provide to it all necessary documents. If permission for withdrawal is required by a court or administrative agency, the Consultant will promptly apply for such permission, and the City agrees to engage successor counsel to r:present it. B. Unless previously terminated, the Consultant's representation of the City for the Services will terminate upon the Consultant sending the final statement for services rendered in this matter. Following such termination, any otherwise nonpublic information the City has supplied which is retained by the Consultant will be kept confidential in accordance with applicable rules of professional conduct, I 1%, Alternate Dispute Resolution: The ponies 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. i X. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of 0 the terns of their agreements and supersedes all prior contemporaneous offers, 0 J promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter hereof. eta i 4 7 • • XI. Compliance with Laws: The Consultant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordirinces applicable to the work covered hereunder as ' they may now read or hereinafter be amended, including, but not limited to, the Texas r. Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct. X11. Governing Law: For the purpose of determining place of agreement and law governing same, this Agreement is entered into the City and County of Denton, State of Texas, and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue and jurisdiction of any suit or cause of action arising under or in connection with this Agreement shall be , exclusively in a court of competent jurisdiction sitting in Denton County. s` XII1, Discrimination Prohibited: In performing the services required hereunder, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, 'r religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. XIV. Personnel and Conflicts of Interest: The Consultant represents other companies, individuals, municipalities and legal entities. It is possible that while it is representing the City, some of the Coasultant's present or future clients will have disputes or transactions with the City. The City agrees that the Consultant may continue to represent or may undertake in the future to represent existing or new clients in any matter that is not substantially related to its work for the City, even if the interests of such clients in those other matters are directly adverse to the City. The Consultant agrees, however, that the City's prospective consent to conflicting representation shall not apply in any instance where the Consultant has obtained proprietary or confidential information from the City that, if known to any other client of the firm could be used in such other matter by such client to the City's material disadvantage. XV. Notices: All notices, invoices, and payments shall be made in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mail. Notices, invoices, and payments sent by mail shall be addressed, respectively, to Ted Benavides, City Manager, City of Denton, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201, or to Susan G. Zachos, Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000, Austin, Texas 78701. When so addressed, the notice, invoice, and/or payment shall be deemed given upon deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid. In all other instances, notices, invoices, and/or payments shall be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the • names and addresses of the responsible person or office to whom notices, invoices, and/or payments are to be sent, provided reasonable notice is given. XVI. Assignability: The Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement and shall not transfer aay interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation, or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the City thereto. ® XVIL Sever ability: If any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid or • • J unenforceable under present or future laws, such provision shall 'm fully severable and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision is not a part thereof, and the remaining provisions thereof shall remain in full force and effect. In lieu of any illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision reel GG5 0~ • • therein, there shall be added automatically as a part of this Agreement a provision as similar in its terms to such illegal. invalid or unenforceable provision as may be possible and be legal, valid and enforceable. XVIII. Modification of Agreement: No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any t covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the party to be charged therewith and no evidence of any waiver or modification shall be offered or received 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 wavier or modification is in writing, duly executed as aforesaid. XIX. Captions: The captions o: this Agreement are for reference only and shall not in any way modify or affect this Agreement. XX. Binding Effect: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, legal representatives, successors, and assigns where permitted by this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized City Manager and Consultant has executed this Agreement through its duly authorized undersigned officer, dated the day of , 1997. CITY OF DENTON By: Ted Benavides, City Manager ATTEST: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary By. • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: Herbert L. Prouty, City Attorney i By. • KELLY, HART & HALLMAN, P.C. L • O By: &K4j / J Susan G. Zacchhfms, sident iieca,r 6 9 , a s Agenda No.___1! -aG Agenda Item_ oate___ - L~7 , CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of City Council FROM: R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities DATE: I April 1997 SUBJECT: INCREASE IN THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE LAW OFFICES OF JL4I BOYLE RECOMMENDATION: The Utility Staff recommends Council approve the proposed increase. SUMMARY: Texas Senator Armbrister, Cliairman of Senate Affairs Committee. will probably introduce deregulation legislation this legislative session. If :ntroduced, the probability of the passage of such 1. ¢islation is believed to be approximately 80 percent. This legislation is not only cause of concern for the financial health of the Denton Electric Utility, but also for the financial integrity of the City itself. BACKGROUND: In the last legislative session, legislation was passed allaying wholesale wheeling for electric utilities in the state of Texas. During this session, one deregulation bill has already been introduced and Senator Armbrister is threatening to file another deregulation bill. If passed, O this legislation could have a significant effect on Denton residences, businesses, and in the City itself. In order to address the threat posed by Senator Annbrister's bill, Utility Staff recommends supplementing the City's contract with Mr Boyle in the amount of $40,000. The City of 4 "fr-pm Iwo • • Garland, has indicated a willingness to share this cost. This amendment would be contingent on Senator Armbrister actually filing the bill. Secondly, both the Cities of Denton and Garland recognize the immense amount of legislative work that will occur after this session ends through the end of the 1999 Legislative Session. To cover these costs, Utility Staff recommends a contract with Jim Boyle in the amount of $100,000. (Garland is willing to share in this cost, too.) Regardless of whether this Legislature will pass a deregulation bill, there will be significant interim work as well as "fix- it" and "clean-up" work next session. If Armbrister does not file a bill, next session will pass a deregulation bill. Either way, there is still very important legislative work ahead for the City. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS, OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Denton Municipal Electric Utility, the City of Denton, and it's Citizens FISCAL IMPACT: $20,000 for the rest of the 75th Legislature if Armbrister's bill is introduced. $50,000 for the interim and 76th Iegisiative Session. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: E. Nelson Executive Director of Utilities Prepared by: • Ju ie mith e F~i roamed Compliance Manager J , e • ORDINANCE NO. _ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH THE LAW OFFICES OF JIM BOYLE; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City needs to require the legal counsel and lobbyist hired to represent the City in legislative matters that may be introduced in the 750' Legislature to perform additional services relating to legislation concemi,ig deregulation of electric utilities, contingent on the in- troduction of certain deregulation legislation by the Chairman of the Senate State Affairs Com- mittee; and WHEREAS, in the event of the introduction of this new deregulation legislation, the cur- rent Agreement with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle needs to be amended to authorize the Con- sultant to engage subconsultants to assist it in lobbying and other legislative matters related to this and other deregulation legislation; and WTIEREAS, the City desires also to enege Consultant for the interim period between the 750i Legislature and beyond, including the 76 Legislative Session and any special sessions in between the two legislative sessions, when the final versions of the electric utility deregulation and retail competition or retail wheeling legislation is anticipated to be introduced; and WHEREAS, the City expects that the City of Garland, through its Garland Electric Util- ity, will become a party to this Agreement and will share equally in paying the Consultant's fees and receiving the Consultant's services; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDA.!NS: SEC7 ,ON I. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a First Amendment to that Agreement for professional legal services with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle regarding various legislative matters, contingent legislative matters, and related deregulation legislation • through the session of the 7601 Legislature, a copy of which First Amendment is attached hereto i and incorporated herein, along with any additional amendments to tha, Agreement necessary to i include the City of Garland as a party. SECT O 11. That the expenditure of funds as provided in the attacheu First Amendment is hereby authorized. • O • J SECTION Ill. That save and except as amended hereby, all the provisions, sections, sub- sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of the Agreement with the Law Offices of Jim Boyle shall remain in full force and effect. • • r„ i i SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effectivc 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 M BY: ~ f .vi d • c.1apAocsbr~,buyle Nmenj"Tw Page 2 1 i y • • i FIRST AMENDMENa TO EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LIGAL SERVICES WITH JIM BOYLE STATE OF TEXAS i COUNTY OF DENTON S This First Amendment %j that certain Agreement made and entered into the 17th day of September, 1996, by and between the Law Office of Jim Boyle, with Jim Boyle having full authority to execute this Agreement, 1005 Congress, Suite 550, Austin, Texas 78701, hereinafter referred to as "Consultart" and the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas municipal corporation, 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201, hereinafter referred to as "City," hereinafter referred to as "Base Agreement": WHEREAS, the City needs to require the legal counsel and lobbyist hired to represent the city in legislative matters that may be introduced in the 75th Legislature to perform additional services relating to legislation concerning deregulation of electric utilities, contingent on the introduction of certain 6 regulation legislation by the Chairman of the Senate State Aifairs Committee; and WHEREAS, in the event of the introduction of this new deregu- lation legislation, the current Base Agreement with the Consultant needs to be amended to authorize the Consultant to engage subcon- sultants to assist him in lobbying and other legislative matters related to this and other deregulation legislation; and WHEREAS, the Ci.ty desires also to engage Consultant for the interim perir,d between the 75th Legislature and beyond, including the 76th Legislative Session and any special sessions in between the two legislative sessions when the final versions of the electric utility leregulation. and retail competition or retail wh,eling legislation are anticipated to be introduced; 2.-.d WHEREAS, the City expects that the City of Garland, through its Garland Electric utility, will become a party to this Agreement O and will share equally in paying the Consultant's fees and receiving the Consultant's services; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and mutual obligations herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows: I. O O That Section I. "Scope of Services^ of the Base Agreemen.: is hereby amended by adding subsection A.4. and A.5. and subsection. C, to read as follows: i _ a. - - • 0 • • 4. Contingent upon electric utility deregulation legislation being introduced in the 75th Legislative Session by Kenneth Armbrister, the Chairman of the Senate State Affairs Committee or any other such significant deregula- tion legislation being introduced by another member of the Legislature and co-sponsored by Senator Armbrister, Consultant shall monitor such legislation and provide periodic status reports to the City when and if such deregulation is introduced, and shall use its best efforts to assist the City in effectively opposing, changing, or amending provisions which are adverse to the City and other TMPA municipalities. It is expected that if such legislation is introduced, this will require an intensive effort. Accordingly, the consultant is hereby authorized to hire such subconsultants and other assis- tants it deems necessary to effectively provide the additional services set forth herein. 5. That the Consultant shall continue to provide all services set forth in Exhibit "A" and in this Agreement on and after the 75th Legislative Session is concluded, and through the interim period between the convening of the 75th Legislature and the 76th Legislature and through the conclusion of the 76th Legislative Session, includ- ing, without limitation, any special legislative sessions that occur during this period. Consultant's services shall include keeping the City advised of any and all electric utility deregulation and retail competition legislation or related legislation in which the City and its municipal utility would be affected through the 76th Legislative Session. C. In the event that the City of Garland, acting through its Garland Municipal Utilities, agrees to enter into this Agreement with Consultant, wherever the term "City" is used herein, it shall refer to both the City of Denton and the City of Garland. Wherever the term "City of Denton Municipal Utilities" is used, it shall refer both to the City of Denton ! Municipal Utilities and the City of Garland Municipal Utili- t?.es. Wherever the term "Executive Director of Utilities" is used, it shall refer to the Executive Director of Utilities of both the City of Denton and the City of Garland. In the event the City of Garland enters into this Agreement, then the City of Garland shall share equally in all services provided by Consultant herein, and the city of Denton and the City of ! Garland shall each pay the Consultant's fees for services ! herein on an equal 50/50 basis. Additionally, the City of • Denton and the Consultant agree to make any additional amend- ments to the Agreement necessary to allow the City of Garland to become a party to this Agreement under these conditions. Page 2 ! ! • • II. That Subsection A of Section III. "Compensation and Method of Payment" of the Base Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows; A. The Consultant shall charge the following fees for its professional services hereunder, based on the following hourly rates for the attorneys and support staff involved in this matter; Staff Rate Estimated Hours Jim Boyle Law Clerk Paralegal Consultant agrees that all charges for the services hereunder, including expenses, for services through the 75th Legislative Session, will not exceed thirty-seven thousand dollars ($37,000), to be paid at a rate of three thousand dollars ($3,000) per month through September-December, 1996, for a total during this period not to exceed twelve thousand dollars ($12,000), and five thousand dollars ($5,000) per month through January-May, 1997, for a total during this period not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). Provided, however, if Senator Kenneth Armbrister introduces a Bill, or joins in sponsoring a Bill introduced by any other member of the 75th Legislature that involves the deregulation of electric utilities, including, without limitation, retail electric utility competition, wholesale and retail wheeling, or the recovery of stranded costs, Consultant shall be paid an amount not to exceed an additional forty thousand dollars ($90,000), or an amount for the January-May, 1997 period not to exceed sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000), including all charges for services of any subconsuitants which the Consul- tant deems necessary to employ. Consultant agrees that all charges for services hereunder, C • including expenses, will not exceed one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), to be for the period from June, 1997 • through May, 1999, to be billed on a monthly basis in accor- dance with the Consultant's fees set forth herein, for a total during this interim period and the period of the convening of the 76th Legislature not to exceed one hundred thousand j dollars ($100,000), including any and all fees of any subcon- Page 3 • • • sultants Consultant hires. III. That subsection B of Section XIV. "Personnel" of the Base Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: B. All services required hereunder will be performed by Consul- tant or under its supervision. Nothing herein, however, shall prevent the Consultant from hiring any subconsultants or other personnel it deems necessary to carry out the services set forth herein, provided that all personnel engaged in work shall be qualified and shall be authorized or permitted under state and local law to perform such services. IV. That save and except as amended hereby, all the remaining terms and conditions of the Base Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. EXECUTED this the day of 1997. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY. TED BENAVIDES, CITY MANAGER ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: Page 4 r • THE LAW OFFICES OF JIM BOYLE BY: JIM BOYLE CITY OF GARLAND, TEXAS BY: CITY MANAGER ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: CHARLIE. HINTON, CITY ATTORNEY BY: e s s o Page 5 ,s lp, • • ~T4: M1M ~NI+ A 1 • Agenda Nu. Agenda Item . Date_ CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUM1CiPAL BUR DING • 215 E MCKINNEY • DEWON, TEXAS 76201 (617) 566.8200 • DFW METRO 434.2529 MEMORANDUM DATE: April 1, 1997 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development SUBJECT: Assignment of Airport Lease RECOMMENDATION: The Airport Advisory Board and staff recommend approval of the resolution assigning Mr. Brown's lease to Pit. Hatcher and Mr. Austin. SUMMARY: Mr. Hatcher has been subleasing the hangar on this tract fron Mr. , Brown since May 1, 1995. They are now requesting that Mr. Hatcher and Mr. Austin be permitted to assume the existing lease between Mr. Brown and the City of Denton. All other terms and conditions of the lease remain the same. FISCAL IMPACT: None. i • 0 e neaoae~: "Dedicated to Quafio Sen4ce" 1 • • FRON@ DENTON CITY,RTTQRNEY FAX NO.$ 9177827922 03-12-97 8021P P.91 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE ASSIGNMENT BY BRUCE BROWN OF THE "TRACT A" LEASE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY TO DWAYNE E. HATCHER AND DAVID W. AUSTIN, SAID PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 19,122.84 SQUARE FEET; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton has leased airport property to Bruce grown, one such lease being identified as "Tract A"; and WHEREAS, Bruce Brown wishes to assign his interest in the "Tract A" leased facilities to Dwayne E. Hatcher and David W. Austin; and WHEREAS, Bruce Brown is required to obtain the City's written consent to this assignment; NOW, THEREFORE; THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION I. That under paragraph XI (Assignment of Lease) of the "Tract All lease between the City of Denton a:.d Bruce Brown dated December 6, 2994, the City of Denton given its written consent to the assignment dated February 24, 1997 between Bruce Brown and Dwayne E. Hatcher and David W. Austin, attached as Exhibit A. SECTION II. That consent to this attached assignment is sub- ject to and r.hall be considered valid only for so long as Dwayne Hatcher complies with all terms of the "Tract A" leases agreement of Decemher 6, 1994 between the City of Denton, Texas and Bruce Brown. SECTION III. That this resolution 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: f • • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY$ CITY ATTORNEY BY: G!c c~ rY ~ a • • n I I:. I' i r q- y~ I UL A UV Saw., 4 4• c -I r r C i N { r ~ ~ r i ~ r February 24, 1997 Ms. Linda Ratliff Director of Economic Development Denton Municipal Airport 5000 Airport Road Denton, TX 76207 Dear Ms. Ratliff: This letter is to serve notice that Dwayne Hatcher and David Austin have readjed an agreement with me to accept the assignment of the land lease described as Tract W consisting of 0.439 acres of land (19,122.84 square feet) that t have leased at the Denton Municipal Airport Si rely, ruce Brown Attachment • l i I 4 I . • • U3 i~aV5•V. 1 It1, F'-VS-9T IVd IS SS b Ub,.,• 2411 b r13 Dwayne Hatcher and David Austin have agre':d to accept the assignment of my interest in the land lease I currently have at the Denton Municipal Airport described as Trod 'A' and consisting of 0.439 acres of land (19,122.84 square feet). t-M 44RUCF-BROWN is 'C-4 Given under my hand and seal of office this 7 day of Fewwry, 1997, LEC 9,p NANCY L SELPN NOT ARY P' NoLn lubk. Suit d real ~k 45 COUNTY, TEXAS yy re,d,ieli0n L-pne5/11~91 R DYJA L/1'Ut'lt.~i Givrr, under my hand and seal of office this day or Febmwy, 1997. lE IME SCOTT 90ON ? W:j "°°M K&r- sarc OF TEW RY PUBLIC vl Cmr iili-n Wen Mae A M. IM COUNTY, TEXAS I • DAVID A," IN Given under my hand and seal of office l ' ' da of F~~1~ 4 Y s7 ,1997. • N ARY PUBLIC i P•" JEAtrETLZI JT~ n CF D NTON COUNTY, TEXAS `pr My tannisin rw. UAW • i • n • E p'"ILE ON I MN