The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-01-1998 ~ r. . yrl ~ 'S;y 111. ~ n ;w u I r 4 City Council Agenda Packet { September 1, 1998 1 1 I11 { I ~ f ~ ~ 1 1 w I t i i a I v ~ Tr tAti~d.~ 1' .x G to 32X/IO rG;l ^X, 7 0 s O wawa AGLNDA Agenda item CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL September 1, 1998 After determining that a quorum is present and convening in an open meting, the City Council will cony rr,e in a Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, September 1, 1998 at 5:45 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Nall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered: 1. Closed Meeting: A. Conference with Employees - Under TEX. GOVT. CODE Sec. 551.075. The Council may receive information from employees during a staff conference or briefing, but may not deliberate during the conference. ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING OR ON INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CONFERENCE WITH EMPLOYEES WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEX, GOVT, CODE CH. 551. ]'HE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RiGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOVT. CODE SEC. 55I001, ETSEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS NOTFD ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, INCLUDING. WITHOUT L1MII'AT'ION, SECTIONS 551.071-551.095 OF THE OPEN MELT INGS ACT. Rehular Mating of the City of Denton City Council on 7ucsday, September I, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of city Hall, 2I5 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: I . Pledge of Allegiance A. U.S, Flag B. Texas Flag "I lonor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible." 2, Consider appro" al of the minutes of May 19, May 26, and May 29-31,1998. PRESENTATIONS/ANVARDS 3. Presentations i A. Yard of the Month Awards CITIZEN Rt: OF S 1 4. Receive a report from Lee Baer regarding communication. p 1 NOISE EXCEPTION 5. Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Cowboys for Codi Memorial Rodeo on Friday and Saturday, September I8' and 19' and Saturday, September 26" rrom 8:00 p,m. to 12:00 mida. ght. a, l 10 32 ID 0 t City of Denton City Council Agenda September 1, 1998 Page 2 6. Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Rubber Gloves Rehearsal Studio for an outdoor performance on Friday, September 1 I" from 9 p.m, to l a.m. CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment under the Ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed backup information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda Items 7.12). 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 7.12 below will be approved with one motion. If items arc pulled for separate discussion, they will be considered as the first items under "Items for Individual Consideration." r 7, Consider adoption of an crdinance authorizing the Mayor to execute an intcrlocal agreement with the City of The Colony relating to participation in various City of Denton contra-Is which provide for th ! purchase of goods and services; and declaring an effective date, (1-11c 02272 - Interlocal Agreement with the City of The Colony. Texas) 8. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of a pathological waste incinerator; providing for expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Did #2216 - Pathological Waste Incinerator awardcd to Crawford Equipment Engineering in the amount of $41,109.00) 9. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding air annual contract for water treatment +ervice and chemicals for the electric production plant; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid #2239 - Water Treatment Service and Chemicals awardcd to Backman Laboratories in the estimated annual amount of approximately $50.000.00) S0. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an insurance contract for property and commercial crime coverage; providing for the expenditure of 0 funds therefor; and providing do effective date. (Bid 42240 - Property Insurance awarded to Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company in the amount of 5212,318.00) 11, Consider adoption of sn ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of a hydromulcher machine; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. (Bid #2241 - Ilydromulcher awarded to James Lincoln 0 Corp, in the amount of $18,497,00) y i 2 Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for an annual price agreement for the purchase of primary and secondary connection pedestals for the Hlectrdc Distribution Del•aitment; providing for expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date. (Bid 02247 - Primary and Secondary Connection Pedestals awarded to Wesco) ` . w.- 5 32X I o r • s ' eoM+3a . O , City of Denton City Council Agenda September I, 1998 Page 3 iBL1C {BEARINGS 13, Hold a public hearing and receive citizen input concerning the 1998.99 lnnual Program of Services. 14. Ilold a public hearing and consider rezoning 3517 Teasley Lane from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (O[c)) zoning district. The 1.831-a:re property is legally described as Tract 7A of the J. Fisher Survey (Abstract 421) and is located on the east side of Teasley Lane (FM 2181) approximately four hundred and seventy-five (475) feet south of the Dent Oaks Subdivision, The proposal is to develop offices. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7.0.) (Z-98-031, 3517 Teasley Late) 15. Hold a public hearing and consider a request to amend a portion of the approved concept plan for a planned development zone district (PD-120), The 270.48-acre tract is located in north Denton on the south side of Loop 288, west of N. Locust Street. The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of land for multi-family residential use by 35.37 acres, add 22.23 acres of land for office uses, increase the amount of land for single-family residential uses by 5.81 acres, and increase the land for park, stormwater detention and open space by 6.69 acres. Be proposed maximum number of housing units is reduced by 360 units. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (7-0) as mod i f ied, ) (Z.-98.017, North Poinle) 16. 1[old a public hearing and obtain input on adoption of proposed Capital Improvements r Plan and Impact Fees for water and wastewater facilities. 11TENIS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 17. Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing a 15.088 acre tract located east of Swisher Road near its intersection with F&ards Road in Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction northeast of 1.35E; establishing temporary Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation; and providing an effective date. Second reading. A-77. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-0.) 18. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to execute amendment number six to the agreement between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the City of Denton sanitary landfill development and expansion, relating to Phase IV and Phase V thereof; providing for the expenditure of funds there fort; and providing for an effective date. 19. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a professional 0 services agreement for engineering and surveying services related to the relocation of j ssater and ssastesvater utilities along U.S. Highway 77 from Interstate Highway 35 to U.S. Ilighaay 380, in Denton, Texas, with RUST Environment & Infrastructure, Inc,; audoorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. , I PWr-T~ 7 x ~..J e- X 1 0 IIAMR& 1 s 0 City of Denton City Council Agenda September 1, 1998 Page 4 20. Consider adoption of an ordinance on Second Reading authorizing the Mayor to execute a third amendment to the existing agreement between the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric Company extending the term therefore for an additional six month period; finding and determining that the two meetings at which this ordinance is passed is open to the public ss required by law; providing for an effective date; and providing for acceptance of the agreement by Texas Utilities Electric Company and publication of notice of the passage of this ordinance. 21, Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Munic pal League (I ML) to support the recommendations made by the TML Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development regarding annexation, extraterritorial jurisdiction, eminent domain, subdivision, land use, building codes, sales tax, library districts and other municipal powers. 22. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation to exclude new growth for the purpose of determir.;ng notice and hearing requirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue, 23. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the texas Municipal League to sponsor legislation allowing the use of logo reader boards along interstates located outside urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or more, 24, Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation amending the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Informalion Act to allow city councils of cities owning and operating their own electric utilities to negotiate and discuss power sales and other contracts in executive session and to withhoW those contracts or portions of contracts where to divulge this infornation would be detrimental to the competitive position of the City. 25. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation amending the Texas Local Government Code §252.021 to allow all cities under 100,000 population to solicit all insurance bids through competitive sealed proposal instead ofcompelitive bidding. 26. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation regarding the repeal of §3.251(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act to allow cities to compete against local exchange telephone carriers in communities where the quality, selection and cost eflcctivc pricing of telecommunication services are inadequate. 27. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to seek introduction and passage of legislation amending Texas Local Government Code §551,074 (Texas Open Meetings Act) to allow members of governmental bodies to O , deliberate board and commission appoir! net n in executive session. 28. Consider approval of a resolution requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation to expand the Texas Local Government Code §395.001 to include authority for implementation of impact fees for school facilities. 10 32XIO (0 i { City of Denton City Council Agenda September 1, 1998 Page 5 29. Consideration of Standard Hours Area Petition: A. Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a standard hours area, reducing the hours for sale of mixed drinks, beer and wine, pursuant to Sections 105.03, 105.04, and 105.06 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; and establishing an effective date, - OR B, Consider adoption of an ordinance ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas on November 3, 1998 for the purpose of considering a standard hours area ordinance that would reduce the hours of sale of mixed drinks, beer and wine, putsuantto Sections 105.03, 105.04, and 105.06 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; and making provisions for the conduct thereof. , 30. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the 1998-99 proposed budget. 31. Consider nominations and appointments to the City's Boards and Commissions. 32, Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 33. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 34. Possible continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551,085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, 35. Official Action on Closed Meeting items held under Scction 551-071-551.085 of the , Texas Open Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on th, r..i,e4„ board at the City Hall of the i City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 1998 at --o'clock (a.m) (p.m, I J CTTYSEC'REiTARY NOI E: 'I HE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN 0 AC'CORDANC'E WITII I IIF AMERICANS WIT1I DISABILITIES ACT, THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTER AT LEAS1 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING, PLEASE CALL TIIE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE TIAXCOMMUNICATiONSDEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1.800-RELAY- TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH THE II CH Y SEC RETARY'SOFFICE. 1 . ✓ cr~'1~~~✓~ ✓ . _ 2 ff ~I 25 K .3cXi❑ 0 1 Agenda No MINUTES Agenia Item CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Dale May 19,1998 Alter deterrtining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at 5;45 p.m, in the Council Work Session Room al City Nall, 213 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas, ' PRESENT: Mayor Jack Miller, Mayor Pro Tern Beasley, Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Young ABSENT: Council Member Kristoferson 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attorney-Under TEX, GOVT. COVE Sec. 551.071 1. Considered stratcey and discussed appointment of a representative for possible mediation, and possible settlement authority with City Attorney in litigation styled Denton County Historical Ahiseum, hte, v. Denton County, Texas and City of Denton, Texas, et al., Cause No, GC-98.00098-C filed in the Probate Court of Denton County, including, but not limited to issues related to allegations of breach of contract and ownership of artifacts. 2, Considered and discussed with City Attorney settlement of litigation styled City of Denton, Texas v. Redi-Afi.x, Inc. and Shatirn Smith, Cause No 96-40752-362, filed in the 362"d District Court of Denton County. B. C•onfcrence with Employees - Under TEX. GOVT. CODE Sec, 551.073. The Council received information from employees or questioned employees during a staff conference or briefing, but did not deliberate during the conference. The Council convened into a Regular Mecting on Tuesday, May 19, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Ball, 215 E, McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. PRESENT: Mayor Jack Miller, Mayor Pro Tern Beasley, Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Young k ABSENT: Council Membcr Krislofcrson E ! 1. Plcdgc of Allegiance The Council and members of the audienca recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U,S. and Texas Bags. Council Member Krisloferson arrived at the meeting. • p 2. The Council received a report from Laura Drumb with the Alzheimer's Association regarding an overview of services they provided. She stated that it was the Association's mission to provide support and assistance to persons alTected by Alzheimer's disease and to their families and caregivers within their eleven county service area. In keeping with that mission, the Greater Dallas Chapter was expanding to a second office in the Denton community, which would enable better and more convenient services and programs, especially for families in Denton and Cooke Counties. I v VW A, f4 `T 2.5 0 3 2'x 0 • O WAD" City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 2 i She asked for the Council to form a working partnership with the Alzheimer's Association and other related nonprofit organizations. She invited the Council to participate in the Memory Walk this year. 3. The Council received a report from Dessie Goodson where she complimented the City of Denton for v, hat they had done for her for the last two years, which was "nothing Ms. Goodson reminded the Mayor and Council of their oaths when they took office. She reminded the Council that putting in sidewalks, repaving the streets, redoing the drainage and making sure the curb cuts were out there was part of their responsibility. Council Member Cochran asked for an audit of Ms. Goodson's utility tills for the period in question, also with an explanation of the charges and a history of the account. Council Member Young asked that staff give Council a general update on the sidewalk issue that Ms. Goodson brought up. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Durrance requested that Item 48 be pulled for separate consideration. Durrance motioned, Young seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances except for Item 48. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 5. 98-135 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR LOCKBOX SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FINDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID #2197 - LOCKBOX SERVICES AWARDED TO BANK ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,593,06 PER MONTH OR $67,116,72 ANNUALLY) 6. A tax refund to Title Resources, account #105139, in the amount of 5623.92. The 1997 taxes in the amount of 5623.92 were paid twice, once by Title Resources on December 10, 1997, and once by G.E. Capital Mortgage Company on December 17, 1997, resulting in an ovcrpa),mcnt. • 7. A tax refund to K. Dale Brown, account 0033887, in the amount of $947.85. The 1997 O • f taxes a ere paid twice, once on October 30, 1997, and once on January 30, 1998, resulting in an i overpayment PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. The Council held a public hearing and considered rezoning Tract 133A, N. Meisenheimer Survey (Abstract 811), Denton County, Texas, from a Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district to a Or t.. 2 5 n 32X111 I, I r O I ' i City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 3 Two-Family Dwelling (2-F) zoning district. The undeveloped 0.44-acre parcel was located on the cast side of Bolivar Street, south of Headlee and north of Fain Street. The proposal was to construct a duplex. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0.) Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the action requested was approval to rezone the property from Single Family 7 to Two Family zoning. He stated the property was located at 2628-2630 Bolivar Street. The zoning history on the property was that the property was initially zoned Single Family 7 in 1969. There had been a number of zoning changes in the neighborhood that had resulted in three Two Family zoning districts. The proposal was to construct a duplex. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0. The public improvements for this site would be to provide four off-street parking spaces and install a four-foot sidewalk along the property frontage. Seventeen property owners were notified of this request. The responses received were four in favor and one neutral to the request. Council Member Young asked if there were any pictures available of what the duplex would look like. Hill stated yes and showed a proposed picture of the duplex. Council Member Kristoferson asked if the responses received were from owner occupants or property owners. Hill stated that two of the responses were from owner occupants and two from property owners. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Anita Shulze stated that she was the applicant for the rezoning of this property and intended to [kc in one side of the duplex. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered, 98.131 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CI1Y OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A C'I'ANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO TWO FAMILY (2F) ZONING DISTRICT C'LASSIFICA1 70N AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0,44 ACRES OF LAND I.OCATFD ON THE EAST SIDE OF BOLIVAR STREET, SOUTH OF HEADLEE AND NORTH OF FAIN STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF 52,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEhEOF; • • AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Beasley motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristofcrson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "ayell. Motion carved unanimously 0 lo o 0 s 7 ~ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 { Page 4 i 10. The Council held a public hearing and considered an amendment to the concept plan and consideration of a detailed plan on 45.139 acres zoned Planned Development 111 (PD-111). The site was located on the east side of Nowlin Road, approximately two thousand two hundred " (2,200) feet south of Robinson Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5.0.) Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated the name of the project was Oakmont [1[ and that the property was located southeast of Nowlin Road, approximately 2,500 feet south of Robinson Road. The size of the property was 45.139 acres. The request was to amend the approved concept plan and consider a detailed plan for PD-I 11. The property was rezoned from Agricultural to PD- 111 in 1986, The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0, Notification was sent to two property owners and no response was received. The detailed plan included 41,5 acres for single family, 2.35 acres of open space, and 1,74 acres for right-of- way dedication for Loop 288. Council Member Young asked how the city of Corinth felt about this development. Hill stated that they had coordinated w,:h Corinth on extending unlit' •s. Council Member Burroughs asked if the open space allocation was in excess of the requirements for parkland dedication. Hill stated that the open space allocation came close to meeting the minimum requirements for parkland dedication. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Brad Meyer with Carter and Burgess stated the open space would be private and would be maintained by the homeowners association. They would be paying 50% in park fees to the City of Denton. Council Member Kristoferson asked what size house would be built on a 6,000 square foot lot. 5tct c Gce, developer of the Froperty, stated the minimum square footrge would be 1450 square • feet and the matimum would be 2800 square feet. Council Member Young asked which city would be providing the water and sewer service. Gee stated that the Cities of Denton and Corinth would determine that. • The Mayor closed the public hearing, O • The following ordinance was considered: 25 10 32XI0 0 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 5 98.138 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING r ORDINANCE NO. 86-81 TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) NO. Ill ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION AND PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A DETAILED PLAN ON 45,139 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN 1,FFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. / 11, The Council held a public hearing and considered approval of a Specific Use Permit to allow a remote, off-street parking lot in a Singl Family Seven (SF-7) zoning district. The 0.172 acres of land was located along the east side of Bemard Street, approximately 450 feet south of Collins Street (commonly known as 1211 Bernard Street). The applicant proposed construction of an off-street parking area to provide additional parking for tenants ofthe Arbon of Denton, an adjacent apartment development. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.) Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the property was located at 1211 Bernard Street. The request was for a Specific Use Permit for a remote, off-street parking area. The existing zoning for the property was Single Family 7. The remote, off-street parking area l would alleviate overcrowding of the existing apartment c)mplex parking area and reduce the need for parking on the street. Notification was mailed to 21 adjacent property owners. Three replies were received in favor of the rezoning, one in opposition. The Planning and Zoning { Commission recommended approval 7-0. Council Member Cochran stated there was some drainage problem already in the area and wanted to know where the water was going to go. Deputy City Manager Rick Svchla stated there was a flood retention structure already in place at • the Arbors. The drainage problem Council Member Cochran was speaking of was in the process of being fixed, Council Member Young asked if the lot was already paved. Svchla replied no, O • Council Member Young asked if there were any frets that would need to be removed. Hill stared he was not aware of any trees that needed to be removed. The project was in compliance with the landscape ordinance. The Mayor opened the public hearing. 'i t.r', 10 c. 32X MIA& 0 • o ' City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page G Bill Dahlstrom sr !:e in favor of the SUP. He stated that they 1rid redesigned the parking lot in order to save a significant tree. The Mayor closed the public hearing, Council Member Young stated that there was a problem in that area with cars speedin3 down the narrow street and parked cars being hit and that the additional parking lot would help. The following ordinance was considered: 98.139 I AN ORDINANCE OF T11 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT " : DEVELOP AND OPERATE A REMOTE, OFF- STREET PARKING AREA ON 0,172 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BERNARD STREET, APPROXIMATELY 450 FEET SOUTH OF Jl COLLINS STREET (COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1211 BERNARD STREET), AND ZONED UNDER THE ONE-FAMILY DWELLING (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000,00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Young motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Dun ance "aye", Young "aye", Burro, ghs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried una.ximously. 12. The Council reviewed a preliminary assessment and considered approval of a schedule of J public hearings with regard to the proposed annexation of a 15.088 acre tract located east of Swisher Road near its intersection with Edwards Road in Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) northeast of 1.35E, Dave Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated this was for a development called The Preserve at Pecan Creek. The property was located east of Swisher Road near its intersection with Edwatds Road. It was located in Denton's ETJ. He presented the proposed schedule for public hearings regarding the proposed annexation. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to adopt the schedule of public hearings. On roll vote, ~ Brrrou s Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrartce "eye", Young "aye", g "ayc", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimc-tsly. i 11FMS FORINDIV[DUAL. CONSIDFRATIOY © • Couocil considered Item 98 from the Consent Agenda. Council Membcr Durrance asked about an engineering study previously done on this tract. He asked if a study on the silt trapping had been done and if this study was being incorporated into the previous study that had been done. bras" O 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 7 Deputy City Manager, Rick Svehla, stated that rho studies would be combined and incorporated into this contract. The design and characteristics included wetlands both upstream and downstream from the lake and those would be incorporated in this design. Council Member Cochran stated that it was speculative that the City would be doing $50,000 of engineering work on a lake t1 at was on private property that was still under debate as to how and when it would be developed. Svehla stated that there w°re two developments involved here that would aced a source of drainage for their developmads tmd this la' ~ would serve that purpose. This lake %vould be a public lake after devetopment. He stated Gdff felt it was in the best interest of the city to get the design underway and have it ieady to go for when these developments would need it Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to approve Item 48. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "nay", Durrance "ay.", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried with a 6.1 vote. 98-136 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CARTER & BURGESS, INC. FOR UNICORN LAKE ENGINEERING SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING Al! EFFECTIVE DAI E. Item 413 was considered, i 13. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Addendum 42 to th professional services agreement for the design of stream PEC-4 storm drainage improvements and Ruddeil Street bridge and channel improvements between the City and Teague, Nall and Pcrkins, Inc.; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date, (PSA 42164 - Addendum 42 - Teague, Nail, and Perkins in the amount of $18,200,UO) Deputy City Manager, Rick Svehla, stated that this addendum cov: red additional expenses incurred due to a revision in pcrmittin3 requirements from the Federal Government for some of the channel work, The following ordinance was considered; w I ~ "8.140 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE r~I ADDENDUM 42 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN OF STREAM PEC-4 STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND RUDDELL STREET BRIDGE AND CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN THE CITY AND TEAGUE, NALL AND PERKINS, INC; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR, AND ---y 2 5I~ ~2xi o ALM +i MOW 'tia~m i City of Denton City Council Minutei May 19, 1998 Pagc 8 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PSA #2164 - ADDENDUM #2 TEAGUE, NALL, AND PERKINS IN THE AMOUNT OF 518,200.00) Young motioned, Burroughs secot:ded to approve the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously 14. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending the 1997-98 annual recreation fund budget of the City of Denton in the amount of twenty-one thousand five hundred nine dollars ($21,509.00) to help establish the middle school program and expending such funds for recreational programming at the three middle school sites; and providing an effective date. Janet Simpson, Leisure Services Superintendent, stated that the City and DISD had jointly provided an after school program in Denton elementary schools. The two agencies had also discussed the need for after school programs for middle school students, In October 1997, DISD contacted the Parks Department requesting that a cooperative program be developed. The request was prompted due to the movement of the sixth grade from the elementary schools into the middle schools beginning August 1998, Council ,Member Young asked if this program would be similar to the after school program fo, the elementary students. Simpson stated this program would be more educational than recreational with a safe, structure and supervised environment for teens and pre-teens. Council Member Burroughs asked if the fees would cover the program. Simpson stated ycs, The following ordinance was considered: 98.141 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 1997.98 ANNUAL RECREATION FUND BUDGET OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN THE AMOUNT OF TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINE DOLLARS ($21,509.00) TO HELP ESTABLISH THE MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM AND EXPENDING SUCH FUNDS FOR RECREATIONAL PROGRAMMING AT THE THREE MIDDLE SCHOOL SITES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIV- DATE e o e Young motioned, Krstoferson seconded to approve the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "ayc", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor * Miner "ayc", Motion carried unanimously. 15. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a license on behalf of the United States of America to allow the Federal Aviation Administration to use municipal utility poles to supp„tt an aerial cable assembly at the Denton 32X s 0 t IyiM4LN. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 9 Municipal Airport; and providing an effective date. Linda Ratliff, Director of Economic Development, stated the FAA desired to enter into a 20-year renewal license to continue electric service to the instrument approach lighting system at the airport. I l The following ordinance was considered: 98.142 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CI FY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LICENSE ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO ALLOW THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION TO USE MUNICIPAL UTILITY POLES TO SUPPORT AN AERIAL CABLE ASSEMBLY AT THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, Young motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the ordinance, On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously 16. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing settlement of litigation styled City of Denton, Texan v. Redi•Afix, htc. Cause N0.96- 40752.362, pending in the 362d District Court of Denton County for the sum of $100,000 to be paid to the City; authorizing the City Manager to act on the City's behalf in accepting the settlement and executing a release of claims; and declaring an effective date. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated this was a settlement to damages incurred in 1995, i The following ordinance was considered: 98.143 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING 0 SETTLEh1ENT OF LITIGATION STYLED CITY OF DF.NTON, I'FXAS V RFD!-ARX,, INC, CAUSE NO 96.40752.362, PENDING IN THE 362%0 DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY FOR THE SUM OF $100,000 TO BF PAID TO THE CITY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACT ON THE CITY'S BEHALF IN ACCEPTING THE SETTLEMENT AND EXECUTING A RELEASE OF CLAIMS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE ~ DATE Young motioned, Beasley seconded to approve the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously, 17, The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on First Reading whereby the City of Denton, Texas, and Norlex Telcom, LLC agree that, fur the purpose of operating its i 32 X 11 s , u City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page IO Telecommunications Business, the Telephon. Company shall, construct, erect, build, equip, own, maintain and operate in, along, under, over and across, the streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, viaducts, and public grounds of the City, such posts, poles, wires, cables, conduits and other appliances, structures and fixtures necessary or convenient for rendition of telecommunications services in said City turd for conducting,, a gcmcral local and long-distance telephone business, prescribing the conditions governing the use of public fights-of-way for the Telephone Company's telecommunications business, prescribing the quarterly compensation due the City under this ordinance, providing the right of the City to use certain facilities of the Telephone Company; specifying governing laws; providing for assignment; prescribing the term and effective date of said agreement; providing for notice; providing for bindlr._ effect; provid ng that the ordinance be cumulative; providing for governmental immunity; providing for consent and acceptance; providing for severability; providing for choice of law and venue; finding tnd determining that the meeting at which this ordinance is passed is open to the public as required by law; providing for future contingencies; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances; providing for release of all claims under prior ordinances; providing for alternate disaute resolution; and providing for method of acceptance. Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated the term of the franchise was for five years, Nortex would pay the fees required to publish the ordinance. The ordinance must be passed by a majority vote at two regular meetings of the City Council and it would not be effective until 21 days afl:r its final passage. Council Member Young asked about Nortex already laying lines in the Sundown Itanch subdivision. Prouty stated they were installing cable in a common trench with Denton Municipal Electric. Council Member Young stated he did not understand how Nortex could be laying lines w cn the franchise had not been approved, Deputy City Manager, Rick Svchla, slated that if the franchise was not approved, Nortex I.ad laid a bunch of lines they could not use. Council Membcrs Burroughs stated that the City did not really have a whole lot of choice about this, It was basically a federally mandated system of deregulation. The only way to implement • this was a franchise agreement similar to the one with GTE. Prouty stated yes. The City could not discriminate against franchisees, The City could not deny access to its easements. Council Member Young asked how- many jobs this would bring to Denton, • P • Fuhnnan stated Ihat as their operation expanded, they would be hiring local people. He could not say how many or when. J14 The following ordinance was considered: 25 x 10 32x10 o 1P1}fBY]i 0 magma City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 1 I E 98- AN ORDINANCE 4%IIEREBY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND NORTEX TELCOM, LLC AGREE THAT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING ITS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS, THE TELEPHONE COMPANY SHALL, CONSTRUCT, ERECT, BUILD, EQUIP, OWN, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN, ALONG, UNDER, OVER AND ACROSS, THE STREETS, AVENUES, ALLEYS, BRIDGES, VIADUCTS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY, SUCH POSTS, POLES, WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS AND OTHER APPLIANCES, STRUCTURES AND FIXTURES NECESSARY OR CONVL•NIENT FOR RENDITION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SAID CITY AND FOR CONDUCTING A GENERAL LOCAL AND LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE BUSINESS, PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE TELEPHONE COMPANY'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS, PRESCRIBING THE QUARTERLY COMPENSATION DUE THE CITY UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, PROVIDING THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES OF THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, SPECIFYING GOVERNING LAWS; PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNMENT, PRESCRIBING THE TERM AND EFFECTIVE DATE OF SAID AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; PROVIDING THAT THE ORDINANCE BE CUMULATIVE; PROVIDING FOR GOVERNMENTAL IMMUN;TY; PROVIDING FOR CONSENT AND ACCEPTANCE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CHOICE OF LAW AND VENUE, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE 1S PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; PROVIDING FOR FUTURE CONTINGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS UNDER PRIOR ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE. Beasley motioned, Cochran seconded to approve the first reading of the ordinance, On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristorerson "ayc", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", Burroughs "ayc", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Milicr stated there would be a second reading of the ordinance at the next regular mccting, ti i d 18. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance on First Reading whereby the City of 0 , Demon, Texas, and CoServ, LLC, (01a CoServ Communications), an affiliate of Denton County Electric, agree [hat, for the purpose of operating its Telecommunications Business, the Telephone Company shall, construct, erect, build, equip, own, maintain and operate in, along, under, over and across, the streets, avenues, alleys, bridges, viaducts, and public grounds or the City, such posts, poles, wires, cables, conduits and other appliances, structures and fixtures necessary or convenient for rendition of tclccomm,.:.:-ations services in said City and for conducting a genera} local and long-distance telephone business, prescribing the conditions r r r k 9 + `iii t X 10 e aSim 0 Na fCM 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 12 govcming the use of public right-of-way for the Telephone Company's telecommunications business, prescribing the quarterly compensation due the City under this ordinance, providing the right of the City to use certain facilities of the Telephone Company; specifying goveming laws; providing for assignment; prescribing the term and effective date of said agreement; providing for notice; providing for binding effect; providing d at the ordinance be cumulative; providing for governmental immunity; providing for consent aid acceptance; providing for severabllity; providing for choice of law and venue; finding and dater lining that the meeting at which this ordinance is passed is open to the public as required b! law providing for future contingencies; providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances; provid ng for release of all claims under prior ordinances; providing for alternate dispute resolution; ar d providing for method of acceptance, Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated the terms and %.onditi ins for this franchise were basically the same as the franchise with Nortex. The following ordinance was considered: 98- AN ORDINANCE WHEREBY THE CITY Or DENTON, TEXAS, AND COSERV, LLC, DfB/A COSERV COMMUNICA HONS1, AN AFFILIATE OF DENTON COUNTY ELECTRIC, AGREE THA'C, FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING ITS TE LECOMMUN [CATIONS BUSINESS, THE TELEPHONE COMPANY SHALL, CONSTRUCT, ERECT, BUILD, EQUIP, OWN, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN, ALONG, UNDER, OVER AND ACROSS, THE STREETS, AVENUES, ALLEN'S, BRIDGES, VIADUCTS, AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY, SUCH POSTS, POLES, WIRES, CABLES, J CONDUITS AND OTHER APPLIANCES, STRLCTURES AND FIXTURES NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FCR RENDITION OF 7ELLCOMUNICATIONS SERVICES IN SAID CITY AND FOR CONDUCTING A GENERAL LOCAL, AND LONG-DISTANCE TELEPHONE BUSINESS, PRESCRIBING THE CONDITIONS UOVFRNING THE USE OF PUh1.IC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE TELEPHONE COMPANY'S TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUSINESS, PRESCRIBING THE QUARTERLY C'OMPLNSATION DUF. THE CITY UNDER 1141S ORDINANCE, PROVIDING THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO USE CERTAIN FACILITIES OF 111F. TELEPHONE COMPANY; SPECIFYINO GOVERNING LAWS; PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNMENT, PRESCRIBING THE TERM AND EFFECIIVE DATE OF SAID AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR BINDING EFFECT; PROVIDING THAT THE CRDINANCE BE C'UMUL ATIVE; PROVIDING FOR GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR CONSENT AND ACC'EPT'ANCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDINC FOR CHOICE OF LAW O • AND VENUE, FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED IS OPl?N TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; PROVIDING FOR FU','URE CONTINGENCIES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING OF DINANCES; PROVIDING FOR RELEASE OF ALL CLAIMS UNDER PRIOR ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE, 32 x alum ~ANAALREJAL09LML~ e Clow" 0 ' i ,.,tee.. City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 13 i Beasley motioned, Burroughs seconded to approve the first reading of the ordinance. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "aye", ' Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously 19. The Council considered a proposed timeline for boards-commissions appointments. Jane Richardson, Deputy City Secretary, presented a proposed timeline for board and commission appointments. Councii Member Kristoferson asked if it was cost effective to hold the boards and commissions briefing session since in past years there was poor dtlendance. She suggested placing more ads in the paper so more people were aware of the briefing session. Betty Williams, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the costs assxialed with the briefing session were staff and liaison time, Council's time, the ad in the paper on Wednesday and Sunday, and a building attendant City Manager Ted Benavides slated staff would think of more things to do to generate better attendance. Council Member Beasley stated she thought it was a good idea to find a way to circulars this more so more citizens would come to the briefing session. She suggested incorporating it into the monthly ad the City ran. She also stated she was hesitant to give up a Tuesday for the reception. She would prefer to have the reception on Thursday, August 13. Council Member Young stated if it was moved to a Thursday all of the Council might not attend. Kristoferson motioned, Durrance seconded to approve the limchne with a change in the date of the reception to August 13. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Kristoferson "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Young "nay", Burroughs "aye", and Mayor Miller "ay'c". Motion carried with a G-1 vole. 20. The Council considered nominations/appointments to City's Boards and Commissions. ] Council Member Beasley nominated Diane Crew to the Cable TV Board. I 21. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 21 The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas. O • A. Council Member Cochran suggested that boards/commissions comply with state municipal code such as the alternate positions on the Board of Adjustment be regular positions. 23. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.085 of the Texas Open Meetings Act 10 32X10 1 Mimi J e 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 19, 1998 Page 14 i 24. There was no official action on Closed Meeting items held under Section 551.071- 551.085 of the Texas Cpen Meetings Act. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JANE RICHARDSON DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS f h 1 ie ~ o • i ~ ;;E 2.5.x10 32XI~ U • j i CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES May 26, 1998 i After determining that a quorum was present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council i convened in a closed meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Nall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller, Mayor Pro Tem. Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Kristoferson, , Cochran, Young and Durrance. ABSENT; None 1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attomey-Urder TEX, GOVT. CODE Sec. 551.071 I . Met with City Attorney to consider strategy, discuss status, appointment of a representative for possible mediation, and possible settlement authority in litigation styled Denton County Historical Atuseum, Inc v. Denton County, Texas and City of Denton, Texas, et at., Cause No. GC•98.00098-C filed in the Probate Court of Denton County, including, but not limited to issues related to allegations of breach of contract and ownership of artifacts. B. Conference with Employees - Under TEX. GOVT. CODE Sec, 55[.075. The Council received information front employres during a staff conference or briefing, but did not deliberate during the conference. The Council convened into a Special Called Meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, Krislofcrson, and Young. ABSENT: None I. The Council held a public hearing to consider proposed changes to cable television rates charged by Marcus Cable, Richard (roster, Public lnfonnation Officer, slated that the public hearing would consider proposed cable television rates. According to federal guidelines, the City was certified to regulate the rates that the cable company could charge for the basic level of servi-e, associated equipment and the hourly service charge, Marcus submitted the annual rate filing on February 27th and within 90 days of receiving the filings, a public hearing had to be held 0garding the rates, fie reviewed a table showing the current and proposed rates as included in the agenda b:ck•up materials. i The Mayor opened the public hearing. O tl Ihtris Dundas stated that she had a complaint last year about the rates and still was having a ^p concem about the rates. the rates were going up again and she was concerned about the service quality over the years. Whole blocks of stations were blacked out for weeks at a time on her television. Customer Scnice from Marcus always indicated that the problems had to be with her Idevisiou but that w as not true regarding the problems. She did appreciate the televising of the City Cou icil meetings and the Planning and Zoning meetings. Channel 26 was very good, 25 32XIO 0 x f City of Denton City Council Minutes Slay 26, 1998 Page 2 The Mayor closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley asked why there was such a difference in the service charge rate from last i year. Connie Cannady, C2 Consulting, staled that the major reason was that this was the first year that the company had filed an equipment and installation filing form on the basis of ali of its cable operations nation-wide, The FCC indicated several years ago that cable companies could do that. That area represented a vast majority of the difference in costs. Mayor Pro Tern Beasley asked if the Council could set the rates at whatever they wanted. Cannady stated that the FCC had established rate formulas. As the body of original jurisdiction over these rates, the Council could set a rate that it believed was the most reasonable rate for the citizens of Denton. However, the company could appeal to the FCC and if the rates were not within the regulations of the FCC, the City would probably not win an appeal. Karen Yurchuck, Marcus Cable, stated that the company had recently upgraded service with fiber optics that should result in fewer outages. Three customer scrvice representatives were also added and an automated telephone service upgraded the billing system. 2. The Council considered a motion to authorize the holding of a City Council meeting outside of City Hall. Cochran motioned, Kristoferson seconded to hold a City Council meeting outside of City Hall. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Burroughs "aye", Cochran "aye", Durrance "aye", Krisloferson "aye", Young "aye', and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Following the completion of the Special Called Session, the Council convened into a Work Session, I. The Council received a report and gave staff direction regarding the 1998-99 City Council Supplemental Budget Priority Questionnaire, Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget, stated that the revised questionnaire would be an update of the questionnaire that the Council completed before the election. The responses of the new Council Member would be included in the update and would be reviewed with Council in several weeks. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and provided instructions to staff j regarding annexation and public service extension policies to areas currently outside the City of O Denton municipal limits O O Davc Hill, Director of Planning and Development, stated that purpose of this item was to discuss the jurisdiction lines and interiocal agreements for those lines with surrounding cities. The Council did not have to consider complete annexations of areas but could consider corridor annexations that would extend the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) and the City's regulations that went with an ETJ. Staff was looking at extending out into the Hickory Creek watershed area on the southwest 10 32XI❑ m , "ANN U ' I i City of Denton City Council Minutes NI, y 26, 1993 Page 3 I side of the City's ETJ. There would not be a lot of land annexed nor services provided but would extend a corridor of prtteclion. Mayor Miller agreed with extending the ETJ where it was needed to protect the watershed and development. Annexation issues were different. A voluntary annexation was one thing but an involuntary annexation was much different. Remote residents might not want to pay city taxes without services. There was a need to look at two different strategies when dealing with annexations. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with proposal to annex land in the Hickory Creek watershed area to protect the water in the area of the ET) with an emphasis on implementation and cost, The proposal should also include a cost benefit analysis for any annexation. 3, The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff instruction regarding proposed changes to the public notification process for development-related public hearings. Dane Hill. Director of Planning and Development, stated that public notification through the mail for public hearing requirements for the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings was one of the three items eannarked for improvement to the development process, Mayor Millcr stated that the current public notifcation was prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing meeting. Hill replied ycs that it had to be at least ten days in advance of the meeting. Mayor Millcr asked if there was a second notification prior to the public hearing at the Council meeting. fill staled that it was a continuous process with a separate legal advertisement. Mayor Miller stated that the mail notification was prior to the first public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Hill slated that the improvement of public notification through the mail would include public hvai ing %quircmenis for the Planning and Zoning Commission, the City Council, the Sign Board of Appeals and tho Zoning Board of Adjustmcut. The 200-foot list [hat was required by State law would he used via certi lied mail for proof that the mail had been received and a record of receipt. One problem the department faced was that residents indicated that they had not received notification. Statc law required the use of the most recent certified tax roll for the mailing list for notification. That roll was used for the entire year until the next roll was certified and approved the following January. A s.vond p.ut of the notification process would be to expand the actual notice to 500 feet Thosc people would receive a different notification, a courtesy notice, which indicated • that there would be a public hearing on a specific date, That mailing would not use certified mail. O • In both cases, staff would generate the mailing list from the GIS system so that the applicant would not he responsible for the gencratiot, of that list. Mayor Pro Tcm Beasley questioned that if a property was bought and sold, would the new owner have a right to notification even if not listed on the tax rolls. 'e"/, 32XI El to 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26, 1998 Page 4 Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that the new owner would be included if he could prove that he had purchased the property. Council Member Young stated that he was in favor of anything that would provide more residents notification of zoning issues. Hill stated that another possibility was to place two separate ads in the newspaper for notification. One would be in the legal section and one in another section of the newspaper to notify individuals of an impending public hearing. A sign on the property would probably be the best method for notification of the neighbors. Council Member Beasley asked how many notices would be sent with the increased area of notification. Hill presented three examples of the process with the increased notification area. With the Oakmont Ill development, two property owners within 200 feet were notified and that would be the same at 500 feet. With PD-20, 28 notices were within 100 feet and an additional seven notices would have been sent at 500 feet. With the development on Bolivar, seventeen notices were sent witnin 200 feet and 16 notices would have been sent with 500 feet. He presented examples of current signs used for zoning changes and a proposed sign for zoning changes. The change in the type of sign would require a change to the existing ordinance and to the fee schedule. The new sign system would require a $200 sign fee to defray the cost of using the signs. The cost would be for the rental of the sign, labor for putting up and taking down the sign. Council Member Young felt that the proposed signs were a good idea but was concerned about the $200 added cost. He felt the developer should be able to get some of those costs back afler the usage of the sign. Council Member Cochran also expressed concerned about the cost of the signs, With a large change in zoning there might not be much of an effecl but to a smaller zoning change, it might be quite costly. He questioned if there were standards for the number of signs for a particular property. Hill stated that it would depend on the number of sides and square footage of the property, Council Mcmber Young asked if the $200 was per sign for each zoning request. Hill replied yes the cost would be $200 for each sign to be placed on the property for the zoning request. Council Member Young suggested looking at alternate materials for the signs that might be less costly, 0 f Hill stated that staff would recommend the material of the sign be durable and one that would look well over the time period it had to be used. A new staff position would be requested in order to maintain this program. There had been a large increase in public hearings over the last year, Mayor Miller stated that he liked the signs and that there was a need to allocate the cost where it was generated. s 75 x 32x10° k I , O 1 , City of Denton City Council hlioutes May 26, 1998 Page 5 Council Member Kristoferson stated that better notification and the more people who knew about a zoning case, would result in less chances of individuals indicating that they were not notified. The proposed sign would provide a better communication to the residents, Maya I ",,j Tem Beasley agreed with the expanded notification process and the sign process. She was in fa, .r of the signs as they would provide better noti flcation to the residents. Council Member Cochran stated that there was a need to explore any cheaper methods to achieve the same goal of notification He suggested looking at more alternatives for the signs such as alternate materials or bidding the production of the signs. The size, design, motive and concept for the signs were good but not the cost. Council Member Young agreed with the proposal except for the cost of the signs. fie felt the cost ' was too great after charging nothing in the past. Mayor Miller suggested fine tuning the possibilitie! and returning it to Council. If the signs were made in the Traffic Department, there would be ne excuse for not getting the signs up in time and they would be done correctly. lie felt it would be good to bring back other alternatives for Council to consider if Council so wanted. There had been many cases where if a developer had met with the neighbors the proposed zoning would have gone better. Developers needed to continue to strive to have better communication with ncighbon next to their development. Council could not force the developers to have such a meeting but it would certainly help the process, 4. the Council received a report, held a discussion, and provided staff direction regarding incentives for "Affordable Housing". Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director for Planning and Development, stated that expectations for this meeting were to provide direction on definitions, provide direction on the type of costs eligible for cot,sidcrntion, provide direction on the fornt of incentives and provide direction on any other Issues related to affordable housing. Definitions included affordable housing, qualified developer, target areas and qualified developments. Types of costs included parkland dedication or fee in lieu, parkland development fees, other impact fees, zoning and planning fees or building ponnit recs. Form of incentives included waiver of fees up front with reimbursemcnt from another portion of the city budget or rebated based on performance. The explanation of the definitions was discusses as included in the agenda back-up materials. Typical housing costs ca-trolled by the City incl., led current fees, zoning application, platting application, building permits, applications for water line tap, and wastewater line tap costs. Mayor Pro Tcm Beasley expressed concern about waiving parkland in low-income areas. Those types of facilities were necJcd in those areas. She might agree with the waiving of the land dedication requirement but would still require the parkland development fees. rj • Mayor Miller stated that this would be redistributing the costs to all development in order to waive ® p the fees for affordable housing, Council Member Kristoferson stated that the data used was from 1990 ana felt that the complexion t of the north Texas area had changed greatly in the last few years. ti K ( 32 x X71 0 I to AARMW i .•rv.vnrv•1/.an•nJwh v'y1+,. /..VM1HY.1.v A.O. ~ .)1 I4S.i11 y'I•lLw lYn~ DIVIni "f'..c ` City of Denton City Council Minutes May 26,1948 an Page 6 Council discussed the pros and cons regarding the waiver of the various fees relative to atTordabie housing. Council Member Durrance stated that he considered the ratio situation proper for inclusion in a comprehensive plan, as well as a comparison of data from other cities, the demographics of those cities, and possible deed restrictions, Consensus of the Council was that more information was needed r,!garding the proposal including a comparison of data from other cities, the demographics of those cities, possible deed restrictions and information about cities with universities With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m, JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF %HTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS a CITY SECRETARY CIT'(OF DENTON, TEXAS S c y n 1 w ~4 ~1• A 11;2.6 32X IUL IOU . 0 0 MUM" CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 29.31, 1998 The Council convened into the Annual Planning Session on Friday, May 29,1998 at 2:00 p.m, at the Marriott Solana Education Center, 5 Village Circle, Westlake, Texas. PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tcm Beasley; Council Members Burroughs, Cochran, Durrance, and Krisioferson, ABSENT: Council Member Young Lyle Sumek, Facilitator, spoke on the new realities for city leaders, the shift from professional city government to community-based city government, winning cities versus huc championship cities, the challenge for mayors and city councils, lessons from effective city councils, and the keys to success with teamwork and leadership. Council Member Young arrived during the meeting. An analysis of things that would work best for Council included brief reports that would allow for discussion, going out in the field to view a proposal versus looking at slides, early involvement rather than last minute decisions, making a decision and then ha%ing time to evaluate and adjust, showing results once decisions were made and regular status reports provided as issues evolved. On Salurday, Slay 30, 1998 the Council looked at goals for Denton in 2004 and beyond, policy strategies on key issues and a policy agenda for 1998.99. 1 Major themes in temts of outcomes centered oa an effective transportation system for moving Ii people, additional parks and ball field development with expanded programs, balanced quality development with planned growth and effective zoning, preservation of neighborhood integrity, an expanded lax base and quality job opportunities through attractive quality businesses, the preservation of the small town feeling in Denton, citizens involved as partners with city government, maintaining quality basic services provided by the city, and an attractive community with beautiful entrances, slreciscapes, and neighborhoods, Council considered possible target issues for 1998 that included clcctric deregulation, a 0 comprehensive development plan, the 1999 budget, the Cl'Rwnd program, Lalor funding, the Robson dcvelopmcm, affirmative action end impact fees, Possible target issues for 1999 included a possible City Charter Review, neighbothood integrity direction and area Planning, evaluation and continued development for economic development, the City's annexation policy and planning, airport expansion and development, zoning revisions, a walkable community strategy, an h;t,orntation technology action plan, implementation of further Affirmative Action plans, a review . of the city's Boards R Commissions, an infill housing strategy, a tax abatement policy, and policy direction on density/vested rights, 10 32XID i e p I~ i eeecar , City of Denton City Council Minutes May 29-31,1998 Page 2 Goals and Outcomes for the community included: I. An effective transportation system for moving people e Loop 288 between Highway 380 and 135 e improved traffic flow e a link to regional transportation e enhanced mass transit within the city e improved traffic management in terms of carpooling and accident handling e an cnhan-,ed drainage system to take water off the streets r e the completion of Highway 380 e the rebuilding of the 135E and Loop 288 interchange e consideration of the railroad overpass at Dallas Drive and Eagle Drive e an casl•wcst thoroughfare through southeast Denton 2. Enhanccd leisure opportunities though additional parks, ball licld development and expanded youth progrartsincluded: e dcvclopment of a greenbelt/nature preserve e cooperation with the DISD for joint use of facilities, acqu isition of sites e equity of facilities on the south side of the city e a possible municipal golf course ' P a possible municipal zoo e continued dcvclopment of hiko'bike trails within the city accessible to neighborhoods e a plan to protect Lal.e Ray Roberts and maintain its integrity e the expanded use of pocket parks e the implementation of the Civic Center Park Master Plan 3, Balanced quality development with planned growth and effective zoning included: e the implementation of the comprehensive plan e balanced growth in industrial, residential and retail e realistic zoning reflecting the community desires i e a community consensus on "growth" through dialog e enhancing the balance of growth by revitalizing retail e a strategic economic dcvclopment with a plan with targeted for businesses and goals s Council leadership and courage e consistent rules for investing in the community e blended growth with residential development 0 e a defined economic mix to sustain quality of li re rR t^ 2~2'1 me-'A. 32 x ~ ~ s 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes May 29-31,1998 Page 3 4. Preservation of neighborhood integrity included: • planning during development • perception and needs of identified neighborhoods • increased small area planning • equity in treatment between neighborhoods a diversity of neighborhoods 5. Expanded tax base and job opportunities through attracting quality businesses and the nuturing of existing businesses • increased median household income based on careful analysis ' • strategic economic development a consideration orcorporate headquarters zoning especially on the 1351',' corridor a development of support businesses for the Airport • welcoming businesses through infrastructure support a an industrial park development to attract targeted businesses a expansion of existing businesses a enhanced cooperation with universities with a possible research center G, Preservation of the small town feeling dealt with: • enhancing the supportuse of small local businesses including incentives • continued prosperity of the downtown square • incentives forhistoric preservalion a small area planning to preserve neighborhoods • the preservation of topographical and natural resources during development • Toning to enhance architectural design, sheets and walkways • increased participation in programs • a "walkable" community i' • the encouragement and support for events, festivals, etc. 7. Cili/ens involved as partners with city government included: i 0 • effective boards, commissions, committecs•special goals e e appropriate involvement in decisions a the dissemination of information through the ffcctive use of various modes of communication a the mentoring of future community leaders 1 ` a increased participation in such programs as the COPS program a expand%support neighborhood involvement including associations 0 • increased cooperation with the County, and school district • increased Council presence in community I i 32 X .i:. s 0 *mum City of Denton City Council Minutes ' May 29.31,1998 Page 4 8. Maintaining quality basic services provided by the City included: • an already existing excellent police and fire departments • increased support for staff through the budge) • quality maintenance of parks, facilities, eta • accurate projection of future human resources with a link to services a quality programs and staff for streets & bridges • a proactive pursuit of technology enhancements continued service level to citizens • adequate planning for growth • sustain quality of services levels 9. An attractive community with beautiful entrances, sirectscapes, neighborhoods included; • An already demonstrated pride in the city • implementation of the overlay zoning • An enhancement of urban forestation • implementation of more sidewalks, setbacks, and traffic calming techniques • identifiable, attractive gateways • Main Street preservation s improved affordable housing implenientalion of initiatives" • the incorporation of public art in projects On Sunday May 31, 1998, the Counci! discussed refinements in Council operations. 1. Work Sessions Council Member Cochran suggested allowing citizens to speak at work sesslons following the completion of Council discu«ion. Citizen input would be limited to questions or brief comments. Council Member Kristefcrson agreed that it could be tried on a limited manner. Mayor Miller stated that the purpose of work sesson was to receive information front staff on upcoming issues. Denton already had an open govco ment, The work sessions were televised for the citizens. There were time constraints already wi,h long meelings. The Council was elected by the citizen! to make the decisions. Allowing citizen input at work sessions would defeat the purpose of the tvorx session. Final decisions were not made at work sessions. Council Member Durrance felt that work sessions were the Council's time to discuss issues among 0 . themselves and with staff, if public comments were taken duri ng work sessions, the sessions would cod up being just another council meeting. lie felt there was it blurred the line between work sessions and regular meetings. lie also felt that citizens should be allowed to speak if there were a pressing issue and that could be lcll up to the discretion of the Mayor and Council, ,E 10 32JO jam 0 ~ II City of Dcnlon City Council Minutes May 29.31,1998 Page S Council Member Beas?ey noted that there were good points fir, w both sides on this issue. Very few people came to the work sessions meetings. The Council and Mayor have in the past invited a number of citizens to speak if present at a work session. She suggested that procedure instead of a formal process. Each council person could ask the Mayor to allow a citizen to address a topic if he knew someone was in the audience who wanted to address the Council Council Member Young felt that a work session was for information gathering and a time to give direction to staff on various issues with discussion. A work session was not a time to bring in citizens for comment. The work sessions were for information gathering and communication with staff and council. lie felt that the current process was working well. Council Member Burroughs stated that it appeared to him that work sessions were to determine what issues were important to Council and to discuss those issues. It was aside benefit to have the public hear those discussions. if there were issues of great interest to citizens, it might be possible to allow council members to inform the Mayor of citizens who were wishing to speak. It was proposed to allow the Mayor to use his discrelion to allow citizens to speak, Ira council member knew of a person desiring to speak on an issue, he could ask the Mayor to allow that individual to speak, A notice would be placed on the government channel encouraging citizens to contact Council on issues. Consensus of council was to incorporate this proposal 2, Regular City Council Meetings Council Member Cochran felt that citizen input should be allowed on consent agenda items. lie suggcslcd remo ping the wording on the agenda that excluded citizens from speaking on consent agenda ileums. Council Memb-.r Dutrance stated that while he had no r:al problem with that type of procedure there might come a time when too many people were speaking on consent agenda items and slowing down the process. Mayor Miller slated that the purpose of the consent agenda was to speed up the agenda process. Council received the agenda information well in advance of the meeting and could ask questions of t stall' mmzll in advance of the meeting. 'T'here was a possibility of defeating the purpose of the consent agenda and contributing to longer meetings. ' Consensus of the Council was to change the Council's Rules and Procedures to allow citizens to • speak on consent agenda items, Citizens would speak before Council deliberation on items. 3. Agenda Council Member Durrance suggested reducing the time for staff presentations on agenda items. R 10 32 1 0 t I ~ City of Denton City Council Minutes May 29.31,1998 Page 6 ~ . Council received a large amount of backup materials regarding agenda items and staff did not need to repeat that entire information during the meeting. Council should come prepared and have their materials read. This would allow more time for discussion. This procedure could also be done in Closed Sessions with the legal briefings. Council Member Cochran stated that the Council meetings were public meetings with a two-fold purpose. One was to conduct city business and the other was to educate the public on what the Council was doing, He felt that the staff presentations could be abbreviated but not cut out entirely. Mayor Pro Tern Beasley agreed that some briefings were too long especially in executive session. She suggested continuing with a brief background presentation but no long presentations. - Consensus of the Council regarding the agenda was that Council would come to the meetings prepared, staff would make their presentations brief for public information during regular sessions, a listing of future agenda items would be prepared on a regular basis for Council, and Council would work on keeping their comments brief regarding agenda items. City Manager Benavides asked if the draft agenda sent to Council mid-week was still of value to them Consensus of the Council was to continue to send the draft agenda but use other methods to some members other than the courier. Faxing cr e-mailing the draft agenda would be as helpful having the paper document. 4. Sample petition Council Member Cochran felt that the Charter requirements were confusing and a sample petition prepared by the City would be helpful for the citizens After discussion, consensus of the Council was to continue with the current process. 5. Commimicationsincluding the use oftechnology f , I Council Member Durvance stated that as Council all had laptops, he would like to eventually have all Council information on a disk that they could use or more c-mail information rather than paper. 3 G, Council Membcr Cochran indicated that he also would prefer more memos be e-mailed rather than i< on paper. Council Member Young suggested allowing each Council Member to decide which medium he would like to use. • • 6, Calendar of events )K1~ zx10 -1 L 0 J f City of Denton City Council Minutes May 29.31,1998 Page 7 Council suggested a chart be developed that the members could initial when attending certain meetings. I 1 7. Travel Policy ; Council discussed keeping all members informed of attendance at meeting when representing the City. It was decided that a format would be used to inform the other members of attendance at A meetings that were outside the DPW area, Council also discussed whether the City should pay for spouse expenses when attending regional meetings as often times it was expected that spouses attend those mectings. While it might be appropriate for the City to pay spouse expenses for some events in the regional area, consensus of the Council was that the City would not pay for any spouse rl expenses associated wilt Council travel. 8. Council committees 9 Council discussed adding an Environmental Committee. Mayor Pro Tem Beasley and Council Member Kristoferson agreed to be Council liaisons for that committee and begin working with citizen make-up of the committee. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon. t 1 r' JACK MILLER, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 1 JENNIFER WALTERS E CITY SECRETARY A CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ' r; r { ( p i •f £ i 3 ~41'* 4F 32x l[3 0 won! IQ AQ~nda No _ -00 Ager-di Ilsm//~~ Date AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September I, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CNI: Ted Denmides, 349.8307 SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Cowboys for Codi Memorial Rodeo, on Friday and Saturday, September 1 W6 and 10 and Saturday, September 266 from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. BACKGROU,NU Cowboys for Codi, inc. has requested that the City Council grant an exception to the ' noise ordinance for lheir'I hird Annual Twenty-One & Under Rodeo and Second Annual Open Barrel Race. These 1"o events will be held at the North Texa3 Slate Fair Grounds. 'the rodeo is a fundraising activity for Cowboys for Codi, which is a non-profit organisation established to benefit the) outh of Denton County. The main source of the noise skill come from announcements made over the loudspeaker during the rodeo, 'the rodeo is expected to end at approximately 10:30, with clean-up lasting about an hour , longer, An exception was granted at this time last year for the same event, however it extcndcd until 1:00 a im I he organization is not seeking that late hour this year because the dance, sshich lasted until that time. gill not be held this )ear. As )ou 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 3). The ordinance does, however, proside that the City Council may make exceptions skhrn the public interest is ser%cd, I The organizers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of the amplified sound is still required by Section 2J-1 of the City of Denton Code of Otdindnccs. In particular, Section 20•I(a) states: { • It shall be unlawful for an) person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, Q • disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons ofordinary sensibilities in the immediate t vicinity thereof. i i 32XI0 O e~ .i 1 ' I`11 lY . PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council. Hoards. ommlesionsl There was a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for this same event last year and it was approved on August 19, 1997 for September 5, 6, and 7 by Council. s. FISCAL INFORINATIOIy 4 None. .t .f :o Respectfully submitted: r ~ v ctty Wi iams Assistant to the City Manager Prepared by: t J~ nifcdOoudman h'lanagemcnt Assistant ,y I Attachments: I. Request from Cowboys for Codi, Inc, 0 2. Noise ordinance t ~i i t. ~ ( Ip. I1 ~ Stf ti t2 5 a 777 ' 'fir .Zt 't~y~~k• qi i A ~r ~~yy r I ! ' is f ! I • J ' i ~ to r C .1 S 4 . - %G-19-1996 11,42 MUDGE WOOD PROWCTS 940 380 9015 P. e2. Attention: Denton City Council Cowboys for Codi, Inc. is gearing up for the 3"' Annual 21 & t Under Rodeo and 2"d Annual Open Barrel Race, which will be, held at the North Texas State Fair Grounds, This non-profit ! organization was set up in memory of Codi Smith, Codi was a sixteen-year-old Denton County youth who was killed by ri dnltik driver in August of 1996. Codi, her family, and her friends are only a small portion of the numerous people who hu%a been .r devastated by alcohol and drugs. 'Phis non-profit organization was established to benefit the youth of Uonton Counw anal Nta• successful in awarding fotlr area youth %.it.1 1u11olarshllls. Cowboys for Codi, Inc. is requesting for the third year that ! 't the noise variance be lifted on Friday September 18d, and Saturday September 19'', and Saturday September 26, 1998. .i Cowboys for Codi, Inc. thanks ruu for Your support in the you in advance for supporting. this past and would like to thank years Rodeo and Barrel Race. Please make plans to join its for the t' Y i! r I 43"' Annual Cowboys for Codi Rodeo. i Sincerely, i ~ It~xlger tinlitlt ,5 ' I jf T 1 I 1 t~W tAh► Karlene Smith Deanna Rutledge r` i, 61sT,`: •I! f 1 v y '4 C s. n , -.a h , i y ! C v r tRi"4 iU+~'N ' h Ir 1"~ I 11 4 c~~ , x 2.5 I ;en:nrsr , 0 I i Chapter 20 NUISANCES' Art. I. In General, 11120-1-20-30 Art. 11. Abandoned Property, it 20.31-20.70 Div, 1. Generally, It 20.31-20.40 Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, 11 20-41-20-70 A Ill. Grass and Weeds, 111 20-71-20-73 ARTICLE L IN GENERAL Sec. 20.1. Noise, t (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distrtds, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, ib) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation orthis Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical Instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7'.00 a,m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persona of ordinary sensibilities in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; (2) The use of any stationary loud.41_iker, amp:i er or musical instrument In such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities In the Immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7:00 a m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at w any time on Sunday; pruvided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public intereut will be served thereby; (3f The blowing of any sttam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or fai-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger; 141 The erection, excavation, demolitinn, olteratinn, nr repair work on any building at anytime other than between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from June 1 to September 30; between 7:00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from October I to May 31; between 8.00 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. on 'Cross references-Prulected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, 16-87; Inspec- tion and abatement wr,rants, 1 19-86 et scq ; Insect and rodent control In mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, i 32.91 Sulp No a 1389 P , 3 2 X I O h - 0 i O I 20.1 DENTON CODE Saturday; and between 1:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Sunday; provided, however that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public safety and convenience. (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or containers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto, (Code 1966, if 14-20, 14.21; Ord. No. 95-164, 11, 9.12.95) Cross reference-Animal noise, i 6.26. Sec. 20.2. Odors. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any unreasonably noxious, unpleasant or strong odor which causes material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any odor, stench or smell of such ' character, strength or continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following seta or conditions, among others, are declared to be odor nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shell not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) Offensive odors from cow lots, hog pens, fowl coops and other similar places where animals are kept or fed which disturb the comfort and repose of persona of ordinary sensibilities; 12) Offensive odors from privies and other similar places; (3) Offensive odors from the use or possession of chemicals or from industrial processes or activities which disturb the comfort and repose of persona of ordinary sensibilities; (4) Offensive odors from smoke from the burning of trash, rubbish, rubber, chemicals or A other things or substances; (b) Offensive odors from etognnnt pools allowed to remain on any premises or from rotting garbage, refuse, offal or dead animals nn any premises. (Code 1966, if 14.22, 14-23) Sec. 20.3. Garbage, trash and rubbish nuisances-Generally. 1 (a) Storing or keeping garbage, trash and rubbish. The storing or keeping of any and all O stocks, heaps or piles of old lumber, refuse, junk, old cars or machinery or parts thereof, garbnge, trash, rubbish, scrap material, ruins, demolished or partly demolished structures or buildings, piles of atones, bricks or broken rocks on any premises bordering any public street Stipp. No, s 1390 5 - ?wr w K 10 32XIo 0 Agenda Na__/~ IG,L. Agenda ite/m~ _ 0ate__W'1~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Mike Jez, City Manager Designate, 349.8307 i I i i SUBJECT Consider a request for an exception to the noise ordinance for Rubber Glov cs Rehearsal Studio for an outdoor performance on Friday, September I V b from 9:00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. BACKGROUND Ms. Memory Ebeier representing Rubber Gloves Rehearsal Studio, has respectfully requested that the City Council grant an exception to the noise ordinance for their outdoor performance entitled 'Wan...or A.rtroman? This event will be held on their studio's outdoor east stage, which is located at 411 E. Sycamore Street. The main source of the noise will come from the use of amplified music for the performance. This is located in an industrial section of town, between Hell Avenue and Railroad Street, so there should be no residential areas affected. 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 3). The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions when the public interest is served. . The organizers have been informed that should Council approve this request, responsible use of the amplified sound is still required by Section 20.1 of the City of Denton Code of Ordinances. In particular, Sellion 20.1(a) states: 11 shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress. 1 discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate {0_ vicinity thereof. 0 0 I 1 ~1a 32xa AAM 2. 36-~= " 1 1 l rll ~ Y I ♦ 1 1:} sY 1 ~a • r a +4 r qtr Y 1 (r PRIOR ACTIONIREVIEW (Council. Boards, Commissional None. FISCAL INFORMATION r: None. Respectfully submitted: B tty Wil ams Assistant to the City Manager Prepared by: 7e r G man M agemem Assistant Attachments: L Request from Ms. Memory Ebeier 2. Noise ordinance ; i j • r - 0'. e ~ t. 2f ~t a~ 10 25 .32 X' it ~ • tr °4 r Q r I 8-26-1998 11.67AM PROM JOE'S 24 HOLR COPIES 940 383 1960 P.1 f I Rubber Gloves Rehearsal Studios Memory Ebeler. Manager 411 E. Sycamore Denton,. Texas 78206 (040) 987.7781 Dear City Manager/ City Council, I am requesting permission to showcase ,utdoor amplified muslc after I0:00pm. Details are as foil... DATE: September 11, 1988 TIME: 0:00 pm-1:00am , PLACE: Rubber Gloves Rehearsal Studios, 411 E. Sycamore, Denton, outdoor stage east of building EVENT: "Man.,. or Astraman? "live music performance, including a performance by "The Reds " of Denton PUBLIC INTEREST: Man.,. or Asrraman? Is a very popular International act that has been recording and tourng all over ft world with great suooess for over seven years. We believe that this event will significantly bena* the Denton music scene and bring more attention to what Denton has to offer locally, especially in the area of arts and entertalrvnent. Since Rubber Uves' Inception as a live music venue over a year ago, we have continually tried to bring more dtarse acts to the Denton area. We have attracted enough attention that much bigger bands are 9"g to play here, so big that we have had to build an outdoor stage to Increase our capaolty. We are located In the Industrial part of town, quhs a distanos irom any residential neighborhood. This is our first request for exception to the noise ordinance, so i apologize that I am a couple days + )4'0 late on getting this request to you. Phase call me H there are any problems or 1 . questions In proceasing this request. j Sincerely, Memory Ebsier Manager- RGRS Rubber Gloves 3 25 n 1❑ 32x10 almmolikeftelift mono a 0 xraoAS , 0 aaT9k,T.1 Chapter 20 NUISANCES' Art. 1. In General, 44 20.1-20.30 Art. H. Abandoned Property, 41 20.31-20.70 Div. 1. Generally, 44 20.31-20-40 Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, 44 20-41-20-70 Art. 111. Grass and Weeds. If 20.71-20.73 ARTICLE 1. IN GENERAL Sec. 20.1. Noise. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, disturbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, Intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persona or ordinary sensibilities. (c) The following sets, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: (1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical Instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10.00 p m. and 7:00 a. m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary ! sensibilities in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; (2) The use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument in such manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and T:00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument at ri any time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will be served thereby; (31 The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any Antionary boiler or the blowing of any other loud or far-reaching steam whistle within the city limits, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger; (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration, or repair work on any building at nn)lime other than between the hours of 6:00 a m. and 8:30 p m. Afnndny through Friday from June 1 to September 30; between 7A0 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. Monday ! through Friday from October 1 to May 31; between 800 a m. and 8:30 p.m. on Lyf 'Cross references-Protected migratory bird roosts declared nuisance, 1 6.87; inspec- [inn and abatemenO warrants, 119-86 et seq; insert and rodent control In mobile home and recreational vehicle parks, 132-91, ! t Stipp No. a 1389 L 32XIO 0 1 i 120-1 DENTON CODE Saturday; and between 1:00 p,m. and 8,30 p.m. on Sunday; provided, however that the city council may issue special permits for such work at other hours in case of urgent ' necessity and in the interest of public safety and convenience. (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in cone-etion with the loading or unloading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or containers; (6) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto. (Code 1966, 111114-20, 14-21; Ord. No. 95-184, 11, 9-12-95) Cross reference-Animal noise, 16.26. Sec. 20.2. Odors. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any unreasonably noxious, unpleasant or strong odor which causes material distress, discomfort or Injury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any odor, stench or smell of such character, strength or continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. (c) Thr following acts or conditions, among others, are declared to be odor nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive: i i (1) Offensive odors from cow lots, hog pens, fowl coops and other similar places where animals are kept or fed which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; t i (2) Offensive odors from privies and other similar places; (3) Offensive odors from the use or possession of chemicals or from Industrial processes or activities which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; (4) Offensive odors from smoke from the burning of trash, rubbish, rubber, chemicals or • other things or substances; (5) Offensive odors from elngnnnt pools allowed to remain on any premises or from rotting garbage, refuse, offal or dead animals on any premises. (Code 1966, 1114-22, 14.23) Sec. 20.3. Garbage, Ireah and rubbish nuisances--Generally. (a) Storing or beeping garbage, !rash and rubbish. The storing or keeping crony and all 0 stacks, heaps or piles of old lumber, refuse, junk, old cars or machinery or parts thereof, garbage, trash, rubbish, scrap material, ruins, demolished or partly demolished structures or buildings, piles of stones, bricks or broken rocks on any premises bordering F,-.y public street 9upp, No. 4 1390 5 32X 1 0 , I I ' Benda Wo i agenda ItemA'17 Date AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET I AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 Questions ccnceming this acquisition may be directed , DEPARTMENT: Finance - Purchasing to Tom Shaw 349-7133 AC I: Kathy DuBose, 349-8228 SUBJECT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF THE COLONY RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS CITY OF DENTON CONTRACTS WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (FILE 4 2272 - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS). BACKGROUND The City of The Colony has requested an Interlocal Agreement allowing them to I participate in our contract for office supplies and related items. The City Council for the City of The Colony approved the Interlocal Agreement on July 6, 1998, Interlocal Agreements similar to the attached document are permitted under Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, Interlocal Agreement Act. With this agreement, the City of The Colony will be an independent purchaser but have the ability to utilize the competitive bidding process of the City of Denton. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This Interlocal Agreement has been approved by the city of The Colony and mill go into effect upon approval by the Denton City Council, PRIOR ACTIONMEVIEW (CounclLBQgrds. Commisslonsl This Interlocal Agreement was approved by the City of The Colony Council on Jul), 6, 1998. A p FISCAL INFOWMATION This Interlocal Agreement has no direct fiscal cost. r ~t'w.fC 32 x0 r r( ' cameo , ^j / O ; S. I°J . n , AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT INFORMATION The approval of this Interlocal Agreement by the Denton City Council will extend to the City of The Colony authorization to "piggyback" the contract for office supplies currently in afrect between the City of Denton and BT Office Products, We currently have similar agreements with Denton County, City or Lewisville. Krum, Flower Mound, Lake Dallas, Gainesville, Houston, Galveston Council of Governments and Tarrant County. ' Respectfully submitted: Name: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349.7100 Title, Purchasing Agent Attachment #L• Interlocal Agreement from the City of The Colony 1080 AGENDA It J)iwo 1 2 t t , I vyk 1 25kIQ 32xI0 l ~ ~I i i I THE STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF DENTON INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement'? is entered into to be effective the T^ day of July, 1998, under and in accordance with the provisions of the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Chapter 791, Texas Government Code, by and between the CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, a political subdivision of the state of Texas (hereinafter "The Colony", and the CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, also a political subdivision of the State of Texas (hereinafter "Denton'?. Whereas, The Colony and Denton mutually desire to be subject to the provisions of the Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, the Interlocal Cooperation Act, specifically §791.025 regarding contracts for the purchase of goods and services; and Whereas, The Colony and Denton have agreed to the cooperative purchasing of office supplies and similar material and desire to set forth herein their respective ` responsibilities, obligations and rights relative thereto. I NOW THER:.FORE, The Colony and Denton for the mutual consideration hereinafter stated, agree and understand as follows: I. Cooperative Purchasinrr a. It is understood and agreed that Denton currently has a contract for goods and services with 8T Office Products, for which Denton competitively bid and awarded same under the laws of the State of Texas. ` b. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for the duration of the contract between Denton and ST Office Products unless this Agreement is terminated by either party upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other if deemed to be in the best interest of the municipality. C. The Colony and Denton intend that the entity, in receiving products andlor . services speci2*d in this Agreement, shall act as independent purchaser and shall have control of its needs and the manner in which they are acquired. Neither The Colony or Denton, their agents, employees, volunteer help, nor any other person operating under this Agreement, shall be considered an agent or employee of the other and shall not be entitled to participate in any pension plans or other benefits that each entity provides to its employees. 0 O 0 d. The Colony and Denson agree that the ordering of supplies and materials purchased through this Agreement shall be the individual responsibility of 3 32XI El , C i -WOW" fi each and that the successful bidder shall bill each participating municipality directly for the goods, services or materials ordered by it. e. In the event that any dispute arises between an individual municipality and the successful bidder, the same shall be handled between the two disputing parties. f_ Each participating government shall be liable to the successful bidder only for supplies or materials ordered and received by it and shall not, by the execution of this Agreement, assume any additional liability. 2. Miscellaneous a. This Agreement expressed the entire agreement between the parties hereto regarding the subject matter contained herein and may not be modified or amended except by written agreement duly executed by both parties. b. The Agreement had been duly and properly approved by each party's governing body and constitutes a binding obligation on each party. C. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and venue for all purposes hereunder shall lie in Denton County, Texas. d. If any provision hereof is determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be fully severable herefrom and the Agreement shall be construed and k enforced as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision never comprised a part hereof, and the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and eff'eet. C. This Agreement is not intended to extend the liabilityof the parties beyond that provided by law. Neither The Colony not Denton waives any immunity or defense that otherwise would be available to it against claims by third parties. s 4 { , t x' M1 ni, G~ 25 x 10 32X _ l APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, in iu meeting held on the 6''' day of July, 1998, and executed by its authorized representative. CITY OF THE COLONY 0 y: 44 Lanny an b t, City anager AT STifty Patti Hickret ary Lr+ APPROVED AS TO FORM: John HiD, Ci Attome tY Y APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, in its meetinr Meld on the day of ,1998, and executed by its authorized representative. CITY OF DENTON By ATTEST: City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: r City Attorney 5 + t. e tl ~ 2 y x 32x10 O F f ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL , AGREEMENT WITH 1Hr CITY OF THE COLONY RELATING TO PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS CITY OF DENTON CONTRACTS WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFfEr'TIVE DATE. (FILE # 2272 - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF THE COLONY, T-,XAS). THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: V, SECTION I. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Intedocal Agrement with the City of The Colony Texas relating to participation in the City of Denton contract which provides for the purchase of office supplies and similar material. ✓ a copy of such agreement is attached hereto and inc-rporated by reference. 1 SECTION Il. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the , day of 1998. f Jack Miller, Mayor I ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY : , BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L, PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY ` ~ i I INTrRI (K'Ar. AnRr F.NLVT-F1l t 2112 0Rt4N,A\CF r 0 ~ 6 ` { 32X25 1 G0 ' o Agenda No 1Ls/~.- AVnda Item /~-7~`j~ i AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET i AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Finance-Purchasing toJoaniellousewright349.7924 ACM: Kathy DUBose, 349.8228 SUBJEC AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PA'T'HOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR; PROVIDING FOR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID p 2216 - PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR AWARDED TO CRAWFORD EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF 541,109.00). BACKGROUND This pathological waste incinerator is to replace an existing incinerator at the Animal Control Center. The existing unit is thirteen (13) years old, has been reconditioned several times and is currently in need of approximately $24,000.00 in repairs, The proposed new unit is far more fuel-efficient and is projected to reduce the fuel bill by approximately 5:0,000.00 per year. The design of the new unit allows for individual cremations if desired, EST151ATED SCHEDULE OF P_ROI The new unit is available in 90 days from receipt of an order or approximately November 20, 1998. s . FISCAL IiVFOI MAWN 1 Funds for this acquisition are available from 1997.98 budget, account # 100-041-020M- 8923. f 1 r s. Z5 lJ 32 X I O • , AGENDA INFORMATION SHEETS SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 l DID INFORIIIATIOIV This bid is for the purchase of a pathological waste incinerator with a dual chambered cremation/incincrator systems which is designed to process the high BTU content plastics round in "red tag" veterinary waste streams as well as performing individual cremations and or small batches of communal cremations. The unit complies with all federal, state and local emission regulations and code requirements. 4 We recommend award to the single bidder, Crawford Equipment and Engineering, in the amount of 841,109.00. Respectfully submitted: i t~ J~~ Names Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349.7100 Title, Purchasing Agent r } Attachment A h Tabulation Sheet k 1076 AGENDA ' . I I ' i I 4 1 Ir, . 4 4 1 s l f n, i t'r h 1,t ~ ~ i7 l 7q T t 7 r. i ~ t r : r} t~ s a r, .r 1 y ~ . .J ` lJ.1 A fit 5 10 k 1 32X 0 r xeaM I ATTACHMENT 01 TABULATION SHEET 1. 1 BID 6 2216 BID NAME PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR Crawford Equipment Engineering DATE 7Ju1A9 6 DESCRIPTION VENDOR' r 1 PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR $41,109.00 ~r DELIVERY 90 days i I I I 1 i i % s f X CJ 32 x 11 M1 r ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A PATHOLOGICAL. WASTE INCINERATOR; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID # 2216 - PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATOR AWARDED TO CRAWFORD EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF 541,109.00). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBFR N0 VENDOR A?%jOUNT 2216 ALL CRA''N'FORD EQUIPMENT ENGINEERING $41,109.00 SECTION 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents, SECTION 111. That should the City and persons submittinc approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, e tpproval, and awarding of the bids, the City h1anager or his designated representative is hereby 0 ' 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 ani accepted. 1 I 4 I 32XI❑ wpm s • ° r 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 f and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASS FD AND APPROVED this day of .1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR r ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY ECRETARY BY: I ' APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY t BY: 2216-SUPPLY. ORMNANCE_ f • it 1 r ~ •o, i i "f r V 5 r o 0 Agenda Agenda Item/~ - Nfe- AGENDA INFOP31ATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September I, 1998 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed , DEPARTMENT: Finance - Purchasing to Howard Martin 349.7194 ACM: Kathy DuBose, 349.8228 SUBJECT I i AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR WATER TREATMENT SERVICE AND CHEMICALS 10R THE ELECTRIC PRODUCTION PLANT; PROVIDING FOR THE j EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID d 2239 - WATER TREATMENT SERVICE AND CHEMICALS ! 1 AWARDED TO BUCKMAN LABORATORIES IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY 550,000.00). i I BACKGROUND D The Spencer Station utilizes high-pressure steam boilers, turbines, condensers, cooling mater and closed loop systems in the production of electricity. Those systems are highly sensitive to water quality and require discrete monitoring and bals:lcing of chemical makeup. Proprietary chemicals are utilized to adjust system chemic, ! makeup to insure proper equipment operation per est::blished guidelines and practices. A water treatment program establishes the proper chemical requirements, dosaie and monitoring practices. The Buckman Laboratories water consulting company provided contractual supply of chemicals and service to the plant for the last three years. The contract with Buckman expires in October 1998. An acceptable water treatment program has been established from years of experience at the Spencer Station, That program was documented for use i in bid specifications. Five water treatment companies participated in the bid process. In • order to evaluate proposals, consultants were asked to provide daily costs associated with treatment of specified quantities of boiler of cooling water makeup. These costs could tnen be easily compared. A tabulation of those comparative costs is attached. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT ~ • Bt.ckman Laboratories is the current supplier of water treatment services and chemicals. p • Award o,'this contract will continue that service for an additional four (one)-)car periods. ,r r IEl 12 xln IMIKOW O r l - , AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 FISCAL INFOLOIATION This service and related chemical requirements will be funded from the appropriate fiscal budget account number 610.101.1011-5020-8105. BID INFORMATION F This bid is for technical smices and chemicals required to treat water utilized i:, the cooling towers and closed loop water systems at the Electric Production facility. We recommend award to the lowest bidder, Buckman Laboratories, in the estimated amount of S 50,000.00 per year. Respectfully submitted: Name: Tom Shaw, C,P.M., 349-7100 Title: Purchasing Agent Attachment 41: Tabulation Sheet 079.AG F. NDA s ; • • O . .,4 2 2.5 Y, Rs MEMO= , , • I k Y701t~lEf Mn r , I t { I . I ATTACHMENT 01 t TABULATION SHEET BID # 2239 , BID NAME WATER TREATMENT SERVICE & CHEMICAL. 1 I Buckman Nalco Betz ASI Chemtrea! r $113, Tows, $130.16 $135.80 $141.40 $162,16 $172,96 $11)Boller $&52 $8.09 $11.20 $6.85 $6.76 Total/D $136.68 $143.89 $152.60 $169.01 $179.72 $1D dollars per day for required treatment r 1 1 Cry 1 I y• , r ' i `a s O I l ,t r Iebi I' 3 I O 'R q 0 I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR WATER TREATMENT SERVICE AND CHEMICALS FOR THE ELECTRIC PRODUCTION PLANT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 4 2239 - WATER TREATMENT SERVICE I AND CHEMICALS AWARDED TO BUCKMAN LABORATORIES IN THE ESTIMATED I ANNUAL AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $50,000.00). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; end I 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 r or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEr.EAS, 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, i THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: I ~ BID ITEM NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT t I 2239 ALL BUCKMAN LABORATORIES EXHIBIT "A" I ' SECTION 11 That by the acceptance and appro: al 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 servic-s in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals. and related documents. i SECTION 111, That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items 1 and of the submitted bids wish to ent, into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and amvarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby Q 0 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 specif ed sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents L-crein approve) and accepted. a i i I I * / k 1 1....JJJ 32x lrj 1 I -1 L I t l: • fl' 1 ~ I t I r I I r 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 and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. + SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. I ~ ~ l I I PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1998. I ' ' JACK MILLER, MAYOR I c ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FOPM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY , BY: 27 SCPPLY.ORDINkNCE. i I I j % r j M I I t A J I rl l fi 4 I `ML 1 11 a 1 ti} '°rk.~~~f~ll Ir rk a1 x ly J,~ k4 32 i qua cyn - Attachment 2 EXHIBIT "A" t Buckman i ,f $/D, TOWER $130.16 $/D, BOILER $6.52 TOTAL/D $136.68 r ~t 4 r . 1 w 4 21) 10 1 s • , O npenaa no.-- --l.f~T~C!~v-. hpenda Item Date AGENDA INFORbIATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September I, 1998 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Finance - Purchasing to Max Blackburn 349-8317 I~ AC\I: Kathy DuBose, 349-8228 SUBJECI AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR PROPERTY AND COMM'_RCIAL CRIME COVERAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID # 2240 - PROPERTY INSURANCE AWARDED TO ARKiVRIGHT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $212,318.00). BACKGROVLNO The successful bidder, Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company, will provide property insurance for approximately $245,000,000 of City property value on an all-risk basis, A commercial crime rid••r with coverage for computer and wire transfer fraud is included in the bid, The policy ill become effective on October 1,1998 and is renewable for an additional two years. Arknvrir,i:t Mutual Insurance Company has provided property insurance for the City of Denton for the past twelve (12) years and has provided outstanding sen'ice and claims settlement for the entire time. Sometime during the next year, Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company, Allendale Mutual Insurance Company, and Protection Mutual Insurance Company will r,erge into a new company narne Factory Mutual Insurance Company. The new company will b: financially strong:r and transition should be seamless for current customers of all three companies. i FISCAL, INFORMATION Funds of property insurance premiums wall come from the Risk Retention Funds. , r4 1 II ' t Ir" l f 1+ -410 32 X" 0 . • 0 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 BID INFORMATION f Three bids were received in response to Bid # 2240. Only the Arkwright bid was deemed responsive. WAUSAU only bid commercial crime and TML did nut bid the boiler machinery portion. We recommend a- and to the low bidder, Arkwright Mutual Insurance Company. ~ F ' I Respectfully submitted: i Name; Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349.7100 Title: Purchasing Agent ; All achmcnt #I: Tabulation Sheet 107A AGENDA } A~ i h y 2 .r I 11 ~ 0 { 2 1 ~ ' h y r f 10 Ic 2 x 3 2. „ % 0 o , ATTACHMENT#I TABULATION SHEET BID 6 2240 f Arkwrl0ht Wausau TML BID NAME PROPERTY INSURANCE Mutual Insurance Ins. Co. Co DATE 6-Au AS I 0 QTY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR E' i. COVERAOES . r PROPERTY INCLUDE BOILER A MACHINERY) 6155254.00 NO BID $100,529.00 VEHICLE FLOATER 11 • CATASTROPHIC LOSS Included NO BID $4,25010 VEHICLE AND MOBILE EQUIPMENT PHYSCIAL 51,610.00 DAMAGE $53.569.00 NO BID $36,376.00 s. COMMERCIAL CRIME 13,495.00 $5,425.00' $15,720.00 • S Yr. Prepared Premium $16,275.00 " Not Included boiler 6 machinery , I: %v rrr 111 r,j ,.~I ti r ~ Ie r c 6.10 321 1 0 4 m 0 ilkKS" ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN INSURANCE CONTRACT FOR PROPERTY AND COMMERCIAL CRIME COVERAGE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 4 2240 - PROPERTY INSURANCE AWARDED TO ARKWRIGHT MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $212,3113.00). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the 01y Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 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: 1 i BID ITEM NUMBER N Q VENDOR AMO NT 2240 ALL ARKWRIGHT MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. 5212,31800 SECTION It. That by the acceptance at 1 approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 111. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager cr his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the teriUcn contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and IO specified sunts contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. ' 4 y ~~YIQ 32x~C1 • , 0 5 . nwrsKq 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 wntten contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and EE approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of _ 1998. I JACK MILLER. MAYOR I ATTEST, JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY }I BY: ! 2240•SUPPLY ORDINANCE. a ,r i t ~ ~ ~ a•.F ' a 1 I I ~'I + c ~ 3 a.. w + ne 5 ' .5)K 4, 10 :h 2 10 r r O r 1 4 ,.MAR{fps Agenda No _ Agenda (ternl~ / AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Finance - Purchasing to Jill Jordan 349.7326 ACM: Kathy DuBose, 349-8228 S gU d£CT AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HYDROMULCHER MACHINE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID q 2241 - HYDROMULCHER AWARDED TO JAMES ` LINCOLN CORP, IN THE AMOUNT OF S 18,497.00), B 1CKGROUND The hydromulcher is used to mix grass seed and a mixture of wood fiber mulch with water and spraying the mixture on creek banks, in drainage areas, and other right of way applications. The Drainage Division is currently contracting with outside services to hydromulch or seed areas to establish a cover grovth of grass, This operation is not cost effective and we arc unable to control the time of application. We feel that Drainage Division stall members can do the work for less dollars and get better results by controlling the application time and amount to take advantage of is orkforce and growing conditions. ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The quoted delivery of the hydromulcher is 45 days after receipt of a purchase order or approximately October 15, 1998, I• I ~ y FISCAL INFORMATION This unit will be funded from 1991.98 budget funds, account # 100-026-0810-9104. s i i - ► w' 25 t 32XIO tuy~ ~u'a , 1 0 1 1 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 OF 2 BID INFORMATION This bid is for the purchase of a trailer-mounted hydromulcher capable of mixing and pumping 350 lbs. of wood fiber mulch and 50 lbs. grass seed per tank load. Total capacity is approximately 900 gallons of mulch slurry , We recommend award to the lowest bidder, James Lincoln Corp., in the amount of $18,497.00• w Respectfully submitted, i Name: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Title: Purchasing Agent 4ttachment pl, 1 1081. ACENDA ' t • 1 ~ i` CC 1 , t 2 n 1 NI,~;~~r~ k3 X 1 i ' O 1 ATTACH MENT#I TABULATION SHEET BIDS 2241 JAMES BOWIE BID NAME HYOROMULCHER LINCOLN INDUSTRIES CORP DATE 19. u}•98 I 0 CITY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR 1 1 IIYDROMULCHER 19497 1044D r MAKE BOWIE BOWIE j MOOEL V900 V800 ' I ENGINE MAKE WISCONSIN WISCONSIN f ENGINE MODEL W41770 W41770 PUMP MAKE BOWIE GEMMING PUMP MODEL 2700.2 3X2 DELIVERY 43 DAYS 4S DAYS FOB DENTON FOB DENTON 1 I { I srlu' A, 1 IV M •~~l', rr I G Y 3 c § ~ V4 1 l;~!f cY y 5 f 25 x Ia. 32 x { C1 H 0 martyr, . ~m ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HYDROMULCHER MACHINE; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID k 2241 - HYDROMULCHER AWARDED TO JAMES LINCOLN CORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF S18,497,00). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommendeu 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 he used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION_1, That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment. supplies, or smices, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, arc hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER AQ- VENnQ-R ANIOUNr 2241 ALI. JAMES LINCOLN CO". S 18,497.00 SECTION 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or senices in accordance with the terns, 0 specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the i id Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION III That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specificatiors, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and rclnicd documents herein approved and accepted. I 4 , 0 SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION_V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: 2241 SUPPLY, ORDINANCE. r , y r F . F1 T M i 10 25 i +aronw r ~ 0 , • I I wNwi M I Ajenea Na.._- 10' ~ Agenda Item~J / Date- 7=1=- _ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET i , AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 Questions concerning this acquisi-ion may be directed DEPARTMENT: Finance - Purchasing to Howard Martin 349.7194 i ACN1: Kathy DuBose, 349.8228 SUBJECT AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR AN ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONNECTION PEDESTALS FOR THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID 4 2247 - PRIMt RY AND SECONDARY CONNECTION PEDESTALS AWARDED TO NVESCO). BACKGROUND Tabulation Sheet LUIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT Units mill be ordered as needed and delivered in four to six weeks after receipt of order. FISCAL. INFORMATION Warehouse Working Capital 710-043-0582-8701 BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual price agreement for the purchase of primary and secondary connection pedestals. These pedestals are used by the Electric Distribution Department i as connection and junction points of new installations on the City of Denton electric system. We recommend this bid for an annual price agreement for the purchase of primary and t secondary connection pedestals be awarded to the low bidder, Wesco. O • t i i , l 32x10 . 4 A f I -I r l~ ~ S rl ~ I 4 I 4 I AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE2OF1 Respectfully submitted; r l 1 Name: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349.7100 31 Title: Purchasing Agent Prepared by; Name; Denise flarpooG Title, Senior Buyer Attachment 4 1: Tabulalion Sheet 1071 AGENDA f j M f I • I l II Iy' I 4~r 1 , r.. 1 , f Y f 2 I{I .I ~ w d 1 ~ 4 a .,tom 1 ATTACHMENT k1 TABULATION SHEET BIO 0 9247 Wofco Ooelon Cummins Power Power Temple BID NAME Primary 5 Secondary Conn rctlan Electric Utility Telephone Telephone Inc, Podostals supply 11 /2 OATS 4-Aug-90 6 CITY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENOOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR 1 sea Pedestal Prime Connoction. Three Phase $652.00 as $692.4501 $60017 ea 11684.7011a $705.606A $57/00 so 2 4es Podnlal Prima Connection Single Phase $178.00ea 1305.1708 140732 so 1391.4041 110.10411 {39300116 u! 3 Gas Pedestal, Secondary Connection, Three Phase, Rated 7,000 AMPS _111370008 $1197.85 ea $1246.2200 $1216,1502 11275 00 a $1212,0048 Prices to be held for 1 year (YES I NOS Yes Yes yes yes yes yes Delivery 4.5 w>to 305 deyf 42 days Aft or None 23 days 20.34 days i , 'r x 1 ❑ 32X WN" 0 V I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR AN ANNUAL PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONNECTION PEDESTALS FOR THE ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR EXPENDITUP2 OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (BID f# 2247 - PRIMARY AND SECONDARY CONNECTION PEDESTALS AWARDED TO WESCO). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has prodded in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be us- d for the purchase of the materials, equipment. supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items; BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 2247 ALL WESCO EXHIBIT "A" SECTIONN 11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the A submitted bids, the City acccpta 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 Propesals. and related documents. SECTION III, That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, O approval, and awardin;, of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to cx,cute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided &at the written contr..t is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and spec tied stuns contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. 4 a, , 32x~ " " n 1 i it . r SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. Thal this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 11998, JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: + 2247•SUPPLY.00.DINA.NCEi ~ i y4 32X ' 1 'r L y , f I Season 7 l I ATTACHMENT #2 EXHIBIT "A" ID O 2217 B10 NAME Primary 6 Secondary Connection WESCO Pedestals DATE 1•AupAS 0 CITY DESCRIPTION VENDOR 1 8 as Pedestal, Prlmsry Connortion, Three Phase $852.00 as 4 , I 2 404 Pedestal, Primary Connoction,$In0f0 Phase $378.0041 I 3 ! u Pedestal, Secondary Connection, Throe Phase, Rated 3,000 AMPS 11137.0008 Prices to be hold for t year (YES 1 NO) Yes Delivery 1.5 wks I 6 I L. ~C 25 x'Q ' 32X~d 0 ,aa~rw. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET p nda No _-_Z~ ~D~v %enda ilern date _-J~~-~_-~"_ AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department ChilDCI11/ACi4I: Rick Svehla, 349-7715' SUBJECT - Z-98-032: (3517 Teasley Lane) Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning 3517 Teasley Lane from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (O[c]) zoning district. The 1,831 acre property is legally described as Tract 7A of the J. Fisher Survey (Abstract 421) and is located on the east side of Teasley Lane (F. NJ. 2181) approximately four hundred and seventy-five (475) feet south of the Bent Oaks Subdivision. RACUROUND The applicant has requested to rezone this property to develop offices. The land is currently the site of one single-family home. The proposed development is consistent with most of the policies of the 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) as applicable and many of the 1998 Denton Plan (DP) Policies (see Attachment I - Comprehensive Plan Analysis section). The subject property was annexed in April of 1983 and designated as an Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 83-33 which amended the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map for the City of Denton. It has remained in the same configuration since that time, Four (4) properly owners were notified of the zoning request. One (1) response has been received; it (1) Is in favor of the ralucst (see Attachment 4). July 29, 1998, Neighborhood Meeting: Nine (9) residents attended along with Jerry Yensan, the applicant, and locy and Sherrie Higgins, the owners (see Attachment 1 Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, Enclosure 4, sign-in sheet). Staff described the nature of the • rezoning request and outlined the proposed conditions to the residents. A copy of Ordinance 98.153 was provided to everyone at the meeting with the understanding that the conditions proposed for the 1 831 acre tract are identical to those that apply to the adjacent 4.996 acre tract 1 Iocalcdjust to the north of the subject property (see Attachment 1, Enclosure 6). All of the residents at the meeting expressed support for the rezoning request as discussed; no one opposed it (see A(luchntent I Public Notice Section). 1. 06 .32 x 40- 0 0 1 I~ 1 August 12, 1998, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting: Staff recommended approval of zoning request Z-98-032 as proposed. The conditions submitted by the applicant are identical to those imposed on the 4.996 acre Office (Conditioned) (O[c]) zoning district located immediately to the north of the subject property on the east side of Teasley Lane as noted earlier. In total there are eleven (11) conditions: L That the total floor area for all buildings on the 1.83lacres shall not exceed sixteen thousand and five hundred (16,500) square feet. 2. That no loading docks shall be permitted, , 3. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of one hundred percent (100%) brick or masonry materials excluding doors and windows. 4. That only door sign on premises shall be permitted. 5. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. 6. A "bufFeryard" measuring twenty-five (25) feet wide, and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred (100) linear feet, shall be installed along the east property line abutting residential lots. 7. That the maximum building height shall one and one half (l stories high. 8. No individual building shall exceed seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. 9. All buildings must have hitched roofs and a slope of no less than thirty (30) percent. 10. No parking will be allowed in the front yard setback of any building along Teasley Lane. 11. The following land uses ordinarily penmitted within an Office (0) zoning district should be prohibited, in addition to those ordinarily prohibited by the Office (0) zoning district classification: Primary Residential Usss One Family Dwelling Restricted Community Unit Development , Dormitory, Boarding or Rocming House Hotel or Motel >A Educational, Institutional and Soeclal Uses i Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Group Homes Hallway House Hospital (Chronic Care) 0 Public Llbrary Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged Occasional Sa!es Perk, Playground or Public Community Cantor 2. 77,V ~r"4' 25 x ❑ 32X I O Q > 0 l .err ' Educational. institutional and Sall Uses (continuedt School, Private Primary or Secondary School, Public or Denominational School, Business or Trade yllily. Accessory and Incidental Use Accessory Building Community Cen',)r (Private) Electrical Substation Electrical Transmission Line Fire Slntion or Similar Public Safety Building Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station Home Oocupalico OH Street Perking Incidental to Main Use ON Street Remote Parking Sewage Pumping Station Private Swimming Pool Telephone Line and Exchange Switching or Relay Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well Rocreattonsl and Entertainment Uses Country Club (Private) with Golf Course Public Golf Course Public Park or Playground Public Play Field or Stadium Swim or Tennis Club Transoortetlon Rotated Use Railroad Track or Right-of-way Ai rlc-ullural Type Usea Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens) Farm or Ranch This Icaces the following nine (9) land uses that are ordinarily permitted Within an Office (0) zoning district that the applicant proposes and staff recommends should b^ allowed within this conditioned Officc (0) zoning district: Educational. Institutiogal and Soeclaf Vm 11 Art Gallery or Museum i r Day Nursery or Kindergarten School 0 • ' Hospital (General Acute Care) InMitulions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature 1 I v~ err ~ esri 1. ~f H/ ivY „r, K 2 17) 32X I F i Ill 1 Utility. Accessory end Incidental User I' Accessory Building Temporary Fleld or Construction Office (Subject to Approval and Control by Building Inspector) Telephone, Business Office Retail and Service Type Uses Offices, Professional and Administrative „ Studio for Photographer, Musiclan, Artist or Health i PRIOR ACTION[REVIEW {Counell.Rgards. Commissional The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (7-0) of this zoning request on August 12, 1998, as proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff. FISCAL INFORMATION Ji Development of this property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school district. It will require no short-tern public improvements that are the responsibility of the city. As a form of infill development, no extension of public infrastructure is necessary to service this site, ATTACHMENT 1. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, August 12, 1998, Z-98-032, 2. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from August 12, 1998, 3. Draft Ordinance. 4, Property Owner Responses (1). Respectfully su tt j Dave I - Di for of Planning and Development I • k Prcp red by: I ~r ayroc ed'd tI rf Plannc 4 ~ • f r: v+~k.Q 32X1 rt o p ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT STAFF REPORT 4 Subject: 3517 Teasley Lane Cast Number: Z-98-032 Staff: Wayne Reed, Planner I Asgnda Date: August 12, 1998 PURPOSE A...,.,r...1.,I.. -,..w~ Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning of 1.831 acres from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (O(c)) zoning district. The Intention is develop offices. 1L } J-~ IL I~. 1P 1\ WIND RNFR FR YFN = Rr r i il..~... LISRARYAND • q FIRE~UTK)N II I ~ R I _ a ~ 4 • I >lUN I', RANCN .I., nab e ry~ ® SITE .8 • { LOCATION MAP 1 I Location: On the east side of Teasley Lane (F. K 2181) approximately four hundred and seventy O five (475) feet south of the Bent Oaks Subdivision, i Sire: 1.831 acres 5. I ONO" I I I GENERAL INFORMATION 3 , f r-,. a t• I Applicant: Jerry Yensan Owner: Joey and Sherrie Higgins Landmark Surveyors, Inc. 3517 Teasley Lane , 4238 1.35 N. Demon, TX 76205 Denton, Denton 76207 I REZONING PROCEDURE „ Section 35-7 of the Code of Ordinances outlines the rules of procedures for amendments to a zoning boundary or district. In general, any person having proprietary interest in any property may petition city council fir a change or amendment to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, or the Planning and Zoning Commission may on its own motion or on request from the City Council institute study and proposal for changes and amendments in the public interest. A rezoning request must follow the established procedures for public Involvement. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall hold a public hearing on any application for amendment or change prior to making its recommendation and report to City Council, Notice of the public hearing must be provided a minimum of ten (10) days before the date of the hearing by publication in an official newspaper of the city and by written notice to all property owners within two hundred (200) feet of the site to be rezoned. Once approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a public hearing shall be held by City Council before any proposed amendment, supplement, or change to a zoning boundary or district is adopted. If the Commission recommended denial of the zoning change, a request can be considered by City Council if the applicant submits a appeal In writing requesting that City Council review the Commission recommendation. Notice of the public hearing rri,st be provided a I minimum of fifteen (15) days before the date of the hearing by publication in an official newspaper of the city. In case of a written protest against such change signed by the owners of twenty (20) percent or more of either the area of the lots or land included in such proposed change or the lots or land immediately adjoining the proposed change and extending two hundred (200) feet therefrom, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of three-fou ihs of all members of the City Council. Furthermore, a favorable vote of three-fourths of ell members of City Council is required to overrule a recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that a A proposed amendment, supplement or change be denied. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS 1988 Denton Development Plan Analysis The 1988 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to be within a Low Intensity Area. These areas are Intended to be developed primarily for single family residential development. r Neighborhoods art to be serviced by a network of small corn merclal/retail centers spaced at about Y: mile intervals with direct access to a collector type street or larger thoroughfare. Development 6. l bn~i'S 25 32 X i r .h b • o within low intensity areas is restricted to 60 trips per day per acre in order to balance development with road capacity. Staff finds the proposed development to be mostly consistent with the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP. DDP Policies Analysis Denton Development Plan Policy Analysis Summary Low Intensity Are Development Rating vs. Polity POLICY COMMENTS inconsistent Somewhainconsistetnt Consistent Intent. These areas represent primary small nonresidential nodes are permitted x Musing areas within the City. Intensity. To be consistent with the Allowed Intensity • 60 trips/acre Phan, a dcvetoprnent should not exceed its Allocated Ini - 110 Wps/site allocated Intensity. As proposed by the applicant the site would be Iimted to 16,500 square feet a total building ai ea or roughly 9,000 square feet per acre, which is consistent x with the neighboring conditioned Office (0icj) zoning dstrict to the north. At I I trips per 1,000 square feet, this would generate about 162 trips/site/day or 16S% or the site's allocated Intensi . Site Plan control, strict property Even though no site Van is required, the development control within 1,600 feet of conditions placed on the office toning existing tow density resderi areas district would increase the compatibility of x future orrice development with surrounding resdenbat property. Traffic Design. Access should be proposed office development would have provided to ensure that multi -family or direct access onto Teasley Lane (FM non residential uses have access to 2191). x collectors or larger arterials with no dlred access through residental streets, Open Space. Sufficient green span, landstapirg will be required as per the recreational rablitles and diversity of parks new Landrape Code, That equates into are provided. 27 trees on the 1831 ace site Twenty percent (20) of the pros or one tenth ' (1110) or an eat will rernaln pervious. Pubtle Participation. Iii into A neighbonccod meeting was held on July planning by nelghborhood associations and 29, 1999, at which nine (9) residents councils Is encouraged, attended along with the owners and x ' appllcant. Land Use Diversity. Nor residential and This property Is under the S acre limit r iii family development Is ermiraged to proposed by the DOP as an appropriate a limited degree. Aze for non-residential development In these areas. However, It is well within Vs x mile of other non-resdental _ deveiopme:d. Manufactured Housing. This form d Not apolcalAa, single-family housing may be compatible It with developments In the low Intensity areas subject to conditions, +ya SGip Commercial. Any form of The conditions reommen'ed by the I continuous strip commercial is strongly applicant and proposed by ttaff woutd x discouraged in/or near low Intensity areas prevent strip commerdat deelopnent, ~l - 7. 1 i s I • l I DENTON PLAN POLICIES ANALYSIS A summary of how the proposed development relates to the policies of the Denton Plan: ! Growth Management Category • Balances land use, enhancing economic diversity and the tax base. • Consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. Transportation Category . Compliments thoroughfare plan. Steimwa.le Draina~ce Sy~lem Category • Not appJrcable. Water and Wastewater System Category • Develops and maintains property an6 private Infrastructure. Electric System_Calagory . Not applicable, sohd_Wasla Ctt%pq . Not applic.ahfe, Paris arni Recie-itior) Caliviory . Not apJAGaWe. Environmental Quality Cata~.onr • All conserve natural habitat on-she. Neighborhoods-Cata4orv • Provides a mixture of land uses in close proximity to another. ijc,u rig Cal_3gory l • Economic Dygmification Catagorv • Expands the City's tax base. • Not aprllrcablr, { ~ Urban Design Catago a Preserves and prov;das trees and landscaping In a;:cess of Code. . Promotes architectural diversity along a major entranceway. 1 j i ,Il r»/ R. Jinit d,a. 2.5 1~ 10 f 32X10 s , U S t I I SPECIAL INFORMATION i:'.2i Jii.il.. ..i7..I Y "l•. V-.ryJ i.A 1. ' a Yr.Ii1. '..WY 1. Transportation A. Trip generation Offices typically generate ten (10) trips per day per 1,000 square feet. The proposed restrictions on square footage would limit this 1.831 acre property to 16,500 square feet of total building area or roughly 9,000 square feet per acre. This would generate approximotely 182 trips per day. This Is about 165% percent of the allocated trips for this property eased upon Low Intensity Areas trip thresold of 60 trips per day per acre. ` B. Access The subject property would be granted one driveway onto the Teasley Lane. C. Road Capacity Current traffic counts do not accurately reflect the potential trip generation of recently constructed residential subdivisions, such as Sundown Rench and Wind River. This section of Teasley Lane (FM 2181) changes from four (4) lanes divided to two (2) lanes undivided, limiting capacity to somewhere around 10,000 to 15,000 trips per day. The construction of lights at the intersection of Teasley Lane and Wind River Lane will dramatically improve traffic conditions along this portion of FM 2181. Due to the sm¢U acreage of the site and limited floor area, this site if developed Into offices would add minimal trips onto Teasley Lane. 0. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all Teasley Lane and will be required to connect with the one for Sundo.4,n Rench. 2. Utilities This site has access to existing water and sanitary sewer lines (see Enclosure 2): Water; 'twenty (20) Inch water along the frontage of Teasley Lane. Wastewater: Elghl (8) Inch sewer line along the frontage of Teasley Lane Fire; No existing fire hydrants on the property. The nearest fire hydrant is located 1 on the southwest comer of Bent Oaks Drive and Teasley Lane. Fire hydrants will be required at 300 feet maximum sl i for commercial development. 3. Drainage and Topography At present, the lot does not have ao adequate drainage system as It Is residential. New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards. A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submission of a preliminary plat. The study must include calculations of the 100•year storm for all drainage areas on this property and any area that drains towards this property, The developer must indicate the method by which the run-off will be carried across the property or stored on the property. 9. 32 Io 0 0 4. Signs As proposed only door signs will be allowed on this property. 5. Off-Street Parking New development will be required to provide parking in accordance with regulations of Section 35-301 of the Code of Ordinances. 6. Landscaping This properly will have to comply with the nev: Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15) trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of 311 surfaces to remain pervious (plantable area). If approved ss proposed, it will also provide a "bufferyard" measuring twenty-five (25) feet wide, and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (9) understory trees per each one hundred (100) linear feet along any property line abutting residential lots, 7, Lighting The applicant proposes to design and maintain all lighting on the property so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. Staff would like to comment that the nonresidential development at this node along Teasley Lang is reaching its geographical limits (see Enclosure 5). The proposed rezoning of the subject sits to Conditioned Office (0[c)) zoning district appears to be a natural southern boundary to the "neighborhood center." Sundown Ranch prohibits further expansion, as it runs along the east side of Teasley Lane south of this properly. Any future requests for nonresidential zoning at this node i would be inconsistent with the 1988 DDP and the 1998 Denton Plan Policies. PROPERTY HISTORY rr~r~rr~i~~■ ~rw~ April 5, 1983 - The subject property was annexed and designated as an Agricultural (A) zoning district and land use classification by Ordinance 63.33 which amended the Compreh,.nslve Zoning Ordinance and Map for the City of Denton, The subject property is not platted and would need to be platted prior to any development. 0 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice or the zoning request was published In the Denton Record-Chronicle on August 2, 1998. Five (5) property owners, including the owner of the subject proporty, were notified of the rezoning request on July 24, 1998, As of this writing, there has been one response In favor, In addition the applicant and owrcr requested a neighborhood meeting be scheduled with nearby residents in order to provide them an opportunity to discuss the rezoning, All property owners • within the Bent Oaks Subdivision were notified of the neighborhood meeting scheduled for July p 29, 1998. Nine (9) people attended in addition to the applicant and the properly owners, Joey and Sherrie Higgins. Concern was expressed about congestion on Teasley lane and the need v to Improve the road to four Lanes divided. However, no one present opposed the request; support was expressed for it, knowing the conditions would be Identical to the five (5) acre tract 10. U'. f'" ~'_Y Wr r. Y 32 o , 0 I to thenorth whl.' was recently rezoned (see Enclosure 6), RECOMMENDATION _ Staff recommends aroroval of Z-98-032 with the conditions proposed by the applicant: 1. T hat land uses ordinarily permitted within an Office (0) zoning district with an approved Specific Use Permit be allowed and that permitted land uses be limited to the following: Education 1. Institutional end Special Use Art Gallery or Museum Day Nursery or Klydergarten School Hospital (General Acute Care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature Utility, Accessory and rnclQtnte1 Uses Accessory Building Temporary Field or Construction Office (Subfecl to Approval and Control by Building Inspector) Telephone, Business Office Ret+il and Service Type Uses Offices, Professional and Administrative Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Heaith 2. That the total floor area for all buildings on the 1.831 acres shall not exceed sixteen thousand and five hundred (16,500) square feet. 3. That no loading docks shall be permitted. 4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of one hundred (100%) prarcent brick or masonry materials excluding doors and windows. 5, That only door sign on-premises shall be permitted. 6. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surroutrding residential property or to shine and project upwErd to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. . 7, A "bufferyard" measuring twenty-five (25) feet wide, and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred (100) linear feet, shall be installed along the east property line abutting fesldential lots. 8. That the maximum building height shall be one and o half (1 'h) stories hlgn. 9. No Individual building shall exceed sevbnty-five hundred (7,500) square feet. 10. All buildings must have pitched roofs and a slope of no less than thirty (30) percent. { 11. No parking will be allowed In the front yard setback of any building along Teasley Lane. ry NOTE: These conditions are identical to those In Ordinance 98-153, except that the total square footage has been reduced In a proportional manner. 11, E 32 j j 1` t +1~ 4 i 1 1 r., ;4 ;JJ k'.`I+G+iXtC;W*%t 1 ..'U;A! aL: 4"I''ti~'k a'in•.isia. m+'-......... w»...,.... [MOTION ~110111L)I I move to recommend approve Z•98-032 with the conditions proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff. i,., "Y,~," ♦Man'7 9➢41'4ir~`'.~ - . ,fly- rr., f t ft a .'kuy 1. Recommend approval as submided. 2, Recommend approval with conditions, 3. Recommend denial. 4. Postpone ronslderatlon. 55~r.r Table item. C1~VL ~:::i ~ire1it!%r~~..y1r.r?nidlf.~~.MO¢eh ~da~lw~e+ls;.+~.dvt~v~~,v,'' id.''h!ve:wav..a nrpyFi~lae,.. t. j 1r Zoning Map. 2. Utility Map. 3. 200' Property Owner Notification Map. 4. Neighborhood meeting Sign-in Sheet. 5. Lillian Miller/Teasley Lane Nonresidential Corridor. 8. Ordinance 98-153. 7. Photographs, P i i M Y ~ ~ Y • • i n, V h1 51, IT R"I in, t. d(K 12. i d°Ira€`i,st 25 x ~C~ 32xId f NOMA-MR . S r ~.%X ENCLOSURE 1 Z-98-032 (3517 TEASLEY LAM) ZONING MAP , LJ W1.11 -77 n * i --ATtI SF-7(c) ' PD 18 r PD 18 , - ~r-------------- r%c ii: I {J., rw_ A ! SF-10 i $F-7 ~ r_ r r w r r r- r ` - i• ' 400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 Feet - MMOMM - N W E S 13. 2x10 32X ID 0 r 1 ENCLOSURE 2 I NORTH Z•98.032 3517 TEASLEY LANE r ` 20" WATER LINE SITE e' _1 8" SEWER LIFE UTILITIES MAP l I • Water Line j Sewer Line s Date; August 18, 1998 Scale: None 14 w , ~ s2 5] 32 x Cl MOM 1 1 L *alum 1 ENCLOSURE 3 Z,,M32 (3517 TEASLEY LANE) 200 FT. NOTI FI CATI ON r , T1IS - ' ~ ' LQ 010.0 9 r F I b 400 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 M Feet N W E 15. I 25 xla la • ' p :w,awe • 1 { I i i THE cin OF DENTON PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING--t-98.032 PLEASE SIGN-IN PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE ORGANIZATION SIGNATURE NUMBER (IF ANY) ` i•r~~~~~s rlU~ ~ti1r~S~1L~` 3ki~6 L'c^ co 0/✓ L'✓ ~ ~ T~102 I a ~~'~vl~.rT ~s ~ 7~ ,,ern. ~ , /T14 U/' - ` f ()/,()S we C4 _7Jt~(: ~-_rllll/}1`S~~- ~?~~'Ik(AJl f ! Ate.. !G 7. f S'i0~ • 16Y / [c ~ V '76wr %I &.0 'fig • lee I~lere 4~, 3W'l .i_Teae-kj [A 74o ~05 Ij !L- n • - ~ LoationrQE}~pole: ,~y~~ 5od1H 3tZC TE StEY I.AN its 32x i0 0 {f • ENCLOSURE 5 Lillian Miller/ Teasley Lane Corridor iill~l t~~ ~~y ~:ir•+1~ ~ t i~y f r Z lis.•/ Hod GN SIT . r lj RYAN RD 1 ROBINSON RD 08haded Areas Represent NonresidentlelZoning Distrlde i~ N • 0.3 0 0.3 0.6 019 1.2 Miles 17. $ v' n M, 32XID tip. • r 0 ' 29&019 ENCLOSURE 6 ORDINANCE NO. _3_ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM { AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION TO OFFICE (CONDITIONED) (O[C]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4.996 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3311 TEASLEY LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000AO FOR VIOLATION'S THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, I WHEREAS, Jerry Yensan, on behalf of George Kolb, owner of the subject property, has applied for a change in zoning for 4.996 acres of land from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Office (0) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on April 30, 1998, a neighborhood meeting was held where six (6) residents attended along with the applicant and the owner were present; and WHEREAS, on May 13,1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the 1988 Denton Development Plan and the 1998 Denton Plan Policies; NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS Section L That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 4.996 acre tract of land described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is changed from Agr.eultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Office Conditioned (O(r;) zoning district classification and use designation, under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions, 1. That permitted land uses be restricted to those described In the list attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, and limit land uses permitted with a j Specific Use Permit to thosa ordinarily permitted within a Office (0) toning district with an approved Specific Use Permit. 2, That the total floor area for all buildings on the 4.996 acres shall not exceed forty five i thousand (45,000) square feet, 3, That no loading docks shall be permitted. 4, That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of one hundred (100%) percent brick or masonry materials WILIding doors and window's 5. That only door sign on premises shall be permitted. J~o 6, Lighting on property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion into the night sky. C 1P, iI _ i 32 X.~[I i 1 M 2-9a 019 7. A "bufferyard" measuring twenty five (25) feet wide, and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees per tack one hundred (100) linear feet, shall be installed along the east property line abutting residential lots. , 8. That the maximum building height shall be one and one half (1 ''/a) stories high., 9. No individual building shall exceed seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. 10. All buildings must have pitched roofs and a slope of no less than thirty (30) percent. 11, No parking will be allowed in the front yard setback of any building along Teasley Lane, Section Il. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification, Section U . That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, ,r be fined a sum not exceeding 52,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. Section . That this ordinanre shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is kereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice Li the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. 1998 PASSED AND APPROVED this the ( ttA JACJ I ER, MAYOR _ ATTEST, JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ~r BY:,_11.IU- 1 • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY t l BY:(L______ _ 19, ?5 x ! 32 x I 0 i I I EXHIBIT A I40I'11N1ls1 (jr the Nrrthuvaf teener of the tract III duetribod hanln wt a mot of fmor41 atone {lust et thu uc~r,M al, Northwest garner of {he said Drawn Iract; ThfNCt loath OS 6091`11141 54 Mlmltal 34 edcend4 West kill the enst line tLereof {4anas11lly alum n plea orN1 f.1 .la le u 1 dletance et 490.09 feet to rn Iron rat st' for the Mrr"hadet Corner of 0 AM IP1 1.61b a,:l trace dastrllN•1 In the d Ymmty, j eed frulo KIsY 11. Uvun'01-Us to patty 0. Nei recorded I, y014ma 1111 Page 9(16 of lhn Md wvc n rd$ f~41 Tesal; 1 116v't',L 5nuth 60 DFrrseN 41 Mlrwst4e 010 6eeonds Vest with the North lode of Bald I.tllb acre trw•1, wvur llor, a+.uJ 0.•m acts tract a dlrrance or 319.01 feat to an Iron rod frond for the Northwest Corner of-lull 14616 MIN tt1,l I Ilk tl,v v East tlnv of Lri, III,{11ray lIAI In a a,rve to 4641 rlllit hnvlnl! 0 radius or 1161.69 root; 61`yr.es US 1111 nulul Stl rig. r,uuJs r SHlfe:C with tr' ore Of Ysl curve, an are lenttth of SS1,90 fcec ( chord 61`0111 n{` 110110 U Nut 4 distnres VC 571.49 feat ) to an Irua rod sue for the Nort hvrsl loo rear of sold IXI tract; I TIIU!, trlA9wrhIN71Y difertionhlIth the Nsecor,orth tedletlincuuuf 1h97.featrreranIran sradwvvIlk-Allc III n%jIvA 09 :rl Nurtl+,wA du6laaa 16 Mlnutts ST Seconds testa distance of 76.67 feat to ut Iron h.J art; /11A 1.1 Mlnlth At Intltrood 48 Mlnut Os 09 Sacands fdat A dtvtrnee at 440.48 Lvotto Ilse I'LAI'f ut IIP.f. R;v L'/11A Inclu,ltl 4.996 Acres of lululr Th•so hrld Nat N. .Ith the Arcls'tpunyinll skiltch Nor, prepurO from un on-cha-Adnund survey mtulw' ty uv tut 1❑'I t 1Iw.v, Theca ore no vl:lhlu or opporunt Intrusions, protruslons ur eosvuents cwtot vs i l• hltelD STAIXPI rT: I huva esunwed the T.IJI,A, Flood Insurance Na' 1 Map For the Clry or Uuuact, Ila,tur+ Coonty,Tesae Uwvmullty No. 4AlI14,4, el'recltve data, A,ytult I. 19111 I I tent nap Irallralel that thle p(Oparty IN out wlthln tri ;Sr. tS/ff t. I I11:1flcd 11,4n1 lone al sllnwn on Pal,nlsoaof Bold sw'op' ,T'.a•,,,,i ; .411?:16,1`11 J' i_ .'•1` L.Y... t:w`. X /i / .rY 41P ....a ►,,.41, RI a'.. r.. MI, have J. wort 11.P. S. N1` ~4I SA I/Jtr It~C p4 serce'09-L 440 c q ' . { 1 14 1`r L7-15v, A. 42! J. FISHF.R SURVEY A. At I pEMTON CptINTY TEXAS ~t1 e4176' I Mq I, n, La lwellnl pi.~+N41 G,,.lr"t. 1 . r ,1n1 YIpnr In w~r 1`r ,u Fla' I !/'e IRS ~rT ~~f iml ~I+111 a IRS i All ' 9o I!1` ,D!' ..,,1 y 1.4, 0711'd 1151 49A /a - 'r 0 LL / l l`•v /A I rr. • JJ- ; 1 ..,,,ear„ o ~ r 1 I `1 1`1 20. 1 ; 417 a16et r, 25x10 32x~d ,F r y„ ti ~~I f • zv:nroeo EXHIBIT B Z-98-019 PERMITTED LAND USES JEdgoational. Institutional and Spg_S,jal Uses Art Gallery or Museum Day Nursery o Kindergarten School Hospital (General Acute Care) f Institutions of Religious or Phlanlhropic Nature Utility. Accessory and Incidental Uses Accessory Building Temporary Field or Construction Office (Subject to Approval and Control by Building Inspector) , Telephone, Business Office r Ratall and Service Type Uses Offices, Proressional and Administrative Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health - 1 i it - ` w 21• 4 25 10 32X i; t, 1 - ENCLOSURt; 7 Z-98-032 (3517 TEASLEY LANE) PHOTOS -may ~ }r r J?t~ryr,,,~,ys,rr Photo 1 View looking east from Teasley Lane Photo 2 View looking noilh across Teasley i all front of 3311 Teasley Lane, which was L are towards 3311 Teasley Lane properly. recently rezoned to Conditioned Office . , is I tle ,e l n k'!~.'pk~~~! Photo .1 Vic.v looking east at subject property, Photo 4 View looking west across Teasley 351r Teasley Lane, located Immediately so !1r Lane at an office building located on the south of 3311 Teasley Lane (Photo 1) slide of Bent Oaks Drive. It is zoned Planned Development E5 (PD 55) zoning district. i ~I `fir1P 1 0 Y.- Photo 5 View IoeF,ng west across Teasley Photo 6 View looking west aa•oss Teasley Lore at in office building located on the north Lane 81 We Bent Oaks SL'odivision located side of Pii nl Oaks Drive. p is zoned Punned immediately across the stredl from the subject De,elopn,enl 55 (PD 65) zoning d,sl,ict property 22. o aewxa. h Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes ATTACHMENT 2 August 12, 1998 Page 20 of 25 Ms Gourd'* No. You're talking about one property, and you're combining a whole mile's worth of offices into one property, and that's not correct. Commissioner EngelbrechL Other comments or a motion? Ms. Ganzer: I'm ready to make a motion I'll try h anyway Commissioner Engelbrecht: Go ahead, Ms. Gamer: 1 recommend approval of Z-98.021 with iho following conditions: (Will you leave that up "iers, because I don't have al of this here) t) the floor ratios as follow-retail within the moderate activity center to be 0.3:1; within the low intensity area 0.3 1; with the office 0.3:1; within the neighborhood services 0.2:1; 2) the maximum residential density on single-family would be not to exceed 470 units; on multi-family within the moderate activity center would be 11 units per sere, within In the low Intensity area would be 10 units per ace not to exceed 800 units. Is this where I put mitigating, or at the end? Mr. Donaldson: Right now would be good. Ms. Ganzer Right now. Okay. The low intensity at 18 units per acre would be a mkgating circumstances that the percentage of residential area (77% of the area within the low Intensity area, that b below the intensity standard. Even at the requested densities, 180.64 saes at 53 trips per sae per day); the location of the retail and office areas along Loop 288, with access from a frontage road and proposed secondary arterial (Nicosia Street); and the location of neghborAa d services in close proximity to Highway 77 near its Intersection at Nicosia Street 3) transportation Improvements as recommended by staff; and 4) would be lighting as recommended by staff. i Mr. Powell: Second, Commissioner Engelbrechl: The motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Or comments? I would just like to say I'll be voting In favor of this, but I do have a concern about the office given the comments as I Literpreted them from the petitioner. This Is one we're allowing the freedom, and so we'll see what happens, and k set a standard for Planning and Zoning Commissioners for the future with regard to rules and regulations. Any other comments? An in lavor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Motion carries unanimously p-0) Mr. Powel, Mr. Chairman, can we take a break? Commiss'oner Engelbrecht. Yes; I was just going to ask. Okay. Let's take 10 minutes and be back at 7:40 p.m. The Commissioner took a break. The Commissioners reconvened at 7:40 p m. It. Hold a public (rearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning of 3517 Teaalty Lane from on Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (O(cjj zoning district. The 1.1i property Is located on the sat side of Teasley Lana (F.kA, 2111) approximately four hundred and aeventydlve (418) test south of this Bent Oaks Subdivlalon. The proposal is to develop offices. 1248-031, 5517 Tessley Lane, Wayne Reed) Commissioner EngelVerhi Okay. We are back from break. We'll take up dem all on the agenda which Is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning of 3517 Teasley Lane from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (0(c)) zoning district. The 1.631• acre property to located on the east side of Teasley Lana (F.M. Vill) approximately four hundred and seventy-Me (475) feel south of the Bent Oaks Subdvision. The proposal Is to develop offices, Mr. Reed wit make the stag report. Yes, sir Mr. Wayne Reed preaented the staff report. Mr. Reed Thank you, l;hairman and good evening. Commissioner. The subject hero h to rezone this small 1.8- 1 awe site to a ceridlioned-office ton, rg distric. Because Ibis property is located on Teasley, end there has been a 23. 32 x~~ v %allM p 'skTP,R] Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 21 of 25 great deal of rezoning along Teasley in the recent years to office for some parcels, my presentation will include some analysis of some of those previous zoning cases. The location map here demonstrates that the she, the triangular parcel, h located to the west of the newly platted and now-being-developed Sundown Ranch Subdivision. It is located to the northeast of a mobile home park, s rather smsll mobile home park, and south of Bent Oaks subdivision, which is the only developed subdivision along this portion of Teasley at this time. Of course, Wind River Estates is located a little more north on Teasley . Mr. Powell Excuse me, Sir. Mc Reed: Yes, Mr. Powell: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I hate to Interrupt. I'm totally confused, I thought we were on hem 11 and my hem 11 doesn't look anything like what you're saying, Ms. Gourd'b Number nine In the backup. Mine was number nine, Check that one out, Commissioner Engslbrecht Yes, I'm sorry. ':"re should have said something about Vat. Ms. Gamer: That ad is Mr. Powell: I thoug it nine was pulled? Ms Gourdie I the ght so, too Mr. Donaldson: Evidently, they're mixed up in your.... Commissioner Engelbrecht Right, Nine was pulled on the agenda. In the book, In the backup nine and eleven D were reversed. Mr. Powell. I got you No; 1 have it now. I Just didn't know where to look for ft. Ms, Apple. Thank you, Commissioner Powell J Mr. Powelt I really hate to interrupt you, but I was in the log here. Okay, Go ahead More than usual. 11 Mr. Reed Would you like for me to go into the location? I think you're probably fine on that. Most of the Commissioners are familiar with this area of the city, but to ensure that everybody Is up to par 1'd like to demonstrate some of the surrounding properties, The property is located to the north of the subject property, and 8 was part of the case recently which involved rezoning the property from Ag to conditioned office in which the conddlons for this particular case ere identical to. This h looking north along Teasley just In from of the subject property, and the white fence is along the properly, which was in photo one, This Is a photograph of 9th Subject property, 3517 Teasley Lane with the existing single-family house on the site and several mature trees on this heavily wooded south side. Across the street on the west side of Teasley are existing offices. They are pert of PDA65 and front the Bent Oaks subdivision This is the one on the south tike of Bent Oaks Drive. This picture shows the one on [he north side, and of course, behind this office here Is the Library and the Fire Department. And ® that's just a picture showing Some of the rool'ops across the road, With that overview, the surrounding zoning at this time indicates that-along Teasley Lane south of the Wind River Intersection-Thal once zoning has been put into place on the east side of Teasley down to the subject tract, ending at the subject trail. On the west side of Teasley outside of the two once structures located in front of Bent Oaks Drive, the existing Planned Development-16 zoning district conlains a Wool, the Library, the Fire Department, and on undeveloped parcel of land which has an approved detailed plan for general retail and a service slation So, though that Is not developed, - 1 that is what IS approved for development on that site at this time. The case that we have before us tonight is mostly consistent with our comprehensive plan. Some notes that I would make about that Include trip Intensity. In the low O intensity area, we have a rule of thumb of 60 trips per acre per day. As proposed, [his development would generate 182 trips per day, which is 165% of its allocation. It should generate 110 trips per day it N was developed in more or less a single family fashion Another interesting pal about the consisting with the plan Is [het what we learned from xr the previous lesson or the previous case with the property just to the north Is that a neighborhood meeting dehnitey needed to be held and one was held. At that meeting we had nine residents in addition to the applicant and the owners in attendance , The mail-out Included all property uwwl of the 66 lots in the Bent Oaks Subdivision At 24. ay+ ~^•r r':' s~ +a]rt~v; r, a plc iA~~ln a J I„j X31 x h~ 9Y • 0 o ' I Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12,199B Page 22 M 25 bast, the notification included a notice to those property owners as well as the five surrounding property owners around the subjed tract, And of course, an the Sundown Ranch lots are still owned by tM developer, w that constitutes one landowner even though there were several lots. At the neighborhood meeting, d was Interesting to note that the concern of the residents was not so much the rezoning of this parcel to office In a similar fashion to the office zoning districts located nearby, but of traffic In the area. And understanding that this particular development would nol significantly Impact that overall congestion In the area, the concern wasn't directed, again, at the proposal, but at the simple condition of Teasley Lane. The only Improvements to Teasley Lane that or. scheduled Incude the installation of a traffic light at the Teasley Lane, Lillian Miller, and Wind River Intersection. That particular controned fight Intersection will rallew some of the congestion along this portion of Teasley Lane. Land use diversity is the last thing I will note about the consistency of this proposal. The big picture here is M. In a low intensity area, we look at prknarly single-family development with amas nodes of non-residential development and mutti-family development. The question here really is in the big picture--has that non-residential development 11 met ft cap" or is this ptoposal, as staff has Indicated, a natural and logical southern edge to this-what we will refer to as a neighborhood node. And that is a question that will need to be answered tonight as we review this In your staff report, 1 included a corridor map, 1 forgot to put a key on there that Indicated that tit shaded areas were the non-residential developments. (lease forgive me for that oversight. As the map indicates, there's--from 1.75 down to Robinson Road, there are essentially three ran-residential nodes that have developed in tit low intensity area, Along 1.75, that would Include Albertson's, the gasoline station, some of the restaurants, and the now-under- development office zoning districts along the west side of LiMan Miner down to the Soothridge Drive Intersection. From that point down, a1 property Is zoned for single family. Then we alive at this node which abuts the subject trod, and we have included In this node prime* office permitted uses with the exception of, on my map on tit document camera, I shaded In the school, the Library and the Fire Department Outside of that shaded area, we have on this comer property the southwest oomw of the Int~Ion, the approved detailed glen as I mentioned earner for a general retail use, and a service station. But outside of this, ewrylhing on the east side of Teasley Lane Is approved for a conditioned ofros Reviewing those ordinances, the permitted uses ore rather consistent; the conditions are very consistent. Some differences Include the restriction of the exterlx materials to masonry Some of the cases here, which go back four years, limited or restricted It to 70% must be masonry. In more recent cases, R is said that 100% of the exterior wag had to be masonry, but outside of that thr, ilmtation on no docks, the lighting, the buffering-ell were wry similar. E'o, you have a situation here wtwv you have very consistent conditions placed upon deferent offce zoning districts. The particular one that you have before you tonight proposes to-the applicant and as wen as the owner, has agreed to the same ovdtions that were placed upon the adjsoenl "ere tract which was rezoned beck In Mr. Moreno. June . 'I Mr. Reed ...In June-thank you-to office. The permitted uses are on page 7 of staffs report. There are nine permitted uses and the conditions-there are ten additional conditions that Is lit analysis that I have, I'll make note that one response was received to the five notion sent out, and thal one was In favor. It was from the property owner of the adjacent property just to the north whose property was recently rezoned. And at this time, I'll answer any questions that you may have. I Commissonet Engelbrecht Any questions for Mr. RAW Thank you. Is the pelitanet or a representative of the petitioner present? Yes, sk. Please give us your name and business address Mr Higgins My name is Joe Higgins. I own actually 7517 Teasley Lane Thal's my house, Basically, what we're asking you for Is to be Identical to the five tract, the acres that were rezoned north of us, There Is to developer. We have no Idea what R's going to bees" min falls within your guidenne , and that's basically It. Questions? Commissioner Engelt,+echt, Ouestions for the pe" oner9 I Mr Powell. Yes, sit. AN thu ca coons that we see hereon our page?, which are numerous; fm going to assume • that you're onboard wth them. . Mr. Higgins Yes. Mr. Powell , Thank you very much k 25. x 321:'~' A ' 0 +crwrns Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 23 of 25 Commissioner Engelbrecht: Other questions for the petitioner? Thank you, Is there anyone present who would like to speak In favor of this petition? Anyone present who would like to speak In favor of the petition? In that case, anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to the petition? Anyone present who would Nks to speak In opposition to the petition? Since there is no opposition, we *is walve the rebuttal. Public hearing Is closed. Do you have any final staff remarks, Mr. Reed. Mr. Reed Staff would like to recommend approval of this request as proposed by the applicant Commissioner Engelbrecht: Any final questions for staff? Any comments or a motion? Mr. Powell: t would move that we approve Z•9a-032 with conditions proposed by the applicant and recommended by staff. Mr. Rishel: Second. Commissioner Engerbrecht: It has been moved and seconded to approve. An r discussion? Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. I would just mention that I meant to say I moved ti recommend to approve because 1 recognize we can't approve. So that, you know. I didnl want lo-I missed reco.nmending. Commissioner Engelbrecht: Thank you, air. Are you still seconding this motion, Mr. Rishel? Mr. Rishel: Affirmative. I Commissioner Engelbrecht Okay. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Ms. Apple: I just want to say I'll be voting In favor of this. I just went to note that it's just going to add to much more traffic. That's, you know-i think we really need to look at.... Commissioner Engelbrecht At the area-at the node. Ms. Apply On, absolutely. It's becoming frightening Ms Gourd'io: I'll just make a comment, This is ft. There Is nothing else you can do out there to do anything else- more damage to that area. What's done Is done, and we're going to happy accept this new ofRCe, and we'll H" with the traffic problem as we will barn with the rest. Commissioner Engetbrecht: Any other discussion? An In favor of the motion, plesae raise their right hand. Motion Carries unanimously (7-0) j_TEM9 FOR INDIVIOUAL CONSIDERATION 12. Consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the abandonment of ft stley between Pierce Street and Carroll Boulevard, south of Prairie Street w Commissioner Engelbrecht: We now have two Hems for IndWval Conskteratbn. Item 012-oomslder making a recommendation to the City Councll concerning the abandonment 0 the alley between Perce Street end Carroty Boulevard, south of Prarie. Mr. David Satmon presented the staff report. tir Satmon Chair and Members of the Commission, this Is a fairy, simply Issue this evening, This an alerted with a Mr. Johnson who owns a piece of property on west Prairie Street and wanted to abandon a portion of IM subject alley, which is highlighted in yellow on the overhead, We looked at H and realised that liners simply Is no need for that aley al en, n a matter of far.?, Ifs fun of brush and a lot of Nees end fences and obviously hasn't been used In 0 ' probably over SO years. There are no 9xlsting utilities in the arty, The City perceives nd use for the alley. We thought rather than just abandoning that pleu that the appr~cant was actually requesting, that N might be line best thing to simply abandon the entire alley and then we don't have to worry about N later. Staff Is recommending that this alley be abandoned, 11 doesn't appear that we have any use for it. This Nam has been to Development Review Committee and no other department has teen any fidure M for this alley, either. 26, 32X Q i t ,vim* Z•9M32 ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM , AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO OFFICE CONDITIONED (0(C)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 1.831 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 3517 TEASLEY LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Jerry Yensan, on behalf of Joey and Sherrie Higgins, has applied for a change in zoning for 1.831 acres of land from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Conditioned Office (Ole)) zoning district classification and use designation; and WHEREAS, on July 29, 1998, a neighborhood meeting was held where at nine (9) residents attended along with the applicant and the owners were present; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the 1988 Denton Development Plan and the 1998 Denton Plan Policir- NOW, THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 1.831 acre tract and described in the legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, is changed from Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation to Office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning district classification and use designation unar the comprehensive zoning ordirance of the City of Denton, Texas, subject to the following conditions: I. That permitted land uses be restricted to those described in the list attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B, and allow land uses permitted with a Specific Use Permit in an Office (0) zoning district. 2, That the total floor area for all buildings un the 1.831 acres shall not exceed sixteen thousand and five hundred (16,500) square feet. I 3. That no loading docks shall be permitted. 4. That the exterior walls of all buildings shall be constructed of one hundred (100°'0) percent brick or masonry materials excluding doors and windows. 5. That only door sign on-premises shall be permitted. 6. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise O disturb, surrounding residential property or to shine and project upward to prevent the O 0 diffusion into the night sky. i 27 } S 4t'Cr ~~7 K 1 32 X 1 0 O , t z-9a-oat 7. A'bufferyard" measuring twenty-five (25) feet wide, and comprising four (4) canopy and eight (8) understory trees per each one hundred (100) linear feet, shall be installed along the east property line abutting residential lots. 8. That the maximum building height shalt be one and a half (l stories high. 9. No individual building shall exceed seventy-five hundred (7,500) square feet. 10. All buildings must have pitched roofs and a slope of no less than thirty (30) percent. 11. No parking will be allowed in the front yard setback of any building along Teasley Lana SECTION Ii. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning { district classification. SECTION 111. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. t' SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, 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 1998. ; } JACK MILLER, MAYOR ; ,i i ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY I BY: { APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: t r/r~ r 28. r x 1❑ 32x10 , . t I I j '1 ~ ! ~ t r^ ;'d+rhaaa t .`<V, , EXHIBIT A Z-98-032 FIELD NOTES 1.831 ACRES BEING all that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land situated In the J. Fisher Survey Abstract Number 421, In the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, being all of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed from First State Bank of Denton to i Jerry Conduff et ux recorded in Volume 2502, Page 413, Real Property Records, Denton County, Taxes, and being more particularly described as follows:' BEGINNING at an Iron rod found for comer in the northeast line of Farm-to- Market Highway Number 2181, a public roadway having a rlght-of-way of 90.0 , feet, said point being the most southerly point of said Conduff tract; r THENCE N 320 04' 54" W, 332.86 feet with said northeast line of said F.M. Highway to a right-of-way marker for comer, THENCE along the are of a curve to the right having a central angle of 070 40' 294, a radius of 1387.69 feel, an arc length of 185.89 feet, whose chord bears N 28.02' 35" W, 185.74 feel with said northeast line of said F.M. Highway to an iron rod set for comer, said point being the southeast comer of that certain tract of land conveyed by deed from First State Bank to Michael K Knox and Kathy M. Riley recorded in Volume 2605, Page 36, Real Property Records, Denton County, Texas; THENCE N 80.42' 00" E, 319.83 feet the south line of said Knox and Rilay tract to an iron rod found for comer, said point being the southeast comer of said Knox and Riley tract; a THENCE S 05.54' 34" W, 500.31 feet with to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and F, , containing 1.831 acres of land. ~ E i` O 9 29. t 25 Y, 10 A 0 4~ . O S I 1 r 1 WWAM , . ~a ~'.int O'rrv4iJrPWaIN ,-J.' -y e~.Y.,.., rs.. 1 ..«e.. n-w RYNY•.NeMwvvl. r4•r EXHIBIT B Z48-032 PERMMD LAND USES i Educational. Institutional and Soeclal Usss Art Gallery or Museum Day Nursery or Kindergarten School Hospital (General Acute Care) Institutions of Rellpious or PhBanthropia Nature 11.1011W. Aecaasarv and incidental Use Accessary BulldN Temporary field or Const udon Office (Subject to Approval and Control by BUM% Inspector) Telephone, Business Office li Retails ca Tye Offices, Professional and Administrative Studio for Pholoprr, pher, Muslclen, Artist or Health G i i J II S , Y ~ r i r F' ! r . tr dl l~ r 1111 ~ 1 V GV,a.41.'Rrrolrlnll Yrs. dh• ~ . I 30. , , 4, x s 0 ATTACHMENT 9 NOTICE OF rUUL.L(. HEARING Z-98.032 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton WTI hold a public hearing on Wednesday, August 12, 1998, to consider rezoning a 1.831 sore site located on the east side of Teasley Lane (F, M. 2181) approximately four hundred and seventy-five (475) feet south of the bent Oaks Subdivision, commonly known as 3517 Teasley Lane, from Agricultural (A) zoning district to Conditioned Office (ON) zoning district (see map on backside). The property is legally described as Tract 7A of the J. Fisher Survey (Abstract 421). In the City of Denton, Denton County. Texas. The purpose of the zoning change Is develop offices. The public hearing will start at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Mali located at 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton. Texas. Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject p-opody, the planning and Zoning Commission would like fo hear how you feel about this zoning change request and invites you to attend the public hearing. Please, In order for your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing. (This In no way prohibits you from attending and partWpaling in the public hearing.) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mail it to the address below, or drop it off io-person. Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 78201 Attn: Wayne Reed, Planner I ire zoning process includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for Citizen Invc vement and comment Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing is a hold before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval. Should the Commission reoommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council. If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submlt written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposIdor,. Please circle one, In favor of requ Neutral to request Opposed to request Cotririt~h r , Signatu+e of Property Owner. Printed Name of Property Owner: Mailing Address: r/ ~extcry L.,/ r City, State Zip' " Telephone Number. _ 9Y6 • ?g7• S-_ Physicat Address of Property within 200 feet: CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY HALL WEST • D£NTm TEXAS 76201 • 940.3494330 - (r) 040.3491707 z-90-0a7 r~J'NOf/ce e+c 31. j J 0 ' I r Y 7/2"8 Denton Planning and Zoning Re: Rezoning 3517 Teasley Im. We regret that we cannot attend the neighborhood meeting as we are out of town. However, we would like to express in writing our approval and support of the proposed rezoning of 5517 Teasley Ln. Due to the surrounding developments, this proper,`y has become far more suited for commercial use rather than residential. Locating businesses similar in appearance and function to the other businesses along the FM2181 is an asset to the local community. These businesses, such as the Bent Oaks Office complex, dental building and the rest home not only provide services for the neighborhood within walking distance, but also provide a visually pleasant buffer between the privacy fences of the housing nn developments and the main thoroughfare. ARIA 40EWe We are confident, that the area neighbors and the owner Joey Higgins will Teasley Ln as appealing as the otter work together to make 8617 businesses along FM2181. Py and Cayleen Kolb 3311 Teasley Ln. 1 PYgraphlcs P.O. BOA 639 G!Apc.lrx, Ti 760!`J SaleiM)-1224SA • TcchrkaI$17-4$1•7Sln • N+.w.pywere.tom TOTA. P.01 32. , RAN~ 0 i AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda rk YY_ _'(.'~f/_ l,geatla lle~Q+t AGENDA ^Al E: DEPARTMENT: Planning Department DCbi: Rick Svehla, 349.7715 R SUBJECT -North Pointe (PD-110) Amends: Concept Plan (Z-98-027) [told a public hearing and consider a request to amend a portion of the approved concept plan for a planned developmerd zone district (PD-120). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, as modified (7 - 0). OACKGROUND The 270.48 acre tract is located in north D•, ton on the south side of Loop 288, west of N. Locust Street. The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of land for multi-family residential use by 35.37 acres, edit 22,23 acres of land for office uses, increase the amount of land for single- family residential uses by 5.81 acres, and increase the land for park, stormwater detention and open space by 6.69 acres. The proposed maximum number of housing units, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, has been reduced by 360 units, f Applicant's Initial Request. The applicant's initial request was to amend a portion of a concept plan ^^oroved in 1986. The proposed amendment applied only to that portion of PD-120 that is south of Loop 288. The ap,•licant proposed a multi-use development comprised of multi-family, single-family, office, general retail and neighborhood service land uses. The amendment proposed to reduce the amount of land for multi-family resi-leatial use by 35.37 acres, add 22.23 acres of lb-id for office usef, increase the amount of land for single-family residentO uses by 5.81 acres, and increase 1I the lard for park, storm water detention and open space by 6,69 acres. The prupowd maximum number of housing units was reduced by 240 units. PD-120 South of Loop 288 Summary of 1986 and Proposed Concept Piaui 1986 Proposed .and (Ise Acres Density Intensity Acres Density Intensity Retail u _ 28.62 X544 FF R __411_W 28.61 _T5 FAR 436, Mlle NA 22.23 SO%FAR 484,000' Keighbo_r1ioc_J Services II . A 3.01 _ 33/o F , SlOi-family Residential 49.20 18 acre -7T6 units 49.27 18lacre goo unit fo liomeYesiW_nuaf 35.48 9 acre b units _TTA_ Single-family Residential _ 141,55 41scre 147,36 Vacre omits p 1566 - Parr ctenlion Facility 3. 0,00 s/ MAE— 271, 7 _ t630unit 0.48 Il90unite 1 ~ x 32 x~ ~fd.i I MOW PD-12 South of Loop 288 Summary of 1986 end Proposed Trip Generation Estlmstes 198 Propose Land Use Area/ Factor Trip fl Acres Factor Trip N Units Estimate Estimate Retail 436 K 40.71K 17,745 436 K 40.71K 17,745 office NA 484 K 10. O/K 0840 Neighborhood Services 33 K 114/K 3,760 33 K 1141K :,760 Multi- amtiy Residential 756 unit 4,536 800 6/unit 4,800 Town Home Residential 308 It 2,464 NA Single-family Residential 566 1 0/unit 5,660 590 101unite 31900 Park/Detention Facility 13.31 20.00 TOTAL 27117 34,164 270.48 37,044 126/acre 137/acre The applicant's proposed amendment actually increased the estimated traffic intensity on the entire site by approximately 9%, an increase from 126 trips per day per acre to 137 tips per day per acre. The property is located within two designated intensity areas from the 1938 Denton Development Plan: most of the site is within a Low Intensity Area with a traffic intensity standard of 60 trips per day per acre, and the northeast cotter of the property is within a Moderate Activi0, Center with a traflir intensity standard of 350 trips per day per acre. Staff Modi `cation, In an effort to bring the proposed amendment more into compliai,ce with the intensity standards of the 1988 Denton Development Plan, in itc report to the Planning and Zoning Commission staff of the Planning and Development Department offered modifications to the proposed floor-area- ratios for non-residential zone districts and unit density for the residential zone districts. See P & ; Z staff report. i To reduce estimated traffic intensity within the Moderate Activity Center, staff suggested a reduction of the general retail floor area ratio to 0.30 : 1, instead of the proposed 0.35 : 1, This would reduce the estimated traffic generated within the Moderate Activity Center from 397 trips per day per acre to 347 trips per day per acre, t cl rw the DDP intensity standard. PD-120, South of Loop 288 Applicant's Proposed Factors VS. Staff Modification Within the Moder2te Activity Center A &plicavt's Staff Pw sed Modification Retail Ftoor Ana Ratio _ 0.3s-.T- 0.30: 1 Total FstimatedTraffic 14,596 12,758 , Average Tra is Generation 97 tni7c 3471nps/ ay/acre 0 To reduce estimated traffic intensity within be Low Intensity Area, staff suggested a reduction 0 0 y ; of floor areas and unit density as follows: ~irr 2. f, 32x~Q , 9 O KAMM PD-120, South of Loop 288 Applicant's Proposed Factors VS. Staff b1odification Within the Low Intensity Area Applicant's Staff Proposed Modification Retail Floor Area Ratio 0. S : 1 0.25: 1 Office Floor Area Ratio 0.50 :1 0.25: 1 Neighborhood Service Area S : 0.20: 1 Floor Area Ratio Single-Family Units Allowed aorta 442 units Multi-Family Unit Density 18 ttniu/aere 12 unitslacre Total Estimate Traffic ,96 15,713 Average Traffic Generation 98 tnps%day/acre 67 tripslday/acre The staff modification would reduce the estimated traffic generated within the Low Intnesity Area from 98 trips per day per acre to 67 trips per day per acre, within 10% of the DDP intensity standard. The property's proximity to Loop 288 and other primary arterial roads would be a mitigating factor to allow greater that. standard traffic intensity on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission Modification. At its August 12, 1998 meeting, after conducting a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of an alternative set of zoning factors: PD-120, South of Loop 288 Planning & Zoning Commission Recommended Factors Moderate Low Intensity Activity Center Area Retail Floor Area Ratio _ 0.30 : l _ 0.30: 1 Office Flo-or Area Ratio 0.30:1 _ _ Nei,iiirorhoc Service Area 0.20: 1 Floor Area Ratio Single-Family Units Allowed 4 70 units Multi-Family Unit Density 18 unitsiacre 18 unitislacre 800 units_ maximum, iareas Total Estimated-Traffic - 12,758 _ 17,847 Average Traffc Gereration 341 uips/dayiacre 76 tnps/day/acre The recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission reflects an estims',A traffic intensity of 30,605 trips pcr day for the 270 acre property, a reduction of more than 10% from the 1986 approved concept plan, It results in the potential for greater non-residential land value, e 44 more multi-family units, 308 fewer town home units, and 96 fewer single-family housing ' units, compared to the 1986 concept plan. PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW (Coupcit. Boards. Com iss The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approver (7 • 0) of the amended concept plan for North Pointe (PI)-120) at its meeting on August 12, 1998. 3. UW,.,„ 5 32x ❑ f ` r r waft" FISCAL INFORMATION i ' The amended concept plan increases the amount of land devoted to non-residential uses and " decreases the land for residential uses. An increase in assessed valuation, compared to the I previously approved concept plan, is likely to result. l ATTACHM$,~ 1. Location Map 2. Vicinity Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Site Map 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, Z-98.027 6. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from August 12, 1998 a 7. Summary of Concept Plan Factors 8. Draft Ordinance Respectfully submitt j Da ' r l r Direnrr of Planning and Development 1 Prepared b ~ ~ f 1 k Do aldson Assistant Director, Planning and Development r 4 i jV) o 4, ~ ~ : e} ~J4e 4 t, ~ ,M•7,~( 4 Yp}~~%..M '.~nFZ t1 x ~ ~ ~1 iri ' k.:"~~ V 10 • ti „vnenn. , r a.~.i ate. ..l ,n . ~ , , . Attachment 1 Location Map I r SITE zoo _ J r t urm. ty J r 71 04 f S, to X11 11 r1 r2 Awwww I 4 , M r I ,Q ,t J 1 4900=`. r . i r Attachment 2 Vicinity Map I Texas LOOP Instruments 00 SITE Ginnings Elementary FN8, r th kes Park Evers Park Strickland t Elementary Middle ~ School Evers Park r 1 1 I ' i T sa 6. y 4r t T { 1 { T,;fin `4 2 15 / • larass Attachment 3 Zoning Map Ir~ rr'~-_r.~rrrrJ"r .r.--== L l r fA L'TJ Ij PD 120 F.rrrrrrr r rrr.. ...J (Il..b.p "qulr r.• 1.• wlr.•e 1.. WIN irr.1 LH._. oil) -N LOOP-266_ l PD 126 1 , A ;;0~~' I, l 1 A i ' { 1, .:~•S,. I +i f 1 Ll • k6.120 11 I 1. h I*.C. 1i1 ~ij EYaJX ~•rr•, . . SF-7 i` PD 138 s<~~> O^ ~L"A't r + .,l'~1,•4 ''I' f . " • ~ ~ tn. : • '~p ti '.art ( ~•r PID 8,~ R 59 r.rrj tr' • 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 9000 5000 6000 7000 Feet j• ' N W E ~ • • S z. ' 2 .5 x 10 32 X" •1 ^,i .~iu ran i yr p.• rw~ !r me Y•N u 1. w.• •IIJw `~rI1TY 1 KM .r~r~11..W y ' I 1 \ II 1 SFr PIANNED v 1 BEYMnaxc~wma DEVELOPMENT (PD-120) • NORTH POINTS j 1 270.40 ACRES DENTON. TEXAS ILIt 11, INI j e ~bY~l`w.1,1' w 9 Aft iLV o , ,FVfMX ATTACHMENT 5 FP ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT STAFF REPORT Sub ec : Amendment of a Concept Plan Case Number: Z-98-027 North Point, PD-120 Stall: Mark Donaldson Agenda Date: August 12, 1998 PURPOSE Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning a 1 request to amend a portion of an approved concept plan for a Planned Development (PD-120). The applicant has proposed a multi-use development comprised of multi-family, single-family, +I office, general retail and neighborhood service land uses. { /L 1 I it SITE s ~ ' • ID 9 1 LOCATION MAP 9. r d~►r 25 K~~ 32 X I O { 0 O GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Ottis Lee, Civilworks Engineering 3516 Socorro Road Fort Worth, TX 76116 (817) 244-6077 Owner. Craig Ovrnby, KDRCII 1401 W. Pioneer Parkway, Suite 106 Arlington, TX 76013 (817)226.1718 Location: The development is located in north Denton, south of Loop 288 and west of N. Locust Street. I Size: 270.480 acres. i SUMMARY OF REQUEST i This request is to amend a portion of a concept plan approved in 1986. The amendment applies only to that portion of PD-120 that is south of Loop 288. The applicant has proposed a multi-use development comprised of multi-family, single-family, office, general retail and neighborhood service land uses. The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of land for multi-family residential use by 35.37 acres, add 22.23 acres of land for office uses, increases the amount of land for single-family residential uses by 5.81 acres, and increase the land for park, storm water detention and open space by 6.69 acres. The proposed maximum number of housing units is reduced by 240 units, South of Loop 288 Summa of 1986 and Proposed Conce t Plans • 1986 Proposed 1 Lend Use _ Acres Density Intensit Acres Density. Intensity Retail 28.62 35% FAR 436,000' 28.61 35% FAR 436,000' Orrice - NA 22.23 60`Yo FAR 484,000' Neighborhood Services 3.01 25%Fl,R 33, tl0' 3.01 25 R 33, ' Mut'!-family Residential 49.20 181ar.1 758 units 49.27 18/acre 00 units 1 Tovm Home Residential 35.48 9hcre 308 units NA p Sinn le-famii Residential 141.55 4,9r, 568 147.36 4laere 690 units ParklDetention Facility 13.31 20.00 TOTAL ^ 271.17 1830 units 1270.48 1390 units 10. 32XIO e 0 w PO-120 South of Loop 288 Summa of 1986 and Proposed fri Generation Estimates 1986 Proposed Land Use Area/ Factor Trip # Acres Factor Trip # Units Estimate Estimate Retail 436 K 40.7/K 17,745 436 K 4D.7/K 17,745 Office NA 484 K 10.0/K 4,840 Nel hborhood Services 33 K 114/K 3,760 33 K 1141K 3,760 Multi-famil Residential 756 6/unit 4,536 800 61unit 4,800 Town Home Residential 308 8/unit 2,464 NA Single-family Residential 566 101unit 5,660 590 101unit 5,900 Park/Detention Facility 13.31 20.00 TOTAL 271.17 34,164 270.48 37,044 1261acre 137/acre PROCESS This request is to amend a portion of an approved concept plan for a planned development (PD- 120) zone district. PD-120 is comprised of 412.12 acres, north and south of Loop 288, west of N. Locust Street. The request is to amend only the portion of the planned development that Is located south or (inside) Loop 288. The zoning ordinance approving the current concept plan and creating this planned development was approved by City Council on September 2nd, 1986. If the current request to amend the concept plan is denied, the previously approved concept plan will prevail. A conc6ot plan is one of three types of plans allowed to establish a planned development zone district: concept plan, development plan or detailed plan. A detailed plan Is required prior to any development within a planned development zone district. A recently approved development plan allows Planning and Zoning Commission approval of subsequent detailed plans; otherwise, 1 detailed plans must be approved by City Council. A planned development with an approved concept plan must alsi obtain detailed plan approval A prior to any development activity. In addition, the property must be platted prior to any development activity. It is during the platting process that the size and location of any required development-related public improvements are determined, Including, but not limited to such Items as right-of-way dedications, street Improvements, sidewalks, water and sewer line extensions, end public utility easementa. In addition, as a result of platting, some development may be required to • provide off-site improvements In order to accommodate the proposed development. I E + ~ 6 ~ i 13. 32XID Mad i e 0 I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS I Most zoning amendments hinge on two Issues: 1. Consistency with master plans; and 2. Compatibility with surrounding land uses. Consistency with the Denton Development Plan. The DDP establishes several criteria to f evaluate proposed zoning changes with respect to consistency with the Plan: Land Use. The DDP establishes Moderate Activity Centers and Low Intensity Areas within the city. Moderate Activity Centers emphasize a diversity of land uses at the Intersection or abutting major thoroughfares. Low Intensity Areas are Intended eS the primary location of housing, but clearly encourages non-residential uses within low intensity areas (p.28). The northeast comer of this property Is within a Moderate Activity Center at the Intersection of Loop 288 and N. Locust Street. This area Includes general retail and multi-family land uses consistent with a Moderate Activity Center. The balance of the area is within a Low Intensity Area. Limited non-residential use abutting Loop 288 and Highway 77 as proposed would be consistent with the standards established in DDP for a Low Intensity Area. Intensity. The Intensity standard for Moderate Activity Centers Is 350 vehicle trips per day per acre. The Intensity standard for Low Intensity Areas is 60 vehicle trips per d-y per acre. "Applicant's Request" Estimated Traffic Generation _ within the Moderate Activity Center Floor Estimated Estimated Estimated Land Use Acres Area FloerArea Trips per Trip Ratio 5000_g . ft. 000 S q. Ft. Generation Retail 20.74 0.35:1 316.2 40.7 12,869 Multi-Family 15.99 18 unitsfacre x 8 tri s/unIt 1,727 TOTAL 36,73 14,596 Averse 397 trips per acre per day O As requested, the proposed land use plan Is 13% more Intense than the intensity standard established in the DDP. The retail portion of the :and flan Is responsible for most of the estimated trip generation. The Intensity standard within the Mlodeiste Activity G.-nter can be achieved by adjusting the Floor Area Ratio within the Retail area to 0.30: 1. This will reduce the allowed square footage of development in the area and result In fewer estimated trips per day per acre. O O The retail development on 20.74 acres would be reduced from 316,200 square feet to 271,000 square feet of gross square feet of daveloped area. 12. 32 x s 0 I "Staff Modified" Estimated Traffic Generation _ within tha Mode to Activity Center Floor Estimated EslimWed Estimated Land Use Acres Aree Floor Area Trips per Trip Rati, 000 s . tt.' 000 S q. Ft. Generation Retail 20.74 0.30:1 271.0 40.7 11,030 M64;-gamily 15.99 288 units x 6 tripstunit 1,728 TOTAL. 36.73 12,758 Avera a 347 trips per acre per day W thin the Low Intensity Area, the analysis is similar. The proposed land use plan results In estimated traffic generation 98 trips per ray per acre, 63% greater than the Intensity standard In the III ( "Applicant's Request" Estimated Traffic Generation within the Low Intensity Area Floor Estimated Estimated Estimated Land Use Acres Area Floor Area Trips per Trip Ratio 000 s q. ft. 000 S q. Ft. Generation Sin to-Famil 141.36 590 urns x 10 trips/unit _ 5,900 Multi-Famit 33.28 600 x a tri slunit 3,600 Retail 7.87 0.35:1 120.0 40.Y 4,884 Offco 22.23 0.50:1 484.2 10.0 4,842 Nel hborhood 3.01 0.25: 1 32.8 113.9 3,736 TOTAL 233.75 22,962 Avorag9 98 trips per acre per day • A reductior, In deve ~mont Intensity would be required to reduce the traffic generation to the Intensity standard for. Low Intensity Area. Such a reduction of Intensity could be accomplished in a number of ways. r'nr example, a reduction of floor area ratios for retail and office to 0.26 : 1 and neighborhood servlcES to 0.20: 1, plus a reduction of housing densities to 3 units per acre for single-family and 12 units par acre for multifamily would result In an estimated trip genuratlon of 67 trips per acre per day, 12% groater than the intensity standard for a Low Intensity Area, 'i 13. ❑ 32X l 6 YYYiAY 's\7Y4~11k "Staff Modified" Estimated Traffic Generation within the Lowlntensi Area Floor Estimated Estimated Estimated Land Use Acres Area Floor Area Trips per Trip Ratio 000 s q. ft. 000 S q. Ft. Generation Single-Family 147.36 442 emits x 10 tripslunit 4,420 Multi-Family 33.28 40G • nits x. 6 tripslunit 2,400 Retail _ 7.87 0.25 ' 85.7 40.7 3,488 Office 22.23 0.25 1 242.1 10.0 2,421 Neighborhood 3.01 0.20:1 282 113.9 2,984 TOTAL 233.75 15,713 Averse 67 trips per acre per day The DDP allows Individual parcels within a Low tirten~O$y Area to exceed the intensity standard. There are mitigating actors that may allow approval or a greater intensity than the standard 60 trips per day: • The percentage of residential area (77% of the area within the Low Intensity Area) that is below the intensity standard, even at the requested densities (180.64 acres at 53 trips per acre per day): • The location of the retail and office areas alo og L;,,p 268, with access from a frontage road and proposed secondary arterial (Nicosia Street); and, • The location of neighborhood services In close proximity to Highway 77 near Its Intersection with Nicosia Street. Cor,,;entration. The DDP encourages the development of small neighborhood centers withln Low Intensity Areas, It also indicates the development of Moderate Activity Centers at major Intersections of arterial roads. The requested land use plan establishes neighborhood services within the Low Intensity Area near the Intersection of Highway 77 (a primary arterlal road) and Nicosia Street (a secondary arterial road). It also establishes retail and office uses near the Intersection of Nicosia Street (a secondary arterial) and Loop 268 frontage road (a primary arterial road). e Within the Moderate Activity Center, the land use plan establishes retail and multi-famlly residential uses near the Intersection of Loop 268 (a primary arterial road) and N. Locust Street (a primary arterial street). These concet,trations are consistent with the DDP. Within the Low Intensity Area of the planned development, residential land uses comprise the majority of land uses 77% of the land area. Strip Commercial, The DDP discourages continuous strip commercial development Inlor y near low Intensity areas, The DDP does not define 'strip commercial"; however, In the oast several members of the Commission, have attempted to define it as single building, multi-tenant { development with little landscaping and many curb cuts, I.e., West University Drive. I 14. i 0 i vas 0 i Within the) Low Intensity Area along Loop 288 (a secondary arterial road) there Is a concentration of relatively Intense land uses - retail, office and multi-family residential. The modified floor area ratios suggested by staff to reduce the Intensity of these land uses will also serve to negate the potential for strip development. Properly designed detailed ,!ens will allow the clustering of development and the preservation of open spaces, view corridors into the Interior of the development and abundant landscaping along the LOVp. Detailed site plan approval is required within any planned development prior to development activity. compatibility with surrounding land uses. The OOP establishes several criteria to evaluate proposed zoning changes with respect to compatibility with surrounding land uses within a low intensity area: Site Plan Control. The DDP says the non-residential development must maintain the character of the area with architectural design a^d landscaping, Detailed site plans and associated conditions will be required prior to any development of the property. Traffic Design. The DDP says that non-residential uses should have access to collector and arterial streets with no direct access through residential streets. The proposed concept plan establishes direct access for all non-residential land uses to arterial road:, with no direct access through residential streets. Intensity. The DDP allows Individual properties to exceed the Intensity threshold as long as the over-all Intensity standard for the area Is maintained. The increased intensity on this 270.48 acre property Is In an appropriate location with respect to the arterial road system and will not off set the reduced Intensity within the more than 90 percent of the area that is developed as single-family residences. Crean space. Sufficient green space should be provided. The City's landscape ordinance and the modified concept plan with floor area ratios recommended by sluff will fissure the possibility of designing adequate green space In the a final detailed site plans i Negghborhood Input, Input into planning by neighborhood assoclationr and councils Is eou,ouraged. This policy is Intended to generate Input and not veto poK:jr (p. 29). No neighborhood meeting has been held. 15. 'a ! C~ x 32 1 0 arm_ , 1 0 r • r O i I1 1 t~%tl SPECIAL ENFORMATION r 1. Transportation A. Trip generalon. The requested concept pan proposes land uses that are estimated to generate 14,696 trips per day from the 36.73 acres within the Moderate Activity Center (397 trips per acre per day) and 22,950 trips per day from the 23375 acres within the Low Intensity Area (98 trips per acre per day. Both areas are above tho Intensity standard established in the Denton Development Plan - 350 trips/day/acre for Moderate Activity Centers and 60 tripsidaylacre for Low Intensity Areas, The modified zoning attributes as recommended by staff reduce the trip generation to 347 trips/daylacre for the Moderate Activity Center and 67 tripsidaylacre for the Low Intensity Area, B. Access The requested concept plan would require a frontage road along Loop 288 that would provide arterial access on the north edge of the development. N, Locust Street provides arterial access on the east edge of the development. Nicosia Street to Highway 77 and the Loop 288 frontage road provides arterial access along the western edge of the development. The existing ccncept plan has a series of required road Improvements tied to phases of development. See attachment 8. The applicant has not requested to remove these required Improvements. Phase 1 Involves land In the southern portion of the property and requires Improvements to Nicosia and Highway 77. Phase 2 Involves land in the northern J{ portion of the property along Loop 288 and requires Improvements to N. Locust Street. Phase 3 Involves land north of Loop 288 and Is not under conslderation. C. Level of Service Loop 288 and Highway 77 in this area provide adequate levels of service to accommodate any proposed development, Highway 77 will be upgraded to four land divided highway In the very near future. N. Locust Street had 4,799 trips per day In a 1997 sample. Improvements to N. Locust would be likely with any development. Nicosia Street Is an undeveloped right-of-way, Construction of a portion of Nicosia would be required with any • development 0. Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets ere required of any new development. The rnneept plan establishes the potential to link housing, worn, and shopping opportunities In close proximity to each other. In add'.tlor„ required stormwcder retention facilities and park land dedicetlon • can create recreational opportunities withln the development. Also, the school district may p • well choose to locate an elementary school %1thin the development, further extended the potential ror Intemcl pedestrian linkages, lb. 32 x ~ ~aerwa , r 0 E 1 2. Utilities F.2 Utilities A. Water There is an existing 16 Inch water line along the western boundary of the proposed development 8. Waste water There Is an existing 18 Inch waste water line flowing south along the western boundary of J the proposed development. There is also an existing 12 Inch waste water line flowing east south of the property. C. Electric Electric service Is available In the vicinity. 3. Drainage and Topography There Is a signification drainage swale running through the property Is a north-to-south direction. There Is an Identified need to locate a regional storm mater detention facility on this property andlor the property adjacent to its southeast boundary. The facility must be approximately 20 acres In area, although not all the facility needs to be contained within this development. 4. Signs Any detailed site plans must address signs. If any proposed signs deviate from the Sign Ordinance, details must be provided on the detailed plan. 5. Off Street Parking Any detailed site plans must address off-street parking. If any proposed off-street parking t deviates from the Zoning Ordinance, details must be provided on the detailed plan. 6. Landscaping Any detailed site plans must address landscaping. If any proposed landscaping requirements deviate from the Landscape Ordinance, details must be provided on the detailed plan. 7. Lighting . Any detailed site plans must address lighting. If any proposed off-street parking deviates from the Zoning Ordinance, details must be provided on tha detailed plan. Until a lighting ordinance is approved, the standard lighting condition will be attached to any approved zoning. Lighting on the property shall be designed and matntalned so as not to shine on, or otherwise disturb, adjoining properlyorto shine end prefect upward to prevent the diffusion Into `he night sky, 8. Park Land Dedication The required park land dedication, or fees in lieu of land, is dependent upon the actual number 17. a„ ILI 32XICI auaae O i i of single and multi-famlly housing units developed. Zoning only provides a maximum development threshold. Based on the thresholds created by the requested concept plan, park land dedication of approximately 8 acres would be required. 9. Schools The school district has Indicated a need for an elementary school site of approximately 15 acres. 10. Chronology January 14, 1969 - The subject property was placed in the Agricultural (A) zoning classification and land use designation by Ordinance 69-01 which adopted the first zoning ordinance and map for the City of Denton, September, 1986 - The subject property was classified as a planned development (PD-120) by Ordinance 86-173 with an approved concept plan, ' January, 1996 - A conveyance plat for 74.483 acres of the subject property was approved for the purposes of sale of the property. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Reoord-Chronlcle on August 2, 1990. Forty-nine (49) property owners were notified of the request on July 31, 1998. As of this writing, there has been one response In favor of the request and no responses in opposition, The 20% rule Is not In offect. RECOMMENDATION -I Staff recommends approval of Z-98-027 with the following oonditions: 1. Floor area ratios as follows: J. t w Ott ° a. Retail: 0.26:1 b. Office: 0,25: 1 C. Neighborhood Services: 0.20: 1 2. Maximum residential denslty. a. Single-family: Not to exceed 442 units b. Mu;'i-family: Within the Moderate Activity Center: 18 units per acre Within the Low Intensity Area: 12 units per acre , Total wi-Oti-family housing units Not to exceed 688 un'.fs 6 3. Transportation Improvements. The Ilst of transportation Improvements assoclated with the land development schedule provided in Ordinanoa 88.173 shall be required, 18, Y . ,ti x 10 32x10 # 1 O 4. Lighting. Lighting on the property shall be designed and maintained so as not to shine on, or otherwise disturb, adjoining property or to shine and project upward to prevent the diffusion Into the night sky. MOTION w: r fi; !nfi move to recommend approval of Z-98-027 with the conditions as recommended by staff: ALTERNATIVES a 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 1 3. Recommend denlFJ. 4• Postpone conslde;ation. 5• Table Item. ENCLOSURES 1. Vicinity Map. 2• Zoning Map. 3• Utility Map. 4. 200' and 500' Property Owner Notification Map. 5. Denton Plan Matrix. 6. Summary or 1988 and Proposed Concept Plans 7, Copy of ordinance 88.173 8. Phasing of Transportation Improvements, Ordinance 86-173. ~I 19. 10 tl f NOW 0 ENCLOSURE 1 Vicinity Map M 120, N rthpante LOOP SIT - Fa y ,NNW i N ~ Street.shp W E -~lr ' Read rmies.shp Par+cAshp s zo. a n y :?,C) 32 x 1 ,M • aemn,■ • • p • ENCLOSURE 2 Z-98-027 (PD 120) ZONING MAP ..r...•--...-..Lr~l I ETJ II PD 120 A F'-------- ~~~~.~`~,~~J fM•dMr• FrgN. I I., o4 Lm.. ON ..tl..l•. II1. 1Nl A. I _ _ ..c.. . LI I A I I _ N LOOP 238 I A 11 r-----6NN .---.-...-'%b I •]i~ PD 128 r `1 %5F•10 1 I--- _-.1R.' LE I PD 120 ( ~ ' I t. ! BF.T I .t + = 'fir •_I~ 1 IPD 138 S<\a~ i 1L !R ~i i.1 e .y.••r - ` A ril{ PD 1 ti r~ • . 1. ~t■ 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Fee: N ~ ~ 1 W E ~ S 21. lo (7 32X 0 o , l ENCLOSURE 3 ZM98-027 (PD 120) UTILITIES MAP " 00? 266' t i 'LE Lim 1 L6L pyJ ~ 1 ■ ~ M I '~~Zi i~~ 10" SEW i id f It LINE Z ' . 1 i ST 111 ~ a 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 Feet 22. 25 2XIO 0 all ENCLOSURE 4 Z-98,027 / (P ■ D 120) 200 Ft. Notice Boundary I , I PD 120 I F'_ __r.__• r__ rJ IM„bep,ryn., Ill 101 „rtl4l a 1h.„rU p,. A Uq 1111 I I 1 r.r . Mw J . . add dam add, N LOOP tea 11 I e r mad r _r r rr _ _ - % a4m -mm. ~ammi r _ _ _ _ _ r r _ .1 _ _ PD 120 It; ; ...,.J.. 1 I' "M "Nx I 11.41. . t ~ t -1 4- inw-M fall fWir, 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 Feet W E S 23. ~ae~ra . O M i, ENCLOSURE S _ The Denton Pldn Policy Matrix Z-98-027, PD-120 Concept Plan Amendment Chapter Chapter Heading Comments 1 Transportation The development has primary and secondary arterial System roads on four sides and will contribute to their _ Improvement. 2 Storm water Dralnage A regional storm water detention facility will be System constructed as a result of an development. 3 Water & Wastewater Not Applicable _ _System l 4 Electric Not Applicable System 5 Solid Waste Not Applicable 6 Parks and Recreation A neighborhood park site will be made available as a result of any development. It may be linked to neighborhood school and storm water detention facilities and provide linear green space within the development. 7 Environmental Quality Any development will meet City landscape, park land _ dedicalilon and storm water detention requirements. 8 Neighborhoods Mixed uses are provided within the district - housing, retail and office. Transit opportunities may become _ available along arterial roads. 9 Housing Proposed development within the Loop near existing utilities fulfills 'infill' objectives, A mix of housing types - single and multl•famlly - will be provided within the district. However, the 1986 concept plan had a wider variety of housing types and densities S 10 Economic Diversificatlon Mixed uses are provided, etall and Office development could result. 11 _Government Not Applicable 12 JJrrban Design _ Not Applicable 13 Public Involvement Not Applicable e Summary: _ _ o • Overall, the proposed amendment meets several Den!cn Plan policies. The 1966 concept plan allows a greater mix of housing types, sizes and costs within the neighborhood. 24. L_ I 'tYH` 7 L.! 32;)(. t . ANN" 0 ATTACHMENT 6 SUMMARY OF 1986 AND PROPOSED CONCEPT PLANS PD-120 South of Loop 288 Summa of 1088 end Pro oaed Conce t Place 1988 Prosod Land Use Acres Density Intensi Acres Density Intensity Retail 28.62 35% FAR 436, 00' 28.61 35% AR 436,000' Office NA 22.23 50% F R 484,000' Neighborhood Services 3.01 2 R 3.01 5 Multi-famll Residential 49.20 181aae 768 units 49.27 18/acre 800 unb Town Home Residential 35.48 acre 3 units NA Single-family Residential 141.65 4/acre SPA 147.38 4lecre O wRs Park/Detention Facility 13.31 2000 TOTAL 27L17 1B30unRe 270.48 1390unRe r 1 M 7 i ANNE 0 :aese~ esa+enw IL , AITACHMRt3T 7 NO. Z~ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS DT ORDINANCE NO. 69-1. AS AMENDED, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO II1.12 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF F.N. 2164, APPROXIMATELY 1,130 FEET NORTH OF HERCULES LANE, AS IS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN= TO PROVIDE FOR A CHANGE IN ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION, TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION= PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR S4ID DISTRICTI AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DE 'ON, TEXAS, HEREBY OADAINS1 SECTION 1. That the zoning classification and use designation of 412.12 acres of real property, described in Exhibit "A", attached here. to and incorporated herein by reference, is W eby changed from rlcultural "A" District Classification and Use designation t Ao Panned Development "PD" District Classification and Use designs- tlon under the comprehensive toning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION If. That the "concept plan" attached hereto as Exhibit "B", and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby approved as the concept plan for the listriet herein estsblished, in accordance with the provisions of article 11 of Apyendix B•loning of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, =Texas. SECTION III. at the district herein approved shall be subject to the following conditions, restrictions, and Ilml a tionsr 1. Land uses in general retail areas shall be all uses pereitied it the general retail district In Article 7, See ti on H-Retall Service Type Uses, and the following additional uses amusement commercial (indoor), theater-other than drive-in type, gasoline service station, new auto parts sales stores, roller and ILe skating rink, and auto laundry, 2. The areas dasignsted for townhouse use must be idea- i titled and a ,proved as attached or detached units on the detailed Ian. 3, All acreening and fences must be showr end spyroved on the detailed plan, 4. The following tru.sportation lmprovaments arm required is ottlined In the Development McRule in Exhibit 0131, with. the e f ipist Ins n the s,ty port manes must be submitted P y Dut of the phes., or any Portion thereof. 2.1113/PAGE 1 26, - - X25 X C1 32X L1 w 01 s.a.oaa , "mom A. Improvements required to be completed with Phase 1¢ (1) Construction of U. S. Highway 77 as a four lane divided arterial from vast crterlal to Orr Street. (2) Ccnstruction of west arterial as a four Ian* divided arterial from J. S. Highway 77 to Loop 211. (3) Construction of left turn lanes and right turn lanes at welt collector and U. S. Nil way 77. (Figure 1) (4) Provide for lnstellttion of traffic signalize- Lion on vast arterlel at Highway 77 and at the southern entrance to the project. r' g. improvements required to be completed with Phase I1t (1) Construction of F.1. 2164 as a four lane divided arterial from the Loop 211 to Orr Street, (1) Construction of U. S. Hlghwey 77 and F.M. 2164 intersection at Orr Street, ((Figure 11) (1) Construction of left•eutn and right turn lanes at F.M. 2164 and Loop 211 on south aide. (Figure 111) (4) Construction of diamond interchange to provide tour-phase operation of F.M. 1144 and Loop 2s1 and ppro ride for trsfflc si`nslitstlon at inter- 1 sectSon and dual left turn lanes. (S) Construction of right turn and left turn lanes at F.M. 2164 and internal collector and provide for stinalitatlon. (Figure IV) C. 1ml,+vemen a r4qulrcJ to be completed with Phase 111. (1) Construction of wait arterial ai a four lane divided arterial from Loop 211 to the northern boundary line of this project. (2) Construction of overpass at Loop 211 and west arterlel. (s) Construction of F.M. 2164 as a four lane divided arterial from Loop III to the northern boundary of this project. (4) Construction of overpass at Loop 111 for in- ternal collector. SECTION 1V, The Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the 14th day of Januaty, 1469 as in Appendix to the Code of Ordinances of • the City of Denton, Texas under Ordinance No. 69.11 as amended, la 0 • hereby amended to show such things In District Classification and y Use subject to the stem conditions and specifications. 9.1119/PAGE 2 4 . 27 . i Lr: 5 x i U 32 X10 ` ~ J l SECTION V. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hetete finds that such change is In accordance with a comprehrnsive pill for the purpose of pro OURS the moral Walter# of the City ce: Denton, Texas, and Wall ressoneAs consideration, among othe things for the e'tarecter of the district o td for its peculiar suitability for parti:ular uses, and with a +'aw to conserving the value of the butldings, protecting human Liver, and encourastnj the most appropriate use, of land for the maximum benefit to the City of Denton, Texas, and its citltens. SECTION V1. L..t this ordinance shill become effectl,e fourteen (14) do s troy the date of Its passage, and the City Secretary 1s hereg> directed to cause the capon et this ordinance to be puDlishal twice in the Denton a.ecrFti•Chroniele, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, vlthin ten (10) days of the date of its passage. n PASSED AND APPROVED this thed"Q day o[ 1916. CITY F DEN'ON' TEXAS ATTESTt C Y OF NTON,,TEXAS i I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMI DEBRA ADAMI DRATOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY s CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS l h 'r I ,r M 1.1111/FAGS S i 28. ❑ 25 x Q 32X 41 , 0 ATTACHMENT 8 Phasing of Transportation Improvements Ordinance 86.173 A. Improvements required to be completed with Phase It (1) Construction of U. S. Highway 77 as a four lane divided arterial from west arterial to Orr Street. (2) Construction of west arterial as a four lane divided arterial from V. S. Highway 77 to Loop 211. (3) Construction of left turn lanes aid rl ht turn lanes at west collector and U. S. Hlggwsy 77. (Figure 1) (4) Provide for installation of traffic signalita- tion on west arterial at Highway 77 and at the soui,hern entrance to the project. 8. Improvements required to be completed with Phase Ili (1) Construction of F.M. 2114 as a four lane divided arterial from the Loop 211 to Orr Street. I (2) Construction of U. S. Highwa 77 and P.M. 2164 intersection at Orr Street. (Figure 11) (3) Construction of loft-turn and right turn lcnes at F. M. 2164 and Loop 211 on south side. (Figure 111) (4) Construction of diamond interchange to provide four-phase operation of F.M. 2164 and Loop 291 and pprovide for traffic sitnalitation at inter. seeelan and dual left turn lanes. (S) Construction of right turn and left turn lanes at F.M. 2164 and internal collector and provide for silnalisation. (Figure IV) C. Improvements required to be completed with Phase Ill~ • (1) Construction of west arterial as a four lane divided arterial from Loop III to the northern boundary line of this project. i (2) Construction of overpass at Loop 211 and west arterial. (3) Construction of P.M. 2164 as a four lone divided • arterial from Loop 211 to the northern boundary • • of this project. (4) Construction of overpass at Loop 111 for in- ternal collector, i 29. nommommommo~ Y P F L' y ?5 ~ 2 X I D MMI i I ATTACHMENT 6 I i EXCERPTED DRAFT MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION E August 12, 1928 I . The regular meeting or the Planning end Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday, August 12, 1998, at 5 p.m., In the City Court it Chambers at City Hail, 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas, Present, Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rlshol, Susan Apple, Jim Engelbreci Rudy Moreno, Carol Ann Ganzcr, and Bob Powell Present from Stall Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Eucek, First Assistant Cry Attorney; Wayne Reed, Planner I, D:vid Salmon, Engineering Administrator PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONING CHANGE 10. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a raqusst to amend a portion of the approved concept plan for a planned development tons district (PO.120). The 270.48-acre tract Is located In north Denton on the south side of Loop 288, west of North Locust Stract The amendment proposes to reduce the amount of Ilnd for multi-family raldent al use by 38.37 acres, add 22.23 acres of land for office uses, increase the amount of land for single-family nsider}tial use by 8.81 acre, and Increase the land for park, stomwater detention and open space by 6.89 axe. The proposed maximum number of housing units is reduced by 240 units. (Z-91i North Points, Mark Donaldson) Commissioner £ngelbrecht. That means we move on to hem 11110-hold public hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a request to amend a portion of the approved concept pion for a planned development district (PD-120) The 270.48-acre tract is located In north Denton on the south its of Loop 268, west of North Locust Street Trio amendment proposes to reduce the amount of land for muhi-family residerl use by 35 31 acres, ado 22 23 acres of land for office uses, increase the amount of land for single-fanity residrnlial uses by 5 Si acres, and increase the land for park, stomwater detention and open space by 6,69-acres. The proposed maximum number of housing units Is reduced by 240 units. I believe Mr. Donaldson has the deft report, Mr. Mark Donaldson p•asented the staff repot. Mr. Donaldson. I do_ PG 120 Is a fairy large planned development district located at the Intersection of Loop 268 and North Locust Street. 14 ores that we're considering this eve ling Is approximately 270 acres, all located south of Loop 288, Could I have the document-cam zoom out a little bit? Thank you. Al loop 288 on the north, locust on the east, and you can see down here, Highway 71 passes nearby. And on the west border is a proposed secondary oneriat street called Nicosia Street that will run eventually from Highway 77 up to any frontage rood that is developed along 288 The .'D is virtually su..ounded by arterial roads. The existing concept pion is similar loth* proposed I think the proposal actually works to simplify the concept plan. It remoras several different types of housing districts and simplifies those into two, They've requested a nwll-family zoning district up on the northern edge adjacent to Loop 288 with 18 units per more and a single single-family district that makes up more than half of the land area within the PD with SF-7•style toning They've requested @ total 0 590 units be allowed, You can see e in my onahsis that In order to meet the Intensity standards of the Denton Development Pion which was done in 1988. I've proposed o modified set of densltlas and Intensities fa the land Keep In mind that this oonc:ept plan was put In place prior to adoption of the Denton Development Plan so that planning considerafons may have changed from 1966 when this was approved, I believe, through 1988 when the Denton Development Pion was approved The area scluatly contains two planning areas that we talk about a U. One Is a moderate activity, which Is essentially this area right up here, If you're familiar with the land, there's a major overhead electric transmission line that kind of demarks the boundary between low intensity a,us on this side and moderate intensity on this 1146. We're looking to concentrate a lot of activity Into this northeast corner. The applioeMs have proposed General retail adjacent to the Intersection end then mufti-family behind lf and along the Loop, I have suggested that we Q mange the requested floor areas from 0.35.1 floor Area ratio, which means 35 square feet for every 100 square feet of land area, to 0 30 and that we leave the requested multl-famiy density at 18 units per acre within this part of ?d' the multi-famiy zone distrd. As we move into the low intensity area, keeping In mind that these areas are differentiated within the DOP primarily by vehicle trips generated, a moderate activity area offers an Intensity standard of 350 vehicle rips per axe per day compc'ed to a 60 trips per more per day M the low Intensity Area, So, 30. 302 X ti r ~,wsew o ,•rxsn,r~ i Planning and Zoning Commipsnr• %',nules August 12, 1998 Page 2 of 25 there's a Sig, ficant change to the type of activity that the Donlon Development Plan esleblishes with much higher concentrallons of activities up in tt,e moderate activity area compared to the low Intensity. If we look at the request In lts entirety, they're actually intensifying the number of trips on the property compared to the existing concept plan Le cause they've substNted essentially office zoning for a restricted multi-family. So by doing that, they've actually upped the estimated trips generated from the property. In order to get these In compliance with the Denton [Xvelopment Plea, I've offered a series of floor area ratios and units, Those aro found-the applicant's request for toe moderate activities center Is found on page 4 of your backup and then, over the next three pages, there are three other tables. I'M just generally walk you through those. And again looking at the moderate activity area first, we have retail and multi-family-a retail at 35% floor area coverage, basically-the multi-family it 18 units per acre, And keeping in mind that the Intensity standard Is 350 trips per day, the request works out to be about 400 trips per day, so that by reducing the floor area ratio within the retail district down to 0 30, we can get that estimated trip generarion down to 347 which Is below the 350 threshold, Over the last several months, we've talked about floor area ratios along Teasley Lane I'll just show you a table of those to put things Into perspeclW_ You're not going to be able to see that Can I zoom In on this a little bit? I think you're still going to have to trust me on this. Along Lillian Miller and Teasley, there's been a number of recent office re zonings, Collectively, they have worked out to be a floor area of 0 24.1. And then there are three approved rated and other zoning districts, which collectively have worked eul to be 0 23:1 floor area ratio. Those have become kind of the standard for non-residential uses in a low Intensity area. As you recall, the most recent one, Southridge Oakx, which was In PD-87 which was actually an 18% floor area ratio-again, 18 square feel of development for every 100 square feet of land area. So, that takes care of the moderate activity center, and you can see that just by a fairy mina-minor in my mind--reduction In the Moor area ratio, we can get this into compliance with the Donlon Development Plan That means going from an allowance of 316,000 square feet or developed area under the applicants request to 271,000 square feet under the modified scenario To justify that, I went through an example using the 30% figures and starting with 20.74 acres. That's a total of 900-some-thousand square feet of land, If you take away cur 20% landscaping requirement, that leaves 723,000 square feet available for development. H you take 30% of that as your maximurr floor area, that leaves 450.000 square feet for available parking arts, If you assume that each parking space eats up 350 square feet for the parking space and all of the access and maneuvering spaces, you can see that they would be able to generate almost 1,300 parking spaces in that avallable land. The requirement from our zoning code would be 1 space for every 200 square feet of floor area, which would equate to about 1,355 required parking spaces. So, you can see that the 30% floor area ratio. 4 you assume single-slory retail development, w*,'ch Is ge.aratly the case, works out to be fairly close to a maximum utiliation of the land, Okay. Moving on to w low intently area, again keeping the same concept as far as the mixed uses with multi-family, ofice, retail, neighbo hood services and single-family, the concept Is obvk us) to provide a mixture of uses within the area which is consistent with the Denton Plan policies that have been udopled-lo provide retail and office opportunities with visibility from the Loop; to provide neighborhood Service posy-ul'!ilies at the intersection here, Highway 77, and the planned arterial on the west side-to keep the balance for the un~ fs family, Keeping in mind that the City, when 4 comes time to plat, Is going to require acreage for a regional delemoun pond In this southeast comer, most likely, we wig require parkland dedication of about 0 acres. and the school has Indicated that there's a need for on elementary school ale M this area of about 15 acres if No were to ask this developer to do at of h at- and there's no double counting the space, which we can't allow with retention and park and even park and school siles-wed be kwking at something 1 on the order of 45 acres being dedics!ed to public purposes within this area. The applicant has in heated that, you 4 know, they're more than willing to do their fair share on the regional detention facility, and they recognize that parka work for them as well as for us. I think at this point, they're not yet willing to dedicate-to grant a school she. I've Q realy focused on just placing a until on the number of units that could be built within this single-family district rather than a density Ogure because the land available for public facilities la still up In the air. They have requested 590 units, which is 4 units per acre on the 147 acres that they're counting as single-family area. I've suggested that they need to get down to 3 units per acre, or 442 units, In order to achieve the 60-10 coma close to the 60 trips per day per acre, It actually works W IQ be about 81. Somewhere between those two numbers is probably a number that everybody's comfortable with Uitimaley I think the role of the school becomes a factor In this if we look on this chart and lock at the number of unit in this column, starting with $90 which was their request, and look at the entire 141 acres-that 'a 4 units to the acre-K ws take out a school site, that gets up to 4,46 undo per scre. Then, the number that staff has suggested in order to mart the Intensity calculations is 442, which Is 3 units per acre. If Q Q you net out the school ale and spread those 442 units over 132 sues Instead, that's 3.34 units per acre. A lot of t our SF-1 zone districts right now are coming 0 at 3 5 to ? 9, 3A units per acre, We can see we're narrowing In on Poe probably the oplimurn amount here. Again, the printing gets really small 11 talk my way through this one here. Mf. Rishet Mr Donaldson? 31. e }4' 1 9 weD,ana o m::avw Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 3 of 25 Mr. Donaldson. Yes. Mr. Rishel: Oid you Indicate that they had not Indicated a preference of wonting to do any school site dedication? Mr, Donaldson: At this ooint, no. We can't compel them to glve land to the school. We can compel them hs talk to the school, and they have been doing that. I think they're approaching some sort of relationship, at bast, that will be more closely lied to the platting process than the zoning. But I'm using a school site in there to get at the number of units that may be appropriate for [his area. ,dr. Rishel: Thank you. Mr Lonaldson. Again, translating [hose numbers to a trip general 0n so that we can compare-590 units, holding all of the other things constant, would result in 7- trips per acre per day. Commissioner Engelbfechl. Linda, an you blow that up just s. little bit mo s-enlarge R? Mr. Donaldson Now, R 4 were focused, we'd be In business. And then down at the bottom, 442 units, holding oil other things constant, results In 67 trips per acre. I've offered some reasons why you could consider exceeding the 60-trips-per-acre stonJard, Somewhere in between might be a number of 52v which equates to the 4 units per acre on the area net of a possible school. This irght be a compromise number. Again, that would equate to 71 trips per acre per day, So, 442 units on 147 acres Is about a 10% variance'ront the standard, The 74 trips gets up to be 20% greater than the Intensity standard. I've suggested mod fled floor area ratios for the three non-reskfentlel area" 20 for the neighborhood services, 0.25 for the retail and for the office in this tone dlslrfct, again, In keeping with what a been hopping elsewhere In the city . I noticed In with the staff recommendatans that I provided you that I failed 10 differentiate the retail floor ores between the moderate area and the low Intensity area, This sheet corrects that. The body of the report talked about a 0,30 floor area ratio, but I didn't put R in the recommendations Math comes down to Is floor area ratios for the non•resbential uses of 0.30 and the moderate octiviy center for retail; 0.25 for retail within the low Intensity eras; 025 for the office; eM 0,20 for the neighborhood services. A maximum residential intensity basIcelly of, staff suggested, 442 single-famiy unRs-for murti-family, 1 B units per acre within the moderate activity center and 12 units per acre within the low intensity ores. I would suspect that [he 442 end tit 12 units per acre are probably the major points of discusslon from the applicant. With that, I think I've touched on most everything. From a pure utility delivery point of view, R's an ideal site. There are existing facilities in the area that an accommodate d. From a traffic point of view, we've got arterials basically on all four sides, One of the constraints to the property Is probably the number of electric transmission lines that go through the property with this north-south one here. There's an east-west one running along here There's a disgonaf one running along here, You an see that they've used this diagonal one as e dividing area between their office and single-famiy, This trmsmission line Is the dividing area bent-an the moderate and the low Intensity ores. These serve to make land PI; . ling s little more diffcull. The reduced Boor area and density within the low intensity area also will allow us to wu x with detailed plans to provide some more open space along the corridor, so [hat we don't get the appearance of strip commercial and high density along this entire route We'll be able to kook at the open-space ratios as detailed plans come In, and we an took to cluster the developed area into smaller areas and leave some of the area open. Public notice was provided to 49 property owners We received 3 responses, all of [hem in favor. As of the time that we malted out the packets, we only had 1 so I didn't include R. 1'0 send those around. We've also-oh, I need to talk about the list of transportation I • improvements that were attached to the original concept plan. Included in your backup is the Ordinance 8&173. Within Ihaf there is a page, which Is Attachment A to your backup, which describes a gat of bansporlatlon Improvements that are lied to various phases of [he development-A, B, and C being Phase 1, 2 and 3, In very general terms, Phase 3 is that area north of the Loop, end it's that phase that triggers the heaviest-duty transportation improven eri Phase 1 Is generally the ores in the southern hail of the area that we're looking al, and it addresses imoi ;vements to Highway 77-~onstruclon of the west arterial over here In Nicosia Street, ` construction of left turn lanes and rphl turn lanes along Highway 77 down here, and c:onlrlbuting toward a traffic signal of Highway 77 and the southern entrance of the property. Improvements associated with Phase 2, which would be the area adjacent to 1.0op 288, then move the focus over to North Locust Street and the Intersection whh Q the Loop speaks to construction of North Locust as o four-lane divided arterial. These people would be required to T do only their fair share of That-tha construction of the Highway 77 and North Locust Inlersecllon at Orr Street- again left and turn lanes into this ores-and basically Improvements to the North Locust ernd Loop 288 Intersection which have already been made by TxDOT, We s-iggest that this menu of Improvements associated with various phases slay in riace. Then we've also added our standard fighting condition which reads that 9ighling on the 32. 1 MOO"" 0 , Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 4 of 25 property shat be designed and maintained so as not to sine on, or otherwise disturb, adjoining property or to shine and project upward to prevent the dtfusion into the night sky.' From my and that feels pretty disjointed. Are there any questions of me right now? Mr. Moreno: Mr. Donaldson, what Is the general Intent of making tho varlow staff modifications that you've presented to us? Are you trying to get this development more In Ilne with the 1988 Donlon Development Plan or are you hying to get even more current than that In trying to make this development comparable to recent developments that you showed us earlier? Mr. Donaldson: Well, the original and the major Intent Is to achieve the Intensity standards that are In the 1988 Donlon Development Plan That's still our land use guide until we adopt a new comprehenetve plan. We've also addressed policies that have been approved by City Council associated will the Denton Plan. There's a matrix. Enclosure 5, end you can see that generally the concept works within the framework of the policies that have been Idenli8edIt's a mixed-use neighborhood offering a variety of housing It actually offers less variety than the old plan, so there ors elements of the old plan tbit 1 liked, Including-1 think there were 3 different densbes of multi- family housing and 4 differenl densities of single4amity housing. The market Is pulling toward the more unified approach. I guess. So wth rasped to the current planning, the concept of mixed uses within the area Is consistent. Then, working with the '68 plan, I tried to make 8 consistent with those intenaty standards by adjusting the various factors So the answer Is `both.' Mr, Moreno, Thank you, Commissioner Engelbrecht Mr Powell Mr Powell: Yes, sir. Attachment 5-I'm going Into my fourth year here. ;'ve never seen one of these before. Tell me where this ame from, how t came about, and why are we looking at t. Give moo little history here. Mr. Donaldson This dates back to the ordinance that was put in place In 1988 when the current concept plan we$ approved, and It obvlovs'v recognizes a set of Improvements to the transportation system that had to be made In order to eaommodete c velopment there. Many of these have taken place on their own without any development In the erea-the improvements to the loop and the Inleesedlon of North Locust. Highway 77 Is slated rot Improvements to go four-lane divided. With the Texas Imm cements project to the west we achieved hat or iM required righl of-way for Nicosia Street. I Ihh : our thinking r ghl now has lunged somewhat In that, In Phase 3 of Ihls Planned Development which Is north of the Loop, they had anticipated over-passes In two places If this were to come forward today, we wouldn't suggest over-passes. We would auggest a frontage road back to the one existing over-pass. We really don't have to mess wth those became thet`e not talking about Phase 3 at this point. I think it's just a general recognition back In 1988 that something's got to happen In tent's of our transportation system In order to make this work end the developer ought to pay their fair share of Rand V is what they came up with as their fair share, Mr Powell. Okay. So, this was meant to say that t didn't have to well until these things happened, OR was to be paid lot andlor wait until these things happened, by the developer. n Mr Donaldson: Rlghl, Those things had to be In place before this development could proceed, but the • Improvement wouldn't necessarily wall until development triggered them. Mr Powell, You've included the Iighlin i requirement again. Thal's not In any plan, and I don't know that that's City Council policy, We almost *Ways Include it and I donl know that is expenslvc. Veen just beginning to ask that question. Why do we now always Include ON? Unless I'm wrong, is not required; is not policy. It just on of E happens Mr. Donaldson I think is become a working policy of Council to look at that sort of thing, Technology has Improved to the point where we don't gal any reslslona from folks when we suggest that. You know, this Is something that Council Is really looking at. I've yet to have any developer say, you know, 'We just can't do that.' 0 And we ere-In fact, we have formed a wenm;ttee to shepherd a lighting ordinance through the process. They're i just about to Vol that. So, Council Is looking and kind of onllolpaling that happening ~~BBPP Mr. Powell , Thank you. 33, 25 x 32xIO r o ' 1 n I Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes august 12, 1998 Page S of 2s Commissioner Engelbrecht: Any more questions? E Mr. R'ohel: Yes, sir. One of the-when we look at trips and the bads that are on nor dways and the Greg, pert of the function of that, or part of the congestion of that, tends to be the size and the wilt of the road and the setback of the house which would show for a longer or shorter driveway and whether people hive one or two ear garages associated with their residence. I know that this is not an expended plan. How would Viii potentially fit into the trips that might be Involved on the roadways? Mr, Donaldson: For our snalysie, we just use data generated by the Institute of Traffic Engineers from a manual that they put out. And genxarry, a single single-family dwelling unit, whether N be 4,000 square feet or 2,600 square feet or 1,500 square feet, generates, on average, 10 trips per day. They've got tons of data that support that number. They offer numbers for all of the various land uses. We use those numbers to calculate the trip generation, For example, mutt-family-the number is 5 trips per unI per day. I think for retell, we're looking W something like 41 trips per 1,000 square Net of developed area. For neighborhood service We much higher becauss We usually a convenience stor",re operation and N's son sthing hie 114 Vises per 1,000 square feet. This mar ual provides trip data In terms of number of units for housing end In terms for a number of factor for non. resldenti sl. You can look at employment: you can look at square footage; you can look at Just general acreage and pull a number from this manual, Generally, we've found that they rs pretty much right on target. If you monitor your trips,., Mr Rlshel, I gub.. I'm Mt ao concerned about the Vies. What I am concerned about is the bad on the streets end whether or not the houses vow have an adequate enough setback, particularly Single-family and what might be duplex, I don't know k there's a duplex-type of neighborhood that would be ahrywed for here, but whet we tend to see Is where we have duplexes In particular, we tend to have one garage and a lot of people that have two vehicles II the setback of the house to Use road Is not adequate, that would lend to move a lot of people parking on the streets, One way of overcoming that would be edlowtng only parking on one side of ft street and still have an adequate street to pass on. Fit where you have houses that land to be closer to the strata and then not allow for lull parking on those drlvew.ys. In parking on two sides you tend to const6d the roadway Itself. Hot that been addressed or will that be vdressed in some way? Mc Donaldson Well, We addressed through the subdivision regulations, the zoning regulations, and the building code. For atl single-family uses, they're required to provide two off-street parking places whether k's In a garage or not Generetly, we have a 25-fool setback minimum which allows for parking of a vehbde in a driveway completely off of the right-of-way. Multi-family .as, you know, a Set number of off-Street parking spaces that have to be provided depending on the unit mix, whether N's one bedroom, two bedroom, or three bedroom. Generally, 1 guess we find the closer we get to the universlas, the more we have problems with the off-street parking requirement. But we're also finding that more and more mulb-family units are filled with one-person households, So. N becomes less of a problem. And all of the various regulations that we have work to control that. Then will be collector streets within the area that Serve to tolled traffic from local streets and delivcr It to the arterial. Those wU1 be wider { than the local streets, There will be no parking on the arterlals obviously, IOnd of the prevahing planning concepts are looking at actually narrowing down some of the local strew In order to slow traffic down. We actually Ike to have cars parked on the streets because N slows traffic dam, as long as M's within reason. But aI of those regulations won' *control where can are and how they go about working through the neighborhood O Mr Rishel: Th k you Commissioner Engetbrechl. Any other questions for staff? You had inciwle l a partite[ road slog Loop 268, What would be the Ingresslegress system off of 288 onto that, or would there be? Mr. Donaldson I think the present philosophy Is no more acct s off Loop 288, so we would be looking car an 1 I eastbound frontage road along here, along the northern part of this developed area with everything funneling back to the North Locust inlersection Commissioner Engebbrec;K Okay. I Just know more-I wanted to make sure that 1.... Mr. Oonaldson: I think that's the prevailing philosophy, That's our story and we're sticking to 11 t 34. I 6 I e r o PWnning and Zoning Commissii Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 8 of 25 Commissioner Engelbrecht Okay. One other Item. N you might just quickly-this was a request to change the concept plan. I wonder N you might quickly just review concept plan versus dets" ed plan. Mr, Donaldson Okay. Within any planned development, we offer applicants three diMSrent stages that they can jump Into the process. The most elementary stage is the concept plan. They can also do what we call a development plan, which provides us just a little bit more deta8. And then finally, before any development Is approved, they have to have a detaled site plan approved. Typically, people will come Into a large PO like this and get an approved concept plan and then decide how they're going to develop it In phases . Then with each phase, they'll bring In a detailed site plan. So, we may see a detailed site for the single-family area, for example, so the first phase of this project. Or we nrghl see retail development up here as a fairly quick phase of this development. Each of those will require a deleted plan before any building permits are allowed Mr. Bucek: I want to expand on one point because I think the Sheriff picked upon that We're talking about lighting and we're talking about VON: and those kinds of things. If they have the concept plan approved, then their zoning Is set. That's why, because you know we have conditional zoning here, N Ihsre are conditions you want to place on t1 this project, you have to do It right now on the concept plan. Once the conarot plan Is approved, when they bring the detaned plan In, you don't have an opportunity to put additional conditions on the zoning at that time And so that's why you need to be very oonoerned. Those kind of things In any tunlig use where you generally put conditions on, this would be the appropriate time to do k and not to wart until a later time to do K. Mr, Powell Thank you. Commissioner Engeibrecht, Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present? Would you please give us your name and business address, please? Mr, Lee, Yes, sir, My name Is Oflis Lee with Civitworks Engineering. 35.8 Socorro Road, Fort Worth, Texas representing the owners, of which we have two members here with us. We have spent considerable lime with staff on this revised PD. Mr, Donaldson has been extremely heipful In reviewing our needs and desires of the City. I think basically where we are at this point in time-there's an existing PD with certain Intensities are 'sees and, as Mr, Donaldson said, those have been approved in the past, Our revision that we're requesting generally complies with the mixed uses As you can see, the moderate Intensity Is very near the typical needs for the moderate intensity. There's some request in the low intensity. but In general as ter as the uses, we're In compliance. Wave reviewed and understand, with Mr. Donaldson, the desires that were ueated in the Denton Development Plan after the time [his was approved and understand the goals In trying to achieve as much of that with this PD as pol lble. Also we've renewed the City-the staffa request and recommendations I think basically what we'd like to do lov- rather than review the trip generations and all that again-Is the understanding that their goal was to get as close to the intensity, to trip generalions, as possible as was required in the Denton Development Plan. The property presenty Is, as you can see, substanlially above that In some areas. We agree with several of those, and 1 understand the goat of trying to reduce those and feel comfortable from a development standpoint with several of those points A couple of them we have some minor modtfications we'd Ir- i to suggest. And one or two of Il em are probably a little more major Basically, I just went to review the hems that we would like to see a potential modification over the stalls recommendations and then we can review any questions regarding that that we may need Basically, In the moderate Intensity area we agree with the stalls recommendations. We've been through the same calculations, although t is a more intense location at the Intersection of locust and 288, we suspect them 0 may be some potential two-story development retail. But based on single-story-type of strip-enter man that you might see in that aroa, we would agree to modify the PD to 0 301 Boor ores ratio . Other than that, I balavs that's the only modification that vas requested, or recommended, by staff. In the lower Intensity area, which Is the area east of the eectric easement line that Mr. Donaldson mentioned, we are in agreement with the reduction In the neighborhood service" e5 to 0 2 1 Moor area ratio. We are generally In ft-reenr l with the lots In the singly family. The Cty has recommended 442 and a 3 unN per sae. Via have worked with the City, all are continuing to work with them on the dedication, or the setaslde, for a regional detention pond, We also have agreed-the achod j 0 district-to work with them In some form or fashion in obtaining the school ads. I think, as you well oars understand, as Mr. Donaldson said, when you look al dedication of 4S acres, N becomes prety significant. So, we've been O 0 working with the school in that s'duation. But based on that and the removal of an additional 30 acres, In oddtlon to I the 20 acres In open space, we would request that we be allowed a maximum numbbr of 410 units, which Is a Mille below the 520 or 525 potential compromise but a little bit above the 411 That would give us an aggregate of a Wills below the 4 units per acre with all of the uses taken out and very Mss to 3 units per acre on the overall property 35. ~ ~ ry f r q •:r.~St~$~ I~ 1 a1, ~ f 1 3211 a ~ tosamrt ; 0 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August ti, 1998 Page? of 25 That'd be 470 units. The request would be limited by tha number of units, -.s opposed to the density, in that situation. The of ics, which was probably the most dramatic change-in putting on office area within a low Intensity, we realize the desire that the City ordinance basically was set up for much higW Intensity of 0,50. We looked at garden-type office with mostly one-story and maybe some two•story In that area end would agree to reduce that. But we would suggest that the office area and the general retall, which right Is on the comer of the Loop access road and a mina eAerlah-both of those be ieduced to 0.30:1 floor area ratio, as opposed tog 25. Thou are some ;ngr, increases over the request. But as we Ian: with the present plan at the Intensity that I Is, we believe this is a nice compromise The last area Is probably the must controversial and that's the apartment area, the multi-Nmgy. There Is 33,3 acres In the low intensity ores. The request was at 18 units per acre. Itwas 18 units per acre one you ; ei nova the opon space--the additional open space CW Is indicated by the plan, which Is 10%. That is. like I said, the area only within the low Intensity. In discussing with our spartme,it developers, at a rate of 12 units per acre It becomes difficult to dustily development of multi-family. We would request that we be asowed with the other changes that are begq made-tK ; the significant reduction In residential, a reduction In office, some minor adjustments and ra&-ton In the neighborhood services and general retaM-that we be allowed to have Uv 18 unit per acre, We would then work with the staff and CouncA In the detailed plan to try to group and try to create as much open space as possible. With !fa lower Intensity cffce area breaking up the total and the mulliVemly, we believe that ma/ still accomplish the desire to e8minate the strlp-type development. Those are the requests that we would make In modifuir on. We have started another traffic Impact analysis. We have hafted a' this point based on the fact that the City has requested some significant changes In the densities. But we will complete a revised traffic impact analyst before the piat comes In. That will be presented to Justify the Improvements. We agree to l ;'tae-shhough It Is unusual as we know-to put your traffic Improvement Mhln the stoning ordinance: lney were based on a very good study that was done. We have a copy of the study and baslcaly we understand the jus1B cation then and understand the needs related to the traffic these may generate. So, we'l be modiytrp and working towards that gal. I think, as Mr. Donaldson Indicated, we are surrounded by basically major arterials. We do have some higher densities at those Intersections that might typically be located In a low Imensiy atoar-tha general retail and neighborhood services, which probably do create some additional trips, and the offrce which Is kind of unusual. But we've agreed to go to more of a garden-office and reduce that, We believe we can create a comnromise that would definitely move the City much loser to the Denton Development Plan but also provide IM developers a little better start In optioning to begin development In this area and hopefully bring some more residents and business Into the city of Denton. That's *3 1 have for now. I'll be wa9abts to a newer arty questions that y 'all may have Ms Ganzer. Can you tell us again how many hital acres, I'm sorry, there are In the mufti-family? Mr. Lee Right. There Is a total acreage slightly over 49, almost 49.3 total. Of that, 33,3 of that Is within the low Intensity area. Ms, Ganzer I'm talking about overall that you're wanting the 18 per sae. Mr. Lee: The overall total Is 49.3. Ms. Ganzer 49 27. Mr. Lee, Right. 49 27-that s correct That equates, once you take out the 10% open space in addition to all 1M other City requirements, that equates t1800 unit--maimum of 800 units. 1 Ms. Ganze% I was foryetfing about that 10%. Mr Lee, Yes It's a little bit lower l you leave the total In thore Correct. Ms. Ganzer: Okay Thank you. That's where 1 was getting off. Mr. Powell. Mr. Lea O • Ms Vanzer. Thank you. Mr. Powell Excuse me. I'm sorry. ' Ms. Ganzer: That's all right 36. I I + ',CI IL . a i, i, Id 32x10 1 Planning and Zoning Comm salon Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 5 of 25 Mr. Powell: I don't know who I interrupted. Mr. Lee, Ins conditions staff h recommending are four end they're on page 10 and 51 ut our backup. I sure would HAS to sa"Ike to ask you to ;1o over those again just the way they have them... Mr. Lee: Okay. Mr. Powell, ao that we could see exactly what you went in relation to what staff Is eskir for, NAB by One. I understand K'S going to drag this, but I don'tthink I can get a flan understanding of what you're after. Mr. Lee: I think we can get through Vat fairy quickly. All right. The risewmendstions, the first one is 111-floor area ratios, Retall whhln the moderate activity center would remain 0.30 1. Mr. Powell: Okay. Now, they're talking 0.25. Commissioner Engelbrecht, That partiouh figure was not there That's the one that he added Ms, Gourdle Bring N up a little. Thank you. Ma. Lee: You added this You had 1 1 14. Okay, as a previous page? Mr. Donaldson: to the body of the report, I talked about 0,3, and then I upped that-0,25 In the summary. 14r. Ii The summary does say 0.25 for sit general retail; but the recommendation b 0,30 In the moderate activity area, which Is the r,Kommendat'an. In the low Intensity ores W general retail that would go from 0,25 as recommended to 0 3, which Is below the 0.35 that was originally requested. Mr Powell: But you're asking for 0,30 at Ols stage of the game Mr Lee: We're asking for 0.30 in low Intensity. The office, which was orlginetly requested to be 0.5 and Is recommended to be 0 25, we requested a 0,30, Basically, our expWslions will have Some-that would work out for a one-story. We expect some gorden-offos. You'll have a variety of one-story and two-story, so you'll hove a little larger floor ro:io. The open spoor should stay the same, NA trou may have a tittle more floor because Its a two-story , Neighborhood services originelly was 0,25 TM racu, nondetion was to go to 0,20, and we would oree for that to remain at 0.20. The second recommendstion Is ms.imum residential density. Single family-the ` recommendation Is 412 units The crlplnal request was 090, We would request the maximum umRS be 170 units, single family . Multi-family, which I believe Is probnby the gromesl change that we dlccussed within the moderate activity center at 18 units per acre. Is the recommendation and what we've r4oposed also So, that would not change, Within the low Intensity nres, we would request that the 1d undo per acre as we requested rerraln as opposed to the 12 units per acre as recommended. And then based on the total 4927•acres with the 1091 open space taken out, that would be a total of not to exceed 500 unite across the entire multl-family. Recommendation 03 we would agree with. As Indicated, many of those improvements have been done Some of the future improvements are not recommended by TxDOT nor by the staff. I think In general those are In phases -All that are oulslde of this PD. On recommendation 04-wire In agreement to add tit , kghtkg notes on the re all, neighborhood services, apartment areas regarding the design standa'ds for the fighting, Commissioner Engelbrechl, Other questionsfor the petitioner? Mr. Moreno: Ouestbn Commissioner Engetbrecht Ya. Mr Moreno, Could you elabor,te for me just a Nine bit On the nature of your discussions vAh the school district? Mr. Lee. The school district In our Initial submitlsl on the PO requested that we review with them the dedlosion to { the provlding for a bast on for a school she. At f st, h well just @ ii discussion yle wotkad with Nam. They 0 determined that the need In the ores was an elementary sohoot and based on the need, or Ne type school, they have a fofmufa for looking at scrooge requirements. For elementary schools, genershy N a's related too park area or open space ores, which we're looking at doing here, there would be a need of about approximately 15 met with them, Discussion was that, ono we got past the tenin j and were ready to begin planning, we would then begin to 37. 32d 25> 1 Q o • o Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1999 Page 9 of 25 work with the school district and took at e s detailed posslibiiky and coordinating not only that, bull the open space and the regional detention pond and on those Items together and tying those-mainy. location of R within the area where to place that. But generally. we're looking for N within the residential area to put the potential school , she. Mr. Moreno I'm still not clear. Are you d scussing the possibility of ceding some land to the school district or just providing a location for a school? Mr. Lee, I'm sorry. What wbs the first part of the question? Mr. Moreno: Are you In discussions with them about possibly granting them some lend for the location of %a school, or are you simply talking about possible locations for a school. I mean, you're not going to give anything away, are you? Mr. Lee Well, I of those. 1 think sa any public entity, they'd like to have n given to them Mr. Moreno: Sure. i Mr Let'. Of course We work school districts in different area. Most school districts, for whatever reason, typically purchase The ochoot district indicated to us the test two or three school lines they've obtained have been through dedication through developers. They are aware of the question that we've asked regarding that and they're researching that themselves to determine, you know, their needs. SO I think obviously from a developer standpoint, 19 acres Is very valuable and In some form or fashkM• you know, there would be some type of trade-off with that Mr. Moreno: I, for one, would IN@ to command you for even having thou discussions because I'm not swe that I remember that any developer elong LI114n Miller or Teasley Lane has even discussed a location of a possible school vMh any developer down there. 8o. I really appreciate that Mr. Lee: We've been speaking with Mr Braswell Is who we've been discussing, I think, for the school distdN. Commissioner Engelbrechl: Other question? Mr. R shel. W. Donaldson, Is there anything also that he has kind of summarized what he Is proposing, Is there anything also that we should be looking at or considering with regard to you, reeommerdatlons, In compromissi Mr. Donaldson. I think the summary of the I see rs!bs and the residentiel densn4a kind of wraps up most of the issues that rovoNe around the concept plan. Cortelny, there are going to be 4@061 that get resolved at tM detailed plan stage when we nn down and look at all* plane We have a separate set of criteria that we use to evaluals thou. They include landscaping and buffering and lighting and that sort of thing. The concept plan, 1 think, Is generally contained within these notes that are on the plan and the modifications that have been provided to you n Mr Risher. Thank you. , . M.. Powell Mr. Donaldson, while you're up there, K I may. The school's request for land- 4s this to this one development only or do they need land for school because of this proposed development plus existing developmanl In this r.ree? Mr Donaldson it's my under@tavding that cap of the school Iac9nles are now ova capacity, so it's a combinallon of bola. , Mr Powell. Okay It's not )ust for VA development then This one development Is not tripping the w1ro, so to ~ speak. Mr. Donaldson No. Five hundred singk••lamiy homes might generate 250 to 900 student, Nht hundred muhl- family homes might generate 100 students. Mr. Powell, Non, that's a grade school, though. 38. 32 X E ~ O 1 Pkanning end Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1018 Pagn 10 of 25 Mr, Donaldson: Yes. That would come close to filling up a grade school. Mr. Powell: Of course, they wouldn't all be grade school students. , Mr, Donaldson: That's correct. Mr. Powell: One more question, air. In the existing plan, Is there office zoning? Mr. Donaldson: No. There Is not. Mr, Powell: So, this antics zoning is new. hi Donaldson: Correct. 'Ar, Powell: And 0 I've been reeding the media oorrectly leley, typically there's no way single-family or even the- no way residential Is g :ing to pay for what the school districts need. But esemingy lhs office in here will help that Does that make any son so? I mean, Is the.,... Mr. Donaldson: I would agree with you Mr. Powell. Is that the way t should be thinking here? Mr.Oonaldson Yes. Mr. Powell. So, this Is a new concept In this development, I In our present predicament school-wise, 8 should be helpful Mr. Donaldson: Correct. Mr. Powell, Thant you. Mr. Moreno: Mr, Donaldson, how strongly do you feel about your proposed conditions versus the applicant's wanted conditions? Mr. Donaldson: I'm trying to find something that summarizes that. If you'A look In the tables on page 8 of (ha eldf report, you can see both the stalf•moditd estimates of trip generation for the moderole activity and the applicant's request for the low intenelty area, You'll see (het the residential trip generation to a feirly Insign:9cont part of the total trip generation. The trips Ors generated by those seav8lee that are occurring on the outskle of the planned development odiscend to the arlerlel roads So, that offers some m1tollon for cranking up those numbers, to e degree For example, In the slaM•modifled numbers where we're ktokIng at 0 30 on the retail and 10 units per awe, the residential trip generation Is only 15% of at of the trip goneretlon. Within lha applloent'a request for the dove Intensity area, the resldentlal trip generation is significantly tots than haM of all the trip generation, So, we could 1 move those numbers up without, you know, adding slgnificent number to the trip generations I Mr. Powell: Did you base your conditions, riot eonditlon 4. DA conditions 1, 2 and 3, strk:ty on the tripe or did you . have some other, f Mr. Donoldson: Well, I'd say there ore three factors-one Is the intenally, standards the: are estobllshed through the Denton Development Pion-Irying to ociflove those , Mr. Powell But thel Intensity b ON trips, ti Mr. Doneldsorr. Yes Mr Powell We're talking traffic here. B-A, you know.., j Mr. Donaldson Right. Mr. Powell ...1 quest what I'm asking Is 1, 2 and 2 strictly here because of tr^ or did something else coma Into Ihia7 39. i ~Mr, 25 x 10 32x~❑ t; J I 'IICOJfa r 0 Planning and Zoning Commlasbn Minutes August 12,1998 Page 11 of 25 Mr. Donaldson: The other things that would be the recant zoning approval* that we've made In other low Intensity areas have been pointing toward floor area ratios that are comparable to what staff offered as modflcations-Me 0 30 In the moderate activity; the 0.25 In the low intensity area The mitigating factor is, you know, the proximity of these areas to me)& arterial roads. You've got the loop, North Locust, and N ghway ?7, Those are bunt to carry large volumes of bral or will be built to carry large volumes of traffic once we develop. So. I think this particular PD is Ideally otuated to accommodate traffic and uses greater rather than may have been suggested In the Denton Development Guide. Mr. Powell: One more quesbat-I always say that, dont 17 The number of residential units in the existing plan relative to your suggestions-how does that relate? Mr. Donaldson The..,, Mr. Powell: Just roughy-I don't need an exact number, sir. Mr. Donaldson: The current concept plan had a total of 1,630 units. The applioant's original proposal was for 1,390. My modification brought that down to about 1,130 unite Now, the counter proposal Is.... Mr. Powell, Twelve hundred and seventy. Mr. Donaldson: 60, it's sto a significant reduction of the approved concept plan--on the order of 20% Mr. Powell: I'm sorry. One more question4 if they'd have gone forward with the nriginsl pion, they ocukl have just, I'm kind of throwing cal words here, but they could haw kind of walked ft through, and we would have taken n as la Right? Mr. Donaldson: Well, we still would have had the opportunity to approve and condition any date ll eke plans that they're required to take those through the process Mr. Powell: But the zoning called for a number of unite and they would have been allowed based--assuming that other things didn't get In the way-they would have been ollow!: that number of units Mr Donaldson: We would M hard pressed to after those. We would have to make findings that conditions hod chcrged in the area to dramatically that we could no longer accommodate Them, for example. And, you know, the Commission or the Council would hove to be very careful about making thoa findings in order to condition It downward I Powers. Thank you, Ms Oourd+e: Excuse me, IAr. Chair. I'd just kite a point of order. Mr, Lee was In the middle of hie public hearing, and I would just like us to fret back to the public hearing and hold these questions for when.,,, Commissioner Engelbracht. We're going bock. I was going to make a comment that I realize we're out of order, out of our nornol order here, but this was such a large ease. Thera were to many detells Plot h seemed that there were come questions for staff In order to get through those details to gel back to Mr. Lee and that's why 1 didnt say S anything and let it go this time. Ms Oourdie Well, I think we should reserve those questions and write them down. Thank you. Commissioner Engelbrecht. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Donaldson. Mr. Lee, you want to come back? I apologize for that Mr Lee That's okay. Commssioner Engelbrechl, ..,but I fen like with the large number of details Involved with this ease, K was better 0 that we sod of gel those out, flush them out now f Mr, tea. 1 understand the large number of delalls V 40, 10: 32x10 o , Planning end Zoning Commission Minutes August Q, 199 Page 12 of 25 Corr issk ier Engelbrecht. Are there other questions for Mr. Lee? I have a couple. One-t went to make sure you fully understand that there-es representative for this applicant, that the Cty has absolutely no Interest in connecting onto Loop 288 In any way, fashion, or form-now or In the future. hit. Lee, No do we. Commissioner Engelbrechl: Okay. Okay Mr. Lee. It's our understanding from TxDOT that they're not going to allow th it anyway. They don't have any planned locations for any morel crossings or connections to 288 in that eras, Commissioner Engeli t: I real to that's what they have now, but they changed and etc.. I think there will be some In the oily who M8 fight that vigorously H that's approached. The second hem Is with regard to the school dlst Oct; I understand you still have on-going discussions with them regarding a school $ite somewhere on that property, I'm not lolling about dedication, I'm just talking about you still haw on-going discussions with them about their scqul ring. Mr. lee, Righi, The issues stem from-originaly we were looking at acreage minus required open space, pork area, or detention required for our property. There was a requirement for additional detention few regional pond, a need for that and than there was r,esd proscribed for schools, go, we were then kind of evolving to a point and wBh this looking at the reduced number of v mile in here, ws kind of evolved to a point where we're at tone location where we can't accommodate potentially both uses We'll obviously approach the school district based on the potential for accommodation ant work on some negoliatione from that standpoint. Commissioner Engelbrechk Okay. I urderstand, would you passe just revlaw again the ores of land sire for the park and then also for the detention faclllty. Mr. Lee Right now, our plan es shown Indicates 20 acres of open space which oonslat► of approximately 8 acne of park, required park area, about another 8 acres of required detention eras based on preliminary aladations; and then. I think It was mentioned kr the report, there Is a kind of a droinsgeway that meanders up towards the northwest of the property. We figure another 4 or 8 acres that would be open span over and atbove, the park eras in there, That's where the original 20 came from, and that's still planned in here. In addition to that, the C 4y has Indicated a need for approximately 25 acres for a regtonst detention pond, vi eh is approximately 15 more sores than we have planned right now for delenlim. That's where the first 15 carne from, and then the school has asked for 15 sores based on the need for on elementary school In the area. That brings us to a toot of approximately 50 acres of open space, excuse me, out of that residential area. That's where the calculation come from at approximately 1 units per acre to? 170 units maximum Commissioner Engelbrecht Okay, has-sirs you--has staff talked to you? Are you swore of the porky we have now of attempting to co locale uchools and parks? Mr. Loo Yes Commissioner F.ngelbrecht: Ol ay S Mr. Lee: Yes We're aware o' that, and we agree *An that policy also, and the desire Is to Incorporate Oaea tagethor-polentiasy even the selenlion eras, with that large greenbelt together. Commissioner EngelbrechL. Great. Yee; I would tike to sae 4M staff bs as creative as possible with the school . districts and wkh 9 e developer here to try and make a school work and still gat some park and all 014 Me Gouf die Excuse me, Mr. Lee? Commissioner Engetbrechr. It sounds like we have a lot of screagr., and we ought to be able to creatively And e ' Q way to get the tdwA M there end minimira the amount of space that's used Id do 8. Yes, Ms. Gourdie. 1 Ms GourdO: I was lust wondering M you'd spoken to any of the other developers In the PO-125 or the 8F•1 M ihey might be willing to participate in the tend towards the st'yol 41. 10 32X10 s Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 098 Page 13 of 25 Mr. Lee. That would be the areas to the east of us? Ms. Gourdle, Yes. Correct, Mr. Lee: They have had @ diffauly in their original submittal which is part of the reason the detention was moved to the west and request. ode to us to offset because o1 thek development that they Initialty had subm hod. So, at this point in time, based on the fact that they could not Inowporate the 45 acres of detention on their property, our Initial assumption right now has been that they would not have a location for 15 acres for a school ells either at this time. Now, we haven't spoken to them; but just based on what their requests were earlier, we made that assumption. Ms. Gouidle, Okay. I would just like for that burden to be shared by everyone versus just you folks. Thank you. Commissloner Engelbrecht, Any o!her questic its crime petitioner? Thank you. Mr. Lee Thank you. Commissioner Engelbrecht: Is there anyone present who would like to speak In lever of this petition? If there anyone present who would like W speak In favor of this petdlon? In that eve d is there anyone present who would like to speak In opposition to the petition? Anyone present who would like to speak in opposition to tho petllon? Given there was no opposition, we'll skip the section for rebuttal. We'll close the public hearing and ask staff for their final remeAs Mr. Dor sidson: 1'1 just review then, 01 can, the various factors that we've bean talking about.... Commissioner Engelbrecht, Can I Interrupt you just a moment and ask the Commissioners-IS that clear? Mr. Powell, It's a little fuzzy up there, but It's somewhat readable here Commissioner Engelbrecht. Can It be focused on [he screen or Is that the best-Is that 1? Ms Gamier. Can you make d a little bit bigger, or. . Commissioner Engelbrechl How about we zoom 1 a Idle more. Maybe that'll, or will that,., Ms Ganzer: There you go. Commix slcner EngelbrechL Okay. There we go. Thank you Mr Donaldson Okay We had floor area ra5oc-Shia, then, being the etaff•modiNd ratios of 050 within the moderate activity center for retail, 025 whhim the low Intensity area for retail; office at 0.25; and neighborhood services 610 20, The applicant has said he's okay with the 0.30 In the moderate and the 0,26 for Ihs neighborhood services He'd like to see 0 30 for both the of is and the retail within the low Intensity areas. On the residential side, staff had modified end provided a number of 442 singwfamily units compared to 690 that was in the original request They've countered with 470 units Then, wthin the multi-family grouping, staffs reoommendatlon wit 18 units per acre within the moderate activity center and 12 units per mere within the tow Intensity ores not to exceed 688 They've asked for 18 units per acre In Iha low Intensity area with, then, the Clip at e00 units r80ecting 18 units per acre over the entire MF zone district. In the staff report. I think I provided a couF4 of bullets on ml[gating I 111 factors that could allow you to approve a greater Intensity }hen the standard e0 trips per day, Those are on page 8 with the 181le square bullets. They would reed that the percentage of residential area within (77% of lho area within the low intensity area) that is below the Intently standard, that the location of the total and of ics areas are along the primary arterials, and [hat the Waton of the neighborhood services Is In close proximity to the Highway 77 near Its Intersection with Nicosle Street, Those are phrases pulled from the DDP ms kind of mitigating factor for deviating from the Inlensdy standards So, you may want to Incorporote those into your mown. 0 Commiss'roner Engelbrecht. Does that conclude your remarks? 0 Mr Donaldson Thatconcludes Comm?»ioner EngelbrscM, Questions for slafl? 42. ~ l..J 32X av 9 o , ,ern. Planning and Zoning Commissim Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 14 of 25 Me Gourdie: Yea, please. Commissioner Engetbrecht: Ms. Gourdle. Ms. Gourdie: Mr. Donaldson, Mr. Lee wasn't sure whether It'd be on"fory or two-story office building being that It-I'm used to us saying that there's going to be to many square feet In each office building. To me it Just seems- you an, you know, minus what the landscape ordinance and this and that-he an pretty much do any a" he needs to do on the property. He can do just one big huge one. Is that correct. N we don't say each building has to be no move than, you know. Mr, Donaldson Yee At this point, we haven't provided an; further conditions that would be comparaLle to that Me Gourd'r Does that nee"r. Bulk said that we need to do the oondRbns now. Is this something we do now, or do we hew to wait unlit the detailed plan comes up--when ov N It will come up. And so, I Just want to aas N this Is something that anyone else Is concerned about or N we should Jusf.,,. Mr, Suak: Won, our concern on the cases that come to you-whenever wire dealing with the detailed plan and you bring those up al lhsl time, you hove the yelling and the screaming from the developer that you're changing his zoning use That's why I think N that's a big Issue with you, it's probably appropriate to do it today. I think what Mark Is saying Is that k really becomes a legal Issue as to how much of your change in the detailed plan is a change in use and what Ism I. It's a question, In fact, for a jury to decide and that's why I'd feel more comfortable N you were going to do it today. Although the problem at the concept plan Is sometimes it's difficult to do that today because, you know, when the detailed plan comes in and more of the neighborhood Is set, Ns a b1 easier to look It those decisions, But I'm just reminding you that you are always attacked when you get to the detailed plan that you've tried to change the use on them, Ms. Gourd: All right, So, my next quesllon Is, I juees, I don't know N this needs to--t guess this might be a discussion amongst the Commissionen, bul I '.cued like to have that addressed-and N you have any recommendations, N that were to be addressed, Mr Donaldson: Well, I can review with you the oonddions that have been ansched to most of the Teasley Lane Zoning cases have revolved around a limit of two stories They've Included masonry walls. They've included roof p'dches, designated roof pRrhes In terms of the minimum pitch allowed, and most of them contain a maximum square footage per building of 7,500 square feet, Most of the applicants have come In with a marketing-type approach to buiid gardenityle offices. And we heard fiat phrase from the applicant this evening, That's how we've interpreted garden-style to look. so [hat might be an appropriate set of conditions ii Ms Gourdie, AN rphl, Thank you Commissioner Engelbrecht: Other? I Mr, Powell Mr Donaldson, Is this area on the Loop, you know, the retell area-s this outside of the beer and wine area? Mr Donaldson I don't know, • Mr, Powell. I know d Is on Sherman Drive, the top Is; but 1 don't know 0 M b here or not. Mr Donaldson: I'm not famllor with the boundaries Mr Powell: Thank you Commissoner Engefbrecht Other questions for staff? The applicant hot requested 4 um"s per sue, Mr, Donaldson, In the multi-family in the low Intensity area. I cannot particulory resit many cases where we have 0 . done that, where we have exceeded the 12 units In low Intensity areas. I may be wrong Mr. Donal son We had a recent PD, PO.41, that the Pebbh Crook Apartments are located in Is bolusly In a low infens ty area, and they me going at abed 20 unite per aces But they also gave the City 25 sues of parkland which, when factored 0, would reduce their IntensNy down to the standard, probably. That's really about the only recent I 43, 0, J r~ q,rri J. K 10 32x10 s 0 a Planning and Zoning Commloslon Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 15 of 25 use that I an think of Again, the plan allows Increased intensity on certain parcels as long as you by to achleve the overall Impact and as long as you an mitigate M, perhaps by bating It siong an alerfal. Commissioner £ngelbrecht: I undent:nd I Just ward to make sure where we are with regard 10 precedent, + although INN Is a P0, and that does make a difference. I'd like to put It within some context, Other questions for staff? No other qusalions? Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, are there any comments? Ms. Ganzer; I've got some. I appreciate the pet&nsrs wanting to do a compromise between what their Initial proposal was and what staff has proposed. We've seen very little of that lately, so I do appreciate that word 'compromise.' Also, I'm arxious to tee some development of land, general ratan, single-family, etc. In north Denton to take u •is of the burden off of mouth Denton. I'm ready for It to etas going north. Mr, Morena Thanks That's where I live. Ms. Ganzer: 1 do, too, Welt, M's-you know what I'm saying. I want to get some better neighborhood services and general (stall up north, t don't like having to drive across town to stuff. As for as the single-family, they are willing to compromise and come down 20 unit from where their fvet proposal was and only go up 2E unit from what the staff recommends And than on the mulli-famly-M we Move It at 18 units per sore on the law Intensity arms, that's only going to go up 112 units from what staffs recommending lice I said, coming down on the single-famill know that even though this Is a different Intensity area, the muXAsmiy, that we have been bringing In has been a lot more per sore than this Is proposed to be. So, I like what tMs petitioner has-their compromise, all the way down. I Just wonted to say that Commissioner Engelbreeht: Other comments? Me Apple: I'd just like to toy I agree with Commissioner Ganzer's comments I was thinking stag the same &nes. I don't have a problem wRh the petlfioner's requests as he made them earlier, I would certainly tupporl those Commissioner Engelbrecht Other comments? Ms. Gourdis? Ms. Oourdle I would just like to know d my fallow Commissioners would like to put conditions on the o"s at this moment I realize that we all have opersle Interpretations of what garden-style means, being In a world of the open way we Interpret things, each of us differently, I would like for this to be more 0sclad into s single thought versus et abstract thought. If evaryorle would like to discuss N or not, that's up to us to decide. But 1 would pits to take the condit'ons that Mr Donaldson hod given us-and that was pretty much what hoppo%l on the south side; they soy we is id-the pitch, the roof, the masonry and just get k down there, gat lt In there so that our developers will know that this Is whet we would like to see and this Is where we're heading and to have that In writing In the meeting and to know that's where were heading-Just mothers won't be any confusion in the future. Commhsloner Engebrecht. Me Apple. Ms Apple I wouldn't have a problem with setting some conditions. I guess what I'd be sur,cerned about Is-d: they have an overall concept already, because I'm sure they want the neighborhood to bland will, the mvllldamly, r` to blend with the retail end the office I eon'l know 9 they could tel those parameters right now, and the "titlonor . may be able to address that better. Ms. Ganzer: That's kind of-to me, a at of this office or most IN of this oMia out on Toss and Lillian Molar roe been so it would blend better with the emitting neghborhood. And we dons ever nave any Idea what a,.+ neighborhood's going to look like. Ms. Apple. Exactly, Mr Moreno: Wen, Commissioner Gourdis, I kind of sons with you, but my coneerm is that the petitioner hssn9 had art opportunity to evaluate the affect of those additional Conditions upon his development I kind of hate 10 put him g , on the spot and make him, or fora him, to make oonuulont whhout the opportunity to tae what that impact might be Perhaps the pelilloner cen comment on Shat now, a.... Mr. Sandlln Mr Chairman, members of tha Commission, my name Is Mike Sandlin, I gve st 100 Chroal Downs In Southlake, I'm on their PU, to I tympothlzo whh what you guys go through Part of the problem la, srd you know, I tll~ - r~ 2!; 32XIO 1 e M Planning and Zoning Commission Minules August 12, 1995 Page 18 of 25 1 know you hate -we hale concept plans, but you've got to start somewhere. This Is such a big tract that we don't really know-you know, we're trying-we are working with some builders trying to get them into the retail. We're working with some people trying to get the muNl•famlly, to we're trying It, put this together. When we get to the office, you know, typically what happens Is you've got to get the rooftops up and then the office comes; the retail comes Craig Ownby and 1-he also owns a large chunk of this-and we decided to go In together w of least we could see, kind of get an update, because this PD was over tan years old. So, we're trying to talk to staff; we're trying to work vith P&Z and City Council and find out what's the City's new, updated version of what's going to happen up here. That's why it's real Informative to come here, and that's why I wanted to come here so we could kind of get some Inp;rt-roe where the new P&Z and City Council is headed-and we could take that and then go out and see and get our builders, get our mutli•family people In place, office people In place I know I'm not really enswer:rg your question; but before the very start, we'll be back here quite a few times; but that's why we opted to go for the concept plan so we know --0ksyl at least we'd have the Initial blessings of PU and City Council. This Is the overall concept and then we're going to go out end work real hard trying to pun these people In-actually trying to get builders In and muln•famlty people in, At that point, well be back with more detailed plans. To try and put a lot of conditions on N-I'm just going to be sitting up here kind of pulling stuff out and I don't really know You know, I can tell you rbht now, I hAve en Was about what some of the builders we wont You know, they're the some builders that have been building in Donlon I may be able to fall you "who' on the mutbfamiy, I don'! know. You know, we dun't have anyone Specifically for munidamlly at this point. Retail, office-we're just-we just need to know- oksy, that's where we want N d this point Ware happy N N--we think oMla was a big step up from town houses. We just don't think the market Is really geared toward town houses right now. And 9 we gel an the muNl- family and housing In, there'd be more of a need for office which will help on the school problem. Town houses won't help with school issues at all. Does that kind of answer.... Ms Gourdie I think H answers Ihe1r questions To me, If Nat makes mine more--H verifies what I'm saying Is that you understand what you want-offices. You know N'r going to be there , You have an We& so In my mind being that you are a person who develops, you're a Planning or Zoning; you know all this duff. You know that N is a passible thing to say, 'Yes we will have pitched roofs Yes, we will have masonry sialls.'--because your vlaiea Is obviously the some vision that we're having We're Just pulling it in writing, And so, to me, you're verifying whet I'm saying and you're ju t rolling them that, you know, you understand both those concepts. So, thel'f-you know. N goes both ways, I see what you're saying both ways. Mr Lee One quick suggestion is to have Mark verify this At the detailed silo plan stage, to put restrictions regarding roof pitches, maximum floor or building areas, exterior would not Conflict with what Is approved tonight because those ere not speci'c to this plan The floor area rat 'as, K those were changed, N the percentages of open space, H the setback requirements were approved tonight-if those were changed, that would then set the PU and Council in here that you're talking about, concern that Mark was talking about, and concern over selling some type of requirement rot that-some s:gnifcant change. We dill have a detailed IRS plan when we-when the Boor area ratio sees, we have a maximum area we an use. Whether we put N In two stories of half the size each or one story to full size or in 8 buildings or in 2 buildings or In 1 building, that will all be reviewed and will be separate from the Issues that ere reviewed tonight. I think that's correct according to the ordinance , Me Courdoe I was just under the Impression that, from the Standpoint that we just received,.,. Mr. Bucek. That's exactly right, The problem !s-I understand what you're saying, but the nexl developer may not e agree with what you're saying because we've had them say that we couli I think you're rpht. Nlnety•porcent of the lime we go along, we make lwo-story decisions versus one-story In the detailed plan phase, and we donT get any heat about H. It all comes down to is how many apples are on the can !afore H Pipe over. Thai's a0 I'm saying. if this PU Board had a specific thing In mind that they wanted to do right now, then N's opprop,lSte to do N. If N's the point I think you're making, from the north sae there's not a tit of guidelines then this Commission may decks to wait What we're saying Is-there's nothing that dope them from doing a right now That's all we're saying. , • Mr tee I guess the only point Ihd I'm making Is that thorn's nothing [hat slops you from making those at the detailed site plan also. alines those would not be In convict with the spadfk items within the PO approved here 0 .t lonighl That's the only ciarifkalion I wanted to make sure that we were an In agreement on u~. Mc Bucek, I'm saying that you can say whatever you want today, and you an come back here five years from now and say, 'I'm building a three-story office bull4rig'; and N you want to Iska us to task, ws may lose that bank. Bee. Ihol's what I'm saying We have certain developers who will use thel kind of leverage and that's the concern. A 45. t3 x a CJ r ' o Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1908 Page 17 of 25 three-story office complex with your floor area ratio Is prnbabty not cost effective, I donl know any of that kind of sluff. I'm just ssying that the nature of zoning Is we don't have an those answers and we havent litigated them and we don't want to litigate them. Mr. Lee' Well, we agree with that. Cam missloner Engelbrecht I think Mr. Sucek Is suggesting we set the standards this evening. Mr Sucelk: I'm not trylnr to guide you. I'm just trying to save,... CommisOnner EngelSrecht: I think legally that may be the best route, Whet I understand Is-yes, Me Ganzsr. Me, Ganzer, Tht , would front can loop 288; Is that correct? Right? The office would front at Loop 268 which Is a much bigger anu much w'Idor road than Teasley and Lillian Miner and which Is going to have last Irsfrw zooming by. It's not going 1(- -1 don't-I'm not comfortable with doing that right now Mr. Sandlin: we get back to this is a oori plan, and we've got the City here; we've got tit developer here We're miser, i one part of Ihis-who It the person who's urtlmetey going to be in those office buildings. That's generally why you gat-I mean In Southlake, that's when wire doing the site plan Is when was actually have a tenant that wants to be there, At that point, we're looking at a Room Store or, you know, a home Depot or 11 something like that. It's real difnoult for me or Craig to come up wnh spectra guidelines on a whole comptex for office zoning when we don't have that owner here of the potential owner. Ms Apple, Well, a kl of those companies that you're speaking about have their own spo*fcs that they have to follow, too, which might go Into this not knowing who your tenants are going to be Mr Sandlin. Ware locking d a specMla sue plan; and, you know, when I look at cases for that, that's when I'm sluing there, end I'm talking about aid of rte things that Elizabeth Is talking about and possibly a lot more We're looking at stacking, and we're looking at, you know, does it follow our landscaping ordinance and I dont like this pitch of the roof end some of our members even say they don't like the color of the roof Okay? But that's the one plan Ms Gourd is And that's not my intention-lo tell you what color or anything. And 1 sea the Room Store and all those as retail spaces. Those are not office spaces. Ware talking about two vary different things here Mr. Sandlin: Well, still-aid dentiss-whet does that fan under? Ms Gourd,e Wen, Me not a Room Store, It's not a Home Depot, I mean, they are retail lacll'Mlas and when you say offices to me, and this Is what I mean, communication-we see different things end we hear different things. When I hear offcas, I think of a CPA or Mom and Pop coming In and doing their books in the back room, but I don't see the Room Store as an office. I don't see Home Depot as on office. Mr. Sandlin You're obsoluley right Sri that cos the wrong exempla. I've look at Ebby Halliday Realtor; I've looked at an enorney's office; I've looked at a dentist's offs. I cant remember whet zoning that went for R. bW, you know, that's your ordinance Specifically ei vering an of that. And then don9 you have a sign ordinance that's going to 1,91I them what Sign they're going to bund? Me Goufdic-, Well, we have a sign ordnance-yes, but we donl have a-I mean, you could come in there and soy. 'We want offices'; and then you could go put sheet malol up there and say, 'These are our offices This Is what we see as garden-offices because M looks Ilia s loot shed and we sold garden.' 1 mean,,. Mr. Sandlin. So, what you're saying Is that the office zoning Is loo-what's the word-an encompassing and you want us to narrow N down. CommIsWer Engelbrecht; Wan, I think that there's a concern In the city thsl Ms GouMia-one portion of the city 0 and Ms. Gourdie's atlempling to express the conGtM-the visual appeal, sesthetics. M you will, of bundings-In this use office buildings--and that's why the question come up about the masonry axlerbr. I guess N bolls down to-do you have a real problem with that condition on there that the offloa area be masonry exterlof. I think that pretty well... 46. )5 32XIII . dal p X17e7awa Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 18 of 25 Ms Gourdie: Yds, All I'm saying Is that., Commiss oner Engelbrechl:.,.I think that covers It, Ms. Gourdie two-story limit, masonry, and pitched roof-!f lt has to be one big, huge building. Mr. Sandlin: Y'all are going to have let Craig answer that. Ms. Gamier: When you're saying pitched roof. I'm visualizing some other office bindings in town that don't have the pitched roof that are still very attroctivs. For Instance, Dale Erwin-you know what kind of stuff he builds-but he also has one that's over there on the other side that-the first onr he built Is stucco, and N's a flat roof; but R's stirs very shrocu've. To me N Is; I mean, you know, beauty Is in the eyr of the beholder. Ms Gourdie: Well, let's just fay-obviously there's a mmj" of people here who do not care to speak on this bel to I'm willing to release what I'm saying, but I'm not going r be held responsible In five years when this comes back to us. I'm going to say, you know, I made the point. 1 stood forward- Ms Gamier, That's fine. Ms Gourdie, and y'ail. . Ms Gamier I understand. Ms Courdie: chose not to take the step forward, to I remove one thing. You guys an have your objecilve accomplished and let's just hope that we have, you know, something that will be presentable In five years Commissioner Engelbrechl: I still have a question about that, Mr Ownby. Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm Craig Ownby, I'm with (insudible) In Arlington, Texas, a former resident of this city, Can I answer your question? CommisConer Engelbrecht Sure, yes. Go ahead, please Mr, Ownby, In this particular case I think Mike pretty well summed M up The bottom line Is-when we really gel down to a, Ifs going to be who the builder is and who the Individual is who is buying the property--what they're going to want on that property. They're going to want an arohdect to design a building that's going to meet the standards and cfileria that [hey want 0 their particular office, Ms Gourdie All due respect, I understand that, But I also-ws had people here who wanted offices and I eked them what they were going to build and they smid'Well, we're going to put metal fabrlcaled offices up.' And even though that's what they went, does that really rd with the neighborhood, had this Is ail I'm saying Is that y'el are going to hove a neighborhood, end then you're going to build officer, but you're going to build them according to whsl the developer wants or the builder wants-Shen, you know, how do you work that out? And this la alt I'm saying Is that this is just standard. Mr. Ownby. Again, here, Ms Gourdis, a lit of that comes back again to this very group right hera-[n terms of e what the final approval Is for what can be done on that building: N terms of what we're going to want there-okay; [n leans of what myself, Mc Sandlin, we're going to be willing to sell our land for that purposes let's face lt-[f I've got a nice apartment complex over here and nice general total right here end great looking tit iden[Iat area. I dont want a shoe[ metal bugding there. Okay? So, I'm genersly not going to kook to sell my property [o somebody ~I who's going to be putting up a sheel metal' building, That's a tale common sense Commissioner Engelbrecht, Okay. Thank you Since we've-ya, go ahead, since we've opened this up, 1 • Mn. Sandlin. I understand what you're saying, and I doml think you can address k on a case-by-case. It gels very 0 • difficult to do. Might I suggest and ft's moil work for-8's a let Longer thing to do-till what we did on 114, for Instance-and, see, you have to look at the whole corridor, and that's on overlap corrWor. And so, M you want everything to look the some along that hphwsy, then come up with in overlay district ands.. l Mr. Moreno, We've already had this discussion 47. E Will 32 r . ' o Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 19 of 25 Mr. Sondlin: It's a very difficult thing, and we've done that in Southlske, and you have to sit there end, staff Is going k to lays this, and.... I` Commissioner EngelbrecK We know. You'll hove to.... Mr. Sandlim That's how we handled k. Commitsioner Engelbrecht: It's later on in the agenda. You can talk to staff about our history with corrkkr. Thank you I know. !I Mr. Sandlin: Thal would be something-a suggestion, Commissioner Engetbeacht: That's another alternative approach, Ms, Apple: Well, and not only that, but d something doss come about from that, there maybe additional things set upon them that mitol make a difference as for as what we set upon tonight and what Elizabeth's wanting. So. I'm not comfortable, at thle time anyway, putting any conditions upon that, Commissioner Engelbrecht: I Just wont to make a comment that since we are doing his seemingy In order, N appears to me that the petitioner--my understanding of what was god was that we'll put up whatever we desire at the moment, I think there's a group of folks in this town who have great concern about what offices look Nye. I saw no assurance here that $his was-could range anywhere from metal to brick to tarp, gr nits-to anything, I think there's a question about what the standard is going to be 1 really NO that has not been answered. Mr. Moreno: Yes. If I could kind of change the subject a Mle bli, I do have a question on No possibility or Idea of allowing 18 units per acre within a low lntenaly area. I guess my question to staff or counsel Is-are ws getting a dangerous precedent M we allow the 18 units per acre? Mr, Donaldson I would just ask you to make a finding-N you do make a motion to allow 18 unite, to also add the finding That there are mlllgeting conditions In this case, such as its proximity, to Loop 288 and North Locust as major aderlols that warrant the Increased InlenaNy. Mr, Rlshel. Its done In Compromise 4 Mr, Donaldson Pardon me? Mr, Rishel, It's Ions In compromise. Mr, Donaldson Yes Commissioner Engetfttrhl. Mr, Powell, did you have comments? Mr, Powell, Wlth regards to o1rce design and whatnot, the offices over on the south side on Teasley si d whatnot- when they were brought to us, there was on existing neighborhood The concept was to moat We extsting nelghl,, ,:rood, and It was obvious that the property was never going to develop unless N mel the ax(stlng • neighborhood because the opposition was way too strong, I don't see that to ?data to this at all. The existing neighborhood Is non-exigent, and there's no opposition to this here tonight or even sent to us In writing I throw that d we're going to require Ihings In tonlr T, by and large I think, then they ought to be in the toning ordinance Of course, I guess that's what we're cresting here, but we don't normaly In retail toning require these things-strsighl retall toning. So, I don't know that we need to do 8 here tonight. That's alt I'm saying. i Ms. Ocardie, Just for point of reference, Wind River and all those, Sundown Ranch, all those-then were no existing neighborhoods when those ws.re toned. So, just so you'll know. N was just based on what we call the Red • lobster property, which was off of Southridge. It was a courtesy that they did N off of that. So. I'm just saying that mat's something that 'a scluoity-hods loo much water. e Mr. Powell: Except 101) people sat out hers from Southridge• -thought they had an existing neighborhood on eM of that 48. 32 ~xarws . • o Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 12, 1998 Page 20 of 25 Ms. Gourdio: No. You're talking about one property, and you're combining a whole mile's worth of offxles Into one property, end that'a not cared. Commissioner Engelbrecht: Other comments or a motion? Ms. Ganzer. I'm ready to make a motion. Ill tryIt anyway. Commissioner Engetbreoht. Go ahead. Ms, Ganzer: I recommend approval of Z-98.027 with the following eondM1xxts: Will you leave that up there, because I don't have ell of this here.) 1) the floc, ratios as follow-retpl within the moderate activity oenty to be 0.3:1; within the tow intensity area 0.3:1; with the office 0.V; within the neighborhood services 0.2:1; 2) the maximum residential dens;ty on single-family would be not r, exceed 470 units; on muhi-family within the moderate activity center would be 18 units per acre; v id n In the low Intensty area would be 18 units per acre not to exceed 600 units. Is this where I put mitigating, or at the end? Mr, Donaldson: Right now would be good. i lets, Ganzer: Right now, Okay. The low Intensity at 18 units per acre would be a mitigating circumstances that the percentage of residential area (77% of the area within the low intensity area, that Is below the Intensity standard. Even at the requested densities, 180 84 acres at 83 trips per mere per day); the location of the retell and office j areas along Loop 288, with access from a frontage road and proposed secondary arterial (Nicosia Street); and the ocat'an of neighborhood services in close proximity to Highway 77 near its intereedion at Nicosia Streel 3) tra.lsportation improvements as recommended by staff; and 4) would be lighting as recommended by staff. Mr. Powell: Second. Commissioner Engelbrechl: The motion has been made and seconded. Any discuaeon on the motion? Or comments I would just like 10 say IT ba voting In favor of this, but I do have a concern about the office given the comments a I Interpreted [hem from the petitioner. This Is one we're allowing the freedom, and to wall see what happens, and It set a standard for Kmning and Zoning Commissioners for the future with regard to rubs and regulations. Any other comments? Al In favor of the motion, please raise your right hand. Motion carries unanimous", (7-0) Mr Powell: Mr. Chairman, can we take 3 break? Commissioner Engelbrecht: Yes; i was just going to ask. Okay Let's take 10 minutes and be back at 7:40 p.m. The Canmiasioner took a break, The Commissioners reconvened at 7A0 p.m. it. Hold a public hearing and conoldsr making a rooommondstlon to the City Council concerning the rezoning of 3517 Teasisy Lane from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (0(c)) zoning district. The 1.131-acre property Is located on the east *do of Tsasfey Lane IF.M.2111) epproximatety four hundred and uwnty-0w (476) feet south of the Bent Oaks 8ubdivlsion. The proposal Is to develop offices. (2.91-032, 3817 Teasley Lane, Wayne Road) Commissioner Er jelbrechl, Okay, Wo lire back from break. We'll take up Item e11 on the agenda which Is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the rezoning of 35171 easley Lane from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Conditioned Office (O(c)) zoning district. The 1.831- aae property Is located on the east side of Teasley Lane (F.M. 2181) approximately four hundred and seventy-five (475) feet south of the Bent Oaks Subdivision. The proposal h to develop offices Mr Reed v.a make err staff A report Yes, sir. 0 0 Mr. W vyne Read presented the staff report Mr. Reed. Thank you, Chairman and good evening, Commissioners. The subjed here I; to rezone Ws small 18. acre ale to s conditioned-office zoning district. Because this property Is located on Teasley and there has been a t 49. 32X~I~ r, • ,r 'I fI l,. e. e O I f Attachmant 7 Summary of Concept Plan Factors PD-120, South of Loop 288 Summary of Concept Plan Factors Factor lose is Applicant's stall P a Z Approved Proposal ModMcations Recommended Retail FAR, 0.35:1 y 0.35-1 0.30:1 0.30: 1 Moderate Activity Ctr Retail FAR 0.351 0.35:1 0.25:1 0.30: 1 Low Intensity Area Office FAR , 0,50:1 0.25:1 ;tj 0.30:1 Low Intensity Area Neighborhood 8ervlces 0.25.- 1 r 0.26:1 0.20: 0.20: 1 Low Intensity Area MF Density Moderate Activity Ctr 18 units/acre 18 unitslaae 18 unhs/aae 18 units/aae MF Density 18 units/acre 18 unitstaore 12 unitslacre 18 unItslacre Low Intensity Aroa Town Nome Density 9 units/acre NA NA NA Low Intensity Area 508 units i , SF Density 4 unitslecre 4 units/acre 442 units 470 units Low Intensity Area 568 units 590 unit i S Estimated TraHlc 34,164 37,044 28,411 " 80,803 Generation trips per day trips per day trips psr daya trips par day } i \ !+t I'r 30. 1,a ' awl 'Aff. I o 0 Z9"27 ATTACHMENT ® t ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING ORDINANCE 86-173 BY A-"PROVING AN AMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR 270.48 ACRES OF LAND CUItRE*?TLY WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ONE HUNDRED TWENTY (?D-120) LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOOP 288, WEST OF N. LOCUST STREET; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MA3QML1: AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, Civilworks Engineering, on behalf of KDRCII, initiated a request to amend an approved concept plan for 270,48 acres of land currently within Planned Development District One Hundred Twenty (PD-120); and j WHEREAS, on August 12, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to an approved concept plan for 270.48 acres currently within Planned Development District Twenty (PD-20); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW T HEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That Ordinance 86-173 is hereby amended by approving the amended concept plan attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein, as applied to the 270,48 acres of land within Planned Development District One Hundred Twenty (PD-120) described in Exhibits A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, subject to the following conditions: 1, That the land use factors described in Exhibit C and attached hereto and incorporated by f reference herein will supercede the land use factors as described in Exhibit B. SECTION It, That the provisions of this ordinance as they apply to the PD-120 as shown i in Exhibit A herein approved, shall govern and control over any conflicting provision of • Ordinance No. 86.173, but all the provisions of Ordinance No. 86-173 as they apply to that remaining portion of the district not herein affected, shall continue in force and effect and shall apply to the remainder of the district $jrCTj9N 1IJ, That a copy of this ordinance shall be attached to Ordinance No. 86.173, showing the amendment herein approved. • SECTION IV. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon O • conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,1)00.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance J is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense, 51. } 32X111 r- r 1 1 I 4i .Y rv y.. Y.r,1. x>a .f. .l..nx..... ~ I SECTION V. That this ordinance shall becorne effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record- Chronicle, a daily newspaper published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. Z-"-001 PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of_ 1998, JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTES f: JENNIFER WAL1T RS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY t BY: LL / (a t. F,Wweedep"1,% ur Docamenhl0rdirvncesMZ9"21, PD 120 doc ` r ~ E 52. . _ 'y .fry. ~ r • 2 .5 x I❑ s2 X I 0 s' exhibit A ~jQ$TBPOiIVTEFIF.LL'~Q17di BEN(l a tract of land situated in the T. TOBY SUR'.EY Abstract No. 1288 and the 138a 3t CRR SURVEY Absaact No. 186, Daaton County, Texas, and being s portion of a 316.3656 acre but of land described in Voimue 947. Page 751, and a portion of a tract of land described in a deed recorded in Vohame 1n14, Page 537 of the Deed Retards of Denton County, Tr-us and being more patdcnhtly described as follows: C03MIENC1N0 at an 112 inch can and fotard for the Nordnvest comer of mid 316.36:6 acre Arad and the Northwest corner of said T. TOBY SURVEY; TFIENCE along and with de: West line of said 316.3656 acre tract turd the T. TOBY SURVEY. South 00 degrees 57 minutes 06 seconds Rest, a distance of 1875.42 feet to a concrete ROW momemes,t &wud for the POINT OF BEGINNING in %be Somhaiy right-of-way But of LOOP 288 (variable width d&-of way): THENCE along and with the Soutberly righr-of-any liae of said loop 28 B as follows: ! South 88 degrees 54 minutes 44 seconds Ease, a distance of 32.63 feet to a concrete ROW tnonumeot found for a comer, North 82 degrees 18 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 512.18 feet to a concrete ROW monument found for a comer, North 76 degrees 47 minntcs 50 secoai+ East. a distance of 106.82 feet to a concrete ROW monument found for a corner; North '7S degree 09 minutes 10 seconds East, a dwaaee of 787.78 feet to a concrete ROW monument found for a wmw,, North 71 degrees 17 minutes 58 seconds East, a distance of 340.94 feet to a 112 inch iron rod found for a corner, Nash 71 degrees 1S motets 26 seconds East, a distance of 764 30 feet to a concrete ROW neon anent found for the beginning of a nave to the right having a radius of 5619.58, a chord bearing of North 73 degrees 51 minutes 45 seconds East and a chord lenygth of $10.87 feet; Aloug said carve to the right through a.-ztrg mgl4 of 0$ degreaw 12 mimes 33 seconds fur an n arc length of 311.05 feet to a concmw RO V wootunew found for the end of said nova; • Notch 84 degrees 08 nhaates 48 seconds bust, : distance of 684.90 feet to a 112 inch iron rod set § for a comer; I Souda 88 dcgrces 17 minutes 37 seconds Fist, a distance of 976.84 feet to a concrete ROW r mouurt►ent found for the Northerly coma of a comer clip w the intersection of the Southerly right-of=way line of said Loop 288 with ncc Westerly rightK-f way Gaye of FM 2164 (variable • width tight-of w"y Q • pf' i r' 53. 25K 10 32 x IO 6AM 2 MM, MAL M& f 0 1 THE!vCE along said comer clip South 38 degrees 56 minutes 14 seconds Easy a distance of 91.5:t fret to a concrete ROW momrmen2; THENCE along the westerly rightof--way line of said FM 2164. South 01 degras 37 mirndes 03 accords West, a distance of 1.000.51 feet to a concrete ROW monument found for a corner; THENC12 North 89 degrees 15 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 2919.99 feet to a Irl inch iron rod found for a comer; THENCE South 01 degree 37 minutes 46 seconds Rest, a distance of 977.66 feet to a I/3 Inch irrm rod set Pma comer. 11MICE South R9 degrees 12 minutes 21 seconds Fast a distance of 1404.76 feet to a $1 inch iron r-d found for a comer, TFSwl E South 01 degrees 05 miutttes 43 seconds west. a distance 1977.53 feet to a 1/2 inch im., r<d set foc a comer; s ITWENC'E Nmth 89 degrees 06 tnitndes 45 seeornlt West, a distance of 2500.79 feet to a W inch iron rod set for a ootna; THENCE North 00 degrees 53 minutes l5 soconds East. a dismact of 60.00 feet to a IY! inch iron rod set for the Soudw& t corner of a 0.92 ace tract of land conveyed to the City of Dutton by deed setorded iu Volume $56. Page 433, DRMT; THENCE along the Saudwly One of said 0.92 acre tract. North 89 degms 06 minutes 45 seconds West. a distance of 200.00 ftetto a 1R inch iron rod set for a comer. THENCE along the Westerly lime of said 0.93 acre treey North 00 degrees $3 minutes 15 seconds £.*st a distmcr of 300.00 feet w a U.' inch iron rod set for a comer; THENCE along the Northerly lice of ssld 0.92 acre tract, South 89 degrees 06 minutes 45 seconds Easy a distauce of 200.00 feet to a 10. inch iron rod set for a corner, THENCE slog the Easterly line of said 0.92 acre tract South 00 degrees $3 minutes 15 seconds I Wort, a distance of 200.00 Peet to a In inch iron rod set for a corner; - I THENCE South 00 degrees 53 minutes 15 seconds Weak a distmnee of 60.00 feet to a lh inch " Iron tod set for a corner, THENCE North 69 degmes 06 minutes 45 seconds West, a distance of 795.80 feet to a 318 lncb ' iron rod found for a corner, Tli£NCE North 00 degrees 57 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 3479.50 feet to the POLNT ~ OF BEGiNNINO: CONTAD41NG aitbin ditto mew and bomad, 270115 auYs of land more or less. iQ • i 54. ter. 25 x 32xi❑ 0 PMn N W • Id01~' ~ W ~rl GR G 1 In Suit Yrr{dit•. 771. :1::747•.: St i' ~ ' -will SF 941 1 1 PLANNED DEVELOPMEN-f (PD.12 R6 U DCON[?PMW N n6~ MTYYM 1 • \ORM pop; "E 210.4E ACRE! / ~N~"'• QENTON, TEXAS r►eal+ ' , ktIhIM1 T... iwr.w• n. ~ 1 IA MNN yIt.I N.Lw 2.5 10 32x O ~ I rr t +r EXHIBIT C LAND USE FACTORS AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION f AUGUST l2, 1998 PD-120, South of Loop 288 ' Land Use Factors + Moderate Low Intensity Aclivi Center Area r Retail Floor Area Ratio 0,30:1 0.30:1 Office Floor Area Ratio 0.30:1 a Neighborhood Service Area 0.20 : l y Floor Area Ratio Sin le-Famil Units Allowed 470 units , Multi-Family Unit Densi 18 uniuVacre l8 tuuts/acre 800 units maximum both areas ,4. Y i v f M !f I! I. } r F i' + .S i 1 i `t 11 56 ; ~t Vin' 25 ZX10 Y s , 0 *.lv=w Ap.:nda he __..1.1✓ _,MW 4~coda dr _ Dale AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 01, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Utility Administration `.CM; Ilotvard Martin. 349-8232 ~{7Y~ SUBJECT - - Hold a public hearing and obtain input on adoption of proposed Capital Improvements Plan and Impact Fees for water and wastewater facilities. BACKGROUND Council approved the ordinance to hold a public hearing on September 1, 1998 for adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan and WaledWastewater Treatment Facilities Impact Fee. The Fenton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee in the July 8v' meeting recommended that Council adopt the impact fees. The minutes of the July 8`s meeting which include the recommendation along with the Memorandum from the Chairman. Advisory Committee, or, included in Exhibit IL To aocrmine what neighboring cities in the metroplex are charging for impact fees, staff directed the consulting firm. David A1. Griflith, to do a sunny. From this suney, impact fee data for 36 cities was collected which is shown in Fables I and 2. What percentage of the eligible impact fees the cities charge is shown in Table 2, Table I shows that the impact fees range from $225 to $4,302 in San Antonio and Highland Village, respectively, with an average impact fee of $1.261 for the 36 cities responding to the sunny. Data in Table 2 shows that the percent of eligible impact fee charged ranges from 9% to 100°io for the 21 cities which responded, with an average of 56%. i r Chapter 395,024 of the Local Government Code provides guidance on accounting for fees and interest for monies collectod through the impact fees. The risks associated with f hating to refund the impact rocs are also defined in Section 395.024 .,nd are excerpted i here as follows: a.) On the request of the owner orthe property on which an impact fee has been paid, the political subdivision shall refund the impact fee if existing facilities are available and service is denied or the political subdivision has, after collecting the O fee %%hen senice was not available, faded to commence conNtruction within two p ) cars or scn ice is not available within a reasonable period considering the type of capital improvement or facilit) expansion to be constructed. but in no event later than tick }cars from the daic of payment under Section 395.019 (1). i I I I 41 al I i C7 1.,J 32X10 ' K •'I j ~ , ;.Y- .a:a .,a . rc<.:.VeY,K~~ I{'7Si'. ~.rFR"rLtif'w"~~"n^l ..'C;9+_~Lf'6xi^P,•Ar~n ~ (y"yu 9.. n 1. } b.) On completion of the capital improvements or facility expansions identified in the capital improvements plan, the political subdivision shall recalculate the impact fee using the actual costs of the capital improvements or facility expansion. If the + impact fee calculated based on actual cost is less than the impact fee paid, the political subdivision shalt refund the difference if the difference exceeds the impact fee paid by more %an 109/a. c.) The political subdivision shall refund any impact fee or part of it that is not spent as authorized by this chaptat within ten )ears after the date of payment. d.) Any refund shall bear interest calculated from the date of collection to the date of refund at the statutory rate as set forth in Article IC.002, Title 79, Revised Statutes, or its successor statete. r e). All refunds shall be made to the record owner of the property at the time the refund is paid. However, if the impact fees were paid by another political subdivision or government entity, payment shall be made to the political subdivision or governmental entity. The owner of the property on which an impact fee has been paid or another political subdivision or governmental entity that paid the impact fee has standing to sue for a refund under this section. A copy of the 1999.2003 Capital Improvements plan fir the water and wastewater facilities is attached (See Exhibit 111). For the water utility, Line Items 1, 2, and 3 and for the wastewater utilit5y, Line Item 2, relate to the Phase I Impact Pee Capital i Improvements. The expenditure for these items amount to $5$,464,000. Impact fees collected even at 100% of eligible costs do not amount to the above capital expenditures, ? II as there will be some excess capacity left over in the new water piant which cost is not eligible for impact fees in the first 10-years. So the risk associated w th having to refund ;;y I collected impact fees appears to fv-, minimal. 'y r f ` ESTIMATED Sf :IMULE OF PROJECT i i See Exhibit 1- Revised Impact Fee Schedule, f iv i 2 10'r 32x10 l r o . j. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions Council briefing on process considerations for enacting impact fees, October 28, 1997. Council briefing on the comprehensive plan, December 16, 1997, Council briefing on impact fees, January 13, 1998. Council approval of Professional Services Agreements for impact fees implementation, February 17, IQ98. Council approval of ordinance creating the Denton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee, March 17, 1998 Council approval of ordinance to set a hearing date on Land Use Assumptions, April 21, 1998. Council approval of Public Hearing on Land Use Assumptions on June 2, 1998. Memorandum from Howard Martin, June 19, 1998-Phase I Impact Fees. DCIAC briefing on impact fees, June 24, 1998. , DCIAC briefing on impact fees, July 8, 1998. Council approval of ordinance to set a hearing date on adoption of Capital Improvements Plan and Water and Wastewater Impact Fees. DCIAC briefing on impact fees August 26, 1998. FISCAL INFORMATION Staff has evaluated the impact of the construction of water and wastewater facilities on water and sewer rates tied to collection of impact fees ai various percentages. This is included in Exhibit IV. Base year for this evaluation is the year 2000, as this is the first year when monies for impact fees will be actually collected. If impact fees are not ; enacted, the average water bill for Denton customers will have increased about 2019 in " i 2003 in order to fund all the w,,,ter facility improvements tha' will be required by new development. For wastewater, the increase will be about 316 if impact fees are not enacted. At 10016 impact fee collection, the water bill will go up only about 53%, and for sewer there will be no increase in the bill i I Respectfully submitted: s ` Jill ordan, Director Water Utilities • 0 • Exhibit I: 1'%hibit IL L'xhibit III. r 3 F},i Y.: x o 32x10 i• t M. _o i 30KW 1 P t Table 1 Known Cities Which Have Impact Fees Per 5/8 " Meter Equivilent - Per 5/8 " Meter Equivilent miliff Sewer Total Water &-we-r Total Allen $ 547 $ 92 S 639 Highland Village $ 21547 $ 1,754 $ 41302 Arlington 383 315 698 Houston 200 700 900 Austin 981 590 1,571 Keller 750 750 10500 Boerne 506 609 1,115 Lancaster 615 606 11221 Brownsville 1110 170 280 League City 734 1,100 19834 Buda 1,145 29195 3,340 Lewisville 940 19103 2,043 Carrollton 200 100 300 Mansfield 680 350 19030 Cedar Hill 769 231 11000 McKinney 250 250 500 Colleyville 827 - 827 New Braunfels 487 517 11004 Coppell 450 - 450 Plano 758 378 11136 Corinth 19960 840 2,800 Rockwall 412 19640 2,052 r ; DeSoto 325 75 400 Round Rock 19345 1,250 21595 I • Eagle Pass - 525 525 San Antonio 105 120 225 Flower Mound 674 1,396 2,070 San Marcos 363 527 890 Fort Worth 356 580 936 Schertz $50 11135 1,685 Garland 357 - 357 Southlake 700 113011 2,000 ' Grand Prairie 212 145 357 The Colony 125 450 575 • Grapevire 764 140 904 Tomball 586 751 19337 9 Average S 631 S 630 S 11261 Note - lb:, 'St represents The cities we know that have impel fees. There may be others that have Impact fees that we are nag aware of. Pa=e 5 i 1 :aw= 1 A-aw4 M i ~ Table 2 What percent of maximum impact fee is collected? }date Sewer Total Sewer IQW Allen 100% 100% 100% Garland 37% 0% 19% Arlington 17% 0% 9% Grand Prairie 50% 50% 50% Austin 26% 28% 27% Highland Village 60% 50% 55% Boerne 77% 78 io, 78% Houston 13% 53% 33% Brownsville 13% 20% 17% Keller 67% 70% 68% Buda 100% 95% 98% Lancaster 45% 31% 38% Cedar Hill 22% 9% 15% League City 100% 100% 100% Desoto 69% 94% 82% Lewisville 36% 76% 56% Flower Mound 100% 100% 100% Mansfield 40% 40% 40% Fort Worth 45% 57% 51% New i3raunfels 100% 100% 100% Rockwall 49% 49% 49% Average 56;0 57% 56% b• Note - cities not shown did not respond or responded Incompletely. Page 7 13 z I t 32 Cl • O { a~,;.1 r-s .a »~~V:' ue. w,+.,,2. e~,:i 1 ~n cwt, Y~P~~b.'~' ~~~''✓~iha'~,~3P~.~-Q'1». .°~:'~t~"'J+~'3~„'4,.w~~, ~ Revised Impact Fee Schedule 'fsl Dates Assumin4 that we base Land Use Assutnotions on Ma*et Forecasts Council appoints Adv Board 17-Mar Rust briefs Council and Adv Board on 24-Afar market forecasts I Rust modifies forecasts as appropriate 3125.4115 P Council sets hearing date 21 -Apr 1 , Adv Board recommends land use 22-Apr assumptions i Mandatory 30.60 day public review 4122-r2 Council holds public hearing 2 Jun Council adopts land use assumptions 16-Jul, AGT/Duncan reviews existing plant info 31184/10 AGT/Duncen prepares 10-yr CIP 03.5/31 PUB review 1-Jun City Council review 9-Jun Adv Board review and recommendation 24-Jun Council sets hearing date 214u,r Mandatory 30-60 day comment period 7122-8)23 Council holds public hearing 1-SePt, I' Council adopts fees 15-Sept 0 6 EXHIBIT X1❑ 2h 10 32 4 0 -1rEXAS - CITY OF DENTON - - MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council , FRO Jim Eng0brecht, Chairman Denton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee 4 DATE: August ,t, 1998 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION OF DENTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS j ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ADOPT 'mr. FPOPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES. The Denton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (Advisory Committee) in the July 8" meeting unanimously approved the following resolution made by Mr. Doug Chadwick: "I move that the C,.nton Capital Improvements Advisory Committee recommend to the City Council enactment of impact fees and adoption of the ten-year CAP for water and wastewater treatment•rciated facilities based on the water and wastewater net cost by meter sire at 100% per table 23 of the water and wastewater iropact fee report prepared by Duncan Associates. I also move that the Committee recommW collo.cting impact fees at the time of issuance of building permit and that the City Coumil consider granting exemptions for affordable housing units within the current July, 1998 city limits where the impact fee equals at least one-half of the Denton County Appraisal District appraised value of the lot. No other exemptions 0 are recommended." , Prior to the July 8"' meeting, the Advisory Committee met on several occasions, and during those meetings. it has fully reviewed the 10-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) and the Impact Fees. "The resolution approved by the Advisory Committee on July 8 meeting constitutes the written comments of the Advisory Committee regarding e the proposed CIP and Impact Fees. The Advisory Committer. certifies the minutes of the July 8 meeting which includes the motion to recommend the impact fees for p adoption by the City Council 'The Advisory Committee directs the Ci•y Secretary to file this memorandum and the attached certified minutes as its written comment on the proposed CIP and Impact Fees. rO 7,,r , Nsr~,r EXHIBIT II 'law x~a 32XI7 0 MINUTES DENTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE July 0, 1998 The regular meeting of the Capital improvements Advisory Committee of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday July 8, 1898, at 5 30 p ro in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hell, 215 E. McKnney. Denton, Texas. Present. Elizabeth Gourdie. Bob Powell, Card Ann Ganzer, Jim Engelbrecht, Doug Chadwick, Rudy Moreno 1i4oover-Schertz ind Susan Apple Present from Staff. Jill Jordan, Director of Water Utilities, Mark Donaldson, Assistant Director of Planning The meeting was called to order at 5.30 p.m. 1. Receive a presentation and provide input and recommendabon for Phase I Impact Fees and 10-year Capital Improvements Plan, from the consultant Dahlstrom McDonald and Duncan Associates. Mr. Engeibrecht We only have one item on tonight's agenda Staff member, do you have a report? Ms Jordan.. Briefy again, I'm Jill Jordan with the Water Department. The last time wo met, there were a number of questions about possible exemptions, how they worked. and if we are doing those. Brenda McDonald is our consultant, she has done some research and would like to make a presentation to you all about those questions, and l she also supplied you wilh a draft motion, which you had requested. (rneudible), I{ Ms McDonald 'dy name is Brenda McDonald. and hopefully, you all have had the opportunity to review Atl the materials. I sent a whole bunch of stuff, regarding exceptluns and what some of the other cities are doing, some newsp,per anicb s regarding economirlmpact tools and that type of thing. You know, I think as we talk about exemptions. vile I'd like to start is-when you adopt a recommendation, the beginning point is you want to apply that regulation to everybody. As you begin to carve out exemptions, the issue that you're looking for is what's the basis that furthers the governm,ntal entity for treating that group differently, This sort of becomes an equal protection question. So, you'll notice that there are not a lot of cities that have very tong lists of exemptions in the metroplex. Some of the tiles exempt the school district, some cries exempt themselves, and there are some church exemptions and some non-profit exemptions Some cities have exemptions by the Council on a case-by-case basis. I don't reclly recommend that one either because it does not give the development community a feel for what the rules are So, think that probably you're going to end up with more requests for waiver than anyone wants to look al. I'm not suggesting that thats something you want to do either, but. there arc centainly some cities that do that. That really leaves an appeal mechanism and escape hatch, to that the Council can have one last look at the impact of the regulation on the development. And so, if there are any questions about the !urveys, 111 be happy to answer those. the other thing that t had one of our planners (inaudible) do today was to specifcally call Et Paso, Austin, and San Antonio on th3 issue of affordable housing, just to ask the question of whether or not they are like neighboring cities. We II talk about that when we gel 10 that pdrticular issue, You all lead asked some questions about the ability to utilize different levels of assessments of impact fees for different types of uses and perhaps as a disincentive for a use of a particular group that you're seeing too much of ^ and you went to encourage a different kind of use. And as I read the statute. I think that because the stotule specifically sets forth That you have to come up with a service unit and define client's service unit as a standard unit of d measure based of their crrrumption, and then it says that the maximum fee cannot be more than your cost of capital mprovements divid, I by the hnlar number of 30 units-that really tells me that the statuA doesn't allow you to identify service units differently There has to be an accepted engineering formula for coming up and defining ti,a service unit And. once thal'r done, I think trying to vary from that would vary from the Intent of the statute. Having said that, I think ti,at you can vary impact fee Assessments ns an economic development tool. And om the 'natendfs that I've provided you, a number of cities orA doing that. That's not an exemption, under the impact fee ordinance, that is en econor,ic development tool separate and apart from the impact fee ordinance which allows particular use users to come in under Section 380 of the local government code and request ery kind of relief from tax±s or infrastructure iequlremenls. 11 allows tho icily to participate as a partner in economic development. And to, a number of the cilies Q , that a e using a reduction of impact fees or a waiver of these are doing it--not through an exemption adopted in the impact fees ordinance-but they're doing it through their economic development policies. The Council can then, under that economic development policy, put together a +AO;,rge of inceniives to attract the uses that you're intefesteo in bringing to the community , And so while I don't 'pink Ihat there Is a way to W a disincii for som, 8 six" u) 32 ID 9 o ' I Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July S. 1998 Page 2 of 12 uses, I Ihink there's clearly a way under Section 380 to put together a package of economic development Incentives that may include a waiver of impact fees The other que<lion was-tan a city exempt away impact fees for specific uses? And I think the answer is yes. As a home rule city, you have the authority to take any action that you're not specifically prohibited from or specifically pre. empted from under state statute. And I'm not trying to proposition, that would keep you from considering specific uses to be exempt under the impact fee. And then there was some discussion about whether the cit, had to reimburse the impact fee fund for the amount of any exemption. And I think that the basis for that comes from the concept of taxes. You can't wake taxes, you have to provide for the capture of taxes, and you can't forgive taxes on past-due kinds of things. 81x1 as we read the statute, the impact fee is not a tax, And that's coverer in the memo, rain, under the school district discussion. Because it's not a tax, I don't see and I don't find rt in the stalutory requ;r=meits, that the city pull funds from somewhere else to reimburse the impact lee fund If a particular type of use is srnmpted under he ordinance, then the question is-what kinds of uses can you exempt? And one of the particular questions was school dislrrct-the distinction bet.veen school districts and schools of higher education. And can there be--or is there a distinction between the two kinds of institutions. I think that clearly political subdivisions in this day are authorized as other slaUis to pay impact fees. and school districts are political subdivisions, Oislingull ing between primary, secondary education and higher education institutions can be done because your primary and secondary schools are funded by taxes collected from the citizens of Denton, and your higher education institutions are funded from other sources. And so, the common justification for The Ind4endent school district's primary and secondary public schools is to charge them an impact fee and tax the citizens twice, AM so, that is one of the more common exemptions that you f will find around the melroplex is the exemption for schools, and I think that there is a precedent for doing that. i We also talked about Habitat for Humanity, as I know that they're very active in your community and t know that you 1i all support that. And one of the cities in the chart is exempt for non-profit. The City of San Antonio provides the ability for non-profit organizations, such as Habitat, to apply to a housing task force for a warver of impact fees for houses that will sell for less than $75,000 And in that same arena, the City of San Antonio also has an exemption to encourage affordable housing-s full reimbursement of waterivastewater impact fees to developers whose houses go for less than $75,000 inside the Loop And so, they're encouraging affordable housing in the central parr ,I the city. I m not sure if thatb a total waiver or reimburseme rd, but certainly they've established a policy of encouraging affordabe housing, and they've set up the parameters from which the impact fee ordinance will be availa~le. So, that clearly is an exemption that has been utilized in other eities. The final qu:stion, I guess generally, Is this issue of affordable housing I think that's nne of the areas wherp you can , articulate the community purpose that would be The rationat basis for an exemption and r,revaif as some kind of challenge ror the organization. I think there's a response to most of the questions that you've asked and that I heard the last ime Do you have any questions eboa1 the materials we presented or any other type of use that you've thought ~f since the last time of my coming up? Well, I suppose it's an oppod roily for discussion about what you all as a group want to recommend to the Council And I ron't think that you have to come up with a particular mechanism. I think your recommendation can be, ' We recommend that the impact fee be assessed at X value, collected at X time, and that you consider exempting certain uses and we recommend these types of uses.' The recommendation can be general, If doesnI have to be ' imp' ame n talio n of (ina ud bte ) Vs Gourds After reading through all of this. I kind of was disappointed that so many cities are using this as an 0 economic development tool to glue Perol and other people incentives to come and build-which they're going to build there anyway And I fell-I really would hale for this to be a tool used here in Deninn as an economic development lool I think-1 realize that we need development-but I'd hate-I see abuse written all over it And I would somehow like to see us ;ay that this is a standard that must be set for commercial and residential alike, If is not up to the resident to just pay for water, commercial needs to do B, loo. I think that we have other incentives that we can offer through the elecv9cily and utilities I mean-there are other Oings that we could offer these people as an incentive, and I pe-sonatly think that this would not be something that we should permit 10 use as an economic development toot for our city. There are other ways that we can give them opportunities to come here and develop. That's just my personal opinion And I was also-I guess I'm kind of curious with this Section 380 local government code where the cores can use it How would the structures be seffied? Like, in this case with Perot-Is he building houses and sluff, O loo I'm t ind of curious Is B the whole development, when everything comes in-even the houses-Is that all 1Poll exempt, or is there just certain parts Or how does this work when you say il's en economic development tool and someone's coming in and buying 300 acres of land How do you decide who's the developer end who s the builder? 9 % 32 X y , 0 .xa,armr Capital Improvements Advisory Committee • July 8, 1958 Page 3 of 12 Ms Morlonald. Bear in mind if you utilize Section 32:1 for economic development incentives, the city has to have adopted a policy set up for what the economic development policy is. Thal really is separate and apart from impact fees. II is a very prominent tool; k is used very differently in various cities. Arington Is fairly aggressive in pursuing development in the 1-20 Court, so they have targeted that area to funnel economic development incentives. Benefits that they mighl want to use in that area they may not use in other parts of the city Some of the newspaper articles that I gave to you art were regarding the Perot development, and I was not privy to any of those negotiations, As you can tell from the newspaper articles, il was very controversial So, I don't actually have a great example. I was just trying to show you that other cities have used it and that H is connected to the statute, Ms Gourdie It Just seemed that it would somehow be-you know, like giving preference-saying,'Well, okay Ms. McDonald, Well, N is giving preference. Ms, Gourdie, True, but I kind of think that this Is something that we as a community need to single out certain people, like this thing coming up, Well, you're singling out certain people that can have trees and cannot have trees end j legally that's not correct. To me, this would be singling out saying, 'You come In and promise a development; we're going to single you out and give you this whatever -kind of like what the lax abatements have been doing. which that s all here and aside, And I Just personally don't want this to be a 1001, I want this lobe something that benefits Denton and gives Denton what we need In order to pay for what we need to pay for, and that's just my-alter going through this. Ms. Apple: I eg•ee with you. I've latked to several developers since we've last met, and they're pretty mach used to the impact fees. And I fig wed they'd be disagreeing, but they're not-the ones i ve talked to. I haven't visited with many or a whole bunch, but-you know, several-and they're large developers that do residential and commercial So, I don't think that we should use it for an economic development tool either, as far es exemptions. So, I agree with that Mr. Chadwick Another question--on your letter to us, the a!affefs, your question-point number 2-and the municipality exemption with the way impact fees are used for specific uses. Would you clarify the second paragraph, it says 'absence of provisions in Denton's home rule charter." Did you look-do we.... Ms. McDonald I spoke with the City Attorney, and he did not menl'on any choler prevision. but not having had a copy of the charter, I didn't opt to Some cities say that you're not going to abate any fees for palku!ar use, and I wasn't familiar with Denton's charer, and so I didn't include that. But I was not aware that there is that provision. Mr. Chadwick. Ultimately, I know that will be resolved, but tt raised the question and I was kind of looking for the an-mer, and I didn'I find it. f.ls McDonald Well, the City Attorney didn't tell me that there was one. Mr Chadwick. Thankyou Mr Engeibrecht. So in the absence of a charter provision to the contrary, the Council could at any time waive all or part of any impact fees, as an economic development tool without any specific, staled economic development policy Ms McDonald No, Section 380 requires the rdoation of an economic dev_!crment policy, in order to utilize the authority contained in Section 380 And again, I think we've kind of gotten balled up. This is not specifically related to the impact fees, it is a separate issue It's anciher way to disincentives. It's kind of the flip of dis-incentivlsing What I know is it cant penalize specific uses of the slat rte, but I was giving you another way to encourage uses but that's typically not dealt with in the impact fear il'a just going to happen under economic development. Mr Engelbfechl So, !hey can simply develop a policy, and that could take care of the issue of economic development exemptions, if any If I undantand what you sold, in regard to specific exemptions, we need to make ! recommendations with regard to those, Owe wish to do so? Ms McDonald Yes, and I think your rwoommendatio • will be helpful to the Council. I don't think H prevents the Council from considering other exemptions You all are reviewing all of this technical evidence, lechnlcal information, ' and making a recommendation, but the Council Is ultimately going to make a legislative decision, when they adopt an ordinance and what goes into it. So. I think your input is needed, just like the Planning and Toning Comrnrssion makes recommendations on coning It's the same type of needed input 10 M Its 32X 1. e ~ , s Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 8. 1998 Page 4 of 12 Mr. Engelbreoht Okay, so then, with regard to a relief mechanism--Le„ the idea of economic development-we've had two opinions. Would anybody like to weigh In on that issue? Ms Gourdie. I guess It wou!d be a riessage that we would like further investigation, and d this Is implemented that we need to develop an ordinance which would require economic development to be reviewed, She keeps telling us that this is not a part of if, so, what we really need to decide it we are going to permit exemptions, end if so, what we believe would be exemptions as a committee. But, we cannot even consider that because this is just a by- product. Mr Engelbrechl. Well, 4 is, but we have the oppodunily here to make our wishes known to the Council and what our thoughts are in the recommendation. So that's why I said, if anyone else has comments with regard to the relief issue--Ir., economic development--why don't we do those, if that's an fight, and then welt talk caul specific exemptions that we might be adding to the motion. Mr EngelbrecM: Does anybody else have any comments on the relief mechanism? Mr. Powell Yes I think, that I boug61 rt up last time I would have Borne interest in something that would recommend to the Council that they consider the infill situation just because of the price of the lot, I mean, this in some cases will cost more than the price of the tell and it just doesn't seem logical to just do it 100° of tha tme- specifically, low cast infill tots, for a lack of better terms. Now, I don't know his Ganger Like what she was talking about with the affordable housing thing? Mr Powell, Yeah, probably. Ms. Jordan Or like what San Antonio did for low-Income housing in a particular area, Mr. Engetbrecht. Now, that is a speufc exemption, Is B not, Ms McDonald, That is an exemption in the ordinance Mr Engelbrecht Okay, that would be in the ordinance as opposed to a recommendation to Council, with regard to what they might want do to with economic development Mr. Powell. But we would recommend tonight-we could ft everything in the recommendation, and we cr•,Id recommend specific exemptions, but... ' Ms. McDonald Or you could recommend a general exemption that you would like them to consider and refine, for example. 'We would like the Council to c,raider some type of reliei available for Infill affordable housing Mr. Powell Worded perfectly Ms McDonald And the Council can direct the staff IQ come up with where those areas are, Identify, and come up with the criteria to implement that, Mr PoivEII Or if, in their own wisdom, this is only a recommendation, they could ignore it Ms fdrponald That's correct Mr Pov ell And I don't mean that to be soon'ing smart either I reran they could Bay, Wen, we don t ward to do that' end ignore it At least, we've thought about it They've appointed us to think here, and so we're thinking Mr. Engelbrecht Bob. what's your definition or infirl, or would you leave trial up to staff? Mr ^owell A lot that is alrea,,r pia"ed. I guess. In the city rds Canzer. In an existing subdivision that's tlready developed ' Mr. Engelbrecht knything like San Aolonio did, that would be a fairly.. o to Ms McDonald If you could articulate the streets, the parameter streets of a geographic ores, where you want to J encourage infill development, they can do d that way I encourage you not to get boned up In the Implementation 1 details, because you nuy never gel a recommendation made, 10 32 x i o o ; o i n.maaa Capital l nprovemenls Advisory Committee July 8, 1998 Page 8 of 12 Ms. McDonald. There r always the opportunity for abuse, Mr, Engelbrecht: All of a suJden, in essence, what you do with this policy is to promote zaro lot lima as opposed to SF-7 or whatever, and-t don't know-will it do that is one question, and d 8 does, do we want to do that Mc Powell. Well, wren you look at the cost of replotting in the city of Denton, it may not be a problem, Mr. Engelbrecht Yeah, that's right; (hat could offset as a plaiting Issue. But cerlainly, 0 it went that way we could always change It A wording Personally, I'm more concerned with us finding the mechanism to protect, but I also mean to think the other way. Mr, Powell. Excuse me, Jim, I don't think that's right; I don't think that we want to find a mecranism, I think we want to tell the Council how we feel about this situation and try not to get Into the dirty details M Mr. Fngelbrecht. Absolutely, I won't argue with ycv there, But I do think that we need to think through the other aspects or B. and when I said that I'm using a generic term here to say, *Hey, we are just Bending a recommendation forward here lhal'a not gang to have all of the specifics " So, are we in gnneral agreement that Inflll hous,ng with lots of wb•value ;n the range of $5,000 should be something that's exampled or should be exempted? Ms. Gourdie Considered for exemption. Mr. Engelbrecht. Okay--considered; thai s one, others-does anyone want to add anything to that particular issue? {I Mr, Powli Want to say 'appraised at' rattier than "cost' If you want to get really detailed, say, 'by fns Denton County Appraisal Districl'-whatever it is, Denton Central or whatever it is. Mr, Engelbrecht. Anything else? Ms Gourdie Well, I would also say the schools, I think primary, secondary Is a good exemption, I think universities hold their own being that d Isn't as much a citizen thing as it is-In actuality, R's almost a private entity', H is a business It's run as a business, R is a business, tt just enjoys the lax breaks of Laing an ;nslitution for higher learning. And I kind of feel (hat maybe this might be the lime-for when new buildings come on line-to have them help a little bit with what we're bnoging into our town. It's great, but let's help out a little bit ma s with the guys who are going to be attending that school's my philosophy Mc Powell. The other side of that coin-and t like your side-but there's another side. And, of course, I come bade to what I know best, Theoretically, we're going to build a new jail down here. Now to practice and in theory, we should permit Thal fee on that jail. The other aide of that, hcwe• or, is that one group of taxpayers Is charging another gaup of taxpayers, some of which are the same laxnrvers. Si logic begins to fail that. And thal would also hold to the school districts. universities, and federal governmer,;; ;ha' s just both sides of the argument, I'm not saying that your side shouldn't prevail, I might vote your way here-yvi my point But 1-yeah, it's possible-but there's that other side Why should the city of Denton taxpayers charge the ccury of Denton taxpayers, when a good third of the Denton county taxpayers are city or Denton taxpayers? Do you get my point? It begins to be nonsensible to charge government impact fees. Ms Gourdie But aren't we aclually doing it in a round about way They're paying their bills through our loxes so they II raise their taxes, so As passed on to us anyway. , Mr. Powrll Exactly. Ms Gourdie So the question is-do we directly know where our money's going or do we continue ;o just let d be put in the budget and released from the budget to pay expenses Mr. Powell 1 don't know, I say there are two sides to this Issue. Ms Gourdie. I'm just playing day I's advocate. It comes out of our pc::et eit,er way, and so the question Is how do . we remove it from our pockets in such a way where there is equal, you know 0 , Mr. Powell Well, they don't charge us a permit fee. If the county builds something, my understanding is that the city does not charge a permit fee. Based on that argument, and I believe that's true, why would they charge an Impad fee Well, the other side to that Is-if we build a new jail, A's going to need an awful lot of water and an awful lot of { wastewater situation l 12 C) 32 X i I ut'JI6Fx# Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 8, 1998 Page 7 of 12 Ms. Ganzer It's going to have a big Impact . Mr, Powell It's going to have a heck of an impact; so, perhaps the citizens in Carrollton who pay county taxes should pay or participate in that impact fee. I'm trying to show both sides of that argument, and I'm not really sure where I'm failing. Mr. Chadwick: Even beyond that, when you look at Brenda's list of attachments of al! the different possible organizations--churches, ISDS, charitable organizations, non-profits, city govemments, county governments, slate facilities, federal facilities-I think to try and split the hairs on these make sense to qualify Ind these don't is the pa!h of no end Mr. Powell I agree. Mr. Cnadwick: I think it might be better to recommend to Council to pass the simplest no exemptions position at this point, get the ordinance viorked out and Impleme ,led because Council can change the ordinance in the future. If over a penod of time some phenomenon In one of these orylinizalions really becomes apparent that it's having an impact on either development of construction, in the city, in the county, where there's something to (udgu it on. Because I support all of those organizations; I pay taxes to ell those organaationi I want [hem all off the hook, but they're all going [o be using facilities in the future and they need to participate, Philosophically, they all need to participate equally, and we all do. So. I lean toward a no exanp!ions position M this point, because I think Council can implement it, gel 3 going and work with it over a period of time to think. We may have something in three to Eve years where the davelopmenl situation is quite different in Denton, and then it may be that the economic development issue may become more clearly focused, and the Council may be able to adjust some things that would affect it. M:. Powell. Would you base that argument partly on the fact tha+ this is a fes and not a lax. Mr Chadwick. Right, Mr. Powell It doesn't make sense for one government to pass a lax on to another one. It might not be legal then; I don't know. But a fee is a different situation because the cost is "re whether it's government causing the Impact or private industry causing the impact i Mr. Chadwick. Right, or whether it's an individual at a private residence or an individual at a public facility , Ms Ganzer With the way Denton's growing and new schools are coming In, thats going to be a large Impact. Mal I I just thought about with people that try to get around things-talking about these infill lots and things-would we 1 weep a small little church or a little private school from coming in on a little infill lot, and we di'n't want to exempt them. There's another little thing, a nil-picky thing but 'I Mr. Moreno. Brenda, in your discussions wllh some of the other cities, what was their thinking on the no exemptions position versus the ISO exemptions position? Ms McDonald Because we talked to so many. we had in-u.plh discussion, oftentimes the Information carne from the city se, relary '8 o1ce. X01 Moreno. So, you didn't get into any philosophical discussion. y Ms. McDonald Right, right. I think probably one good explanation was [hat k started with one good discussion, and j as you all are nding, it became very difficult to split hairs, (inaudible) Ms Ganzer Well, it you exempt somebody, somebody else Is going to come in and try to gel around that Ms, McDonald II that's something 1hA you all want more Information on, we can try and get with the appropriate persons to have that discussion. But. it some of these cities, the response was not one of high familiarity with the ordinance We did the txst we could to get the best Information to you. r • Ms Ganzer. Well, I see here It looks like there are more with no exemptions than with exemptions. Mr. ChadwickThere are 21 no exemptions out of The 41 and a bunch of NAs, which means? .+F Ms Ganzer. They don't even have impact fees. i` I it M.., NINE 0 Capital Improvements Advisory Committee July 8, 1998 Page 8 of 12 Ms. McDonald. As a VOA" Is (inaudible). Now, all of the ordinances oughl to have an appeal mechanism on whether the ordinance is fairly applicable in their situation. And so, d's not that there's not at least some opportunity to come in with your own engineering studies and show your consumption, even though your particular type of use Is nordinately lower than the meter size. So, there is always an appeal mechanism, that's just not an exemption. And I wouldn't recommend that you have an ordinance that doesn't have an appeal mechanism, Mr. Powell But that's not something that we want to get Involved in? Ms McDonald Right Mr.'owell I don't think we talk about appeals here Ms. McDonr,id Correct II Mr £ngeih :-ehk That's relatively standard language, I suspect. I mean, you have to prove that you're not using- having the Impact, in essence Ms. McDonald. Correct. Mr. Engelbrecht. Arid I can understand that. My only-well, I guess I have two concerns, and one Is the DISD. They're In, in my opinion, a unique situation at least at the moment, and I hate some concoms about them, The other reason why I'm concerned Is..,. Mr. Powell. Let me slop you there and ask if you've given consideration to where the DISD is. It Is ri larger than the city of Denton So, there are taxpayers in Cooper Canyon In the DISD, there are taxpayers in Pilot Point in the DISD-at least Pilot Pant mailboxes I just pass that on. Mr. Fngelbrechl. This is true, very true, boll the great majority are within the city limits of the city of Denton and certainly there are some outside of the city. The other are is the affordable housing issue, you have consistently presented a good argument with regard to that, if we're charging a fee that's possibly more than the cost of the lot. Mr. Powell. What I'm thinking d will do-I'11 be real blunt about d-I think it will totally stop development for construction of houses in southeast Denton, and that's where I'm coming from. Maybe not locally, I should never say totally, but it will have a dramatic impact nn what is already a place that there is rot very much new construction And thats where I'm coming from, Mr. Engelbrecht. While the other side to that ls-t`.ere hasn'I been a good deal of construction in southeast Denton without the impact fees Mr. Powell. That's what I just said. I mean There's been very little construction, but we're going to Dally put the halt to it here, in my opinion, if this goes through, without any leeway for that. Mr. Engelbrecht. So. the leeway is to recommend some specific language or some sl is Issue or simply to allow or suggest some sort c! additional appeal mechanism, so that Council can-as I see it, so that the Council could use. Mr. Powell. I don't mean to say ifs only in southeast Denton. I'm sine there are other places ~'s town with ^ inexpensive lots But, the Councilman mat put me here-all right-Is from southeast Denton, so I always try to look at Ve as much as I can from a southeast Denton po nl of view I don 'I live in southeast Denton, but I try to represent e him as best Vial t can. And to me, for what I think those loll would sell for, I think it's going to be a dramatic hurt. Mr Engelbrechl, With a recommendation of noexemplions Ms. Canzer. Where they can do the appeal. Mr Powell The appeal is only a case of something not being what it appears to be. The Impact is not %hal ft would i appear to me due to this size m ter. Six-inch meters going to Joe Smith would mean that he'd have to pay this gigantic impact tee relatively and when Joe Smith needs that meter for some reason other than providing (inaudible) could really provide a wastewater impact for something_.. Q Ms. McDonald I think that's more common. j 1 Mr. Powell Maybe he's setling wales Maybe he's putting a water plans in, selling bottled wafer-taking the city water and re-doing whatever you do to M and selling 0, obviously, It's not going down the drain. So, his thoughts 1< rte s < 32X~U r~ I O 1 taMVf Capital Improvements Advisory Commillee r July S, 1998 Page 9 of 12 would be finaudrble), I'm not causing an impact, I mean relatively. The wastewater impact is negative or minimal compared to what a six-inch meter would normally be. It's just a thought-or not a thought- that's what the appeal hoard would be for Ms. McDonald. And you know, we have to have a board, that can be done administratively through the engineering department Mr. Chadwick, Brenda, can the appeals process actually deal with economic hardship? Ma. McDonald, Typically, the appeal process is the one we Just discussed, where the application of the impact fee, in your siluation, doesn't accurately describe your impact. Mr. Chadwick But if the economic development plan Indud,.d a provision for development of affordable housing in the city, would that-we talked about this earlier-is that another way to get around That--ol offering an sllerr, tive to those homeowners and/or those developers, Ms, McDonald I don't see why not, but I'm not familiar with its use (inaudible). Ms. Ganzer' Here's one in Coppell: R's a church and ISD exempt via Council only, so could we say affordable housing be via Council only. I Is. Gourdie: I really hale that word, it has no meaning whatsoever. Affordable housing-no one knows what that means. I hav i yet . Ms. Ganzer. Well, we re going to narrow that down, before we get dawn to that Ms, Gourdie: But, the thing is-that Is what people---I've been reading In editorials and stuff . Affordable housing to people is something that is 550460000 brand rev, You cen'1 build a house $50-500,000 brand new, his Ganzer. You can d the lot is affordable enough. his Gourdie It's very improbable. Even if you buys $2,000 lot it's very hard to build with the way ".te Ganzer. 11 can be done, Ms Gourdie. If R can be done. Then t think more people would probably be doing It. Ms Ganzer. No Ms Gourdie. I Just have a hard time, Ic me, affordable housing is something you can move Inlo-an older home-fix it up and move out. That's the we; it's been done for eons I Just have a hard time building affordable, new housing for people and saying that this is the way R should be. We all grow up.... Me Ganzer. Well, Jim bought it up about Habital for Humanity, and that It exactly what i •ey do build, ' Ms Gourdie. But they don't do R at 550,000 Ms Ganzer. That's exactly what they do bull d-afforda ble housing, they don't do fancy lhingr Inside Rand all, Mr Powell. You're just not happy with the terminology, r Me Gourdie That is correct, I Ihink affordable housing is the wrong word Mr Powell. Well, then, why don't we change the terminology, Ms. Ganzer ! nd that's not a problem. • Mr. Powell. And ours is only a recommendation to the Council. Ware lust trying to give them a sense of how we feel Obviously, we can I ten them how to do R 8 Me Gourdie. Well, why don't we-t don't know-I guess this is-I Just believe Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit orpanlzation that should be considered. I know that the Coundl membe, ' ve been d,ea.ss ng R previously to an this, They want this to be A provision in R, for what I've heard through the grapevine. Thy are really looking out for those organizalions, so they will make the adjustment in that somehow, some way. So, the question Is-Eo we offer 15 25R1 0 32xIO 0 asssarea o , i' Capital Improvements Advisory CcmmMee e July a, 1996 Page 10 of 12 I - that up or du we just say no exemptions and let them work on k. I mean how do we, as a commince, want to offer this up when we know its goirg to be changed, one way or the other? Mc Engelbrecht. And that's the question; we've gone both ways here, so far. Mr. Powen. Wen, my feeling is that we offer II up, the whole thing Is a consider-excuse nri a recommendation The while page, this whole motion-whatever we do with it is going to be a recommendation So, nit was up 10 me to vote, or make the motion, [ would try to word n so thM we were giving them a sense of how we feel about low- Income housingfinexpensive lots, I mean we can word it, and then they're going to have to do what they •a3n! In do with it. They're glven the responsibility by the voters to write the ordinance, or to have slafl write n, and then they - discuss It and vote on it. So. I think, as long as we can oonvey our feeling on the matter, ow Intent. I'd rather use the word intent, on the matter - don't think that we have to g a cal detailed or i.-wt But I ogres with you; we just can't use the word low-income housing, because that reatly means a lot of things to a lot of p,,ople. But you had some wording a minute ago that I liked and I hoped you wrote d down, somabody had something, Ms, Ganzer. The infill affordable housing? Mr. Engolbrechl No, I was talking about being consistent with the Denton plan. Mr. Powell That's fine Mr, Engelbrecht And do we want to set some kind of amount? Just say In general, somewhere In the range of $70,000? Mr. Powell. I don't want to set an amount, I believe that's the Council's prerogative. I think really our opinion Is we're only trying to give them our intent here. I mean, where we'-a talking about exemptions, we're giving them our Intent for exemptions-rwl trying to nail mcm down to a Jolter figure. Mr. Engelbrechl. Addilioi,olly, one of the difficulties with the dollar amount Is, basically, we're Vying to zero in on affordable housing as I see k. Is that correct? Mr. Powell: Yes, Mr Engelbrecht. Well, what's atloidabte today, of value, will by A a di feren( value 4a next yewr and the no) --or and the next year Ail the more reason not to put a dollar valut..... Mr Chadwick: [ have an idea-wen, a suggestion. Sitting here trying to voile this-how sped9o-!n the suggestwd motion, wNcl+ I appreciate very much, whoever did that. There's a well worded motion here and the portion to deal with affordable housing, how's this-this is the :ast sentence that says, 'I also move' (and I'm not moving this, I'm just i.ilking) The last sentence says, 'I also move that the City recommend collecting Impact feec al ft lime of Issuance of building permit and [hat the City Council consider granting exemptions for affordably housing units where the impact fee equals at least one-half of the appraised value of the lot' Now, that gets a 15,000 lot or smaller; wen, n gels a 25. 27 x 2-1 $5,054 lot or smaller and we're saying consider granting. Assuming in this, that we eventually move adoption of 100% of table 23, which is the chart of 5r8, 1', 1% (Inaudible). I'm assuming that In the future the impact fees may be ratcheted up or down by Cound!, which means that n would float along with the relative value of property-relatively, But, that kind of gives a sense that affordable housing Isom issue and that if Its going to add half of the value of the lot, at least to the cost of the M, then It needs to be considered for vAlver, wherever it W This gets away hem the infdl, cutfiil, city, county, because there are properties within the E i it th the same value, very low value Mr EngelbreCl: Well, the quealbun there is, how or to ever, do we want to encourage that king of building outside of - the Loop. In ot~er words, in the Ms. Ganzer Withir the city limits? Mr. End?lbrecht. Yes, within the city limits--the Idea being do we v,ant to encourage (inaudibfe), andlor the orher Ihinq fe:oet Ms Genzer, Within the 35/Loop 268? Mr. Engelbrecht: If affordable housing generally, And I f eliev --Orono of ft reasons I suspect-San Antonio hash inside of the nop Is because the mass transit systen a greatest lervice is inside of the loop, Therefore, you ore pr7nding--or you're encouraging housing in a situation whonx ou have the pubWrnass transportation wellablu, it 16 2F 10 32x 10 ~ it 11- o - Capitai Improvements Advisory Committee July 8, 1998 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Powell. In our cii we could say the 35/Loop 288 Or we could say the existing city limits-today's existing city limits. Ten years from now, when trio limits are changed dramatically, our recommendation for consideri would still only apply to phased city limits. N's just a tb:,ughL Mc Engetbrecht: It's just a matter of where you wanl to-do you went,-. cake a recommendation about where we , encourage it, I Mc Power. Yes, I sure wouldn't want to try and encourage inBe rrtihm the ETJ, Mr. EngelbreeN I have areal serious question scout going beyond the Loop. Mr. Powell As far as I'm concerned . Mr EngelbrecM That's generally the way the plan states now and that's probably the way the way the plan is going to stele-well, generally the way it's going to slate. Mr, Powei' Well, who wes it that :raid 35 and the Loop because, if you go on the other side or 35, there's a lot of low• income land over there that's within the city limits that doesn't Co. In that category. Me Ganzer And I'm thinking about come duff, too, that's on the east side of the Loop and MayhPt and over in thal area, So, city limits you can!ust pick It to dealh Mr. Powell City limns in the month of July 1998. Mr. Chadwick. That's easy-for affordable housing units within current July 98 city limits for the impact fee, and blah, blah and blah Mr Powell. Rather Ihan try to deal with closer.,,. Mr. Moreno. (Araudible) Mr. Engelbrechl. I don't have any problems, but are we suggesling something that's Inconsistent with the plan. Ms. Ganzer, Well, this narrow3 it down to where the impact fee is half or more. Mr. Engelbrecht Okay. Me Ganzer It's not Just talking about it necessarily, it's about where ;Vs half or more Ms. Gourdie And this is based on the appraisal district and not somebody who owns the land and wants to dump k. Therefore, I'm changing n'o be btah, b1ah, and blah. It has to be based on the city Mr. Chadwick _ DCAD appraisal value of the lot Mr. Enge'lrecht Thalia okay, we're rnu.,h ckarer about who, we want to say. Ms Gousdie And so then, would all the rest be considered no exemptions and the appeals would be.... Mr Engelbrechl. Were not recommending eny oth,,r exemptions-yes j 1 • Me McDonald I think that you need to make Ihel clear In your motion 'dr. EngPlbrecht. L'iSD Is not included in the motion, not is the university, Does anyone else have any other ! comments? Mr. Engeltrechl I think we have someone who is ready to make a motion, unless someone wPnls to comment. You ready? r r Mr. Chadwick I move that the Denton Capital improvements Advisory Comm'dee recommend to City Council • 0 enactment of in,nad fees and adoption of the tenjoar CIP for water and wastewater Ireatment-related facilities based on the wa or and wastewater net cos' by meter size at 1 Di per table 23 of the water end wastewater impact fee report prepared by 9uncan Associates. I also move that the Committee recommend collecting impact fees at the time of issuance of building permit and that the City Council consider granting exemptions for aflordable bausing units f I 17 ar. ~ SEW f5D x 32xI❑ W , r • I I f r %woos= I ' Capital Improvements Advisory Committee r ' July 8, 1908 Page 12 of 12 within the current duly 1998 city limds where the Impact fee equals at least one-half of the Denton County appraisal District appraised value of the lot, No other exemptions are recommended. Mr. PcweIF Second. ` Mr. Engelbrecht We have a motion and a second. Any discussion. Any comments. Ms. Apple. I think that It covers all the bases, I think by having no exemptions, It covers what Elizabeth and Carol Ann and aoma others of us were concerned about-about the economic development loot use-so, I'm very pleased with the motion. Good job. Mr. Engalbrecht Any other commenb4 All In favor, raise your right hand. Motion carries unanimously (84). 1 ward ' to thank the staff and consultants for their hard work. The committee meeting Is adjourned, of r' f ~ I I. L ~ tl I ' I r !S 1<s I'. t ' 3200 MOM 0 76A`J~7C 1999 - 2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CASH REQUIREMENTS WATER UTILITY (s x 1000) G ROh P x,i.. u w ASSIGNMENT NUNIBERSCATEGORY 1999 2000 2001 2002 2063 TOTAL I NLw' H'ATLR PLANTMANS LINE S410 $7,952 S11,512 11,613 50 $27,487 2 BOOSTER STATION 70 4,900 5,180 697 0 11,047 3 ELEVATED STORAGE 850 2,340 700 0 0 3'890 4 DISTRIBUTION SYSTENIUPGRADE 860 1.50 1,800 1,058 659 5,937 3 RLPLACIENTENT WATER LINES 485 313 357 345 300 1,810 6 FILL.D SERVICES REPLACE WATERLINE'S 21X1 200 200 200 200 11000 7 DLVELOPMENT PI.AN'A'ATER 1JNES 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 8 OVLRSI717 WATER LINES [w Iw 100 100 1(10 500 9 1 APS, FIRE HYDS, AND NILTLRS 356 311 337 360 360 1,730 10 IDOLS ANDEQUIPNILNT 137 137 203 76 90 644 11 CANtALC'ONSTRUC"I ION RESERVE 250 210 150 250 250 1,250 12 COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL 204 0 0 0 0 204 13OFFICFIURNITURIYCOMPUIERRiQUIP IB 13 11 14 11 67 14 NTISC'F3.LANL',OUS 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 1(LGULATORY DISINFIll ION MODIFICAIION 0 897 1,894 3,792 0 6,383 16N'A'lLk PI,NN 'I'IMPRON'ENIEN'l$ 4:0 35 10 10 10 473 1 17 STATE HIGHWAY RF,LOCATIONS 1,236 613 0 0 0 1,849 564,763 vm S4,8,36 $19,927 52J,OOi _ $14,765 52,234 Bond Fund 54,301 $18,362 521.434 $13,260 $759 $58,116 ' I Curmil Rrrenue 1,459 1,477 1,483 1,405 1,371 7,197 ~I Aid In Consh action 76 88 86 100 100 450 Grand Total $4,836 $19927 S2S,00S $14,765 52,230 5626) °L~r,%, A%;VAO.pI rC. b N1 MCI A } ~,~I L, d-ih ~ I'R Ire pM1 M M}I tt~ q ~ rap ~ 75 x 10 32xl0 ! 0 Aver" 1999 2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CASH REOUIREMENTS WASTEWATER UTILITY (s x 1000) GROUP nrwf 1143 ASSIGNMENT" _ NUMBERS CATEGORY 1099 2000 2001 2002 2003 TOTAL 1 WASTEWATER PLANT IMPROVEME $150 $135 $110 $0 SO $395 2 WASTEWATER PLANT EXPANSION 1,040 6,000 6,000 0 0 13,040 3 LIFTSTATION IMPROVEMENTS 1,500 4 0 0 55 1,559 4 COLLECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 REPLACEMENT SEWER LINES 1,107 649 350 350 350 2,806 6 DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER LINE! 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 7 OVERSIZE WASTEWATER LINES 100 100 100 100 100 500 c 8 INFILTRATION/INFLOW 850 1,135 150 850 850 4,435 9 TAPS 50 50 50 50 50 250 10 TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 73 70 100 163 72 478 11 CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION RESERIl 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 12 COMMUNICATIONS 3 CONTROL 71 37 0 0 0 108 13 OFFICE FURN/COMPUTER'EOUIP 17 16 6 34 9 82 14 MISCELLANEOUS 30 300 40 62 10 462 15 STATE HIGHWAY RELOCATIONS 610 213 0 _ 0 0 823 TOTALS: $6,098 $9,209 i6,006~~2,129~~f,996 27,434 BOND FUND $4,225 $7,448 $6,787 $875 $800 $20,135 CURRENT REVENUE 1,823 1,711 1,169 1,204 1,146 7,053 AID-IN CONSTRUCTION _ 50 50 50 50 50 250 TOTALS: $6,098 i9,20Y 16,006 X2,129 611,996 _ 127,434 "(IUOJ!',IYYOM2N1 ~0!)MJ,wf93l~u,sE lw M,ndtdn dGl lm,nfi 9l myw Mrpnrydn{M1! I . t i i WATER 1 RATE INCREASE IMPACT FEE FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 0% 3.6% 9.0% 6.6% 3.6% 80% 0.0% 0.0% 7.5% 2.0% 90% 0.0% 0.00/0 _ 6.0% U% 100% 0.0% 0.0% 4.6% 1.0% AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY VOLUME 6,600 AVERAGE: RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY BILL $31.65 IMPACT FEE FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 0% $32.76 $35.71 838.03 $39.36 CV 00% $31.65 $31.65 $34.02 $34.70 n 90% $31.65 531.65 $33.56 $34.06 100% $31.65 $31.65 $33.07 $33.40 i r F,15ne•eQFinencelReles~W WW Impact Fee 8/26/96 to EXHIBIT IV w v v I ' B lemons u f aaenrac. ' I i WASTEWATER RATEINCREASE IMPACT FEE FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2009 0% 2.0% 1.0% 2.0% 0.0% 804/9 0.0% 0.0°/0 1.0% 0.0% 90% 0.0% 0,0% 0.0% 0.0°4 100% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% AVERAGE MONTHLY BILL AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY VOLUME 6,1 DO AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL MONTHLY BILL $20.68 IMPACT FEE FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2007 0% $21.07 $21.28 $21.71 $21.71 80% $2066 $2066 $20.86 $20.86 n 90% $2066 $2066 $2066 $2068 • 100% $20,66 $20,66 520.68 $2066 ' 6126/96 ' F\Snara?,Financa,RataflW WW Impact Fee 22 , 75 x f0 32x~d. o 0 Agenda Nv...71/_ OL!. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Agenda Item. AGENDA DATE: September I, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department DCM: Rick Svehla, 349-7715 SUBJECT -The Preserve Annexation (A-71) Consider adopting an ordinance annexing a 15.088 acre tract located east of Swisher Road near its intersection with Edwards Road in Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction :tertheast of 1-35F; establishing temporary Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation; and providing an effective date. Second reading, A-71, (Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval.) BACKGROUND The Westover Residential Company and CAIAS, Inc„ proposes to develop its property near Swisher Road north of 1-35E in southeast Denton. Within the city and adjacent to the proposed annexation, the applicant owns 400-plus acres within a Planmed Development zoning district (PD.] 32). The proposed annexation of 15.088 acres will provide a corridor for road and utility connections to the applicant's land within the City and in the planned development when development of the northern portion of the planned developme„ occurs. In accordance with the City's annexation policy plan, approved June, 1993, the City will "assess on a case by case basis the annexation of areas in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) when significant developments are proposed." I An Annexation Study and Service Plan have been prepared for Council and public review during i the annexation process, The capacities of infrastructure such as water, wastewater, streets and electric service and such service capacities as police, fire, recreation, and general government are adequate to provide service to the proposed annexation. Some upgrades to exist,ng roads and services may be necessary if significant development occurs at a rapid pace. First reading of the ordinance instituted formal wmaxation procedures on July 11, 1998. The second reading of the ordinance must be more than 30 days after publication of the r, finance and less than 90 days after council institutes annexation proceedings. The ordinance was published July 26, 1998, in the Denton Record-Chronicle. 4 • PRIOR ACTION / REVIEW ICguuncll, Boards. Cotnmisslonsl I The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5 - 0) of the annexation and 0 zoning at its meeting on June 24, 1998. 1. !CJ 32xI❑ ,s.-..,.r.n •.,..m.Yw..,. M+-r-.. „nn~rv-r r.wv. rn...,~ FISCAL INFORMATION Without specific development plans at this time, it is difficult to complete a cost - benefit f analysis without making many assumptions. Nevertheless, residential development with supporting community services at this site is unlikely to have a positive benefit to cost ratio in the near term. However, when developer-supported public improvements, as well as other community benefits such as parks, trails, and school sites, are factored in, the potential fora long-term positive benefit - cost ratio exists. A school site in the southeast quadrant of the city is extremely valuable, as are potential sites for other community services such as police, fire and library facilities. ArTACHMENTS j 1. Annexation Ordinance l 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report r. , Respectfully submi d Hill Director of Planning and Development Prepared by, Mark Donaldson Assistant Director, Planning and Development r . r, aCr,; 25K I D 32 X I D 0 O e A-77 ATTACHMENT 1 I ORDINANCE NO. 1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING A TRACT COMPRISING 15.088 ACRES, LOCATED EAST OF SWISHER ROAD NEAR ITS INTESECTION WITH EDWARDS ROAD IN DENTON'S EXTRATERRITOTIAL JURISDICTION NORTHEAST OF I- 35E; ESTABLISHING TEMPORARY AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to extend its City limits line to include the 15.083 acre tract as described in Exhibit A; and I I WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on June 2, 1998, and June 16, 1998, to allow all interested persons to state their views and present evidence bearing upon this annexation; and WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at a meeting of the City Council on July 21, 1998; and WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in the official newspaper of the City of Denton after annexation proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council taking fnal action, as required by City Charter; NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THF. CITY OF DENT ON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECT I N : That the tract of land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the City of Denton, Texas. SECTION IL That the service plan attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of this ordinance. SECTION lit: That the annexed property is temporarily classified as Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation. • SECTION] :VThat the City's official zoning map is amended to show the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation of the property annexed. SECTION V: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares it to be its purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real properly described in Exhibit A regardless of whether • any other part of the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City. If any part of the real Q • property annexed is already included within the city limits of the city of Denton or within the limits of any other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's}urisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly described in this ordinance. ii 3. " 7h K 32xo 01 ' ~td I , , , p 1 p, , . i I SECTION VI: That any person violating any provision of this ordinance relating to the Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and use designation 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 I i separate and distinct offense. II 1I SECTION VII; That this ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage and publication, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the entire ordinance to be published once and the descriptive caption to be published twice in the Denton Record- Chronicle, the official newspaper or the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1948. y Y, I f` Jack Miller, Mayor 1 ~ ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: I `r APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY A, BY: r - r ' ' f i r - I :h 14 / Y I.AI f. I 4, - * ' Yrs ' 11 a ,rl k" 7Y,^ . t tti yxr Y~ ~Y 1a r4,' VYX10, 0 0 , p ~racvw i Exhibit A FIELD NOTES 15.088 Acres All that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land situated in the Gideon Walker Survey, Abstract Number 1330, Denton County, Texas and being part of first Tract shown by deed to L.F. Powell, recorded in Volume 395, page 236, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Powell tract; Thence North 04 degrees 22 minutes 10 seconds East a distance of 438. 13 feet; Thence South 85 degrees 37 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 208.71 feet; Thence North 04 degrees 27 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 104.14 feet; Thence North 85 degrees 37 minutes 08 seconds West a distance of 193.34 feet; Thence North 04 degrees 26 minutes 28 seconds East a distance of 138.26 feet; Thence North 04 degrees 44 minutes 26 seconds East a distance of 346.16 feet to the Point of Beginning, an iron pin found at the northwest comer of Tract One to Jerry Kuhnke, recorded in Volume 1134, page 647, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas; Thence North 04 degrees 44 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 283.1 feet to an iron pin found; Thence North 72 degrees 08 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 271.89 feet to an iron pin found; Thence North 88 degrees 59 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of 526.69 feet to an iron pin found; Thence South 86 degrees 21 minutes 22 seconds East a distance of 150.03 feet to an iron pin found at a fence comer, Thence South 86 degrees 20 minutes 48 seconds East with a fence a distance of 704.84 feet to a fence f corner post; 0 Thence South 03 degrees 44 minutes 34 seconds West with a fence 413.79 feet to an iron pin found at li the northeast corner of said Kuhnke Tract; { 1 Thence North 86 degrees 23 minutes 49 seconds West with Kuhnke's north line 1632,5 feet ;o the Point of Beginning and containing 15.088 acres of land, 5. t,7a G 2 x l~ LJ .32 X~ r 1 A ,4KU0 Exhibit 8 ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN , CASE NUMBER: A-77 AREA: 15,088 Acres LOCATION: East of Swisher Road, near he intersection with Edwards Road I Munlcipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and in accordance with the following schedule: j A. Streets and Roads. Access is available currently via 1-35E, Swisher Road and Edwards Road. Future development will result in the construction of Lakeview Road, a north-south arterial road ultimately connecting Highway 380 and 1-36E along the eastern edge of Denton. B. Water/ Wastewater Services. Water is currently avallable at Pockrus Page Road and 1-35E, approximately 6,000 feet west of the property. Wastewater service Is currently available at Edwards Road, approximately 4,000 feet west of the property. C. Electrjg Ojgtribut1on. Elaclric service Is currently available in the area. D, fiolld Waste Collection and DIsposal. The City can serve this property. Service may require additional equipment, personnel and operating resources. One solid waste truck and three-person crew Is needed to serve each additional 1,300 households In the city. b E. Police Services. The department estimates that service can be provided within average response times for the city as a whole, The City s priority response time Is 8.06 minutes, while Its average response time Is 12,45 minutes, F. jJrg Protection end Ernmency Medical Services (EMS). , ;e o • The City currently serves adjacent property. Station 46 Is approximately 3 miles from the subject property, 32 Xla S) . O i 1 C aalmw 0. Parks end ERA ation Services. The City currently serves adjacent props~y. south takes Park Is more than 3 miles from tree subject property. Additional neighborhood Parke would be required at a result of development. H. Llbrarv Drakes. The Library enticipatas that Incmased domand resulting from development in the City can not be met using existing materials, facilities and personnel. Th^ City currently has less than half the standard number of Items per r, pita (4.45 hems) and below the standard facility area per ` caplta (0.16 sq. ft.). 1. Code Enforcemant Sullding Inspections and Consumor t•lbaith Services. The City currently serves adjacent property. J. Planni and Develooment Services. The City currently serves thin property. K. Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP of the City is prioritized according to the fo1owing guidelines: 1. Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to others areas will be based on characteristics of topography, lani utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. 2. The overall cost-effectiveness of providing a specific facility or Improvement. The annexed area will be considered for public Improvements In the upcoming CIP. This tract wlil be considered according to the established P guldeVnes. ' I ry r MZ 4 ' 25 10 32 ATTACHMENT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REPORT STAFF REPORT Sublet : Annex and Zane 15.088 Acres Case Number: A-77 Staff: Mark Donaldson Aaenda Date: June 24,1998 PURPOSE Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council concerning the annexation and zoning of 15.088 acres to Agricultural (A) zoning classification and land use designation. 1 SITE r I' LOCATION MAP J s 25 x0 32x10 , e , o GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Westover Residential Co. 8 CAIAS Inc, 4000 W. Windsor Flower Mound, TX 75028 Owner: Westover Residential Co. & CAIAS Inc, 4000 W. Windsor Flower Mound, TX 75028 Location: The property Is located east of Swisher Road near its Intersection with Edwards Road in Denton's ETJ northeast of 1.35E. Size: 15.088 acres. PROCESS At section 34.35 (Annexation Policy) of the Subdivision and Land Use Regulations, the general policy of the City is stated to assess on a case-by-case basis the annexation of areas in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) when significant deve!npments are proposed, occurring, or likely to occur In the near future. The applicant owns approximately 411 acres adjacent to this property within the City boundary. The property Is zoned as PD-132, a mixed-use, mixed-housing zone district. It Is the intent of the applicant to Include the subject 15.088 acre property in the pending development of their property currently within the City. Two public hearings have been conducted In the annexation process. Upon Planning and Zoning Commission action, the City Council will elect to Initiate the formal annexation procedure. At section 35-15 (Temporary Zoning, Annexed Territory) of the Zoning Regulations, the policy of the City is stated that all territory annexed to the city shall be temporarily classed as Agricultural (A) zoning classification and land use designation, until permanent zoning is established by the City Council. When a detailed plan for the applicant's land within PD-132 is considered, the zoning of this 15.088 acres will be reconsidered. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS j This area Is within a low intensity area of the city. The purpose of low Intensity areas In the city Is primarily for residential and neighborhood support land uses. A threshold of 80 vehicle trips per • day per acre has been established In the Denton Development Plan (DDP) for low Intensity areas. The proposed land uses within PD-132 and this 15.088 acre tract are consistent with the DDP O • l guidelines for low Intensity areas. 9. w~ji •~y s O , 1 aura SPECIAL INFORMATION 1. Transportation A. Trip en ra io The proposed use of the annexed property is for townhomes at 10 units per acre. Built to maximum the 15.088 acres could result In as many as 120 housing units. At 8 trips per day per unit (ITE Trip Generation Manual, a Edition), 720 trips could result from development of the annexed property. B. Access If developed as proposed, this property will have access to the City's street system to the east and west: to the east through the balance of PD-132 an3 Its proposed Lakeview Boulevard and to the west to Edwards and Swisher Roads. ` C. Level of SBNIce Edwards and Swisher Roads may need upgrading to accommodate significant development, D. Pedestrian Linkageg The proposed annexation will have pedestrian links to the east and the balance of PD-132. 2. Utilities A, Watef, Water service is currently available from a 27" water line at Pockrus Page Road, approximately 5,000 feet east of the property at 1.35E. B. Wastewater. Wastewater service Is currently available to a 24" sanitary sewer line at Edwards Road, approximately 4,000 feet west of the property. C. Electric. Electric service Is available. 3. Drainage and Topography Topography generally slopes to the east, toward the balance of PD-132. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the annexation and zoning request was published in the Denton Rocord-Chronicle on June 14, 1998. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of A-77 with temporary Agricultural (A) zoning distrirt classification and tD , land use designation. 10. ~5 x 10 32XIO 1 ~Sn 1 j', f-( I 4r O 1 MOTION 77 77, 7 T, r I move to recommend approval of A-77 with temporary Agricultural (A) zoning district classification and land use designation. ALTERNATIVES 4 r < . . . . . . . ...,I 1. Recommend approval as submitted. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Recommend dental, 4. Postpone consideration. 6. Continue Kern to a date certaln. r ENCLOSURES r" . Yi)f-1-1, 1. Vicinity Map. 2. Zoning Map. 3r Utility Map. 4. Site Plan, 6r Public Notice advertisement. 6. Annexation Study. 7. Annexation Servics Plan. I 1^ i ter 25 x 32x 2 VAW" u mmmmmw VICINITY MAP ENCLOSURE 1 A-77 Azyo/at: i SITE ET✓ falv~ds ~ Rd >119PI r e I~ n The Preserve 15.088 Acre Annexation 0 O 0 I 12, h 5+ 32XIO o ENCLOSURE 2 ZONING MAP A-77 y IN, T, LrI'~tS.~}J1yppp il. L.m r.IIk11 w - ► \ t~ ~1 A I y- r~~ 11 .rte-y •.l.'1y ,1 "r1 Y~ ~ !1'r,l ~y d1. lYh x• ytijr,C~~ 3 A •..5t 1' tr'flti,l~l i~T SITE `tiLA r ~/y! a u4~ i .~1R rj {V1r •I ! ~~r r e ~ .y 1'y ,ll lr Ay. + ,r r: A r4 ",r 111. 1~ (h fr 14, ~ t~ rx ~ # 1 rr\ i '1 ~ „W _ l po III 01 - % - 1 let ...J The Preserve 16.088 Acre Annexation 13. 2P► x ~Q 32XIQ C UTILITY MAP ENCLOSURE 3 A-77 tia SITE ii ~SdN9/ The Preserve t { 18.088 Acre Annexatlon 25 ti m, 10 "`3zxl❑ a - 1 S1te Map ENCLOSURE 4 A-7` All PROPOSED rr'' ANNE ION O , • rO 4~ o+r0 Q ' r1<•0 r. •.fl r1.. Oa 1\ 1 f O . • •'I~ I r~rfr ' ~ ~ ' I II~lEI l,II,!!!E!!! t. ti. II II •n, u, ' I IIIPI DEYELOPMLNT PLAN 1= fiT THE PRESERVE i~ 1 { I DIN70K TEXAS R ~i rx , r 10 32XIO 01 • o ENCLOSURE 5 DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE - 6-14-98 I Nonce or W~LIC NfA1ttN0 rM Planning aed Who Commisslon all eM city of Denton will hold a puatic Merl:.g an Wednesday, June 24. IM toCOMlder l rgdutll mat ►M iand so" a sm AykulhM 1 IA) tent estrlct. The pril I Fly is wow tact M Ielcnar LEGAL NOTICES Of Mar e n true 0 with Edwinds Road In Den• bn's aRVabrrilorlAl Iurll• d10106 northeast OI I•ME: The public hearing will be held during lee Mannino end 2Onl no Comm l"IN Meeting Met liar" at 0:30 g. M. In ire city eouMll chanters of City Nall, 111 6, Mc KIMey !freer. D41110n, Text& ~ Mart Do"WoOn Assistant Dlr$CW, PIA nning and Dewioipmem SMp90 i ~ORG VIVItN 1 { I • i ,I i. 16. - --#.4 P~ K O 32XIII i ~ M C 0 6 ENCLOSURE 6 ANNEXATION STUDY (A -17) The Preserve Name and Address of Owner: - Westover Residential Company and CAIAS, Inc. 4000 W. Windsor Flower Mound, TX 76028 (972) 355.3795 Name and Address of Developer: Westover Residential Company and CAIAS, Inc. 4000 W. Windsor Flower Mound, TX 75028 (072) 355-3795 Location and Size: 15.088 acres located east of Swisher Road near hs intersecllon with Edwards Road In Denton's extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) northeast of I.35E. Existing Land Use: Undeveloped Surrounding Land Use: East: Undeveloped land In the City zoned PD-132 West: Undeveloped land In the ETJ North: Scattered single-family residences In the ETJ South:Scahered single-famlly residences In the ETJ Proposed Development: Residential townhome development at 10 dwelling units per acre oonslstenl with the proposed Development Plan for the Preserve at Pecan Creek. F Analysis: It Is the general policy of the City of Denton to assess on a case-by-cAse basis • the annexation of areas In the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) when significant developments are proposed, occurring, or likely to occur In the near future. The following are guidelines for determining when annexation study should be considered: (1) Single family developments over five acres; or • (2) Muitl-family, Industrial or commercial development over one acre; or O (3) Any area where the density exceeds 600 unite per square mile; or 7 ~1a 32x . 0 AWIM (4) Any development or area that might have a significant Impact upon the city, Including but not limited to service costs, Increased trefflo, drainage impact, utility needs or utilization, safety or health hazards. Guidelines for scope of study. In studying the questions of whether or not an area should be annexed, the following criteria shall be considered: (1) The ability of the city to furnish normal city services equal to other comparable areas Inside the city limits. A. Streets and Roads. Existing roads in the area, Edwards Road and Swisher Road, are not constructed to city standards. Substantial upgrades will be required to provide services equal to city standards. B. Water /Wastewater Services. Water service In the area will need to be extended at develop'er's expense approximately 6,000 feet to any future development. Wastewater collection lines In the area will need to be extended at developer's expense approximately 4,000 feet to any future development. Water and wastewater treatment systems have excess capacity. C. Electric Distribution. Electric distribution is capable of providing service to the area. 0. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal. The city currently does not provide solid waste services In the Immediate area. Any development In the area will result in increased demand for services. Additional personnel and equipment will be necessary to provide service to significant development in the area. E. police Services. Any future development of the property will result In increased demand for police services in the area. The area surrounding this property Is already within the city. Response time to the subject property would be comparable to that of surrounding propa4 fn he city. Additional personnel and equipment may be necessary to provide service to significant development In the area. • F. protection end Emergency bkdLQ°r Services fEA Any future development of the property will result in increased demand for fire protection and EMS services In the area. Station 06 is located near the Intersection of Teasley Lane and Lillian Miller Parkway, approximately three miles from the property. Response time via Lillian Miller Parkway and 1-35E may be relatively difficult, depending on traffic conditions. • Extension of Wind River Lane from Tealey Lane to the 1-35E frontage road O will greatly enhance response time to the property. Additional personnel 16. 32x`( e , 0 and equipment maybe necessary to provide service to significant development In the area. G. Parks and Recreatlon Services, Any future development of the property will result in Increased demand for park and recreation' services in the community. Neighborhood parks will be required as development occurs. Additional community and regions? facilities may be necessary to provide service to the re_ dints of the area if significant development In the area occurs. H. Library Services. Any future development of the property will result in increased demand for library services In the communlty. Additional personnel end facilities will be necessary to provide service to the, residents if silAficant development in the area occurs. 1. Services. New building activity will trigger additional case work for the Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health departments. At present there Is no excess capacity In any of th )se divisions, ' J. Banning and Development Service a. Zoning, platting and development activity will trigger addition rase work for the Planning and Development Department, At present there Is no excess capacity In any divislon of the department. K. )Ullscellanecus. Any future development of the property will result In - Increased demand for general government services In the area Additional personnel and facilities may be necessary to provide service to signTcant devalopment In the area. L. Capital Improvement P~ggtm (CIP). The CIP of the City Is prioritized according to the following guidelines; • _ 1. Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to othero „ areas will be based on cherecteristlcs of topography, land ; utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as A related to comparable areas, eslablIshed technical standards and professional studies, 2. The overall cost•effaclivensss of providing a speclflo facility or improvement, The annex,d area will be considered for public Improvements In the upcoming CIP, This property will be considered according to the established guidelines, I 'I , I a 0 Y (2) The reliability, capacity, and future publlo cost, if any, of current and planned provisions for community facilities such as toads, drainage, utilitles, etc. . A. Streets-and Roads. The property's primary access will be via. Interstate 35E, which Is the responsibility of TXDOT for maintenance and improvements. Construction of internal roads required to provide access to future subdivisions of the property will be the responsibility of the developer. There may be long-term cost to the city to provide necessary upgrades and Improvements to Edwards and Swisher Roads. B. Water i Wastewater Service . Water distribution and wastewater collection systems are in proximity to the property. Water and wastewater treatment facilities have capacity. Both are 'Enterprise Funds' so that any necessary Improvements will not Impact the general fund. Extension of service lines to and within the property will be the responsibility of the developer. C. Electric Distribution. Facilities to provide electric service to the property may be necessary. Again, the electric utility Is an "Enterprise Fund" so that any necessary improvements will not Impact the general fund. Service connections will be the responsibility of the developer. 0. Solid Wanda Collection and Disuosat. Equipment to provide services to the property will be necessary when fully developed. The solid waste utility Is also an enterprise fund. E. Police. Fire and Emergency Medical Services, These departments are driven by response time. As additional development Is this area occurs, morn I grsonnei end equipment may be necessary to maintain current response times. Station NO Is approximately three miles from this property. F. Parks and Recreation Llbraiyenil (ienaralOov~mmenlServlces. The demand for these services Is a function of residential population. Additional developmentwlll result in more residents, which Kill result in more demand for facilities and services In the city. (3) The need and quality of lanai use and building controls. Private controls will be considered. This property Is located adjecant to a Planned Development district (PD•132) In an approved detailed plan. which requires that site plan controls be In Contn,l of the quality of land and building development will be required. tD 0 20. k R I0 3?XI❑ 0 0 e~atw (4) Impact on the city, both current and long ranga, Including at a minimum: a. Fiscal cost and benefits; Until there are definite detailed plans available for consideration the fiscal cost and benefit of the proposed annexation Is dlfficult to assess. However, the proposed development plan Indicates that a balance of land uses will be j provided. Including residential, commercial and civic uses. In addition, many significant public benefits will result from the proposed development, Including, ■ Park land dedication within the Pecan Creek drainage area so that linear greenbelts and trail corridors can connect to areas outside the development; ■ An area for community and civic uses Is proposed; a A school site Is proposed; and • Construction of Lakeview Road, a north-south arterial, will be required, b. Traffic; Located near the Shady Shores exit from 1.35E, It could be expected that most traffic will utilize the Interstate system for ',ravel to the southeast and northwest. Once on the Interstate system, traffic Impact on existing residential neighborhood will be minimal, Pockrus Page Road and Edwards Road will provide additional access to and from the west. Both operate at less than capacity, but would require substantial Improvements to carry significant traffic. Lakeview Road, a north-south arterial, will be constructed as development occurs. A northern connection to FM 4261s highly desirable to disperse traffic to as many different routes as possible, c. Infrastructure of roads, utilities, and other community facilities; Interstate highway capacity Is in place and will be utilized to a great degree, Local roads must be enhanced In'the near future, Water distribution and wastewater collection systems must be extended at developer's expense. Electric service can be provided. Other community facilities may be necessary If significant development occurs rapidly. A d, Safety and health; The proximity of this property to fire station #6 will provide adequate response times for fire and emergency services. The area Is elreadywlthln the pollee service area. Significant additional development may require additional equipment and personnel to provide adequate response times. e. Building or development quality; O 0 21, w _4 p,w 10 32X10 to i. a` i11911Y1h The property Is currently zoned as a planned development, Land and building design standards can be inoorporaW Into any approved detailed plans, f. Aesthetic quality; The clty's landscaping ordinance will apply to any new development. Land and bulldiag design standards can be Incorporated Into any approved detailed plane. g. Community character. There Is no predominant character of existing development In the area, Any new quality development Is likely to enhance the area, 3. (5) Conformance with or need to ensure conformance with the officially adopted master plans of the city. fr The 108', Denton Development Plan Identifies the area as a'Low Intensity Area'. z. The low Intensity designation is the least Intense development district In the city. ResidentV development of this property with appropriate nleghborhood-oriented, mixed uses can conform to the'Low intensity' development standard, ' hr i i _ i , . 12, i , - - s'M'; k 25 10 32 X I d „ 0 6^ ENCLOSURE 7 ANNEXATION SERVICE PLAN , CASE NUMBER: A-77 AREA: 15.088 Acres LOCATION: East of Swisher Road, near Its intersection with Edwards Road Municipal services to the site described above shall be furnished by or on behalf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the following levels and In accordance with the following schedule: A. Streets and Roads. Access is available currently via 1-35E, Swisher Road and Edwards Road. Future development will result in the construction of Lakeview Road, a north-south arterial road ultimately connecting Highway 380 and 1-35E along the eastern edge of Denton. B. Water( aste tor ftrvices, Water Is currently available at Pockrus Page Road and 1.35E, approximately 5,000 feet west of the property. Wastewater service Is currently available at Edwards Road, approximately 4,000 feet west of the property, C. Electric Distribution, Electric service is currently available In the area. l D. Solid Waste Collection and Dis,po!al. The City can serve this property. Service may require additional equipment, personnel and operating resources. One solid waste truck and three-person crew is needed to serve each additional 1,300 households In the city, • E. Police Services. The department estimates that service can be provided within average response times for the city as a whole. The City's priority response time Is 8.08 minutes, while Its average response time Is 12A5 minutes, F. Fire Protection-and Emergency Madllc I Services (EMS). The City currently serves adjacent property. Station #8 Is approximately 3 miles from the subject property, 23. 10 32X10 `3!` 't/ ~Flx w Y. y t Y r t3. P$rks and Recreation Services. The City currently serves adjacent property. South Lekes Perk Is more than 3 mil as from the subject property. Additional neighborhood parks would be required at a result of development. H. Libra Services, The Library anticipates that Increased demand resulting from development In the City can not be met using exlsting materials, facilities and personnel. The City currently has less then half the standard number of items per capita (4.45 hems) and below the standard facility area per caplta (0,75 sq. ft,). 1. Code Enforcement Building Inspggljons and Consumer Health Services, The City currently serves adjacent property. J. Planni_no and Development Services. The City currently serves this property. K. Capital Imoro ement Program (CIE), The CIP of the City is prioritized according to the following guidelines; 1. Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to others areas will be based on charectedstice of topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies. 2. The overall cost- effectlveness of providing a specif}o facility or Improvementr The annexed area will be considered for public improvements In the upcoming CIP, This tract will be considered scoording to the established guidelines. Y, 1 • • • 24. 1 1 25 '10 32 XdO KKKKNUMMORLEALMIALM . 0 SERVICE ANALYSIS - aar POLICE 1. Estimated average response time for this area based on current department oonditions: Priority 8.06 minutes Non-priority 13.90 minutes Average 12.45 minutes 2. Appropriate average response time in the city based on current department conditions: Priority 8,06 minutes Non-priority 13.90 minutes Average 12'45 minutes 3. If annexed and developed as proposed will additional personnel be needed as a specific result of this proposal? No * If yes, how many? What type? 4. Will additional equipment and funding be needed to serve this area? No * If yes, what type? 6. Will a police substation or other facility be needed to serve this area as a result of annexation and development? u~ a If yes, when should the new facilities be operational? 6. Please comment on the cumulative impact of annexation and development, Al what population level would another police facility be required? see eelov Is there an accepted facility/equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Yea Is there an accepted officer to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Yes, Additional Comments; This analysis pertains to the 15.088 acres described in the request, but not to The Preserve subdivision in total, The proposed annexation will have negligible impact on current police reponse times and resourcest however, in the context of the nev subdivision the analysis vill be such different, Lt, Tom Woods may 71 1998 I Person to contact If there ere questions Date O V '10 1 Pfeserve Service Info Request.doo 25. ~ 25 x10 32xIO I 4 , ' i • 5 SERVICE ANALYSIS A•77 WATER 1 WASTEWATER 1. What Is the nearest City of Denton water line? Size of water line. Location of water line. Distance from proposed annexation. ..►r' It F 2. What is the nearest City of Denton sewer line? Size of sewer line. 2 ►wt1++ 2 +«cA' Location of sewer line. 'he, f►+~y, Distance from proposed annexation. t*- r I I -j 3. According to the City of Denton master plan what type of lines and facilities would be required for this area and when are those lines and facilities proposed for construction. Size Year Location Water lines ken` 11 Sewer lines IJeRC~ 4. Are there any City of Denton lines Included In the proposed annexation? 40 6. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development. At what population level would additional equipment be required? Is there an accepted equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Is there an accepted employee to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Additional Comments; 49 Were„ Ce WJA.1. e4k4t1w4 ,,wit 114- 46140144 i ~e.,'>t<ew w+~'t W .,4 c. Mn~1, t~ltt. ~ M l4ly ICt~ ccw~AtC U11*4 7114%j .ll S, wwtw w Muti..w.~....>* aYKL r/1)6 P Person to contact If the a are questions Date I ~ 0 0 Preserve Service Info Request.doc 26. . - , ISM 25 ti 1❑32 x IO e . 0 . SERVICE ANALYSIS A•77 Ealtd Wsate 9 . Is residential solid waste service available toy the proposed area for annexation? 1gc 2. Is commercial solid waste service available to the proposed area for annexation? Tom- 3. What is the estimated cost to provide this area with solid waste service? is Equipment and Maintenance. 1-91 coO)' 41 Personnel. 41 74OO ' h 4. What Is the typical revenue collected per. Household. A~&,t4-4 14 Commercial Business 5. Will additional equipment be needed to serve this eras if annexed or developed? Type of Equipment. Re.,-.r LslhR Cost of Equipment. B 160.ra~ 6. Will additional employees be needed to serve this area If annexed or developed? Type of Employees. ' Number of Employees, 7. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development. At what population level would additional equipment be required? Whin 6kee-&fS i /.300 IVL W!/1^L-Er4CAYAOA t tI 001me'l Is there an accepted equipment to population ratio that cane us for planning purposes? /3Gei Is there an acce ted employee to population ratio that can be used for planning .I• i purposes? er~rtnt~ ss* A&rO-!en/aft Car tMP/o4j4"U Additional Comments: k~ _ Person omtact if there/are questions Date 0 0 i Preserve Service Info Request.doo 27 a 32 X I O UL MIA ~~001LILOW11JUMAIUME O I i SERVICE ANALYSIS A-77 UBRARY 7. If annexed, can anticipated service demands be met using existing materials, facilities, and personnel? NO B. If not, how many additional employees and what type of facilitles and materials W111 be needed to provide services? tra vile know the answer to this from iha reeultw of our Library Master Plan Study for 1998-2010 when it is completed. 9. Estimated additional funding needed strictly based on proposed annexation and development. _ Aamo its ss 10. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development. At whatpopulation level would another library facility be required? 71,450. Ye are current y already below standard which is .73 sq, ft. per capita. Is there an accepted circulation to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Yes. 5.08 circulations Per capita, Is there an accepted employee to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes? Yes. Population oar M is 3,908, population yer Maater_de& ad Librarian is 13, 031. Additional Comments; The most importaat service an& ysis measurement is items per capita. The state total is 4.45. The City of Denton Is 1.96 Haw 11._1998 i, Person to contact If there are questions Date dy,, r 1 Preserve Service Info Request.doc 28, r~ 2.5 10 t 1 • O POPOSED ANNEXATION SCiTDULE A-77. The Preserve at Pecan Creek May IQ, 1998 City Council receives a preliminary assessment, gives direction to staff and considers approval of a schedule for public hearings regarding the proposed annexation. in PrelimineryAnnexaflohAssessment prepared. May 211, 1998 Nollce published In Denton Record-Chronicle for first public hearing. o Annexetion Study prepared and available for public review, o Service Plan prepared and available for public review. June 2, 1098 City Council conducts first public hearing. • Public notice must be no less then 10 days and no more y` than 20 days before public hearing. June 6. 1993 Notice published In Denton Record-Chronicle for second pybilo hearing. June 16, 1998 City Council conducts second public hearing. • Public notice must be no less then 10 days end no more than 20 days before public hearing. June 24, 1098 Planning end Zoning Commission holds a public hearing anc considers making a recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed annexation and the proposed zoning. • Public notice must be no less then 10 days before public hearing. July 21, 1998 City Council by a four-fifths vote Institutes annexation proceedings. First reading of annexation ordinance. • Action must be more than 20 days after the second ppublic hearing but less then 40, days from the first public hearhig. July 28, 1698 Publication of annexation ordinance In Denton Record- Chronicle. September 1, i99S City Council by a four-fifths vote takes final action. Second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance. City Councll considers approval of zoning request. • Council salon must be more then 90 days after • publication of ordinance endless than 90 days after • council institutes annexation proceedings. G'.~(r Dar~nr~ntK Rpw.rutlwu.irlnR rAr My.»aA~e 29. vn a _ 32XIo X"M O rxw7Ww Agenda No Agenda Vern 7r 7~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET oale_ AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the A1ayor to execute Amendment number six to the agreement between the city of Denton and IIDR Engineering, Inc, for professional engineering services for the City of I)enton sanitary landfill development and expansion, relating to Phase IV and Phase V thereof; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: I he original contract wilh HDR was approved by City Council on June 15, 1993, and has been amended several times.1 he construction phase portion of the contract was approved 1 by City Council on April 1. 1997. At the time of thi,, approval the fee fur I IDR's scniccs vas based upon their estimate of how long it would take to complete the construction project, ']"he construction contract was split into two contracts, '[he first was with Terra Constructors vsho installed the slurry wall and dcwatering system, and the second was with kill who is responsible fur excavation and liner installation activities. The staff last came to the PUII on May 18. 1998, requesting additional funds for 11DR because the contractor spent more tune constructing the facilities than was forecast in their estimated construction schedule. At that time $53,000 in additional funds were authorized to pay 1'or construction observation and coordination activities through June 30, 1998. 1II)k rcqucsled an additional 511,430 in their letter of April 22, 1998 for services through June 30, 1998. Vpon revic"ing the available remaining balance on all existing purchase orders tit I IDk, an additional $23,790 is needed to fund IIDR expenses through project ~i • completion which is now scheduled for August 3. 1998. A contingency of $2.210 is also requested to cover any unanticipated delays and any additional work which may be I ' required on the existing modification requests to 7 NRCC, SI0.620 of the costs above is associated with work through June 30, 1998. HDk I'nginccring suhnihicd a letter dated June 29, 1998, requesting $5,200 fix Engineer of Record Services and $5,500 fix construction observation and assistance services through ?%ugust 3. 1998. NP 32xi El 0 1 An extra $1470 is included for the three modifications which is the difference between the $3030 amount quoted in one HDR letter and $4500 quoted in another letter of the same date. The department has received a response from TNRCC requesting additional information concerning our request to change the "drainage layer" from gravel which was specified in the permit to geonet material. 11 DR estimates this work at $ 1000. The Landfill contract amounts are shown on exhibit 1, Landfill construction costs are shown on exhibit 2, available funding and proposed new expenditures are shown on exhibit 3. FRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council Boards, Commissions) The Public Utilities Board unanimously recommended approval of change order number six in the amount of $26,000 at their meeting of August 3, 1998. r; ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT: The actual landfill expansion construction is now expected to be completed in August with final liner approval from TNRCC expected in mid September. FISCAL IMPACT: The present value of the HDR contract is SI,036,546. HDR has requested an additional $26.OC0. This is based on an increase in inspection time for the liner construction, a longer r~ istruction period and changes in modification costs. i Respectfully submitted: Charles Watkins, Director Solid Waste • FAhibits: 1. Ordinance 2. Contract 3. Landfill construction costs 4. Available funding and proposed expenditures 5. i.etters from HDR 6, Construction schedules '•AM'r z ; ~5, ~ 32xio Mly, r, o + ORDINANCE NO. r AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DENTON SANITARY LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION, RELATING TO PrIASE IV AND PHASE V THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: i SECTION 1: That the Mayor is authorized to execute Punendment Number Six to the ✓ j Agreement between the City of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for further professional ' engineering services for the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill development and expansion, as provided for in said Agreement, relating to Phase IV and Phase V thereof, a copy of Which Amended Agreement Number Six is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 11: That the expenditure of additional funds in an amount not to exceed Twenty Six Thousand Dollars ($26,000,00) is hereby authorized as provided for in the said Amendment Number Six to the Agreement. SECTION III: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: " r JEN.IIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ~ r BY:~ APPROVEiD AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT Lr PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY:_ _ r; a 3 F!'s~ared-0epr LQUtfr lkKUmcnt.'{hdVn~u,cn'9A'd1 DR Am" 6 Ord" G 1 "Y 32x10 dam • e o I I AMENDMENT NUMBER SEX TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. DATED JUNE 15,1993 WHEREAS, on June 15, 1993, the City of Denton, Texas ("City") and HDR Engineering, Inc. (111311") entered into an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services respecting the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill initial site development ("Project") which was thereafter amended by Amendment No. I dated March 18, 1994; which was further amended by Amendment No. 2, dated May 16, 1995; which was further amended by Amendment No. 3, dated February 22, 1996; which was further amended by Amendment No. 4, dated April 18, 1997; and which was further amended by Amendment No. 5, dated June 16, 1998; wherein such Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for the sanitary landfill initial site development, as amended by Amendments No. I, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is hereafter referred to as the "Agreement"; and WHEREAS, Sections l 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 Agreement, when requested and authorized by the City; and Section 5.2.2 thereof provides that the compensation to IIDR respecting the services performed under Phase IV of the Project is to be determined and be mutually agreed upon by the parties at a later date; and WHEREAS. the City and HDR provided in Amendment No.. of the Agreement for the definition of the Scope of Services for Phase IV, and designated fees for professional engineering services for Phase IV in the amount not to exceed 5205,400.00. Thereafter, pursuant to Purchase Order No. 40978RR, the City authorized the expenditure of an additional $17,000.00 in payment of additional professional services associated with breaking the Project into two bids, utilizing two different contractors, in order to accomplish the design and construction work on the Project on a fast-track basis; and 14'EIM11EAS, the City and HDR have proceeded with implementation of Phase IV of the City of Denton Sanitary Landfill site development and expansion, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission TNRCC") has approved the City's landfill permit; and 3 O WHI. RFAS, the City and IIDR have determined that it is necessary and appropriate for I IDR to perform additional engineering services for the City relating to the proper completion of Phase IV of the Project regarding an additional period of on-site construction observation, liner inspection and testing, as well as Engineer of Record services to be performed by IIDR during the construction and installation of the landfill liner, by "RB)", in order to comply with TNRCC third-party review requirements and regulations, for the period of time from June 30, 1998 . through August 3, 1998, which is the revised, extended, construction completion period for the O t y landfill liner; and p WHEREAS. HDR has proposed, and the City is of the opinion, that an additional fee in an amount not to exceed 525,000.00, including expenses, is a reasonable fee to be paid to HDR, if • 4 32 x r I ' I I! for such additional professional engineering services relating to Phase 1V of the Project, i considering the relevant circumstances; and WHEREAS, the City and HDR have also determined that it is necessary and appropriate for HDR to perform additional professional engineering services for the City relating to Phase V of the Project regarding additional work related to the completion of the landfill permit modification package pertaining to the change of the landfill "drainage layer" from gravel to geonet material. WHEREAS, HDR has proposed, and the City is of the opinion, that an additional fee in an amount not to exceed 51,000.00, including expenses, is a reasonable fee to be paid to HDR, for such additional professional engineering services relating to Phase V of the Project, considering the relevant circumstances; and j" WIIEREAS, the City and HDR, pursuant to the provisions of 7.12 of the Agreement, providing for changes and modifications thereto, mutually desire to amend their Agreement to provide for the completion of Phase IV of the Project; as well as to provide for an Agreement for IIDR to perform additional professional engineering services relating to the completion of the landfill permit modification package pertaining to the drainage layer of the landfill liner, under Phase V of the Project; NOW, TIiEREFORE, WITNESSET11 Pursuant to Section 7,12 (Changes and Modifications) of the Agreement, the City and HDR do hereby AGREE as follows: i 1. The Scope of Services for Phase IV of the Project is hereby further amended to add the following additional professional engineering senices: A. The Construction Phase periodic observation, inspection, and liner certification services to be performed by HDR respecting the Project, together with the Engineer of Record services to be performed by HDR, heretofore described and provided for in the Agreement, shall be • extended for an additional period of time, from June 30, 1998, to August 3, 1948. l1, the City shall pay to HDR an additional professional fee, including expenses, of not to exceed 525.000 for the additional professional services described in paragraph LA. hereinabove. 11. O The Scope of Services for Phase V of the Project ("Other Permits') is hereby further , O O amended to add the following additional professional engineering services: A. HDR shall complete the following landfill modification package with the TNRCC as follows: i Page 2 of 4 j 10 32XI[i ' I + lr A rr 1 r 1 (1) Landfill permit modification associated with the substitution of geo-composite drainage material (geonet) for a granular (gravel) drainage blanket located on the + bottom of the Phase I cell. B. The City shall pay to HDR an additional professional fee, including expenses, of not to exceed $1,000.00 for the -,ennit modification services described in paragraph II.A,(1) hereinabove. lll. The total estimated additional professional fees for services, including expenses, to be provided by HDR to the City under Phase IV and Phase V of the Project, pursuant to this Amended Agreement Number Six, are in the aggregate, an amount not to exceed $26,000.00. IV. In all other respects, the terms and conditions of the Agreement, as executed by thv City and HDR on June 15, 1993, and as thereafter amended by Amendments Number One, wo. Three, Four and Five thereto, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has executed this Agreement by and through its duly authorized and empowered Mayor; HDR has executed this Agreement by and through its duly authorized and empowered officer. EXECUTED in quadruplicate original counterparts this the day of '1998. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS % BY: JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: t ti JENNIFER WAL'TERS, CITY SECRETARY i I ` BY: • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL. FORM: I IE,RBERT L, PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY O f BY: f Page 3 of 4 0 ' O HDR ENGINEERING, INC. BY: WILLIAM R. HINDMAN, P.E. Senior Vice President ATTEST: BY: _ ITS: F,vAared dcpnrGOW DxmmwtsT ntrwul96'EnRArncndffwm 6 doc e 'x F'. Page 4 of 4 7 a to . t 5 x 10 32X 10 e o April 22, 1998 Mc Charles Watkins .1. Director of Solid Waste 901 •A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Subject: Projected fees associated with Phase IV of landfill construction Dear Mr. Watkins: This letter is a status report addressing all of our fees and activities associated with the design and construction of the landfill expansion, including anticipated future fees to complete the project. As you know, our contract included four activities. They are listed below, with the original authorized fee amounts for each. In addition, we have been authorized under P.O. No. 40978RR an additional $17,000 for additional services associated with breaking the project into two bids and accomplishing the designs on a fast-track basis. The current amended authorized fee is presented below, as well, • Plans and Specifications $61,740 • Bid Administration $13,830 • Construction Phase (HDR) $19,830 • Construction Phase (SLEA) $110,000 • Additional Plans 8 Specs Authorized $17,000 Total Fee Authorized to Date $222,400 f I The original contract included a Scope of Services that specified the following f three assumptions for purposes of calculating fee. Each Is followed by a discussion of revised project assumptions. i t. The Construction Phase fee for MDR to conduct periodic obsen aOon throughout the entire construction period was based on the assumption of a slx•week period, with one visit per week. It was also assumed that the construction would be accomplished under one bid rather than two, and that f cell construction would take place concurrently with other consfruction on the ' site. We have recently received a construction schedule from the contractor. It 1 rellecls a schedule encompassing a total of 25 weeks of construction beginning with the construction of the slurry wall and dewatering system, &A ending on June 30, 1998 with completion of the cell and other on-site facilities. As we have informed Mr. Martin in previous project status reports, the six-week construction period covered under the original Scope of Servicss ended February 20, 1998. HOR Enain••ring, Inc. Suite 125 T0100" 17700 Hikr" Rad In 11004000 Odlu, r*m Fix Empiora-ern•e 75200"" 912 "0."71 8 32 X , r O10N o I- Mr, Charles Watkins April 22, 1998 I Page 2 With the City's concurrence, we have continued to provide on•si a observation and assistance to Mike Leavitt throughout the entire construction period. i 2. In the Construction Phase services for the SLIER observation and testing, it was assumed that all construction would take place five days per week, ten hours per day. Randall Blake, the contractor, has informed us that this phase of construction will take place six days per week, from sun-up to sundown. Therefore, we have assumed a twelve-hour workday for our services. This necessitates overtime E charges for hours in excess of 40 per week for full-time liner observation and testing services. 3. Also for SLER construction services, it was assumed that the liner installation portion of the construction, requiring fud-time on-sire observation, would fake place over six weeks, or 30 working days for construction of the liner. The schedule submitted by the contractor reflects a liner construction period of six weeks. Based on the schedule provided by tho contractor, we have assumed 38 working days for construction of the liner. In addition, at the City's request, we prepared and submitted to TNRCC permit modifications which have been approved for redesigning the permanent detention pond In the northeast comer of the site, and replacing the temporary interim detention pond adjacent to Phase 1 with a ditch and berm directing stormwater to the existing stock tank. The following is a breakdown of the various portions of the work, indicating the original authorized fee and any additional authorization required to accommodate the vaartances between the original assumptions and more current project assumptions regarding construction. Additional fee Is also provided to cover the effort already expended on the modifications. Plana and Soecltlcatlons t Original Fee $61,740 Additional Previously Authorized $17,000 Current Authorized $78,740 Bid Administration Original Fee $13,830 9 ICJ 32x❑ NOR= e 0 Mr. Charles Watkins April 22, 1998 Page 3 CpnstNCt'Jn Phase (HDR! Original Frie fcr 6 weeks $19,830 Requesteo Additional Authorized $20,900 (lump sum of $1,100 per week of construction, estimated at 19 weeks through 6-30.98,) Total Fee Requested $40,730 Construction ISLER! Original Fee (for 30 days construction, 5110,000 10 hours per day) Requested Additional Authorized $53,500 (for 38 days construction, 12-hr per day) Total Fee Requested $163,500 Permit Modifications (ponds! f Original Fee $0 Requested Additional Authorized $3,030 TOTAL PROJECT SUMMARY II Total Original Fee Authorized $205,400 Previous Additional Fee Authorized $17,000 Requested Additional Fee Authorized $77,430 Requested Total Fee $299,830 Invoiced to Date $140,081.14 The majority of the additional fee requested for Construction (SLER) is 6 associated with subcontractor expense for additional construction days and longer working hours per day. Because of the number of hours per week that liner construction is projected to take place, as well as the requirement to mainlaiii full-time on-site observation during all liner construction activities, , overtime costs are significant. Whereas our previous estimated fee was based on 300 hours of construction activity for the liner, the current schedule indicates 0 0 • 456 hours. All of the additional hours are overtime hours. At the request of our sub-consultant, StanTech Enginehng, Inc., we have also slightly increased the LG number of tests associated with borrow soil investigation due to the importance 10 32 I'LL y q y n+riuera r 0 n • Ir , Mr. Charles Watkins April 22, 1998 j Page 4 of proper mixing of the heterogeneous soils on•site to achieve the desired test results during construction. We understand the need to be conservative for purposes of budgeting. The additional fee requested, based on the calculations above, is based on strict adherence to the most recent construction schedule as provided by the contractor. A copy is provided for your reference. Clue to the uncertainties inherent in this schedule, we suggest that a contingency of 10% of the Constnx,9lon (SLER) fee be included in your budget, or $16,350. This contingency will not be used unless the construction schedule is modified. However, it could be authorized now to eliminate the need to request from the Public Utility Board (PUB) and City Council additional funds in the future to cover scheduling delays. am available to discuss any aspect of our fees and the status of the project at your request. I am also available to discuss the project with your PUB if you feel thi.s would be helpful. We are anxious to resolve these budgetary issues early in the Phase 2 construction process as, I am sure, are you. Sincerely, HDR Engineering, Inc. Risa W. Fisher, P.E. Project Manager l is i', • I t ~ jC~A, I v e l M.., - -p e_ 25 X I a21x a { 4 l ' wti~ r i! i l t I e v , i I i , Available Funding & Proposed Expenditures Source of Funds Unspent Dollars Professional Services TNRCC Hearing $40,104.84 Landfill Design Expansion $52,576.14 Divide Project $17,000.00 Additional Engineering Services $53,000.00 Landfill Modeling 10000.00 Available Funds $172,680.98 L _ Available Funds $172,680.98 Construction Payments through 6/30198 ($19.800.0) Available Funds $152,880.98 Construction Phase (SLER) ($163,500.00) Additional Project Funds Required (stantech) ($10,619,02) Engineer of Record through 813/98 ($5,200.00) Construction Observation through 813/98 ($5.500.00) Additional Funds Required ($21,319.02) Additional Project Requests: i Permit Modifications $1,470.00 00 Drainage Layer Modification $1,000. Subtotal $2,470.00 I ' Contingency $2,210.98 Additional Costs Required $28,000.00 I r 10 32 X10 o , I April 22, 1998 Mr, Charles Watkins Director of Solid Waste , 901•A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Subject: Projected fees associated with landfill permitting hearing, cost modeling, and additional permit modifications Dear Mr. Watkins: This letter presents an outline of the status of the landfill permit hearing project. As you know, the initial part of the project was devoted to preparation for a contested public hearing associater with the landfill expansion amendment Some of the remaining funds in the budget were devoted to development of a landfill cost model and for developing cost estimates and other regulatory { documents associated with compliance with TNRCC's financial assurance requirements. There is still part of the authorized fee unused, and we propose to use some of these funds for preparation of three more landfill permit modifications packages. They are listed below along with anticipated fees for their preparation, submittal to you for review, and submittal to the TNRCC. 1 Permit Modification associated with alteration of the existing Citizen's Drop-off Facility, to address compatibility with the proposed stormwater ditch $3,000 • Permit Modification associated with relocating a groundwater monitoring well $1,000 • Permit Modifications associated with the substitution of geo-composite drainage material for a granular drainage blanket on the bottom of the Phase I cell $500 ^ FEE SUMMARY 4! Original authorized fee $82600.00 Fee previously devoted to hearing preparation $30,209.13 Fee previously devoted to Financial Assurance and cost estimate; $2,594.54 Fee previously devoted to cost modeling $9,000,00 Fee currently remaining $40,796.33 0 r • Hequested additional authorized fee for 3 modifications 54,500.00 f HOR Enginwing, Inc. SU" 125 UlprgM 12T00 Hlkr.fl Red in "04000 Empror~o owned DS20P20G! YR 96011171 13 10 X e r' Mr. Charles Watkins April 22, 1998 1 Page i 4 Work on the three remaining modifications is currently underway per instructions by you and Howard Martin. We will invoice for services associated with these l , tasks with reference on the invoice to the hearing project, as we have done in the past. Sincerely, MDR Engineering, Inc, ftisa W. Fisher Project Manager k• i , t ' r s 10 r N u 0 W MW June 29. 1998 Mr. Charles Watkins Solid Waste Director City of Denton 901 •A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Subject: Ccntinued construction observation activities Dear Mr. Watkins: Our current Scope of Services as authorized by Amendment No. 5 provides for construction observation and liner cen fication services (SLER) through June 30, 1998. According to the latest construction schedule provided by the contractor, the liner should be installed by July 270, and the balance of the construction 4 should be complete by August 3`0. Therefore, it is necessary for us to obtain authorization to provide additional services. .his letter addresses only HOR's activities. and does not include additional authorization which will be required for Stan i eon's liner certification and testing. Specifically, we are required by regulation to provide Engineer of Record services through completion of the liner construction. We estimate that four additional weeks of this service will require approximately $5,200, In addition, we are providing general construction observation services and assistance as needed on a lump-sum basis of $1,100 per week. Extending the total construction period from June 301" until August V represents approximately five additional weeks of construction. Therefore, we are requesting that at least $5,500 be authorized for construction observation services and assistance. In as much as the construction schedule is an estimate which is subject to field 0 conditions and other uncertainties, we suggest that you budget at least 10% In excess of the total fee requested herein of $10,700, or at least $11,700. Of course, we will not invoice beyond the $10,700 without written authorization to do so, presumably based on construction delays. ; In ord-ir to ensure that we are able to provide these services without interruption throughout the remainder of the cell ccristruction, we ask that you authorize our Q continued services up to $10,700 at this time by signing this document below and j NOR Enginurinp, Ine. Su% M ~ 12700 MYrkrJJt AoJC M OW 4000 Emoor~Ja.nJO OWJ. Tax" FU 732~G200e M 060-4471 32XIO 0 I Mr. Charles Watkins June 29, 1998 Page 2 retuming k to us. We understand that a contract amendment cannot be executed until the City Council returns in August Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter. I Slrverety, HDR Engin Bring, lnc, +chard J. Vensas Risa W. Fisher Senior Vice President Project Manager i I 1 APPROVED: City of Denton, Texas (Name),.,- (Trtle) (Signature) (Date) , 11 10 1G I0 O reesueaa O , I 1 AcUvNy Activity am It rig; 1811911, esowca R APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT ID Descrlptbn ~Dw out sYrl Finish 2 EnvrConlro( ~Wafj ip /741 1111261 1 1622i11 1270}!7 ,901794717 1491211 171926: 12 12 016WRPB 31MAR90 0 01 MobNizallon 12 12 0 16MAR99 31MAR98 0 wommomisoccim, 70 Tempory Sot Access 16 16 0 16MAR99 06APRU 0 itimplitilgirTempory slq Access 22 Survey 12 17 0 16MARg8 31MAR98' 0 survey 21922 Soo Markers 6 6 0 30MAR96 04APF198 •12' t t silo Alukers 3 Excavation 35 35 0 31MAR96 ISMAY98 •11 Immimmiumifaim •Eaavstlon 4 Don1Ny Compaction 11 11 0 06APR98 20APR96 -1S t #lt'Density Corropattlon 18 Entrance Ditch 21 21 0 20APR98 18MAYDO •25 t ~'Entrsnce Ditch 13614 GoLwilRenoMallrass 21 21 020APR9516M,AY96 •25 t+mummimmis Goblonalflano Mattress 17 Pond OulklSlruclure 11 11 0 ISMAY98 O1JUN98 .45 t Amimmi,PondDuW Owtun 19 Citizens Unloading Area 6 6 0 1 OMAY90 25MAY98 AS t Am CNiono Unroading Arta 23 Clay Liner II 11 0 111ril OIJUN98 .45 IF .1s Cloy Llw 16 Gravel Road 1 I 11 0 25MAYN 08JUNnr •50 t r Gravel Road 24 RCP 24' 11 11 0 25MAY96 06JUNOS ' •50 t 7t RCP 24' 566 Liner smolh,lerilure 22 22 0 OIJUN98 30JUN98 ' d5, t Llnsrsmolh.leWUn 15 Paved Road 6 6 0 OMN90 I SJUN98 .60 t As Pivei! Road (2) Final Slop! Seeding 5 5 0 OMN96 12JUN98 .60 IF q final slope besting 11612 2'.6',16_cotlectionbrefurn 10 10 0 08JUN98 19JUN96 .60 t _ 7 2°, .ircollectloninlumpipes 1 I A ~ • 1 . 1 ww•M IFMtr ~ ra rR a' ww n r... nwM rr a. I MnM IW m 1t MGM IWM R1rwM IIanOR la'dOO Ml V~ Mtw MwaM iMRrtiR• (Wrf SrNA/11 N0V r•M+•Iwlrh M 25 R 32X ❑ 1 1 1 r l 1 h I rnM ,.Y«f0►I (,/IdIK,~~, ~ La.IN+f Sf~,1L4 • i.IYtn.~ Oar PIN III Ldt~JGa, AI~~Xh~L, 'Oba+fL WtM~p Wwiw Or Ara.w ~i td Do y ,/g1 - /1aa ri{n L.+Ki.n 4v. Rp trar - v. f fae no lean. s . 0044y, b.m.ro. g i lSfO A6fJar~s' l} 64W C.►e. 11. ~y -moos N L - k 0 Kilo" AGENDA iNFORMATION SIIEET dgeuda rvu f .agenda ltem _ AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 Date__ - DEPARTMENT: Utilities Administration ACM: Howard Martin. 349-823: SUBJECT; AN ORDINANCE. AUTHORIZING 111E CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ACREEMENT FOR ENGINEERINO AND SURVEYING SERVICES RELATED TO THE RELOCATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES ALONG U.S. HIGEEW'AY 77 FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 TO U,S. HIGHWAY 380, IN DENTON, TEXAS, WITH RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC,: AUTHORIZING THE k EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS T'HEREF'OR: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BACKGROUND; T'tie relocation of existing water and sanitary scwcr lines arc necessary due to proposed state highway 77 expansion'imprevcments planned by Texas Department of Transportation, The City's existing utilities are in conflict with the proposed exp:.nsicn of llighway 77, and the highway department has notified the City to reloc.te these facilities. 'this project also includes construction of 20-inch and 16-inch water lines from High School Tank to Windsor Road along E1wy 77, The 20-inch and 16-inch water lines arc part of the Distribution System Upgrade Master Plan prepared by Shimek, Jacobs and Finklea Consultants, Construction of this new line is necessary to improve water distribution system capacity for meeting peak hours demands, elevated storage tank replenishment, fire flow conditions and provide growth opportunities in the southwest part of the City, PRIOR ACTION/RE1'IIW (Council, Boards, Commissions): Public Utilities Board approved agrcemcnt on August 17. 1998. FISCAL IN] ORSIAI ION: • 'there is SI.866,(100 budgeted in bond funds for this project, The breakdown of fees im-eluded in the agrcentcnl from Exhibit 11 includes items 1 through 44 and Items 51 through 53. penis 45 through 50 arc not included in tliis ugrconcnt. Also, the Consultant has included cost for 95 parcels for easement survey at 5990 per parcel. City has included the cost for 125 parcels the fees will be paid on a per parcel surveyed basis. Respectfully submitted. II JorJ n. Direct ~14'otcr Utilities Exhibit 1: 1 ocalion Slap Exhibit II: Scope of Services xhibit 111: ('111 Detail Shrct t 32XI❑ .a o , HIGHWAY 77 PROJECT M WATER AND SEWER RELOCATIONS i N I PROJECT LOCATION . s Ei LOOP 288 71 kYS / HIGH SCHOOL TAnnc IA is WATERUAEUPORADE 35 w wa • I • B If~ I.1 'L-..~.• M ~ .+nFn ~ .__k., w7. 4~. ~ ^ w'L' f 'i t kk 'J s: _ t MY 380 A 9 p WATER 1160 FEET • 8' WATER 1800 FEET • 8" WATER 6600 FEET • 6" WATER 500 FEET • 6" SEMER 1180 FEET- 800 FEET • 8" SEINER 6600 FEET • 6' SEWER 500 FEET • 8' B' FORCE MAIN 300 FEET-1 EWER 1750 FEET • 6' 900FEET 'e' 2 EXHIBIT 32 X El t 1~ bb F . I I°Id l Pr"9xF" ~ elti I,d ~ 1 i 1 1, ~ I Denton R" 7] Utility Relocepone j RAI Em1romiti t lM InfrdlNcture y _ AaM IMigR ng1E1N'ra 6Y1Etehr ApL1 DEMTR f:eD DDRtIa wE~l'tEd~. !Ir'p Gr dlrk/ IRxn fal { ~ 1 11!00 100 OP 00 00 INW 10.00 tl00 900 I MIq NANCd JJ :MOmG1YWNMCNI _ 1 /t l 1 Cahrngmwa Cq l'MnIPl.,n fl•Wfl A A 71 W !!W / . 1 ls>,wa OaFa.r,~ 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 c 10 I Pm J4 wi-Cft faR 10 1I m a 32W 0 I Arlmrun14IMIxR"1.j a x m IA 11500 li , I 'bR~+MIen IOWfi Oa1M v I 0 _ ILA my" &20,214 IIM MOm1t , 111 M Go66,MM blwY b~+Y 1 0 , 10 rMU 9x11 p 0 Iu1I0111 I 136 nax7r 4AMx - 1 1' ,I P'. Mrc uI IMMOrr! 7 I 10 T IAM q Luba 4mMrcaOrr _ I _ m is ■ 7195 \I b Ytb 4i VYMI I 4 Im 1m --ISM ' n rm4(eyY,n mRugnwV t11~00f 41110(4 I '-m a tl 7m I~ 0 nruxMtrlMrox .r 1 II I~b UarM_ilnerRwthF io 70 10 a 1100 ter.. n wl~ulgll MMl ,eoo~wn.n fir mx. Mxx i n ii T II n 1MD m IkIKMMEO<aox nuK I 1 Or MrM.q E.un lrrrrr 1 I q '1 q 7790 1 I! Wm 40Tlv>fMMYnMFb I I It to 4 07K m e F I I a n p II 1100 1 11, N GM na'XMMI 1 11 i1 A _ 4 AM ,a m MMG 1 _ 11 w q m !010 ti ' A M.,l ..n qi Pip M N a a 7!1 11150 11 IWIKWN MM4 II KrcMI m q ~p q _ 1a 10100 •1 1 m .L-, I m r1nMO.g1 A A _ q a 1A 1 O 1 1!' llr CTlb%Yi Nnl1anMMR1 T q q m II I, 170 w p In MGM SgWmmIG~M(fLi.FmN A _A _ N 00 fi 11900 •'h1 L It,cam Far ID 4 p - DO - - --moo lofiG 31 b. CMK A A N q 120 1707 ' 4 { b, IJ11014 IM 1193.m 10 400xA0CROxMKKIYMl1 11 IAw Fl C.. MRS- I 1 1 1140 1 11 M FjM r."Dmn,Y a 14 IN 10500 IN IOIII ml lam f I 1 YJK It11hCL11014 M 1 II I1NMWR T 0 0 4 Comma Or RuMa iW 10 ON 1515 0 q P. MI q - >m W 110 5mm ~ 0 1 n rRy 4R:Yi rtlr~4wl _ 11 7% 7i1 Ilq! I 1; MonrxM F.ft 1 II T IIK , a u ErrMamnw _ ' M TOM 0 0 r vii 064064 05 IMMTALI R MK1MI rp - j n euIM - ~ 4111019 4110.6REmM IN11m114Y.MIaM1 ' 11 11!ro 1lO7K r K Iu11A 1u110111 I EAKMI kM IOW I W 1 MII l0IC011 - 1 f,; a NM11A OEhV Mrtxl51u0R - N IIhmAH UrrFn N!r 10 A_ _ a is 1 ! I !I GKlMrRt ~ 11 m ~ i 411101u - IrIC W 14m 84, roia J; ro115MDRC1 WTM 1FY4tIi L hnRrt 4KM nMVtafRMl NJ Ygp4 M M Y ~ I'RI IMYM IN (IDO( G,, rriWl/AMM, MMFIr~+Mlr,rtmMpgMYt EXHIBIT 11 Mhl~'I TOOT O a Mr M.aY rvxMFRMwrOrrgsrt gTxnann IiwY rFta tMaM 1 a H4101 RM a K r ~ ~l 1 ,'~3 .n x l..M.. 1 1' 11ff Me MIA NKK~ a o ' I ' 1999 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT # 99-0461-09 PROJ TITLE: STATE HIGHWAY 77 RELOCATIONS ESTIMATED COST: 11,116 (x 1000) i ' GROUP ASSIGNMENT, 17 DESCRIPTION: Highway 77 from Universfty to 1-35 Includes 20 316 Inch waterline from High School Tank to Windsor along Highway 71 PURPOSE: Texas DOT widening of Hwy 77 requires relocation of water lines to new location at City's expense. ENCUMBRANCES CASH EXPENDITURES BOND REV AIC OTHER TOTAL BOND REV AIC OTHER TOTAL TOTAL ISTYR 1,116 s0 so so 11118 $ 61813 $0 $0 1816 TOTAL 2ND YR O 0 0 0 0 $ SOD 0 0 0 $ 00 TOTAL 3RD YR 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 0 0 0 $0 GRAND TOTAL ills s0 s0 $0 $1118 $ 1,116 $3 s0 s0 $1,116 ENCUMBRANCE DATES: Encumbered as spent. PHASE DATE AMOUNT OBJECT0 w Easements 10f96 s 60 $002 Surveying 10!98 $ 15 8363 Design 10198 $ 35 8360 Inspsttion 10199 $ 30 8562 Construction 10199 $ 988 9138 ENCUMBRA , ;,E TOTAL $1,116 COMMENTS: This Is a aultlyosr project beginning In 1999. 0 Encumbrances prior to 1999 s0 Current CIP %top,QQQ Total Project Budget sl,lls,000 EXHIBIT III 81310815:11 10 32X10 e C R r 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT N 00-0471K10 PROD TITLE: (R) HIGHWAY 77 SEWER LINE RELOCATION •'INIVERSITY TO IJS E ESTIMATED COST: $790 (a 1000) GROUP ASSIGNMENT: ; DESCRIPTION: Replace and relocate •aistl ng see»r lines on Hwy 77 dos to Slate Highway eupansion of the highway PURPOSE: State will not allow Denton to have utilitlee under the ea pension of the highway r 1 ENCUMBERANCES CASH EXPENDITURES BOND REV AIC OTHER TOTAL BOND REV AIC OTHER TOTAL TOTAL 1ST YR $0 SO s0 s0 s0 $350 $0 s0 so $350 TOTAL 2ND YR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 3RD YR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRAND TOTAL $0 s0 s0 to so $050 s0 s0 s0 $050 ENCUMBERANCE O1TES: Encumbered e• spent I R PHASE DATE AMOUNT OBJECT0 General Purchase ' Engineering Design Inspection Construction Miscellaneous As Spent $390 0114 r ENCUMBERANCE TOTAL $350 COMMENTS: This la s mui0ysarproject beginning in ts4s. Encumberance: Prioryear $400,000 Current GP 1330 Op0 " Total Project Budget $750,000 t EXHIBIT III l 2122N5 111 Pit 7 r LJLMIIIALN-~XAA Mugu Am f. aarrwre -k I' . 11 ' ♦ 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING ! SERVICES RELATED TO THE RELOCATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER I UTILITIES ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 77 FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 TO U.S. H[GtIWAY 380, IN DENION, TEXAS, WITH RUST ENVIRONMENT INFRASTRUC'TURF, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIT)INO AN EFFECTIVE DATE. t WHEREAS, the City Council desires to engage Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc,, for a not-to-exceed amount of Three Hundred Eight Thousand Thee Hundred Ninety Five Dollars (S308,395.00) to provide professional services to the City for engineering design, i easement suney, and easement document preparation pertaining to the relocation of water and wastewater utilities along U.S. Highway 77 from Interstate Highway 35 to IT'S. Highway 380, in Denton, Texas; and WIIFREAS, the City Council deems that it is in the public interest to enter into e Professional Services Agreement with Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc, for the above- referenced professional sere -.es; NOW. THEREFORE:, ] HE COUNCIL OF T IIE CI fY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Rust Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., for engineering and surveying services, pertaining to the relocation of water and wastewater utilities along US. Highway 77 from Interstate Highway 35 to U.S. Highway 380, in Denton, Texas; in substa-drdly the form of the attached Agreement which is incorporated herewith b•, reference. SEC I'IO;N II; That dte expenditure of finds as providvi in the attached Professional Set..,es Agreement is hereb) authorized. s SECTION I II: That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and appr, val• PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1998. • JACK MILLER, M 1YOR f t E ~ E l r Y E , ,5 ,r' r 1 6 ' p .rah z, , r ~ , ;Yrrl'~ ' O',fl'.MtYO 4 0 r , ATTEST; JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEOAL FORM; HERBERT L, PROUI'Y. CITY ATTORNEY BY:~ j La ~J16.0,.. Y ' II i r ~ i BFI sl y I 1 I !',t~hares-0cpl'LGL,i(ru}(hxumcnts"Jinencei 9e.Rot Cn+irumnrnlOrd .dnc Fr. - }1~,i ~wrr.~`9r 32X LwrL^ 1 Mom" O axec:fu~a PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES PERTAINING TO THE RELOCATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 77 FROM INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 3S TO U.S. HIGHWAY 380 IN DENTON, TEXAS SfATEOFTEXAS § COUNTY OF DENTON § THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the day of _ , 1998, by and between the City of Denton, Texas. a Texas municipal corporation. with its principal office at 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas 76201, hereinafter called "OW;v M ; and Rust Environment Fc Infrastructure Inc.. with its offices at 1420 West Mockirgbird Lane, Suite 300, Dallas. Texas 75247, hereinafter called "CONSULTANT"; OWNER and CONSULTANT are acting herein, by and through their duly- authorized officers and representatives. WITNESS£TH. that in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually AGREE: as follows; ARTICLE I EMPLOYMENT OF CONSU LTANT the O'AW'NFR hereby contracts with the CONSULTANT, as an independent contractor, and the CONSULTANT hereby agrees to perform the services described and provided for herein in connection with the Project as stated in the Articles to follow, with diligence and in accordance with the highest professional standards customarily obtained for such services in the 1 State of Texas. The professional services set out herein are in connection with the following * t described project (hereinafter the "Project'rl: The Project shall include, without limitation, Engineering Design. Easement Survey and Easement Document preparation services incident to the relocation of Water and Wastewater Utilities along U.S. Highway 77 and new 20-inch and 16-inch water lines from Interstate Highway 35 to U.S, Highway 380, in Denton. Denton County, Texas. ARTIC SCOPF ICES OF SERVICES I he CONSULTANT shall perform the following services in a professional manner; I A. To perform all those Basic Services set forth in CONSULTANT's proposal for the Project dated and submitted August 18, 1998, which proposal is attached hereto and incorporated herewith by reference as Exhibit "A". 1 ~ 8 „ x i❑ 32XIEJ IIIIIIIIIIIIIN 0 B. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Exhibit attached to this Agreement, the terms and conditions of this Agreement will control over the terms and conditions of the attached Exhibit or any task orders. ARTICLE III ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT, if authorized by the OWNER, which are not included in the Basic Services set forth in Article li hereinabove, are described as follows: A. During the course of the Project, as requested by OWNER, the CONSULTANT will be available to accompany OW'NER's personnel when meeting with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or other regulatory agencies, The CONSULTANT will assist OWNER's personnel on an "as- needed" basis in preparing compliance schedules, progress reports, and providing general technical support for the OWNER's compliance efforts. B. Assisting OWNER in the defense or prosecution of litigation in connection with, or in addition to those services contemplated by this Agreement. Such services, if any, shall be furnished by CONSULTANT on a fee basis negotiated by the respective parties, outside of and in addition to this Agreement. C. Sampling, testing, or analysis beyond that specifically included in Basic Services. D. Preparing applications and supporting documents for government grants, (vans, or planning advances and providing data for detailed applications. E. Appearing before regulatory agencies or courts as an expert witness in any litigation with third parties or in condemnation proceedings arising from the development or construction of the Project, including the preparation of engineering data and reports for • the OWNER, to assist OWNER in those proceedings., F. Lift Station analysis and design. 0, Providing geotechnieal investigations for the construction site, including soil borings, related analyses, and recommendations. • O • 11. Court appearance(s) by the Engineer for easement and right of way acquisition. L Negotiations for casement acquisition. J. Making additional presentations not otherwise provided for hereunder.. 9 OR s U ARTICLE IV PERIOD OF SERVICE This Agreement shall become effective upon execution of this Agreement by the OWNER and the CONSULTANT and upon issuance of a notice to proceed by the OWNER. and Shall remain in force for the period -Ahich may reasonably be required for the completion of the Project. including Additional Services, if any, and any required extensions approved by the OWNER, phis 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 expeditiously as possible and to meet the schedule established by the OWNER, acting through its City Manager or his designee. ARTICLE V COMPENSATION A. COMPENSATION TERMS: 1. "Subcontract Expense" is defined as expenses incurred by the CONSULTANT in the employment of others from outside firms, for sen ices in the nature of professional engineering. 2. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense for any assignment incurred by the CONSULTANT for supplies, transportation, travel, communications, subsistence, lodging allay from home, and similar incidental expenses reasonably incurred in connection with that assignment. 3. BILLING AND PAYMENT: For and in consideration of the professional services to be performed by the CONSULTANT herein, the OWNER agrees to pay, based on the cost- estimate detail at the hourly rates set forth in the spreadsheet attached as the final page of Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto r-d incorporated herewith by reference, a fee of not to exceed $308,395.00 which is cor„prised of: (1) A fee of 5184,645.00 for items 1 through 36 and items SI through 53. including reimbursement for direct non-labor 0 expenses; and (2) A fee of $990.00 for easement survey services per parcel of real C property, respecting items 37 through 42, for up to 125 parcels, for a further sum not to exceed. $123,750.00. CONSULTANT shall bill expenses at cost plus 104/o. CONSULTANT shall bill any subcontractors' or subconsultants' fees at actual cost plus • Partial payments to the CONSULTANT will be made on the basis of detailed monthly p statements rendered by CONSULTANT to OWNER, and approved by OWNER through r. its City Manager or his designee. l{ocvever, under no circumstances shall any monthly u statement for services eKCred the value of the wurk performed at the time a statement is rendered. The OWNER mt y withhold the final five percent (S%) of the contract amount until satisfactory completion of the Project. 10 ~t''' ~~~10 32XIO pro" O 9000" _ f Nothing cont.,ined in this Article shall require the OWNER to pay for any work which is unsatisfactory, as reasonably determined by the City Manager or his designee, or which is not submitted in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The OWNER shall not be required to make any payments to the CONSULIANT when the CONSULTANT is in default under this Agreement It is specifically understood and agreed that the CONSULTANT shall not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement which would require additional payments by the OWNER for any charge, expense, or reimbursement above the fees as stated hereinabove, without first having obtained written authorization from the OWNER. The CONSULTANT shall not proceed to perform the services listed in Article III "Additional Services;" without obtaining prior written whorization from the OWNER, C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES: For additional services authorized in writing by the OWNER pursuant to Article IN hereinabove, CONSULTANT shall be paid based upon the Schedule of Charges at the appropriate hourly rate(s) as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto, Payments for additional services shall be due and payable upon submission by the CONSULTANT with CONSULTANT'S regular monthly statement as provided for above. Statements shall not be submitted more frequently than monthly. D. PAYMENT: If the OWNER fails to make payments due the CONSULTANT for services and expenses within sixty (60) days after receipt of the CONSULTANT's undisputed statement thereof, the amounts due the CONSULTANT will be increased by the rate of one percent (I%) per month from the said sixtieth (60'°) day; and, in addition. the CONSULTANT may, after giving seven (7) days' written notice to the OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until the CONSULTANT has been paid in full all amounts then due for services, expenses, and charges. Provided, however, nothing herein shall require the OWNER to pay the late charge of one percent (1%) set forth herein if the OWNER reasonably determines that the work of CONSULTANT is unsatisfactory, in accordance with this Article V, "Compensation." ARTICLE VI • OBSERVATION AND RF,VIEW OF THE WORK The CONSULTANT will exercise reasonable care and due diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the OWNER any defects or deficiencies in the work of the CONSULTAN f or any of CONSULTAN'T'S subcontractors or subconsultants, 1 • O • ARTICLE V11 i OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS b i 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 OWNER upon the termination of this Agreement. The 11 25 10 32x10 0 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 ' OWNE.R's use of these documents in other projects shall be at OWNER's sole risk and expense. In the event the OWNER uses any of the info;oration or materials developed pursuant to this Agreement in another project or for other purposes than speMied herein. CONSULTANT is released from any and all liability relating to their use in that project, a8ttCL INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR CONSULTANT shall provide services to OWNER as an independent contract-. not as an employee of the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall not have or claim any right arising from employee status. ARTICLE IX INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The CONSULTANT shall indemnify and save and hold harmless the OWNER and its officials, olticcre, 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's fees incurred by the OWNER, and including, without limitation, damages for bodily and personal injury, death and property damage, resulting from the negligent acts or omissions of the CONSULTANT, its officers, agents, employees, subcontractors or subconsultants 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 parties' 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 reserved, ARTICLE X 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 Insurance Commission or any successor agency, that has a rating with A.M. Best Rate Carriers of at least "A"• or above: 0 A. Comprehensive Ocneral Liability Insurance with bodily injury limits of not less than ~ti+r S500,000 for each occurrence and not less than S5r'0,000 in the aggregate, and with l property damage limits of not less than $100,000 for each occurrence and not less than $100,000 in the aggregate. _12 10 32 X I O , e , 0 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 of not less than S100.000 for each accident. C. W'orker's Compensation Insurance in accordance with statutory requirements; and Emplo, ers' Liability Insurance with limits of not less than $100.0m for each accident, D. Professional Liability Insurance with limits of nut less than $1,000,000 annual aggregate. E. The CONSULTANT shall fumish insurance certificates or insurance policies to the OWNER to evidence Bach coverage. 'rho insurance certificates and policies shall name the OWNER as an additional insured on all such policies to the extent possible, and shall contain a provision that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified without thirty (30) days prior written notice to OWNER and CONSULTANT. In such event, the CONSULTANT ;hall, prior to the effective date of the change or cancellation, deliver to OWNER substitute insurance certificates or policies famishing the same coverage. ARTICLE XI ARBITRATION AND ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 'fhe parties may agree, but are nut required 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 altemate dispute resolution arisirg out of or relating to this Agreement, involving one party's disagreement, may include the other parry to the disagreement without the other party's approval. ARTICLE XII TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT A. Mtwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, either party may terminate this Agreement by giving thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the other party. 0 B. This Agreement may be terminated in whole or in part in the event of either party substantially failing to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement. No such termination will be effected unless the other party is given: (1) Written notice (delivered by certified snail, return receipt requested) of intent to terminate and setting forth the reasons specifying the default, error, omission or non-performance, and not less than thirty (30) calendar days to cure the failure; and (2) An opportunity for consultation with the 0 terminating party prior to termination. O • C. If the Agreement is terminated prior to completion of the services to be provided hereunder, CONSULTANT shall immediately cease all services and shall render a final hill for services to the OWNER within thirty (30) days after the date of termination, The OWNER shall pay CONSULTANT for all services properly rendered and satisfactorily performcd and for reimbursable expenses to termination, incurred prior to the date of 13 fi rs,<;?,i' ® 5 1.~ 32X1 Elii O Now" I termination, in accordance with Article V "Compensation," hereinabove, Should the OWNER subsequently contract with a new consultant for the continuation of ser% ices on the Project. CONSULTANT shall cooperate in providing information. The CONSULTANT shall turn over all documents prepared or furnished by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement to the OWNER on or before the date of termination, but may maintain copies of such documents for its own use. ARTICLE XIII RESPONSIBILITY FOR CLAIMS AND LIABILITIES Approval by the OWNER shall not constitute, nor be deemed a release if the responsibility and liability of the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, and subconsultants, for the accuracy and competency of their designs or other work; nor shall such approval be deemed to be an assumption of sucn responsibility by the OIVNER for any defect in the design or other work prepared by the CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, subcontractors, and subconsultants. ARTIC~.F, XIY NOTICES All notices, communications, and reports required or permitted under this Agreement shall be personally delivered, or shall be mailed to the respective parties by depositing same in the United States mail to the addresses shown below, by means of certified mail, return receipt requested, unless otherwise specified herein. i To CONSULTANT; To OWNER: j Rua Environment & Infrastructure Inc. City of Denton, Texas j Rodney E. Zielke, Vice-President Howard Martin, Jr. 1420 West Mockingbird Lane, Suite 300 Assistant City Manager of Utilities Dallas,'rexas 75247 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 I • i All notices shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the party to whom such notice is i given ~ ARTICLE XY ENTIRE AGREEMENT O This Agreement, consisting of eleven (11) pages and one (1) exhibit, constitutes the 4 • • complete and final expression of the agreement of the parties, and is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreements, and supersedes all prior contemporaneous 1 ofPcrs, promises, representations, negotiations, discussions, communications, understandings, and agreements which may have been made in connection with the subject matter of this Agreement. 14 t K 10 I 32X JIM 0 a r ARTICLE XVI SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Agreement is found or deemed by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, it shall be considered severable from the remainder of this Agreement and shall not cause the remainder to be invalid or unenforceable. In such even?. the parties shall reform this Agreement to replace such stricken provision with a val~d and enforceable provision which comes as close as possible to expressing the inte,ition of the parties hereto respecting the stricken provision. ARTICLE XVit COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The CONSULTANT shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances applicable to the work covered hereunder as they may now read or be hereafter amended. ARTICLE XVI-U DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED In performing the services required hereunder, the CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin or ancestry, age, or physical handicap. i ARTICLE XIX VFRSONNEL A. The CONSUI TANT represents that it has or will secure, at its own expense, all personnel required to perform all the professional services required under this Agreement. Such personnel shall not be employees or officers of, nor have any contractual relations with the OWNER. CONSULTANT shall inform the 01i'NER of any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest known to Consultant, that ma aise during the term of • this Agreement. R• All services required hereunder will be performed by the CONSULTANT or under its direct supervision. All personnel engaged in work shall be qualified, and shall be authorized and permitted under state and local laws to perform such services. IS . 10 32x10 s 0 ARTICLE XX ASSIGNABILITY The CONSULTANT shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in this Agreement (whether by assignment, novation, or othersviFe) without the prior written consent of the OWNER. ARTICLE XXI MODIFICATION No waiver or modification of this Agreement or of any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duty 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 waiver or modification is in writing and duly executed by the parties. The parties further agree that the provisions of this Article will not be waived unless as set forth herein. ART! 'L~J MISCELLANEOUS A. The following Exhibit is attached to and incorporated herewith by reference. and made a part of this Agreement; Exhibit "A" Project Proposal + 3. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall, until the expiration of three (3) years after the F Final payment under h.ir Agreement, have access to and the right to examine any directly pertinent books, documcnts, papers, and records of the CONSULTANT involving transactions relating to this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees that OWNER shall have access during normal working hours to all necessary CONSUL I-ANT facilities and shall • be provided adequate and appropriate working space in order to conduct audits in compliance with this section. OWNER shall give CONSULTANT reasonable advance notice of intended audits. C. Venue of any suit or cause of action under this Agreement shall lie exclusively in Denton County, Texas. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with • the taw's of the State of Texas. p • D. For the purpose of this Agreement, the key persons who will perform most of the worst hereunder shall be Rod Zielke, RE., Principal-In-Charge and Project Manager; Steve Ileniford, P.E., Project Engineer; and Larry Smalley, P.E., Project Engineer. However. nothing herein shall limit CONSULTANT from using other qualified and competent members of its firm to perform the professional services required herein. 16 r ~ 32 X c t: l E. CONSULTANT shall commence, carry on, and complete any and all work on the Project with all applicable dispatch, in a sound, economical, and efficient manner, and in accordance with the provisions hereof. In accomplishi m the Project, CONSULTANT shall take such steps as are appropriate to ensure that the work involved is properly coordinated with any related work being carried on by the OWNER, F. The OWNER shall assist the CONSULTANT by placing at the CONSULTANT's disposal all available information pertinent to the Project, including previous reports, any other data relative to the Project, and arranging for the access thereto, 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. 0. 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 HEREOF, OWNER and CONSULTANT have hereby executed this Agreement in quadruplicate original counterparts; the OWNER acting by and through its duly. authorized City Manager; and the CONSULTANT acting by and through; is duly-authorized undersigned officer on this the day of „OWNER" CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS BY:! TED BENAV[DES, CITY MANAGER ' ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 1 BY: f Y~ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; i 0 ' HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY , BY: r 10 32X10 RAI' Iumu L' t i Y r "CONSULTANT ' r RUST ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. BY: C R DNEY E IELKE VICE-PRESIDENT ATTEST: ✓ ©Y: Ftc}{A EDDEPTLGUOurpocumentsTommis9SRusi AQrecmcnrdoc r t f r i r r l$ f. ~ t I " -i e , era-- ?.~.~cw: t -.7~u,QUi+ *z...-, .:L'S+S;ttFXWY~2t1Uk'M'#~67 MTIMi'1 t , I EXHIBIT „A.' , ! ? 19 , s i MKT Rust Environment A Infrastructure Inc. lly1t 41rm 11:N~CNON, e,on! 71: UO JAi1 ]IN We1i Mock ny.b LBJ n1• 71: 1J+1471 So,$VO cN1ls, 117SJd.150r August 18, 1998 Mr. P. S. Arota, P.E. Engineering Administrator Denton Municipal Utilities 901-A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Proposal for Engineering and Surveying to Relocate Water and wastewater Utilities along Highway 77 from 1-35 to U S. Hwy, 380 in Denton. Texas. Dcar Mr. Arora: Rust E & I appreciates this opportunity to provide the City of Denton with a priced proposal for the referenced project, The proposed utility relocations and 16-inch wntermain are summarized by the attached preliminaty construcuon cost estimate which totals 52,311,309 in construction cost. The project currently anticipates placing the proposed utilities clear of the ultimate U.S. Hwy. 77 pavement, within future ROW Where possible and In adjacent easements where necessary. Based on our current understan:l g of the project as defined in the above referenced preliminary construction cost estimate and L%t attached tasklfec outline, Rust E & I proposes to perform the following scope of work: I, BASIC SERVICES A A. Desigr Sur•:eys I Rust will reco%er existing benchmarks and state control and establish secondary control adcquaie to perform the surreys required, Supplemental topographic survey's will be performed to tie existing uulitics and other misting features in the area of the proposed roadway impto%ements that would affect the proposed utility construction I these surveys mill supplement aerial mapping files provided by TxDOT. In addition, topographic suney will be performed to support analysis oto'litary scwet alignment fJ } studiei around Riney Road ' T h 1JyJnb r"7sJ^•eJTa"I 20 ? ;a~~~ M 25,& 10 32XI~ c Won" Mr. P. S. Mora, P.E. August 18, 1998 Page 2 r B. Preliminary Design Phase The Consultant shall prepare preliminary plsos to include the following. L Proposed alignment 2. Proposed proftles 3. Natural and man-made features affecting design , V C. Final Design Phase 1. Upon approval of preliminary pleas by the City, the Consultant shall prepare Anal plants (each sheet to be stamped by the ltegistacd Professional Engineer responsible for the work). A. Standard City bile page with location reap b. Plan and Profile sheets C. Standard sheets d. Erosion Control Plans e, Traffic Control Plan 2. The Consultant will furnisb to the owner one (1) set of film reproducibles and three (3) sets of blue line prints of the approved plans, • D, Construction Phase Services h. Prepare construction quantity estimate based on final plans 2. Attend preconstruction meeting • 3. Prepare is-built drauzngi as required O • YI r 41 t { t 25 .32X ~~mqajq&mllL~M mail e ~ Mr. P. S. Aron, P.E. August 18, 1998 Page 3 U. SPECIAL SERVICES A. Easement Surveys Easement mt)i will be performed on a per parcel basis to determine the limits of easements required for the construction of the project. Dad and ownership research will be provided to supplement research already done by the City of Denton in acquiring ROW parcels. Legal descriptions and parcel exhibits will be provided to the City for acquisition by the City. It is anticipated that the City will obtain "letters of pe-mission" from affected parcels to access and survey on their property. It is currently anticipated that approximately 95* parcels will be affected. Ul. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services are defined as services that am requested by the Owner or required for project completion whicb fall outside of the scope of Basic Services and Special Savices as outlined above, Additional Services might include, but are not limited to: (1) Lill Station analysis and design; (2) Colin appearance by the Engineer for easement and ROW acquisition; and (3) Appraisals for easement acquisition; (4) Legal and Negotiations for easement acquisition; and (5) Other services outside the scope of Basic Services. IV. COMPENSATION Rust E & I and its subcomsultamts propose to complete the Basic Strvices for a fee of S184.645.00 and includes tasks l rheas 36 and 51 thru 51 In addition RUST E&1 proposes to provide easement surveying wMces for a per parcel cost of 5990.00 for a minimum of 90 parcels as identified in tasks 31 thru 42. S These amounts will not be exceeded without prior written authorization by the City of Denton. Additional Services, when requested in writing by the City of Denton, W`I be performed at time plus matcrfals basis as follows: (1) Labor to be billed at hourly rates shown; (2) Expenses to be billed at cost plus 1014; and (3) Subconsultants and ` subcontractors to be billed at actual cost plus l0°/.. II 129 22 e4v a ~ ~ 2h x ~Q 32J , 4n c.J lv fnv vwY.Ynf.L:...._.. rnw..•N wy M'w.beNM TNrYMR'1 .gory u.M ~ e:'.~M.ww.. ~ s.x Ir Mr. P. S. Aron, P.E. August 18, 1998 j Page 4 Please call me if you have any questions or require additional information, Sincerely, `e/-3 Rodney E. Zielk Y.M. Vice President Dallas Division . v' " REUdj i- f 23 25)" ri memo a d W1RYq , 0 c . ~ . ,,g,,,JA,n _Q 3D Aptnda Itt, 2W_ AGENDA INFORMATION SHI ET Da:a- _:~-gy" AGENDA DATE: Septcmtxr I, 1998 DEPARTMENT: Electric Utility ACM: I loward Martin, Assistant City Manager for Utilities 1'f )V\ SUBJECT SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE AU'II IORIZINO THE b1AYOR TO EXECUTE A THIRD AS4FNDMFN F TO I HE EXISTING AGREEMENT HETWEEN THE CITY OF DEN ION AND TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY EXTENDING I IIE TERM TIEERFFORE FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MON"FFE PERIOD; FINDING AND D[A FRMINING I-I1AT T HE TWO MEETINGS AT WHICIT THIS ORDENANC'E IS PASSED IS OPEN 1011 E PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW; PROM IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DAI F: AND PROVIDING FOR ACCEPTANCE. OF THE AGREEMENT BY TEXAS U ITL[T1[S ELECTRIC COMPANY AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF THE. PASSAGE OF 1111S ORDINANCE'.. BACKGROUND The City Attorney's office, at the direction of the City Managee and the Director of Electric Utilities, has prepared the above-referenced Amendment Number Three to the Agreement Beiwcen the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric Company (hereinafter the "proposed Amendment"), which extends the original street rental agreement entered into in 1987 (and later amended in 1993, and most recently extended in September 1997) by and between the City and I LTC. The cwmion provided for in the proposed Agreemen, is for an cdditional six month period, and makes no changes to the existing agreement with TUF,C, other than to extend its term. 1 he Agreement currently in effect expires on September 30, 1998. ITiI C"s initial proposal to the City reccked in January 1997, ovas to extend the existing street rental Agreement, as previously amended, for an additional fiPeen years, expiring on September • 30. 2012. At that time the City Attorney's office and Utilities itaffrecommended that consideration of the extension of this Agreement be put aside until the 1997 Texas Icgislative wssion hod concluded Before acting upon the offered fineemyear extension it was reasonable to determine whether or not any form of electric deregi,lation legislation or similar restructuring legislation would be enacted into law which might affect Denton Municipal Electric. In addition, i the existing street rental agreement is much too loose to proper ly protect the City under any • circumstances. The City Attorney's office and Utilities sfalTdiscussed and briefed the Council 0 • k as to whether or not such a lengthy term of extension would be advantageous to the City, considering all factors. 'I he Council determined in August 1997 that a one year extension would i be appropriate, and axordingly Amendment Number Two to the Agreement was entered Into by r y t i s >f.,r K 4J 32X111 t r J ~ v 1 J , i f ' `i i and between the City end TUEC, and Ordinance No. 97.277 was enacted on September 9,1997, approving the amended Agreement. Considering expected electric deregulation issues and other likely important issues dealing with the operations of TUEC, staff now recommends that only a brief extension of the existing Agrecment should be entered into. Staff recommends that a comprehensive franchise agreement ordinance should be negotiated wish TUEC. TUEC has communicated to us that the proposed Amendment Number Three, providing for a six month extension, meets their approval, and they are anxious to commence negotiations with the City on the comprehensive franchise ordinance. Utility Managemmi, working in conjunction with the City Manager, expect to enter into negotiations with TUEC for a comprehensive franchise ordinance, not merely, a street rental agreement, by late August or early September 1998, both before and during the term of the proposed six month extension. Staff will attempt to negotiate terms of the franchise ordinance which are as advantageous as possible for the citizens of Denton. With electric deregulation in 1 some form looming in the City's immediate future, staff is structuring the franchise ordinance, recognizing that TUEC is a provider of electric service to a part of the City today and could be a larger provider in the future. It is the intent of staff that the franchise agreement negotiated with TUEC will form the basis of the franchise agreement applied to all providers of electric service in the City, including CoServe. In accordance with § 13.02 of the Denton City Charter, the approval of this proposed Amendment will be considered at two City Council meetings, on August 18, 1998 and September 1, 1998. PRIOR ACTION/RF.VIE(Counc11. Boards, Commissions! One-year extension approved by the Council on September 9, 1997. Adopted by City Council on August 18, 1998, on first reading, by unanimous vote. Passed by City Council to the second reading, scheduled for September 1, 1998, on August 18, 1998 by unanimous vole. FISCAL INFORMATION Present annual income from the TUEC Street Rental Agreement is $62,000. E. Respectfully submitted; Sharon Mays Electric Utility Director ; E f 2 r J .I ru ~c'. ~~tE~~a~~~r'~`~i a; 25 X 10 : ;32XId • 0 ~ I I I i i I , ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A THIRD AMENDMENT 10 'IHFi EXISTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE, CITY OF DENTON AND TEXAS U71L117FS ELECTRIC COMPANY EXTENDING THE TERN] THEREFOR FOR AN ADDIHONAL SIX MONTH PERIOD; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE TWO MI F'TINGS AT WHICII I II[S ORDINANCE. IS PASSED 1S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS RFQU[RFD BY LAW; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AC'CHII'ANCE OF 711E AGREFML'NT BY 1F.XAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY AND PUBLICA770N OF NO] ICE OF'111F PASSAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, Texas Utilities Electric Company (hereinafter called "Company") is engaged in the business of providing electric utility service within the City of Denton (hereinafter called "City") and is using the public streets, alleys, grounds, and rights-of-ways within the City for that purpose under the terms of an Agreement, approved by Ordinance Number 87.186 duly passed on October 20, 1987; and thereafter amended by Amendment Number One to the Agreement Between the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric company, approved by Ordinance No. 93-133 duly passed on July 27, 1991; and thereafter further amended by Amendment Number Two To The Agreement Bctwcen the city of Denton and texas Utilities Flectric Company, approved by Ordinance No. 97.277 duly passed on September 9, 1997; and WI IPREAS, the City and Company desire to amend said Agreement as amended by said Amendments Number One and Two to extend the term of said Agreement for an additional six month period; NOW, v IFRIiFORIi, 111L COUNCIL OF 1 HE C11 Y OF DFN1l'ON I IERFBY ORDAINS: fC I NI. 'that the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute Amendment Number 1 hiee to the Agreement bclwcen the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric Company for the use or city streets, which is attached hete o, as an Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. Sh:C7IVY j. That it is oflicially found and determined that the meetings at which this ordinance is passed are open to the public as required by law and a public notice of the time, place, and purpose of said meetings was given as required by law. tj ) 31UN ~I(. 7 hat the City Secretary is hereby directed to allix a copy of this ordinance to Ordinance Number 87.186 and inscribe thereon the notation that the Agreement has been amended a thlyd time with the a:lof lion of this ordinance, • p • ' SKI ION 1V. 'that this ordinance shall take effect imntedialcly from and after its passage, publication, and acceptance by Company In accordance with the provisions of the charter of the City of Denton, and Is aceordingly so ordained. t 3 ICJ 32xiii r. e i :v- t.: i . .•rrrtr: ue4;tl t.4ik"~:'.+t..•: !5':rt.K, L.O .rtY,2 ~ yn.,, SEC110N V. That Company shall, within twerty-one (21 } days after the passage of this ordinance, file in the office of the City Secretary of the city of Denton. Texas a written instrument signed and acknowledged by a duly atahorized officer, in substantially the following form: (a) To the Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Denton: The Orantec, Texas Utilities Electric Company, acting by and through the undersigned authorized officer, hereby accepts Ordinance No. extending the temt of the existing Agreement with the City of Denton. TEXAS UI] LI'[I ES ELECTRIC COMPANY By. Senior Vice President i i AT"IEST, ~ j Secretary Executed this the day of .1448. (h) l he acceptance shall be duly acknowledged by the person executing the ~i same. In the event the acceptance Is not filed within the twenty-one (21)day period, this ordinance and the rights and privileges hereby granted shall terminate and become null and void. (c) 'I he City Secretary shall causea notice of the passage of this ordinance fairly staling the substance hereof to be published once each week for two (2) consecutive n~ weeks in the ofTicial newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas. the Company shall pay the costs of publicationof such notices. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1498. j JACK MILLER, MAYOR 1 , j A'H CST: JENNIh'CR WALTERS, CI"CY SECRETARY II Y: t 4 w M1ly`h«. 25 K 1a XLJ 1, 32 o u l APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: I I l~( Y' t i The City of Denton, Texas, acting herein by its duly constituted author' hereby declares the f regoing ordinance passed on first reading on the day of i 1A 1998, and finally efrectiv,, as of the day of 1998. Jack Miller. Mayor Ro:J Beasley, Council Member Mark Burroughs, Council Member Mike Cochran, Council Member Neii Durrance, Council Member Sandy Krisloferson, Council Member Carl 0. Young, Sr., Council Member I he ahovc and foreguing ordinance read, adopted on rrslreading w d passed to second reading by the following voles, This the J~` day of 1998, at a regular Session of the City Council _ U Jack Miller, Mayor, voting . A Roni Beasley, Council Member, voting GU-11, _ Mark Burroughs, Council Member, voting. , !dike Cochran, Council hi_mbcr, voting Q.u ~ . . Neil Wrrance, Council Member, voting C, • p • ' ' Sandy Kristofcrson, Council Member, voting _ CAA Carl U. Young, Sr„ Council Member, voting S' >~:.,s r. ?5Cl 32x~U o COMM 0 t:r'v•C...-r. r.e. ...V, ...ors-c..a'.v~*vA`r~a',!C.'.r.~~'4. .'i, •I'v,Fwf~',,i~,^uY6p~',M ~ Se .~r;~ Y J The above and foregoing ordinance read, adopted on second reading and passed by the following votes, this the day of 1998, at a regular session of the ` City Council ! Jack Miller, Mayor, voting Ron! Beasley, Council Member, voting Mark Burroughs, Council Member, voting Mike Cochran, Council Member, voting Neil Durrance, Council Member, voting Sandy Krisloferson, Council Member, voting Carl O. YoueY. Sr, Council Member, voting S FA'11:01: TEXAS § § COUNT Y OF DENTON § 1, Jennifer Walters, City Secretary of the City of Denton, Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing Is a true and correct copy of the Amendment Number Three to the Agreement Between the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric Company pertaining to street rental, as Indicated herein. The same is now recorded as Ordinance Number in the Ordinance Records of the City of Denton, Texas. W11 NESS MY IIAND this the day of 1998. r~ Jennifer Walters, City Secretary (SEAL) r E ~r 4 Y 1 V, l 6 r i r ,x 10 32x10 0 . AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY WJIEREAS, Texas Utilities Electric Company (hereinafter called "Company') is engaged in the business of providing electric utility service within the City of Denton (hereinafter called "City") and is using the public streets, alleys, grounds, and rights-of-way within the City for that purpose under the terms of an Agreement, approved by the City Council of the City of Denton, 'texas in Ordinance No. 87.186, duly passed on October 20, 1987; and thereafter amended by Amendment Number One to the Agreement 13ctwrun the City of Denton and 'texas Utilities Electric Company, approved by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas in Ordinance No. 93-133, duly passed on July 27, 1993; and thereafter amended by Amendment Number Two to the Agreement Between the City of Denton and Texas Utilities Electric Company, approved by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas in Ordinance No. 97.227, duly passed on September 9, 1997; and VVI II:REAS, the Agreentc"tt, as previously amended, lenninatcs on September 30, 199?; and WI ILREAS, the City and Company r-sire to amend said Agreement, as amended by said Amendments Number One and Two, to extend the term of said Agreement for an additional six month period; NOW,11WREFORD;,11IL PARTIGS AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ION 1. That Section 10 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 10. 7 his Agreement shall terminate on March 31, 1999. 1 p 2, 'ihal in all respects, except as specifically and expressly amended by this ~>cument the said Agreement heretofore duly passed by the City Council of the City of Denton, d Texas and duly accepted by Company, and as amended by Amendments Number One and Two 7' ,5,x 10 32 x I d w r 1 ' F iA~ 1 1 1. 7 y•y Vgum ` ~ r • L r 1 ?'X`~ 34%3 VVlA,r., 1 f y to said Agreement heretofore duly passed by the City Council of the city or Denton, Texas and , duly accepted by Company shall remain in full force and effect, ' EXECUTED in duplicate original counterparts this the _ day of i r 1999. C11 Y OF DENTON, TEXAS JACK MILLER, MAYOR y AT-i s r: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEOAL FORM; HERBERT L, PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 1 BY: I 1 l TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY t BY: SENIOR VIC18 PR1iSIDENT k A'1TEst r.4hvedde~rOlyUur bucumenle?Contra:hl9nTe 5irtel nen1A Thiid Amend da + tY " 3, ,.A A i 32X UWAIM 0 Agenda No "GY' Q.- Agenda )lei;- AGENDA _ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office i CM: Ted Benavides, 349-8560 S~'BJECT: Resolution of the City of Denton City Council requesting The Texas Municipal League to support the recommendations made by the Texas Municipal League Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development regarding annexation, extraterritorial jurisdiction, eminent domain, subdivision, land use, building codes, sales tax, library districts and other municipal powers. BACKGROUND: In preparation for the 1999 state legislative session, the Texas Municipal League formed policy co;r nittees to review specific Issues and recommend a course of action to the Resolutions Committee. The TML Legislative Policy Committee for Community and Economic Development met and reviewed many items of importance to municipalities. David Hill and Linda Ratliff represented the City of Denton on this committee. Included in their review were matters such as annexation, extraterritorial jurisdiction, eminent domain, subdivision, land use, building codes, sales tax, library districts, and other related topics. Since legislation on these matters could potentially Impact the authority of cities to govern, Mr. Mill has recommended that the city approve a resolution in sepporl of the policy committee recommendations. The TMI, constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submiltcd forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. The deadline for receipt of these items by TML is September 14, 1998. Council approval of the resolution is necessary to meet that date. The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28 through • October 31 in San Antonio. PRIOR ACTIQN- RE The Texas Municipal League Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development recommended at their mecting of July 17, 1998, that TML support the committee ~ report. l u • KCAL IMPACTt None I - I0 32XIO j ' I / M f Y vrl I _ rh AO '~P r 1 r t I ~ 't 1 , \ F• 1 r I r 1 ~ >1 I' 1 l , aoe~s I ~ . . ..r.l .SL.b^1".~C,i awCn'~J4'Yt7fMMRn da...... ..rrwrs-.r. d.. ++sr....♦ ,~r a.. +swIM~F~r\M~r+i~1KPMY,IMW~'MMkrvap.+unl ~ ~iM.n~ I .r e• e, TML Resolution - TML Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development September 1, 1998 Iage 2 1 ' r , AMICIMEMe 1. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: ~r I tty wi ams Assistant to the City Manager t 1 (t e•, • ~ r 1 4 ~ ;S w, 1 I s. I ~ 1 tl T \ I. J nA 4 \ t rY FCS/IE6 1 r r//emu p~~ r 11 9n •14.~di• r~, 1 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i 1 ly d' 32 x 13 O 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: The Texas Municipal League Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development has met in preparation for the next legislative session. During these meetings, the committee has considered many Issues that could potentially impact the authority of cities to govern matters such as annexation, extraterritorial jurisdiction, eminent domain, subdivision, land use, building codes, sales tax, library districts and other related topics. Whet the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: This resolution is intended to show the City of Denton's support for the recommendation of the Community and Economic Development Legislative Policy Committee and urge the TML Resolutions Committee to support these same recommendations. Statewide Importance: Support for the recommendations of the TML Legislative Policy Committee on Community end Economic Development by the TML Aesolutions Committee will assist in protecting, maintaining, and enhancing municipal authority in the stele of Texas. Submitted by: Name: Michael W, Jas , Title: City Manager City: City of Denton E Telephone: ;9401349.8307 10 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM .e 10 32XIO e , 0 y • n ,nrwumavrimo. odw.e.~+..wnaa.~:va.~,.. r.awa. i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE (TML) TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATIONS { MADE BY THE TML LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGARDING ANNEXATION, EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, EMINENT DOMAIN, SUBDIVISION, LAND USE, BUILDING CODES, SALES TAX, LIBRARY DISTRICTS AND OTHER MUNICIPAL POWERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds in annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around the state; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 281h - 31", 1998 in San Antonio; and i WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature will review several proposals that will potentially impact the authority of cities to govcm matters such us annexation, extratenitorial jurisdiction, eminent domain, subdivision, land use, building codes, sales tae, library districts, and other related topics, and WHEREAS, the TML Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development met on March 13'h, 1998 and July 17'", 1998 and approved the recommendations attached as Exhibit "A" for the purpose of protecting, maintaining, and enhancing municipal authority in the state of texas; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council supports the recommendations proposed by the Legislative Policy Committee on Community and Economic Development as shown in the attached Exhibit "A", and urges the TML Resolutions Committee to support these same recommendations, SECTION II. That the City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to 1 ! Mr, Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League, SECTION III That this resolution shall become efr,~ctive immediately upon its passage and approval • PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of .1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR 4 r fr. ~ 2. 32 X 11 Y $CMt MIt IXFlt9CV Ww p~IwY1~MifILC~1)~tl7w MwM ! t I ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS. CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: d S f i t%zb~. r 25 x 10 32x~~ e , o I qua u.wuM .aiw.wmw..ra.~a,. ~.r _ I Exhibit "All REPORT OF THE TML LEGISLATIVE POLICY COMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Seek Intr6tiction and passage of legislation that would: A. allow a city to adopt the Wemational Plumbing Coda i B. repeal the "five acre exemption" in the platting statute. C. direct the county clerk to require that deed riling include an affidavit verifying compliance with subdivision requirements, as applicable D. provide that: (I) if a city does not collect records preservation funds, it may provide access to geographic information data at low cost or no cost to requestors; (2) when a city provides this access, it may set charges for providing copies of the GIS database; and (3) such charges may include data collection costs, system operation costs, and an estimation of the value of the information on the commercial market. E. create a Public Library Assistance Fund, to be funded by the salts tax on books and computer software, the proceeds of which would be distributed on a geographic, per capita, and "as needed" basis. 11. Supper legislation that would: A. replace current regulations relating to plumbing inspectors, by establishing qualificalions for taking the state plumbing inspector exam and maintaining a plumbing inspector licenses B. simplify the procedures required for the development and revision of impact fees, C. protect and strengthen cities' regulatory authority in the areas of annexation, • t:xtraterritodaljurisdicIion, alcoholic beverage sales and consumption, pawn shops, group homes, manuractured housing, highway logo signs, and property takings. D. clarify that city zoning regulations enacted prior to June 11, 1997 are not preempted under the Alcoholic Beverage Coda • k, allow cities in a county with a population or750,000 or more to adopt a Q sales tax O • if the cumulative sales tax does not exceed 7,75 percent at the time orthe election. 1 F. allow public libraries to become members of the TexShare program. 6 i ? ~ ~ 32 X O i i 0. amend the library district statute to: (1) reduce the population for counties in which districts may be formed; (2) permit elections that would include a city that operates a library if the city consents; and (3) permit cities to call an election to create a library district. k I Ill. Fpdors legislation that would require the seller of a property in a municipal extrr territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to fully disclose to the buyer the fact that the subject property is in an ETJ and is therefore subject to amiexation, IV. Oppose legislation that would erode municipal authority in any way or that would otherwise be detrimental to cities, including legislation that would: A. erode municipal annexation authority. { B, erode current municipal economic development authority. C. erode municipal eminent domain authority, D. re-enact Subchapter I of Chapter 481 of the Government Code (the so-called llvesting" statute). 1 E. erode municipal authority in extraterritorial jurisdictions. r ~ F. mandate the adoption of the Uniform Plumbing Code. 0, allow a school district, when engaged in a construction project, to comply with either the local building code or another national or intemational model code. Ii. impose a statewide electrical licensing law, 1, detrimentally effect the current authority of cities to review and take action with respect to subdivision plats. ; JV 2 .5 32X 0 u,•-:Y • . Gr,:: ,tenn Aps;nda No A5enda item Dare _9 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET r AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office k 01: Ted Bcnavides. 349-8560 SUBJEC Resolution of the City of Denton City Council requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation to exclude new growth for the purpose of determining notice and hearing requirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue, BACKGROUND: During 1997, the Texas Legislature made some changes to the truth in taxation notification requirements that may impact the 1998-99 budget process for many taxing jurisdictions. Prior to the legislative changes, a governing body could not adopt a tax rate that exceeded the notice and hearing limit, which Is the lower of Oc effective rate times three percent or the roll back rate, without holding a public hearing on the proposed increase and publishing notice. The new legislative changes require a governing body to publish notices and hold a public hearing before adopting a tax rate that will result in any Increase in total ad talorem revenue over the prior year. This is a substantial deviation from the old notice and hearing requirements. If a taxing jurisdiction desires to adopt the same tax rate as the rate from the prior year and there is an increase in appraised values over the prior year, the taxing jurisdiction must hold a public hearing and publish notices due to the projected increase in revenues, Even if the tax rate were reduced and the levy Increased over the prior year, the taxing jurisdiction would be required to publish notices and hold a public hearing on the tax rate. In addition, a taxing jurisdiction could be required to communicate a revenue Increase if the voters approved a bowl program. Even If the Operating and Maintenance rate and appraised value remain constant, the taxing jurisdiction would have to publish notices of a tax (revenue) increase associated with the Principal and Interest component of the tax rate, The TML constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. ?he deadline for , receipt of these items by TMI, is September 14, 1998. Cout.:il approval of the resolution Is O necessary to meet that date, The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28 through October 31 in San Antonio. O ii 1 ram r r ~ - y. f l r I tD i ti - , j TML Resolution - Ad Valorem Tax Revenue Notice September 1, 1998 Page 2 M PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: 01 The Texas Municipal League Legislative Policy Committee on Finance and Administration passed a motion on July 28, 1998 to recommend that TML support legislation to exclude new growth and increased evaluations for the purpose of determining notice and hearing roluirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue. FISCAL IMPACT: None y , v I ATTACHIIIENTS: 1. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED; 1 4 1 I Belly Wil s Assistant to the City Manager f 1, 4f' i y ¢ 4 w 9•IA SI I~: . ~ ;'32X o , mow. ' I i 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton I Brief Background: The 1997 Texas Legislature made changes to the truth In taxation notification which require a governing body to publish noticcs and hold a public hearing before adopting a tax rate which will result in ark increase In total ad valorem revenue over the prior year. Whet the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: This amendment requests that now growth be excluded for the purpose of determining notice nrid hearing requirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue. It Is logical to assume that new growth will result in increased revenues. By Including the new growth figures for the purpose of notice and public hearing requirements, a taxing jurisdiction would be providing the public with ad valorem tax revenues that could be significantly Impacted by the high growth reculting In a distorted Image of increased revenues. Exclusion of the now growth from the ad valorem revenues would provide a more accurate notice of Increased revenues. Statewide Importance: Notification of Increases In ad valorem tax revenue should provide citizens with e comparison of like figures, By excluding the new growth figures, notification of Increased revenue will more accurately be conveyed to the public. 1 ' Submitted by. Name: Michael W, Jez ! 1 Title: City Manager City: City of Denton ./IF F~ Telephone: (940) 349.8307 j O T PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM ! 3I -t yy --IazXi❑. 'A~ BL PLC^.h 0 I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TILE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL. LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO EXCLUDE NEW GROWTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS TRIGGERED BY ADDITIONAL AD VALOREM TAX REVENUE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around die State; and WHEREAS, the Aru,ual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1948 in San Antonio; and t WHEREAS; the 1947 Texas Legislature made changes to the truth In taxation notification requirements; and WHEREAS, the legislative changes require a governing body to publish notices and hold a public hearing before adopting a tax rate that will result in any increase in total ad valorem rcvenuc over the prior year; and WHEREAS, if the tax rate remained the same or even decreased and the levy increased over the prior year, proper notices must be published and a public hearing held; and WHERAS, the city of Denton believes that new growth should be excluded for the purpose of determining notice and hearing requirements trigged by additional ad valorem tax rcvenuc; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that an amendment would be of benefit to local 1 • governing bodies around the State; NOW, THEREFORE, 'IHE COUNCIL Oh TILE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: $11CUM. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation to exclude new growth for the purpose of determining notice and hearing • requirentenas triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue, q • SEC ION I .'T'hat the City Manager Is euthorittd to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal league. 1 , i i 10 32 x I ❑ y ~ r; it ' I i O , C , SECTION M. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of _ 1998. 1 1 i JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY r t; BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: E 1 1~ . - - ,r r kY 2 5 x 10 32 x ~ ❑ 0 , 0 FRONT 01NJOK CITY ATTORNEY FAX NO.~ 9143027927 e8-28-98 91~37P P.82 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO EXCLUDE NEW GROWTH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS TRIWER513 BY ADDITIONAL AP VALORM TAX REVENUE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference Is scheduled for October 28.31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS; the 1997 Texas Legislature [Wade changes to the truth in wcation notification requirements; and WHEREAS, the legislative changes require a governing body to publish notices and hold a public heating before adopting a lax rate that will result in any increase in total ad valorem[ revenue over the prior year; and WHEREAS, if the tax rate remained the same or even decreased and the levy increased over the prior year, proper notices must be published and a public hearing held; and WHERAS, the City of Denton believes that new growth should be excluded for the 1 purpose of determining notice and hearing requirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax rovenu and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that an amendment would be of benefrt to local governing bodies around the Statei NOW,111EREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES, • SEC~. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation to exclude new growth for the purpose or determining notice and hearing requirements triggered by additional ad valorem tax revenue. SECTION U. That the City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of this rcdolution to Qr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League. • SliCI 0111. That this resolution shall become effective irnmMately upon its passage 0 • and approval. . 4 32 X I ❑ . - Y 1 ' • I. .Ili 1 I~~I L 4~4~ • I •I 1 ~f 0 vt,y •.w I.♦4'.1;y h +w vn +n n•.Mh• •••M. r.. ~ Lb MnwmW~•MNVi~,w lln~,/yuMnlM ~ t PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,1995. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ~r s BY: I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY:-~Lv~ I fI111I 1 , •I t 1 I.1 A' rl "~i I 1 L r„ 1 r 'I I' ~ u 1 10 32'x 1 o o , 0 i f Agenda Item AGENDA LNFOR,1IATION SHEET DATE; September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CAI: Ted Benavides, City Manager EMU: Resolution of the City of Denton City (7ouncil requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation regar,ling the use of logo reader boards along interstates located outside urbanized areas with a MvIation of 250,000 or more according to the most recent Federal census. l3ACKGROUN7>i The resolution requests that TML support legislation to enable the use of logo reader boards in urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or less, Current Texas legislation aiiows logo signs at interchanges on state highways in urbanized areas with a population of less than 50,000, according to the most recent Federal census, This allows surrounding cities such as Lewisville to place logo signs on 1-35E, but Denton is prohibited from doing so. Specific information logo signs have a blue background with a white reflective border for commercial establishments which provide gas, food, lodging or camping and are located not farther than three mites from an interchange on an eligible highway. Texas Department of Transportation contracts with a private firm to provide the signs and administer the program, Amending the current legislation to allow Denton and other Texas urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or less to place logo reader boards on state highways will allow local businesses within three miles of the interchange to be eligible to purchase signs to Fr.- placed on the Interstate thus providing useful information to motorists. The TMI, constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. The deadline for receipt of these items by TML is September 14, 1998, and Council approval of the resolution is necessary to meet that date. The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998, in San Antonio, PRIOR ACTION'IREVIEIV: 1 This resolution was adopted by the membership of the Texas Municipal League at their Business tD 0 Meeting al the 85' Annual Conference held on Saturday, November 1, 1997. I 1 32XI El saafstx~ flr1+ TML Resolution - Logo Reader Boards September 1, 1998 Page 2 FISCAL QNPACT: None ATTACIL%fENTS• 1. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: r 'r W liams Assistant to the City Manager i 1, tl i I . t i jv- , r k 2 1, 0) v.~ ; ~ 25 K IO 32XIq. o c Altvnnr Nr'i 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: Current legislation allows logo reader boards along interstate highways located outside urbanized areas with a population of 50,000 or mere, according to the most recent Federal census, for commercial establishments which provide gas, food, lodging or camping and are located not farther than three miles from an interchange , on an eligible highway. What the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: This resolution requests support of legislation to allow the use of logo reader boards along interstates located outside urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or more according to the most recent Federal census. Statewide Importance: i, Amendment of the legislation would allow logo reader ooards at Interchanges on approved interstate highways throughout the State of Texas in urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or less. This would provide Information on the location of gas, food, lodging and camping for motorists unfamiliar with the area. Amendment of the legislation would also allow commercial establishments an equal opportunity to place logo reader boards in the right-of-way along State and Federal roadways. ~ I Submitted by: Name: Michael W. Jez Title: City Manager City: City of Denton 0 Telephone: (940) 349-8307 PLEASE 00 NOT WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM 3 ~M ^ zSXIo 32XIO s t 1 t 0 • IJNMlDDRNGL~Ir~vtsYYVN1,D1sY ~o~•tIV ~ t RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION REGARDING THE USE OF LOGO READER BOARDS ALONG rNTERSTATES LOCATED OUTSIDE URBANIZED AREAS WITH A POPULATION OF 250,000 OR MORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28.31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, the Texas legislature has previously adopted legislation permitting the use of logo reader boards along interstates in areas 'located our5ide m urbanized area with a population of $0,000 or more according to the most recent Federal census'; and WHEREAS, such logo reader boards provide a valuable service to motorists in order to determine upcoming locations for food, lodging, and gasoline; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION I. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation allowing the use of logo reader boards along interstates located outside urbanized areas with a population of 250,000 or more. SECTION IL That the City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr, Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League. = q SECTION 111. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage • and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of '1998. • JACK MILLER, MAYOR ) r O b '.n + g s~ + A„ 32 x 10 I I v 1 v ~ * r ~ ' ~F , II r 0 • r r i I'+N.~DSrJ~,,Jt.Mly, labwra,l ~s 4 f v r ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY r fk , BY: I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: i HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY , r BYA oxl& a 3. cc/ f • r i g e 0 1 Agenda No _ 7~ f[ Ager,la Item. _ Data ~ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September I, 1998 t DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Ted Benavides, 349-8560 SUBJECT: Resolution of the City of Denton City Council requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation amending the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act to allow city councils of cities owning and operating their own electric utilities to negotiate and discuss power sales and other contracts in executive session and to withhold those contacts or portions of contracts where to divulge this information would be detrimental to the competitive position of the city 7 1 BACKGROUND: The resolution requests that TML support legislation to amend both the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act to allow a municipality which owns its own electric utility to negotiate and discuss the sale of power in a closed meeting and to keep any records associated with the negotiation of the power sales contract and the final contract itself confidential. If legislation is enacted to deregulate electric utilities, municipally owned utilities will be at a disadvantage competing with L)e investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in negotiating and selling power due to the requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act. The discussions of competitive strategies, the analysis of proposed bids for the sale or purchase of electrical power by a municipal electric utility, including the analysis of proposals to sell power and the award and approval of those contracts, must be ultimately done in an open session of the City Council and the Public Utilities Board. Any member of an IOU who attends the t1 meetings would lear:a negotiation strategy and position of the municipally owned utilities and use that to their competitive advantage. The TML constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. The deadline for receipt of these items by TMI, is September 14, 1998. Council approval of Qte resolution is necessary to meet that date, The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28 through Mtober 31 in San Antonio. 0 Vf l f P { ry (v'. ~t 5 v d ~7 ' lJ 3 z X 1«.1 f Y L' N )x P l 6 i rv r 11 e 0 1 r' i_ „ n 1 :/2:'Lk,1Ct..Y..r.:w»p.rv r,..... •w...... ww .:.s.w...wa s.. JWf x+4MhL+.hcdwMlM,.»/wwi wmv a~ w.. TML Resolution • Power Sales Contract September 1, 1998 Page 2 PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW: This resolution was adopted by the membership of the Texas Municipal League at their Business Meeting held on Saturday, November 1, 1997, et the 83" Annual Conference. k ;r. FISCAL IMPACT: Electric Utility costs for service and revenues r, ATTAC_ HMENTS• I . Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: t Assistant to the City Manager 1 a r~ r 1 } y Z tt 4 j,' ~ir4 25 32XIO 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton ' Brief Background: Current requirements of the Te)•as Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act require all discussion of strategy, analysis of proposed bids for the sale or purchase of electrical power by a municipal electric utility, including the analysis of proposals to sell power and the award and approval of contract to be done in open session of the City Council and Public Utilities Board. With the threat of impending legislation deregulating the municipal electric industry, discussing contracts in open session would put municipal utilities at a disadvantage over the investor-owned utilities. What the Resolution Is Intendsd to Accomplish: Amending the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act to allow a public body to negotiate the sale of public power in a closed meeting and to keep any records associated with the negotiation of the power sales contract confidential would enable municipalities to be competitive with the Investor-owned utilities and thus be responsible to its ratepayers. Statewide Importance: Amending the Texas Open Meetings Act and the Texas Public Information Act will allow all cities in the State of Texas to negotiate the sale of power In a closed meeting and keep records associated with the negotiation confidential. This would enable the municipal-owned utility to compete aquefiy with the independent-owned utility thus providing service at a competitive price for all re0psyers. A Submitted by: Name: Michael W, Jez Title: City Manager City: City of Denton I 0 i i Telepivins: f940) 349-8307 / PLEASE DO NOT wgrTE ON THE W.CK OF THIS FORM % 31 f } 10 32 Id 1 i r 0 I 'lH IGI VOII'SNMIb O[ITILLO~ ponsJmMw' h!o-~ SIS C~~OMI M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNiCIPA1- LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE OPEN MEETINGS AND THE OPEN RECORDS ACTS TO ALLOW CITY COUNCILS OF CITIES OWNING AND OPERATING THEIR OWN ELECTRIC UTILITIES TO NEGOTIATE AND DISCUSS POWER SALES AND OTHER CONTRACTS IN EXECUTIVE SiSSION D TO WITHHOLD THOSE CONTRACTS OR PORTIONS OF CONTRACTS WHERE Tt DIVULGE THIS INFORMATION WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE COMPETITIVt? POSITION OF THE CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annaal conference to discuss matters of importance to local g,)veining bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, during the iast session of the Texas Legislature, several bills which would have deregulated the electric industry and have r"' ed municipally-owned electric utilities to compete directly against all other types of electric utilities, including investor-owned utilities v;ere introduced, but failed to pass; and WHEREAS, the Governor has appointed a committee which has been studying the whole subject of electric utility deregulation; and WHEREAS, the next session of the Legislature, which meets in 1999, will consider passal,e of deregulation legislation which could require municipally-owned electric utilities to compete directly with the investor-owned electric utilities, and which could open up all municipal service areas, which previously have been protected under the law or under certificates of convenience and necessity, to the right of each retail customer to choose their own electric prop ider; and WHEREAS, in, estor-awned utilities are not required to hold their meetings or discussion- concerning their power sales and other electric contracts in public, nor are their A contracts generally subjected to being disclosed to the general public; and WHEREAS, municipalities who own their own elect, : utilities are required to hold discussions and negotiations concerning electric power sales contracts and other contracts in public and these contracts are subject to public disclosure through TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE ¢552, the Public Information Act; and O O ~ WHEREAS, in the event of deregulation which provided direct rompetition between municipally-owned and investor-owned utilities, municipally-owned electric ilities would be at a great disadvanta;e over investor-owned utilities who would be abi .o determine the 4 10 32 X 10 t p I i . , ,ell-IDl vnll'111M{9D[II'10lCV Lrrrr Wi+s w.Ma u~fb+w aw,r [ , negotiation strategy and position of the municipally-owned utilities and to use that to their competitive advantage; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY USOLVES- SECTION I. That the City Count,il requests that the Texas Municipal League support legislation which would amend TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §55 i, the Texas Open Meeting s Act, to authorize a municipality which owns an electric utility to discuss its power sales contracts and other electrical contracts, including price nd other material items, in a closed meeting, where to I discuss this in an open meeting would detrimentally afA&t the competitive position of the municipality with athird party. $F'CTION II. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League to support legislation which would amend TEX. LC-'. GOV'T CODE §552, the Public Information Act, which would create an exception to disclosure in the event of a public request for information, where to divulge the contents of all or portion of the rtunic ipality's power sales or other electrical contracts would detrimentally affect the competitive position of the municipality. SECTION 111. That the City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League. SECTION IV. That this resolution shall become effective imrr, 'iatcly upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 11998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: r JENNIFER W ALTERS, CITY SECRETARY f BY: f APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM; HERBERT L• PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY ~ ss BY: s ~ , 25 32X e 0 t -.rarea Agenda iie+~n) _ Q _l~l Dale AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: r^tty Manager's Office I CM: Ted Benavides, City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution of the City of Denton City Council requesting the Texas Municipal league to support legislation amending TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE §252.021 to allow All cities under 100,000 population to solicit all insurance bids through competitive sealed proposal instead of competitive bidding. BACKGROUND: The resolution requests that TML Support legislation amending Tex. Loc. Gov't Code ¢252.021 (b) and (c) into a new (b) which would allow a municipality to use the competi6ve sealed proposal for the purchase of all insurance, The current section of the Local Government Code prohibits Denton and all Texas cities under 100,000 population from soliciting insurance bids through competitive sealed proposals. To safeguard public and employee interests, municipalities must acquire insurance for such things as health issues, life, liability, property, etc. The selection of insurance is usually a highly complex process which involves not only a consideration of price, but a consideration of other elements, including quality of service, the benefits invoked, the facilities and resources made available, and many other factors which are unrelated to price. This is true, regardless of the size of the city. The competitive sealed proposal process has several advantages over the competitive sealed bidding process. The competitive sealed bidding requirement requires that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. However, the competitive sealed proposal requirement allows a contract to be awarded to the respons'bic respondent whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the municipa: ity. This allows a city to consider the relative importance of price ! 0 and other evaluation factors includcti in the request for proposals. The TML constitution states that resolutions fur consideration at the Annual Conference must be ! submitted forty-five (45) calendar day! prior to the first day of the conference, The deadline for receipt of these items by TML is September 14,1998, and Council approval of the resolution is necessary to meet that date. The Anazal Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998, in 0 San Antonio. 0 , , I i I t ~ 4. r i F 32 x I rand- 7,17 a 0 l 1 arteaw { a p. i ew, rh Yk,l,] WJe.MA+~.f1M1MBM9.WNw.Oi M,M9.aiM`V rYra~ n ^ ~ f + . I TML Resolution - Solicit Ins++rarr. a Bids September 1, 1998 k Page 2 I ' PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW; This resolution was adoptad by the membership of the Texas Municipal League at their Business Meeting at the 85' Annual Conference held on Saturday, November 1, 1997. nSCAL MIPACT: Final cost of all insurance ATTACMIENTS., 1. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Betty V~illi Assistant to the City Manager r ,t ! III J I 'f rI + r .t ~ r , 14, s xQ 32xIa , p f i 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: Currently, the Texas Local Government Code 6252.021 prohibits all Texas cities under 100,000 population from soliciting insurance bids through competitive sealed proposals. What the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: Amending Tex. Loc. Gov't Code 3252,021 Ib1 and (c) into a new Ib1 would allow a municipality with a population of less than 100,000 to use the competitive sealed proposal for high technology pr,)curements or for the purchase of insurance. Statewide Importance: To safeguard public and employee interests, municipalities must acquire Insurance for such things as health issues, life, liability, property, etc. The selection of an insurance provider is usually a highly complex process which Involves not only a consideration of price, but also a consideration of other elements, Including quality of service, the benefits Involved, and the facilities and resources available, and many other factors which are unrelated to price regardless of the size of the city. The competitive sealed bidding requirement requires that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. However, the competitive sealed proposal requirement allows a contract to be awarded to the responsible respondent whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the municipality. Submitted by., Name: Michael W. Jez Title: City Manager City: City of Denton ` r • • Telephone: (940) 349-8307 i PLEASE 00 NOT WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM ; .y i I 3 El 2 X 10 9 u f ~ IOn Wnnn,Ilminv~Mlunnu 0~drCMkV lrvpr,W OM In RESOLUTION NO. I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §252.021 TO ALLOW ALL CITIES UNDER 100,000 POPULATION TO SOLICIT ALL INSURANCE BIDS THROUGH COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSALS INSTEAD OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matter of importance to local governing bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §252.02I(b) requires a municipality with a population of less than 100,000 to utilize the competitive sealed bidding process before entering into a contract for insurance which requires any expenditure of more 'ban $5,000 from one or more municipal funds; and WHEREAS, TEX, LOC. GOVT CODE §252,021(c) allows a municipality over 100,000 to use the competitive sealed proposal procedure for the purchase of all insurance; and WHEREAS, the purchase of insurance today is a complex process involving many technical factors other than price and a competitive sealed proposal process allows the municipality to consider the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors included in the request for proposals other than just price alone, and it would be of extreme public benefit if cities with populations under 100,000 were allowed to purchase insurance through the competitive sealed proposal process rather than through the competitive sealed bidding process; NOW, THEREFORE, r THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECT ON 1. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation which would amend TEX. LOC. GOV, r CODE §252.021 to allow all cities to have the option of purchasing all insurance through the competitive seated proposal process. SECTION I[, That the City Manager is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League. p t =I= U. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval 4 ,;n a 10 32XI❑ • S ~S a ~A A • e' I ~r:.. L.r , i,. La M..o~„r.e na\ • s. A. AVM'tr1~1 „l.'1T1./..+.~ n..., ~ 1 PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of '1998. i i 1 JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY i A BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY ~a° 2 cul t t _ By:. I i y I l II a r. S 1 r t 5 la szxlo i • Agenda No. qo_: 4genda itemp_,_ Date- AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Ted Benavides, City Manager f SUBJECT: Resolution of the City of Denton Oty Council requesting the Texas Municipal League to support legislation regarding the repeal of rj3,251(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act to allow cities to compete against local exchange telephone carriers. BACKGROUND: The resolution requests that TML support legislation to repeal ¢3,251(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act ("PURA") which prohibits municipalities and municipal electric systems from going into competition with investor-owned telephone communication utilities by prohibiting them from obtaining a certificate of convenience and necessity for telecommunication services. Congress passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996 which prohibited all barriers to competition. The PURA provision is anti-competitive, and also appears to be directly contrary to the prohibition against the barriers to competition contained in the federal Telecommunications Act. Repeal of ¢3.251(d) would allow Denton and other cities around the State which have fiber optic system capabilities to compete with local exchange telephone carriers. Deregulvion of tb'. telecommunication industry by State snd federal laws has not resulted in competition in cities in non-urban areas. If Denton and other cities were allowed to compete, reduction in the cost of telecommunication services to the citizens and promotion of economic development could occur. 'I he VOL constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of tF^ conference. The deadline for receipt of these items by T.,ML is September 14, 1998, and Council approval of the resolution is necessary to meet that date. The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28.31, 1998, in San Antonio. PRIO~~►CT{ON/REVIEW': it This resolution was adopted by the membership of the Texas Municipal League at the 831 Annual Conference held on Saturday, November 1, 1998. lq J . t _ 1 10 32XIO rears ~ + 1 O h. • qr:.".. .a r..)n B`L'vt~.n r..v~ _.n ,i„.n..I,YipnY}ira.vA/M4MM~J r.J^FS M.,~•..wt.w«. .u..:..'n ...r .,a as TML Resolution • 13.231(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act 1 September 1, 1998 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Increased utilization of existing fiber optic lines. 1 AWACHMEM 1. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: B,tly Wi111~ms Assistant to the City Manager ' i i li i V 4 1 (L ,4 , r 1 f, A r i '.I rl +~1 1~ f o } nn r FM1 1 • 0 1998 T'VIL RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: In 13.251(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act VPURA"I, municipalities and municipal electric systems are prohibited from going Into competition with Investor- owned telephone communication utilities by being prohibited from obtaining a certificate of convenlence and necessity for telecommunication services. The 1996 Telecommunications Act passed by Congress prohibits all barriers to competition. - The PURA provision is anti-competitive and appears to be directly contrary to the prohibition against the barriers to competition contained In the federal Telecommunications Act. What the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: Repeal of 13.261 (d) of the PURA would allow Denton and other cities around the State which have fiber optic capabilities to compete with local exchange telephone carriers. Statewide Importance: Deregulation of the telecommunication Industry by State and Federal laws has not resulted in competition in cities In non urban areas. If Denton and other cities were allowed to compete, reduction in the cost of telecommunications services to the citizens, promotion of economic development, and reliable service by a provider with a vested Interest in the community could occur, • t Submitted by: Name: Michael W. Jez Title: City Manager City: City of Denton ter i Telephone: 1940) 349.8307 PLEASE DO NOT 1NRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM 3 i - 2.~i x ❑ 32' 10 • 1 i ~n.mus,~sb+mrrm.op~.c..~witnyr.cnw, o+wr , 1 i I l I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL. LEAGUE TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION REGARDING THE REPEAL OF §3.251(d) OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATORY ACT TO ALLOW CITIES TO COMPETE AGAINST LOCAL EXCHANGE TELEPHONE CARRIERS IN COMMUNITIES WHERE THE QUALITY, SELECTION AND COST EFFECTIVE PRICING (%7 TELFCOMMUNICATION SERVICES ARE INADEQUATE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN F. tECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss mattes of importance to local governing bodies around the State', and I WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28.31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, the Texas legislature in 1995 enacted §3.251(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act ("PURR") which prohibited municipalities or municipal electric systems from competing with investor-owned telephone communication utilities by prohibiting cities from obtaining certificates of convenience and necessity to provide telecommunication services; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton and other cities around the State have fiber optic system capabilities which would promote economic development and reduce the cost of telecommunication services to citizens and customers if such cities were allowed to compete with local exchange telephone carriers; and WHEREAS, deregulation of the telecommunication industry by State and Federal laws have not resulted in encouraging, in non urban areas, local exchange telephone carriers to install state of the art fiber optic systems to entice economic development and improve the quality, selection and cost effective pricing of telecommunication services to the current customers: * NOW, THEREFORE, • THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION I. That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation which would repeal §3.251(d) of the Public Regulatory Act so that cities will have the option to compete with local exchange telepFme carriers a(ho do not provide the level of telecommunications services desired by prcepec'ive and current industry and residential • customers in non urban Texas. O • SECTION 11. That the City Manages is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League. r*~ ~ti 10 32 x1❑ • alb ` f , 0 laDu~.rlrw.r.Mli~ oWscw., ~/f<~"" i , SECTION III. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval i PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 11998. 1 JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO L'--GAL FORM. HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: , ~ I 1 s~ 1 `u 1' Aft w •4 , { k I r I I _ ~ 1 r E'.7 4''q V Apantla Na 90~ Agenda lie ~ate___'~r=L~LY _ AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM: Ted Benavides,349-8560 t~C.WECT: { Resolution of the City of Denton City Council requesting the Texas Municipal League to seek introduction and passage of legislation amending Tex. Gov't Code §551,074 (Texas Open Meetings Act) to allow members of governinental bodies to deliberate board and commission member appointments itt executive session. BACKGROUND: Currently, the Tex, Gov't Code 1551 .074 (Texas Open Meetings Act) authorizes the Council and other governing bodies to deliberate the appointment of a public officer or employee in executive session. The Attorney General has interpreted this provision to allow discusslo. of only members of discretionary boards in executive sessicm, Le., those boards which exercise some sovereign function of municipal government. Tue City Council may not discuss the appointment of members of advisory boards in closed session. Amending §551,074 would allow a governmental body to deliberate the appointment not only of a public officer or employee, but of I any board or commission member, whom the governing body appoints, regardless of whether that board is deemed to be discretionary or advisory. The purpose of deliberating in executive session is to protect and preserve the reputation of the citizen being considered. The TML, corstitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Contcrence must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. The deadline for receipt of these items by TML is September 14, 1998. Council approval of the resolution is Y necessary to meet that dale, The Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28 through i October 31 in San Antonio, 1 FISCAL 5f r~'.T Nome • a; a 25 x ❑ 3'~ x 10 t r x Qr r r1 r r ~ r t C iOIT~M Y ~ , ~ ~ y r r a.; . ...n.... . ...v wq..bae~.x,nwwrw a...n .,..n.r.:a,,.. ..a. ~ r,+..,.. 4 :t TML Resolution - Board and Commission Appointments Septet.,br I, 1994 Page 2 r a AA'T WI DIENTS: I L Resolution ` RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTLD: I ~ ~r Se , Assistant to thL Cit / Manager t i 1 t . ,w . r Y r\ , h 1 ( r 1 r •4~ I y 1 e,Y 1 I l ~ T l i 7 ~i j r r 9 f) .i 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: Tex, Local Gov't Code 3551 074 (Taxes Opan Meetings Act) authorizes the Council and other governing bodi, to deliberate the appointment of a public officer or employee In executive t assion. The Attorney General has interpreted this provision to allow diacusslon of o ,,:y members of discretioinary boards in executive session, i.e., those boards which exorcise some sovereign !unction of municipal government. What the Resolution Is Intended to Accomplish: Councils may not discuss the appointment of advisory boards In closed session. Governing bodies have been interested in d;scussion appointments of all board members in executive session to preserve and protect the reputation of the pproon being considered. Statewide Importance: i Amending Tex. Local Gov't Code 6551.074 to allow a governing body to deiibc ate the appointment of any board and commission member In executive session, regardless of whether that board Is deemed to be discretionary or advisory, will preserve and protect the reputation of persons being considered for appointment. Thus, Increased participation in the local government process will occur. Submitted by: Name: Michael W, Jez Tide: City Manager ' City: City of Denton Telephone: (940) 349.8307 r PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE LACK OF THIS FORM O I ~ i ' .10 .r3 32 A , n 0 1 q'S,1V~p I , • , , !'w GwWwuIlroliim,Mblti CwYi~.~Ir,tlM Jn _ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE TO SEEK. INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION AMENDING TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §531.074 (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT) TO ALLOW MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENTAL BODIES TO DELIBERATE BOARD AND COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. j WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §551.074 allows governing bodies to deliberate the appointment of a public officer or employee in executive session; and WHEREAS, opinions of the Attorney General have held that city councils are not authorized to deliberate appointments of advisory board, commission, and committee members because such persons are not officers or employees of the governing body; and WHEREAS, the City Council believe that confidential deliberations concerning city boards and commissions should be allowed in executive session, regardless of whether the board or commission is discretionary or odvisory; and WHEREAS, such action would require an amendment to TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §551.074; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that such an amendment would be of benefit to local governing bodies around the Slate; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION 1. That the City Council ree,• -sts the Texas Municipal League seek ir,lroducticn and passage to amend TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE §551.074 to allo•v governmental bodies to discuss appointments to boards, commissions, and committees, regardless of whether the board or commission is discretionaay or edvisory, in executive session. • SECTION fl. That the City Manbger is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to p t Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of tho Texas Municipal League. 4 X 32X10 0 1 I SECTION [1[. 'That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of _,1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR i ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY:. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY I f J14, s.,~; 2~,x 32x~~ r 0 0 Agenda No Agenda ltern _ PS - . CITY COUNCIL REPORT DATE DATE: September 1, 1998 DEPARTMENT: City M .pager's Office CNN: Ted Benavides, 349.8560 SUREC 1 Resolution of the City of Denton City Council Requesting tl,e Texas Municipal League to ` Support Legislation Enabling Collection of Impact Fees for School Facilities BACKGROUND: The tesolution requests that TML support legislation to expand the Texas Local Government Code 395.001 to include authority for implementation of impact fees for school facilities. Currently the services for whicl, the cities can charge impact fees are roads, water, sewer, storm sewer and flood control facilities. School districts, however, aic not authorised to charge impact fec3. Populati.)n growth that impacts other services also impacts school districts in terms of the need for more schnols, teachers and accessory services for implementing a successful program for the growth and wellbeing of our children. '['he impact of growth in the City on school finance is real and at times severe in fast growing communities. States such as California, Marylan], Washington, Vermont, New Hampshire, and West Virginia authorize school impact fees. Also, communities in Florida exact impact fees, while [ennessee has been gwen specific authorisation to selected communities for school impact fees or facility taxes. "I he Denton [SD. 1cr example, projects the need for six new elementary, two new middle schools, and one new high schools to meet the projected increase in enrollment due to new developments currently being planned or built. Fiver more schools will be needed to meet the needs of future dctelopments not yet started Authorization of impact fees for school facilities in Denton and other high growth communities across the state will provide much needc~ revehue to build and sustain a world class school system that • provides our children the tools they will need to compete in the global economy of the new millenium, l he I NIL constitution states that resolutions for consideration at the Annual Conference must be submitted forty-five (45) calendar days prior to the first day of the conference. 1 T he deadline for receipt of these items by'[ Sit, is September 14, and Council approval of • the resolution is necessary to meet that date. The annual conference is scheduled for • • October 28.31 in San Antonio. 32X111 i Q I. • . I • 'I N t ....y •r w.nr •v; n. ~.r~. nrv^ e..i tir...v n•... ~ i i:.. { 1 I I I+iSCAL IMPACT: Revenue stream would improve quality of education in the City. AITACHMENTt I. Resolution RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: etty illiams Assistant to the City Manager I1 Iw , w 1 I i It '~~I ~y I[~ ~ 4 , i f ~ ,r• 10 10 • eWnaee 0 eae>'M Planning and Development Activity within DISD Summary Sheet on School Impart Elementary Total I of Number Percent Elem Bch Mld Bch Wilh Bch Attendance Zone unltiplenned occuok+d Oau led ten cot .43 Impact .19 fm ec1 .15 _ Borman 140 0 _ 0% 00 - ?7 ?1 Evers - ~$24b _ 0 096 765 347 274 II Aayzor _ 0 _ 0 _ -0% 0 0 0 Wilson - 178 1 196 76 34 - 27 Ginnir~ - - 89 - 5 _ 8% 36 _ 16 -13 }Ipd_ya _ _ 1,049 _ 4 - 09 707 313 _ _ 247 Lee 107 - _0 09t _B6 37 _30 Rivers _ -_2,170 43 p, _ 916 406 -320 - FfouDim 1,073 _ 16 i 1!% 713 315 _ 249 McNair 3,153 _ 196 6% _ 1,212 562 444 Grand Total 11603 203 2% 16 2056 1,023 Calhoun Zone Strkkland Iona 4D0 _McMalhione _CHS Zone _ `7',211 r - - - 987 RHS Iona 1292 636 Currant DIED Enrollment (excluding early Childhood) 0,009 21096 3,410 Projected Increase Based on Development 4,653 2,056 1,623 Projected Total Enrollment Based on Development 10,742 6,064 8,033 Number of ExIsting Schools 10 3 2 Pro acted Number of Additions', Schools 6 2 t fiMisting Schoors Includo McMath and eacludo SuOlvan•Kelrer end Fred Moore Note: Impact figures lateen from Lewisville ISO density calcuialions. • Assumptions, Donlon ISD dcnslty Is similar to Thal of LISP. Impact figures represent an average density of an dwolling unlts (single fortify homes, mobile hor.ies, apadments, eic). All development pheses will -cur as submltlod. 3 ,5~. ❑ 32xIO I r 0 Apr'-a-4 -JU utx: LJN Uunl-ari n-~u, II L,_~ ~.jj ♦ l dunean{associates lorrtl ckr~etofr ~,,.r,~ reg~.:at,unc, ~ glUwth rrKlriog5n'a'~r irrir)OCt fags + i 1r,aoslmllo Travnsmisslon TO: JI4Jordan FAX: 940.349-7334 Diredor of Water UVrts DATE: April 13, 1998 PAGES! 6 Irscludingthis cover page RE: School Impact Fees , his kin response to your request for Information on states in which school 6rpad fees at 6ut1honzed. Our own experience and review of the literature indicates that school Impact fees are authorized by impact fee enabling ads in seven states Califorrna. Hawaii, M Yyland. New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington and West Vrg~rtia School impact fen have also been adopted by Yxal lurisd'Kt pns in states that lack impact fee enabling arts, most notably in Florida. In addition, some Tennessee communities have been given specific state auUwrizOom for school impact fees or facility taxes, including the City of Franklin and Williamson and Rutherford Couotoes. We have not done an in depth analysis on this topic, aru U re literature is somewhat contradictory, perhaps in part due to the variety of terms used to describe the concept of -mpa t fees I Jilt attaching excerpts from two recent publKatans The fret attachment's page 35 from Impact Fees and the Role of the State: Guxiance for Drafting Legislation, which was prepared by the Naf,onaf Association of Homebull Research Center for the U5 Department rid I lousing and Urban Development in December 1993 According to this summary, only five states have impa,.r fee enabling acts that authorize school Impact fees However, one of the listed states. Arizona, dues not in fact dearty authorize school impactfees (cities have unrestricted authority for facilities that impose 'costs to the munkipal,ty,' and A is not clear whether the courts will interpret Khools to fall under this language). Several other states that now authonze schoc,I fees are not included in this somewhat dated document The remaining altanhed pages are from the more receia 1995 American Bar Assotabon book. Erjohnirs M, Impact Fees and Denications. edited by Robert H. rreilich and David W. Bushek. One poss-bic error her e 0 die and cat on that Colora9o has a speck nri xe enabling atatute. O The referenced statute has not beer, interpreted as providing such From de oe~r or authority based on eur experience working with impact fees io that eranry Munn J~4 S?dlt Sr+a ASM Orl Duwcur Nfoeun>t ialaa Fu.rtn arrl, 11~14 Ice I hope this informator, IS h(.tp'uf, Please let us know d we ayn be of Avp TA )Jlti~ 11I W54 further asW:mce fa+ a+WSe 994/ 4 A rr, tfr 10 32XIa 0 ~aaata ' ' o t>> 13-`J!] C'J,' Li U,l~.lll ~.~u. A L.J~.. J././, r Criteria for Dratting Impoei Fee Les:aiation 1ABLI T MATT INVENTORY OF FACILMIS AND OTHIR EXPENDITURES AUTHORIZED UNDER ENABLING LE013LAmw Facaltlw AllawrbM' • .1 Roads / wMar Fadldaa So+tin facaNOO i Saln water faoladw - Faoe t;a4d Pane aril Raawaort owe spas / / U64 wear Sd=W / / / / / / ♦ / Poaa Peewees Fro rwnn of / / LAMM* ♦ / Pubae auadvgs / / tJ,Sa sanrloas^ / •ot w 4du0Wq'PW' avao mwy r'%A* Put k SnnlA Of %W"G,Llwn, a~Wfi, ports, amarasnq madkd, arouon OOrItrW, and'orti OM roeadl Wr wtNN No ntrond nuus teal un t» tMl' "Laan>.aon lwdnaa awlu /glad, tae "V" III ow"n"d. IneA,doe sahka aril murgomf" po no" to 0. law snlorrwmonl. "rpliaitgl- ""Up to I paR«a of the foil may ba Uled roe !N admMAt/anen. Impact fees provide only a portion of the funding for specific eligible facilities that benefit the assessed development; general rwenues, ustr fees. grants, or other sources finance the balanct. The availability of state, federal. and other financing (of certain facilities ahoulJ be considered in determining eligibility for impact fee funding. For example, if state, federal, or other outside funding is available to pay part of the cost of an improved waste water treatment facility to support new development, a local jurisdi:tion may supplement that funding by issuing general • obligation bonds rather than impose impact fees for the facility. Sianlsriy, if outside funding for road improvements is severely limited, the jurisdiction may elect to impose impact fees only for roads, Likewise, a state whose road network is severely deficient may authorise impact fee assessments only for roads as pan of a statewide road improvement effort. In all cases, any outside funding should be deducted from the impact fee calcurtation. • The effect of impact fees on affordable housing should be considered in determining facility 0 • d eligibility. Communities authorited to impose impact fees for the entire range of eligible capital ' improvenents needed to support new de-. elopment may unintentionally price new homes beyc,nd the market's ability to pay, or eoaally important. virtually eliminate affordable housing i 35 1W, V 32 x i s ' 0 I I~7 ~ F 0~p. ~ ~ + ~ S R'' ~m O Y r ~ a •_6„ ~ 76 ~ 3. 1~' 333. a E 7 D a vA a v N he g' 09 42 Apr Y R Wa ~aE a TABLF. 1: Analysis of State Impact Pee Legislation [niaw U" lower tt I Copal kmM 84 FKI*k% C•r1t/11M11• 'Np%"► I Aa.w.Uhf Tt e•UNI fur Wpe.rrmwu AfTll•I Delkwtn a ftlWR1M I ~r~.MI.w1111 IIM~IItlT Ir{Y #^.kA "wired fN yrtC 'wise ANlMWlW _ Nn N EuJJ.n6 RrTOi firVrnl NM, nr Np rp. dwd .ln I o N„ M Irrw of A°ra"I• FP10K ~ i..ute lot r..drnuJ I.r1Lh T7 ~ ' Caur - Jr •r10IMA Allr R1•. {I.T ft A,M 1140 CIS IM1 I1AklIK2I. ISUp 100)I t046)04 Al IIwA3 ~rAtnb 1 PLrt • -T RodO. tfr Mu. In'I^R/ t, boojoe pemil SrMntt AMI nr MW rlawnl><r f~dy S h., Tall raV r•. d rKII . w•WAI tvllwW uW. I1 J10 Npr. rJfl YI 41It d [idler aKnil hKwl lnrnVYw .MVr, Will h •Ae of eidw NIWIN non r Nhnd lue Y rw N`n 6 alp PRAA eat fL• .Ifo Rood taro! M1« ;lumrwrr dot. MIP^r nwM Uyoe 011 lawn -1" All wl nl .him r IJ4M 1 per d.bn RAO6r { r1101 bah. 1111 { Ibl N17U 1. (ltd lLe._ _ . . I _ 111 IlDlrlp 116111MIeL 1 RJIW Ieh4 1 11 nos'Al 101:01 , ve.0r Nn No clldonM GnrvK.wle1 N. nA1aIN frOT nrrdrffiJ t0yrnt ti~ *r L- MuI •¢run►rl K u. Nn b n drrelo{KrrK.fIIJ rn rJM)MwI~rnd Ip.N •Ilnin R=n f••r. pln •N e . Oo•'t Co.w ecl d wwna of oonT~ry6r1 N IN. of 41e M Arpnd 01 At lw Lilt. Z Mn IR of A.VI•nr), •d A!fI tI•NW. Amd CrT•N grape l% IKlwn O♦ Nn Q ✓m0 n I.I .Slrk rv .•~vn Rrv. Ird AM••N1 unuJ 0.•wA INru k„' Mot M ,w of `¢'al !rR relNatln awl arur n npon r ,t d el'^`S lailn G+ITI, o} rrrhh. aV: of e 1003r r. ~6 I rN n:ep.n VIIJAe elwlld ul • 111A nletl M AN 1. n 0 be .TO %,91, A, mCD nr fe AK S . w Fn rtbdur . owl wad *I 1111 e P o fee 11 flp rCrwul,aa nwo ynp"rJ 4.rN Y IVA61•.•bn MAP WW Nn ow hr M1I . A, 1'•Y . ~T M I.M IN fTwA N .P 1 1 Mwn In.afilt Irnw, r.1 rOr/' of 00"t 66W. a { k0~1•1 ' Iwo* 1 660T { "11rdl A it R; it tk 1; k 10 3 X10 1 0 1 • ~ I i TABLE Il Analysis of State Impact Fee Legislation (Continued) cmm Tow for Sa•Iw/ Idr.Ufklrb. 1,10701" l'•tmJar M Han / Ann I "K" 114,114114 All 5rtlerCYNlew AaW1a d Argdrw CODAti Req.i ttM fl GpM ` l1 n m Pill RtgW W Ilegvirrd Il.vvOH W Colon.., LWhlfw ei Na Nor olpcuflW.`~separrn hod in w Na ItuellW I1'o Na, Nn, rMw M Willy 7)pr . Coln R.., a M Ndn11a an.. PAT. 111 1p7 ,G1~.Md I'M hvWT n n1 ISIPF .utnl n Iiurrion or 711.1. Irtwl /Vnrplmi _ { II 7.10) 1 rwnrw Riwla, a•oll, Yu. a.1.l.ry Cdlkv,l to W1W Jwn Sepuut NM, hp ft- M" nlned upon apnll- Y,.t k Iwn or Ye.. wa. •guey pr11, eww ay orJp. Yu'ihhp fa l iuwaw Wif) ripe Ind Vi ea1:m d propelry .+wr ldapW 14."_ QV i ANN aaf•W. tuepl PN fnwti-A e' 1111 If rw emve ltfed galltr,w IN IN )J l rMrd eoead. (load lYNtnl laJltla •I" 6lwn lM k. (Sapp IM WAS rkly, IpWM/rynryP. 1Ye Aa r-i-im. IR,row 1 )A}I-2110 I Sn 11 s 116514Th I XNJ711I )A}I-AII I WI.)(A) . I SA}I-Jlhl. 11A•all UNwid n (n ND IDpdalf Nta r Il•.rKl SeWNW nW HMI Mute .Ilwfaltr AN w. YH, .d.w he ll Iw) be Ya. all pert t24 p111. of/nI4 er !a'Wiy Per by All " UW. PM Ali R )"M of Y nvMy M.2 I* if d fatilltka r Ir.• PA.. !f If hwmfl•r M / out, alkw Pn11 %a tee nor Aa 1a. u. IYw of ccyf lY.e a m 0, /ev na«wM)t New, 01MI r. I N. roll n fit mmdp vrn At to lldhp pcnrn win. to" u,r n,y be rv.A Ipae 00"I.w d I,'. 1.. meal rwft1UPP Il Artful awl YMtknwl It NyW 6•nioptraMeeta\,r •eltn"Ct pW a 1 is proprut (\71 M,xlanal tike) Fwal Y1eV1wn Italy. 16AIgM IAA:/d Itblawl 1166 144131 1146-10A13 11 At daii)) 1406161100, I. i, kr Mr vatf. Yv Wrilory Caw.w wdrill km lrWl't I'CNMI. Min AN *-m,&A `Yr. a.r ti III Y1 Ok IL pen `d en prlyn of 11e V van. Pula. UP.", anly tortntnlmlM dean. all., ON capnw •Man tU ".in M Mu IW Iron, l'nM uerm•arr, atNetlan. tlwanr of kaki' Jai vrJ hl Is ef wtleetlw Ild rt.n New or law 1 6'Jltll n rW now tannn. ,y N"I It 11'"I nl eIln 1);* w wnwt (dill. kr61M Mal laioe VA fail n>♦rwfarw ld P.m. nnul lrtl Ilfaa I lAPwr 11111 publk k1a1 an N SupP k `f Ara+1. a u Itn1r1 ~,d In dr.elowr. n { Mt_1711111) A 161 tic qL) S A} 'PM I el cod 1 11'J7L711V. I A- 1171 { 1* INd. 161.t10w1o1 1 M1AN1M Yea. m let, ray r 1 l pnn„• R~.M Lnelly IYo. J.~nry Lnpeol n Pal plan 11T 'Lp.,nN tetruut lit Ill Will A uffri IISaW by ad1 Prwd AN NO MIN p<Itnn knNr end g, S 71% If Aae of Ail take J. Jloru ~ adi.e "it all oiew "M Ill lruP lwlfc do nr/Ma if No plats W recall,, St.y Art. alnk Trier.RvgmA. d atrvr7. LdlClwn fa pHtr, nlrevo eeolawr OW Il e* nrble peweatn Fl" •a u n a Inlp byd ow 11 1.lpl n ua IM by IM Jdly Nr•d ,ttuaaf N Mrftll, vp'w well, IIM W AN ,S+rvQ.M,d a• dtnlnp me O"-f.tily uMt died of Pull. fuaprka pn. 11031 Daft tww wn'f11Wt held TH IY 1? m tr rJM. Mr P~ Nom' d1 Mti d'.00foll till l atrAuuhll.') ytn,nlMlIM M pylon 1 1/05M1V t pit. 19 901(h) i { 3117 b 1.lm ID "MN j t 1 { Sgtw. Mw 1 1.gly { S 916 I SIIO { Sk 151,7 net 11n,l,an. RoW , K•el, Tr. a7•~ofy knWtd ki idol, dwP w yro atanu M K•fvW vpM IPgltwtlut ITN IMe iM T r.wrr ',aput Yw . a p.rt 1I Ingn~•r 1' tr , 01141 , ,el) wy. rner IHvanel of I-,. 1.411. 1N IM M .I ht pll<f nrgalM prerNlM Ike of iH n. N, Na JINM fma k IM wb NO MM to JIMI far •h,.h ke 11 lwted M Pn" 'linato antesMka MN, Na . t«e Coll Arr Our. N. R tP nal ,loll tea Ind KW IklelDp r 1 x},' I %A, a Arad Camel ,,-W All 1, 4'VI.u rgnm ! ytln IfYr Mw .an D1er 16 alwslkl .&M n • PIN. O'llr ML ief. 10 wn 1 H tlvmr va cdlrtttan upw nlwrcr m11aN le tone plln II •ar fueled ! U~1 19911 A 1u IIQly fil d kw Iw Lrer a rwC610naNt hwM1„ I • lord kw Arn SJAM a. Jfnitd IH at r llw•tl rn.n Pm dr kf r e mill a II u.a p'•' , lrlalln.n pq lntM pl•n CrMNN All fall nl 4 \I• pr'1/nal ~ dill yedw. W tenarut.+ Il 1Ke dal yW.fd i1 to Inn( Ntra•YpMl7nn id d"'M Pr W4,191 IN, Mil •hah•H n u,fo 1 K.}41111 I1 36e4., y): a 11 14 1),/ld, Sn.14 1131 I xS; q yF}4 1115 11a.V.I W aM 'ol.llq,k / tnfa 1}:r I ®rzwk 32X❑ JM MMAS . r Q r.pir ♦,J Ji, TABLE l: Analysis of State Impact Fee Legislation (Conh'naed) S,nkep l/wr)AadW CY,rY Tteu p. ugpkw S.epfY d TudlNb fAmmha IapaMdee R Aawrelnp TWA LImY ler tmpremmu Aral INIlalewo SuwfYOILY i mbwu 6 ltgJnl CGOK*s Re0ulraarap YrprplN.rr PLY Requkrd 1kllrdrd !A.lad m m. b L, rurpr, No Nal "W rd M1W N Irprepka.l Mar erprd fuel, M. To. M on of ra N.. .ela ¢A+, Inri 1aneN nv. cerd)A{ n eeae AdYlr <oalpnNrulvr Nr. Rpv. fr.r (IM l nuev. r'.daL enJ+li,Yr1 u old ar.. qe VAA, *a, r Ai/ 11236 f6ae ..4 eunld rrRraai•e MM Y (Md. fup Iw1). f Ufd+I tU. 1 .3 w:A/1 I gyggDl. { 61.44K) Nr. W Y.rde. si 0Y. pd,uwp Na,pw.nd Nr .r.lhd RaAM rpn m4MA, At No, 1aluGp Tea. T,% r PAR avi Mir prep" "m m4ortd IwpinY ailed. or( j p Nn Rb. ! +r ■0.m. Ar, a ealwlnewt a fa ji Iw pond d In ,ttY.01u n deamryp der L t'lP ad NniKd Y", a ku ad. (10011 .q„ 1 YrYt by pees now m la i all gp lled rO).n 10 W Wump ream, I.+e Pryrud hr r "Al In pYnl. 1118000. 127111111 Se Wall 1278.170. 1 ]tps IOD 11741 INI, W. II4n1We Poedp, pally. N0. Yeporl PAer r a r Maw N "grew Ma aprA1 em ac, 6 To No. N... .net, Wks. aYdA)H.. 5a kr d # d ham pall &.1 led 7rn ofce" :m n N N Rd.. frar me.dpa, bull peream. cdlerpur ermrnlsid pea lip CM, 00'a hamm lk rfer 4.4 1176.11 Am", a 0"160 for lpeuame t#A% of y O4m,mr e1f.gP, 1911 pad peed. A remnem, of ecru rem u aced I Ydrm). Malec d- Peal n rrfarda &I Wiles .dad cycle. ' -slk edcir ' . IiNrel)ed. 1 Nllhkl. I pd tlNNdl. { n7611NR.r I are 11Phlal 1 676.1 N1Y11 1 . ) r,. Imp all AN afditiOA f A Nu ppee,101 Nm ppnrhd Tr, urtrlN..e Tc,. lyderd Ni, All. larvp Wall epprwd.f wdi+uinn w and, a cArer"- .id1u 1 cam. i 1Aa . teDrtuOe tyM h " woo, mm Yd n NI flat ANN "MASO ea lwpr..flel rho pfdnLud Ilea 60 fSD~7 r wal 1"11 160530+1+ 1120 S1Da. - 1 d0 33M5. 1 to 17Mt .p Na+ hkva rl.uda r.a, na, ed•i[arp pn.plmi4ae r uArr p+. SepYOe wr.lrne 1Y keN.d ur,* rrq:eu d TY. hard d Tn, mer li Yee, u plea e wr, imlr ,N. I.e. allanaw x fr Jtty q pm and rr- p1o0tAY gnat, W.Weis iii a& elude tapnlp of C1Y. IMt Nae Neon p.en.,. eru, Lear fm" 1~, pea N. on rd d,,zp; kd Ali v rilaW IuM YA.r Ore True ld of 'Al pMeow, •N,e 7 Illly .r 1r drdd of ! • U•, 1y.. 111 Ip mrlyd hlld~y pe1mM pan agar a.61aYm perld 16 r Inldripel" kw hn pan- r PGA., heat rt.,V 4 { }1G1 117 11 _ I Vd. 1 Ir 6 t !J' 11 Nu N,. pa6rd kpardla erau.u ear Na rpradud 1'12 re NO -1 O,uPw PW, dear ftpolll Op (M Y1e fr.r aI !U 19r rr r'p Waal • (poll vex 1 1611 )II {S2?.1410 Iflflvdlp.. pea it w "t ee;rel 7e of Up 7 rrea7l. a.'. Raedp. Ion .r... r. knpapi..rl+elun.Yl1, ryin. <vcem nn p• III.wwm"I'M~e~r Aw laiM,-" R' v ha r.r p Nnul.c IIpIK6'W .,rrw Hel ruNPrrerl 6YaR{M"r .Mae nllw ~121 Ar.7 Area Jt•ekrrRP..r'di. niafl am ))e...H bar peaprrd A.Y a PR!). allwliM M Wr' pt,d ed Y .p 11.1 10101 A k plpa Once of euAbnp PUT& A a1 flupPI IF f V q,e Nun KL { HL001 A. 1 bra Anil ) OVJ Alfl a In 1 low A'so O I.MOI. AISI 1 ID301-Apf Y fOfef ll,l I IOSpAldp ' -0 r • ' a.. 32 X ( 11i.9/bI o TABLE is Analysts of State ltnpact Fee Legislation (Continued) ' e"' 4..h! IMfpffluun Ino Tbw for cqu p Ifd of 1 9etwo C•eeeeettee In""" a UCWA 111-1 Tln[ llde IAr 19IPo.e 4ee01 CYlrlm we AaerCMotle9 /olMvlY/ xeYe.A~ Cnbetlw pquhnlrleL LTPee611rree Fleb lplllnd II.OM4ed 1e0'eked few "0. M•u, Ya, 466eN P4 fn, a19Nd .M I.I. SepY.M..'I1-6 br 11Aad eo Pgan. See bow eA To. for sorb vee. Y p.A •aer, Wo idMOM to wd, heti i fealty epe a,4 over 11ePd[d It fa.ill' Iend IN u' abs rot -f Cite Tex, 4e .l "U"..Ler. I"YJrm w v m red,' .cffin eree Oee IVJlo0l[ Icnlcs u wmodo g pro- ccwd dig. ,N•'7 Cuul ft'ste, wm of rum, ndlad,n N dried, or it h:OUhs joc•. t-m I M', stew M. - A.., 1199 Dal Oad cocci ties al PUM M.naN+w, woslec9ee Ia w, period It v e..nr VIP "get (Was bo:lda/ pi M .rnifi axMnedesl' Kho I kW 1C Ywo I.elpl fur in ' Sapp I,A31. eM[ of nvpnv) eq. )w+, a M rm'tu u I M14M Au•, tA.n, ur a lime of n,m me f^^4'al Mdbo S "A 1 MIle, ' nerie9. seen. Y Y led Ia co• )M%W +plb In on: do's or cnOm es i 111MOD411 1130910511 1 Y'rSA11 )91024 { 343.03!. 11931teA, f 195 OUlle). I tVdA1Ne) vrrmM UlvuVichA No. rnryulloA Y eadiM of MduJ Mcaxvey PyMN se" 1 revs vu. No Nc. nMe..e It to" Y Nig. melsvod. Id "b"I m a reflood Vv It.p AAM. di•nhM teem; d' WAM s, lim' gewer Id. it. 1 Wa iA.) N"ro Wonre IsPped. np, r)/357 of mlinp .+uhdi o, Pane, iMMIIAMh W mew owhurlsd 1 $301 113034) _ 1 S30J'[). I SIO1fIA 11 ,dn,hw Ined. Tg ImqutrA hrfM M II %"Mw ereeeeu by Iefasd ntuid if recd vei binmwl Y Yo vii., In PIA Vel of w PI.n w p~ldc Office vu e) nersiom ae oa siftoaellle b of CV. V. CAN AV.. J" Ireevlll, rU lenerl rempta.d vuhm if Mlegisce"I" 114 1441.1 n M i %4,4 uonAolr of yon plan M 1 pef c.9 (Mxiu. tpeV ounporry. !town 444 NIA 00 Ovnry ~ Ltp IM) c~'IAeel Ntn .wh nrea een+Jen nrl. 111W'.IS 1404313 IIS14SIb 11 13 14910 1 II3.1499.10 ~~IlSlaaa, 311044,1 IL 14444 11 rrwM.r M ~ 1i I 1 - . Ad YcI No W . M f do M k -I' ve "OAS ee 7-1plP% S-pnle w. .ISm 9i 0 y s [o Ya Y NO A !ton v dae Id ..r 4. tnn pV/ M nhM b ltes W Pepe 1p •Mi O1D111 IQ 0.VJIepe, "41 W h+r 0: rfv AIYI t2 03 V9r11110 03 17 a Supp 191M„ d a wedo" M SO"P.PtAd WOT 1 een pee Yesbflrc" Yu. s. p4s tM I-a. +.•MMe of IA OW M f8i h Iev.uJ r,aA deM do/hrl.on n eMnie k- d CI/ M'V. CM I eeNndap InN•a1 9.1 WeiA n9• nd .4 nhmd IIPM.ross 1 One of IaUdLy pplIrnls, r.A. of Peps) ...441. •P^d'~ it r 741 n rtl d11MIp• e J If eeIV1111e,a t pn u 793. Ned C mtd Pogo, i. yYm1. d alfio k': of prMeMn. "I 4M n. u'.Iwl Imp ep twrml soi r-_ 'Me, Mboll II 110 fIIX11 17.30'tlrl ! T14'ITI 111.141u1 1 1+410!Ip lll.le9m 11.0urf.I u - 9 . i y' k. . t E r y S, 7x71 x' 32X10 e , 1998 TML RESOLUTION COVER SHEET y Sponsoring Entity: City of Denton Brief Background: The State of Taxes Local Government Code 1396.001 provides enebling authority to cities to implement Impact fees. Currently, the services for which cities can charge impact fees are roads, water, sewer, storm sewer and flood control facilities. School districts, however, are not authorized to charge impact fees. Pc, ulation growth that impacts other services also Impacts school districts in terms of the need for more schools, teachers and accessory services for implementing a successful program for the growth and wellbeing of our children. The impact of growth in the City on school finances is reel and at times severe In fast growing communities. States such as California, Maryland, New Hampshire, Vermont, Washington end Wait Virginia authorize school impact fees, Also, communities In Florida exact impact fees, while Tennessee has been givun specific authorization to aelected communities for school impact fees or facility taxes. What the Resolution is Intended to Accomplish: Authorization of impact fees for school facilities will provide much needed revenue for building and sustaining a world class school system that provides our children the tools they must have to compete in the global economy In the new millenlum. This resolution Is intended to offer support to school associations seeking to amend 1395 to allow s• pool Impact fees. Statewide Importance: High growth districts are located th.oughout Texas, Impact fees would greatly alld to their ability to finance the construction of new schools. This legislation would enable et'mmunities to shift some of th, burden of financing these casts away from existing taxpaye a to those • new residents causing the demand for new sohools. Submitted by: Name. Michael W. Jez Title: City Manager • City: City of Denton O • Telephone: 19401349-8307 PLEASE DO NOT WRITE ON THE BACK OF THIS FORM 10 . Mi• 10 32 10 •k" e u L soup" CM.LCLVMI:'IGIULDp1l10 LAM Eiarri'/saMb,,.M.4,vr YLSI Y►alr OMi, , f RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON REQUESTING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGI?E TO SUPPORT LEGISLATION TO EXPAND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE §395.001 TO INCLUDE AUTHORITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF IMPACT FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Texas Municipal League holds an annual conference to discuss matters of importance to local governing bodies around the State; and WHEREAS, the Annual Conference is scheduled for October 28-31, 1998 in San Antonio; and WHEREAS, TEX. LOC. GOVT CODE §395.001 authorizes municipalities to charge impact fees for such services as roads, water, sewer, storm sewer and flood control facilities to assist in the rapid growth demand for serviccs; and WHEREA,i, states such as California, Maryland, Washington, Vermont, New Hampshire, and West Virginia authorize school impact fees; and WHEREAS, authorization of school impact fees in high growth communities across the state will provide needed revenue to build and sustain school systems that provide our children the education they will need to compete in global economy; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION That the City Council requests the Texas Municipal League support legislation which would amend TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE §393.001 to expand the authority for implementation of school impact fees in high growth communities, SECTION Ili That the City Manager Is authorized to forward a copy of this resolution to Mr. Frank Sturzl, Executive Director of the Texas Municipal League, • SECTION III. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage j i and approval, , PASSED AND APPROVED this the, _,day of .1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR i .F t1 A 1vfM~.t} 25 32 X aF ' ~ 1^ f ` 111 1 1 1. i ti t ATTEST: )EN,, !FER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 'r BY: git l 4 r'4 1 11 • 7, S 1 t ' z 5`asi ...1 } r ' 1~ v kfl # 32x❑ 2 5 • O l 4aenda No 7_0 -09 10~rda Item AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: September 1. 1998 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CNII Mike Jez, City Manager Designate BE'T Consideration of Standard Hours Area Petition: A. Consider adoption of an ordinaner establishing a standard hours area, reducing the hours fir Tale of mixed drinks, beer and wine, oorruant to Sections 105.03, 105.04, and 105.Oo of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; slid establishing an effective date, Or B. Consider adoption of an ordinanrc ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas on November 3. 1996 for the purpose of considering a standard hours area ordinance that would reduce the hours of sale of mixed drinks, beer and wine, pursuant to Sections 105,03, 105.04, and 105,06 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; and making provisions for the conduct thereof. RAC'KCROU" On May S, 1998, Mickey George, as a member of a Committee of Petitioners, submitted to the City Secretary, an initiative petition entitled "Standard flouts Area Petition". That petition was examined by the City Secretary who determined that it did not fully, comply with the City Charter and Chapter { 277 of the Texas Election Code, the Committee then submitted an amended petition to the City Secretary on June 12, 1998. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, determined that the amended petition nut the requirements as stated in the Denton City C'hartcr and certified the petition on July 21, 1995, e 1 he City Charter indicated that the initiative petition had to be read at a City Council meeting and a public hearing held, That reading of the petition and holding of the public hearing was done at the AL16ASI 13'h City Council meeting. Final action on the initiative petition must be taken within 60 days of certification by the City Secretary which is Septembcr 21°t the Council must decide whether to adopt the proposed initiative ordinance (Ordinance A) or call an election for November 3'a to have Denton voters decide the issue (Ordinance B). r Scvcral options Pre avai,.:hle for Council consideration should an election be called. tD • t I tpr Option 1 Joint F'lection with Denton County i As November 3'u is the general election day, the City could contract wilh Denton County to hold the I election, Ihis option would afford voters "onc-stop" voting oa election day and would be the easiest type of voting for the voter. The initiative pmposal would be i,,cluded on the County ballot. Ballots - I~ 32x10 e City Council Agenda Information Sheet Page 2 f would be prepared by County precinct so only those precincts within the city limits of Denton would have the initiative proposal. A separate ballot would be prepared for precincts that have portions outside the city limits and would not include the initiative proposal. Denton County would also ' conduct early voting (probably at a location in the Golden Triangle Mall), As the initiative proposal would be on the same ballot with the County, tabulation of the ballots would be done by county precinct and would be completed as soon as all city precinct returns were received by the County, Option 2 - Single Polling Location at City Hall on Election Day Th,- option would be less convenient for voters but would provide one central location on election day for voting on the initiative petition. Unlike Option 1 where the County would be responsible for holding the election, the City wnuld oe responsible with Option 2 for both early voting and election day voting. Both early voting and election day voting would be at the same location - City Hall, With the County holding an electica on the same day, the availability of election officials would be reduced as many of the same people are used as officials by the County and the City. It probably would not be too difficult to staff one polling location. It is not known at this time the order of tabulation of the ballots - whether the citv's returns would be done first as the volume would be much less than for the entire county or if tiro City returns would be done after completion of the County tabulation Option 3 - Regular four Polling Locations on Election Day This option would provide a polling location in each of the City's four council districts. Those locations are the Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center (District 1), Fire Station 04 Sherman Drive (Distr.ct 2), North Lakes Recreation Center (Di„.rict 3) and Denia Recreation Center (District 4). V.rters would be required to vote at the polling location corresponding with their residonce. This option might cause voter frustration in the case of a voter al the wrong location who would be required to travel to the correct voting location and who already has Lcen to the County location to vote. Early voting N+ould still be held at City hall with this option Staffing of election officials at four polling locations migl.t be difficult as many workers would already be working for the County. As with Option 2, the order of tabulation of the ballots is unknown at th+a point in time EISC,1l, f~FOR11AT1O\ A the cost of holding the initiative election varies for each option. Jeff Watson, Denton County Elections Administrator, indicates that the cost to the City for Option I is not known at this time as he has not yet determined how many ballots will b: needed and the quantities of other supptirs. The city would to charged the cost of the election (ballots, ~upplics, judges, etc.) for one-half of the Denton City prceincts. A "best guess" estimate would be in the range of $5,000-$7,000. Option 2 i%ould cost shit ay more than Option i with a "best guess" estimate bchvccn 57,000-$9,000. Option 3 would be the most costly due to the stnf:ing of A ur polling locations. A "best guess" estimate would be similar O to the rosl c f the May City Council election - -pproximalcly 59,400.00. Cry Respeafully submit e J mire alters ity Sccre'zry 2 kit sa, ~15 x Ire 32XI 0 sun" 0 ,N:. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE. OF THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, THROUGH OUR RIGHT OF INITIATIVE PETITION AS GRANTED BY THE CITY CHARTER, TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD HOURS AREA, REDUCING THE HOURS FOR SALE OF MIXED DRINKS, BEER AND WINE, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 105,03, 105.04, 105.05, AND 105.06 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAIN: I SECTIQN I. Pursuant to Sections 105.03, 105,04, 105.05, and 105.06 of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, the electors do hereby establish a standard hours area for the sale of mixed beverages, beer and wine on premises within the incorporated limits of the City of Denton. Said hours to be between 7:00 a.m. and midnight on any day, except Sunday. On Sundays sales are permitted from midnight to 1:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a.m. and midnight, except that an alcoholic beverage send to a customer between 10,00 a.m. and 12 noon on Sunday must be provides duLing the service of food. SECTION Il, Tnat all ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 11L That this ordinance shall become effective immediate;y upon approval by the City Council rar when submitted to and approved by a majority of the electors as outlined in the City Charter. i PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of _ 1998. JACK MILLER, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY B5. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L, PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY BY: [ I~YfCbpl~Lih, Q~YTT\f.~mMt1!'R'ptllM wmll,M~~t 10 32/\IO r ' p • raw.rvo 'CA WLVOII%ILI •OpN0u4'Lr.wafQiuwrrAn~~ W, ORDINANCE P ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, CALLING AN ELECTION TO BE HELD WITHIN THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998, TO SUBMIT TO AN INITIATIVE VOTE A STANDARD HOURS AREA ORDINANCE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE POURS OF SALE OF MIXED DRINKS, BEER AND WINE, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 105.03, 105.04, AND 105.06 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE; MAILING PROVISIONS FOR THE CONDUCT THEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Secretary of the City of Denton certified Paat an i initiative petition entitled "Standard Hours Area Petition" met the requirements of the Denton City Charter and Chapter 277 of the Texas Election Code; and WHEREAS, on Augast 18, 1998, the Denton City Council read the initiative ordinance in its entirety into the record of the minutes of that meeting and held a public hearing to receive citizen input regarding the proposed initiative ordinance, in accordance with Section 4.07 of the Denton City Charter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it would be in the best interest of the City of Denton to submit the proposed initiative to a vote of the electors; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the statements made in the foregoing preamble being true and correct, and being adopted hereby as findings of fact, a special election (the "election) is hereby ordered to be held in and throughout the City of Denton, Texas on Tuesday, November 3, 1998, such date being a uniform election date as defined in Tex. Elec. Code §41,001, as ame-led (the "Code'. At the election, the following proposition (the "proposition"), in accordai,.e with Section 4.09 of the Denton City Charter shall be submitted to an initiative vote of the qualified voters of the City: PROPOSITION "The adoption of a standard hours area, establishing a standard hours area for the sale of mixed beverages, beer and wine oa premises within the incorporated limits of the City of Denton. Said hours to be f :tween 7:00 a.m. and midnight on any day, except Sunday, On Sundays, sales ii, e permitted from midnight to 1:00 a.m. and between 10:00 a,m. and midnight, except that an alcoholic beverage served to a customer between 10:00 a.m. and 12 noon on Sunday must be provided during j 0 the service of food." i 0 • election SECTION It. All resident, qualified voters of the city shall be eligible to vote at the . ~ • 32X~~ ~ s. 0 Ill I .~MLOL'MLI~(W[4WNAt0~M1,rr,0.~~,e.1~r ►,nr AV,4 SECTION j]j. The proposition shall be set forth substantial:y in the foll wing form, so as to permit the voters at the election to vote "FOR THE ORDINANCE" or "AGAINST THE ORDINANCE", to wit: I THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A STANDARD HOURS AREA, REDUCRJG THE HOURS FOR SALE OF MIXED DRINKS, BEER AND WINE, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 105.03, 105.04, AND 105.06 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE. I [ J FOR THE ORDINANCE [ ] AGAINST THE ORDINANCE SECTION IV. That the City Council of the City of Denton shall determine the provisions for the conduct of the election in accordance with the City Charter and the laws of the State of Texas for holding elections. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED this the - day of 01998, JACK MILLER, MAYOR i ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: t APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: HERBERT L. PROUTY. CITY ATTORNEY gyp, f Page 2 4., r ❑ 32x r Y i • r i annum ( laaaaaaw 4 y t i CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Finance Department • 218 E. McKinney • Denton, Texas 18201 Telephone (980) 310.8288 • DFW Metro (912) 838.2829 • FAX (910) 310.1189 , NIEbIORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council FROM, Jon Fortune, Director of Management and Budget l DATE: August 27, 1998 SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO BUDGET iSSUES Plcase find attached the latest response to Council's questions regarding Affordable Housing Grants. Also attached is a revised recommendation for hotel occupancy tax allocations at 4% grotsth to recipients. These items will be discussed at the Septl:mber I ° Council Meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thank you ( JFllth cc: Ted Bcnm ides, City Manager Mike Jet. City Manager Designate Kathy LuBose. Assistant City Manager of Finance llotsard Martin, Assistant City Manager of Utilities Hcrb Prouly. City Attorney , '0 t i ~I I1: (inrk,l f,~%,J der $r„ I t Y 245 x 10 . , „ 32 x 1 O rmearw ` . O 'i SS ~cua►aa i I t i i TABLE OF CONTENTS AUGUST 11, 1998 1) Consumer Health Inspections 2) Building Inspection Fund 3) Drainage , AUGUST 18, 1998 4) Consumer Health Fees AUGUST 25, 1998 S) Consumer Health-Grocery Store Inspection Fees ` 6) Capital Improvement Program f 7) Hotel Occupancy Tax Allocation Recommendation I ' SEPTEMBER 1, 1999 8) Affordable Housing Grants 9) Hotel Occupancy Tax Allocation Recommendation- 4% e vi i ? Y A jS L LR 1 32X 0 id A 1 J i, 1 1 come" i CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS Finance Department ' 215 E, McKlrn:ep • Denton, Texas 78201 Telephone (9414; ,;4• •8288 • DFIN Metro (972) 434.2529 ' FAX (940) 349.7769 MEMORANDUM TO, Honorable Masor and Members of C!1yCounc'1 FROM: lathy DuBose. Assistant City Manager of Finance DATE'. August 21, 1998 SUBJECT: BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING GRANTS At the August 25. 1998 Council meeting, City Council directed staff to establish funds in the 1998.99 budget for grants to non-profit affordable housing organizations. The grant funds are to be available in amounts equal to the impact fees paid It is estimated that up to $100.000 could be required for this type of grant funding. ( As me previously discussed. Municipal Court receipts are much higher than originally projected. ' and an adjuslmenl has already been made to increase the 1998.99 estimate. Hossever• the current year estimate has not been adjusted. After evaluation it appears that current )ear Municipal Court revenues i% ill be approximatel) $60.000 more than estimated. Increasing the current year estimate vs ill provide approcimately $60.000 in one-time funds that can be allocated in the 1998-99 budget for non-profit affordable housing grants, The remaining S40.000 can be allocated from the 1998- 99 contingency as necessary. The adjustments above will allow $100.000to be available in 1998.914 for grants to non-profit affordable Lousing organizations in amounts equal to the impact fee paid by the organization. l hei,c this information is helpful, please contact me if you hase any questions. Thank you. , r f~ 1 lY I D y iY i r 1 j L. C 0 1 )7ean7! i jr f f ' j r CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS F'lnance Department • 218 E, rMeKlaney • Denton, Texas 70201 Telephone (940) 349.0280 ' DFW Metro (012) 434.2120 ' FAX (940) 340.7189 SIEStOILMUN1 TO: Honorable hla)or and Members of C itx Council FROM: Kathy Dubose. Assistant Cit) Slanager of Finance Y DATE: August 28. 1998 ' SUBJECT: 1998-99 Hotel Occupancy Tax Allocation Recomm:ndation The Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT, Committee's allocation recomincndation ssas presented at the August 25°i worksersion. This recommendation Included two scenarios for allocating annual growth: one at 3% and one at 51,16. A suggestion was made that a 4;'o scenario be prepared for fmthcr discussion 31 the September I"Council meeting. l The d°o annual Fruwth allocation scenario is attached for )ocr re%iew. Please contact m. if )ou hale any questions. Thank you. KDJIth Attachment: 4 .r ''J"i n, r, wJ ~Y f f` f r 0.4.ji,J to I,, i'liyzzeri i. ~ AIL 0 o ~xe:re Recommended Hotel Recipient Allocation - Scenario C (4% Annual Allocation Growth) FY 97.98 FY 98.99 FY 98.99 Corry FY 98.99 FY 99 - 00 FY 00.01 Prcl lanllA llcant Contract Request 1 Proposed Forward Budget Pro tad Pro tad Convention 8 Visitor's Bureau 255,974 305,406 ?P8,458 9,880 278,338 279,198 29 ,364 Greater Donlon Arts Council (2) 101,700 107,000 106,765 3,613 110,298 119,056 115,498 North Texas Stale Fair 74,580 100,000 78,309 3,293 81,602 81,441 84,699 Civic Center Operations 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Council Discretionary 15,638 32,984 32,984 346,707 419,579 Denton Festival Foundation 40,000 50,000 50,000 60,000 Black Chamber of Comm. 6,000 7,500 7,000 ! 000 Hispanic Chamber of Comm. 3,200 11,400 5,000 5,000 Denton Holiday Festival Assoc. 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 Scholars Phalr 10,000 14,750 10,000 10,000 Tejas Storytelling Assoc 25,000 25,000 26,000 26,000 Courthouse on the Square 69,064 69,064 69,064 Denton County Hist. (Kiln) 35,000 35,000 35,000 ) Denton Cly Hisl (Carriage House) 311,600 ' Denton Air Fair 6,400 8,400 8,400 Main Street Assoc. 13,357 Denton Comm, Theatre (2) 10.00,0 10,000 10.000 Civic Center Renovations 6) W") External Audit 30,00 30 000 30,000 SubTotal 609 692 982,31 81 ,000 18 666 830 688 695 400 981910 • Organitaliont Not Requesting FY 98.99 Funding Donlon Cly Amph4he3tre 3,000 HS1. Society or Denton Cty 6,000 Donlon CI Hist. Museum 60 308 Total 678 0 982 37 81 ,ODO ,868 630 686 895400 $9-07.-9401 ~ 11 (1) Source Hotel Tax Recolenl Applications ' 17) 5tipulaWn In GDAC 91-96 con rad was to provide $5,000 b Donlon Comm. Theatre, 1949 request includes $0,000 fa tarants (not speGAed for to Theatre) Selby House Moving Reimbursement ($72,700) o be paid In FY98.29. Pickneyvitle Project (!4,000) to be paid In FY97 08. i ati ~ 1rr ~c 2., C 32 U . f lo I" 0 ~ c l r A . tl\MMri y , 6 i C i ' l1 , Agenda No Agenda Ityq~ t)ate ~ ~ ~ N CfTY OF DENTON, TEXAS ' i , MEMORANDUM i DATE: August 28, 1998 w' TO: Mayor and Members of thr City Council FROM; Jennifer Walters, City Secretary SUBJECT: BoanUCommission Appointments A The P)liowing is a list ofcurrcnt Board/Commission vacancics/nominations: John fiordinger on the Electrical Code Board has served three consecutive terms. This is a nomination for Council Member Cochran. Millard 11cath has terved three consnvtive terns on the Plumbing and Mechanical Code Board. this is a nominatior. for Council Member Bcaslcy, If you require any rurihcr inromration, please let me know, ~ , r wo ()CY Secretary ,~i yet lk i i ' I r 4, o a S "IJuli~ufcrl !o aliry $criln" ` '~.'r f ' z Apr + .r I',r t y , r 32X