HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-1999
I
c,
III
i
I
I
February 9 ,1999
Agenda Packet
1
i
y
Ayends No...
AGENDA Apollo hem
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL DIM.-=---
February 9, 1999
Alter determining that a quorum is present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council
will convene In a closed meeting of the City of Denton City Col:ncil on Tuesday, February 9,
1999 at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton,
Texas at which the following items will be considered,
I. Closed M--'tnx
A. Delioerations regarding Personnel Matters - Under Tex. Gov't, Code Sec. j
$51.074 (a) (1)
1, Consider and discuss the duties and conditions of employment regarding
the Director of Denton Municipal Electric, an employee of the City of
Denton, Texas.
B. Conference with Employees - Under TEX, GOV'T. CODE Sec. $51.075. 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. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES
THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS
AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOVT. CODE SEC. 551 M!, ET SEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR 'l0 RECONVENE IN A
CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS
NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT,
INCLUDING. WITHOUT LIMITATION SECTIONS 531.071.551,085 OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT.
Special Called Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 9, 1999 at 6:00
p,m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hat, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will be considered:
1. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance annexing a 114.76 acre tract
located on the north aide of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair Elementary
School and establishing a Planned Development (PD•169) zoning district classification
and use designation through approval of a detailed plan; and provid'ng an effective date,
(First Reading, A•078)
Following the completion of the Special Called Meeting, tl:e Council will convene into a Work A
Session to consider the following: <
NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council
Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction Into whether or not such
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen Input,
City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a Work Session, the City Council generally
J
c,
cCity of Denton City Council Agenda
February 9, 1999 4
Page 2
receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials, members of
City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if invited by City
Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and members
of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to
public Input. Although Worit Sessions are public meerings, and chizcr. '~ave a Itgal right to
attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to participate in the session
unless invited to do to by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City Council, prior to the
beginn.'-g of the session, a wntte,i report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being
explored. Should the Council 6reA the matter be placed on a regular meeting agenda, the staff
will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made available
to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input it sought. The purpose of this
procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting the epportunity to hear the views of
their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1, Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a final report from
Diversified Utility Consultants regarding Lone Star Gas Company's regc-si to increase
rates In the City of Denton service area.
2. Receive a preliminary assessment, hold a discussion, and consider approval of a schedule
of publ+'c hearings with regard to the proposed annexation of a 32.49 sere tract locate[ on
the south side of Ryan Road, approximately one hundred and fifty (I50) feet east of
Forest Ridge Drive In the City of Denton's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ET1). (d-79,
Thlsrle llill)
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a proposed Denton
Fire Department Five-Year Strategic Plan.
4. Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended /
September 30, 1998.
5. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the economic development program.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hatt of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 1999 at o'clock
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE; THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED !
MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 3498309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1.800-
RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
r
c~
i
Details regarding these exhibits are referenced in the City Attorney's Status Repoli.
{
I ~
i
i
c
u
III
' I
i
I
EXHIBIT 1
1
r
DUCI DI1f1 RSIh`IEl) UTILATY
CONSUI.TAN'17S, INC.
f"DII MtOI,\I. I'k CP:K UL\'ll, KVITR the PN IUTII. ,U'N9'I T% 7"T5T
71.1.1.1111uv k x:11 in tl i uvw
February 4, 1999
Honorable Mayor and
Alembers of the City Council
City of Denton, Texas
RE: Final Report Addressing Summary of Findings mad Conclusions Regarding the
Lone Star Gs s Company's Statement of Intent to Increase Rates
Dear Mayor and Council Membum
This report contains the results of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc.'s ("DUCI") review,
analyses and investigations regarding the proposed increase in retail gas rates filed by Lone Star Gas
Company ("LSGC" or "Company"), Presented in this report are discussions of DUCI's analyses and
proposed adjustments to the Company's requested rate increase for the City of Denton ("City"). It
must be noted that any issues not specifically addressed in this report does not imply DUCI's
concurrence with LSGC's proposal
On October 13, 1998, the Company filed a rate request for an annual increase in revenues
of X476,093 or in overall 6,24% Increase applicable to only the City of Demon's Residential and j
Commercial customers.' The iroposed rate increase for the Company's Denton service area is based I
on a test year for the 12 month: ended December 31, 1997. LSGC has also requested an 11% Return
on Stocklholdcrs' Equity.
Presented herein are what %c he teve to be appropriate and necessary adjustments to the
Company's proposed cost of senice based on the information provided in the limited time allowed
ror a *evicw. The recommended adjustments set forth in this report results in a reduction ofS4S,WI
in LSGC's revenue requirements from adjusted present rate revenues. The Council has a couple of
options to address the Company's overearnings. A reduction to base rates could be ordered. The
Council could deny the Company's increase in other service revenues, or a combination of these two
adjustments.
The final report includes mere information regarding the merger between Texas Utilities and
ENSERCI I. DUCI is recommending An additional reduction in laborcosts to account for employeer
that terminated employment with th, Company during the test year. The infomration fegardin!
terminated employees vas received After DUCI issued its draft report on January 21, 1999, The last
't'he increase is not rot Industrial customers or the City of Corinth, which a part of
Corinth is combined Hith the City of Denton in the Denton Distribu?ion System.
2
C'
4
section Is DUCI's recommendation regarding the Company's request for current rate case expense
recovery. In DUCI's opinion, the Company shouid not have initialized this rate proceeding;
therefore, ratepayers should not be h:ld responsible for these costs,
In addition, the Company is requesting the continued implementation of its Weather
Normalization Adjustment Clause ("WNA"). The WNA clause has been In effect since June 4,
1996, Further, LSGC Includes the following additional automatic adjustment clauses: a Plant
Investment Cost Adjustment Clause ("PICA"), and a Cost of Service Adjustmew Clause ("COSA"
The PICA clause would allow the Company to adjust the return and tax components of base rates
for annual changes In rat plant. The COSA would allow the Company to make changes related to
annual chatlges in expenses. DUCT does not ob,'ect to tha WNA clause as the City has recently
approved it. However, DUCI is proposing three adjustmentm to the clause. DUCT Is recommending
disallowing the COSA and PICA automatic adjustment clauses proposed by the Company. The
Company also is requesting a change in various other customer service charges. DUCI does not
oppose the customer service charge increases.
DUCI's analysis of LSGC's revenue requirement can be broken down into four parts:
revenues, expenses, investment, and retum, DUCI's analysis began with the Company's year old test
year of December 31, 1997 and adjusted the data for known changes. Data relied on for this analysis
consists of responses to interrrgatories, LSGC's report to the Railroad Commission of Texas
("RC'r"), filings at the Security and Exchange Commission, Annual Reports to the Shareholders,
along with data from past LSGCs proceedings. In response to the Company's overall filing, DUCI's
recommendations are the following:
PROPOSED COST OF SERVICE
CITY OF DENTON
I I
Company OUCI City's Revenue
Description Request Proposed Diro"Ce Requirenxnl
Ow Purchosea $5,105,486 $5,196,42 S's0,94) S$,0)0,630
0&MEcpenscs $1,448,961 $1,134,634 ~S3N,)SI> $1,100,722
Taw other than ri r $569,173 5337,900 ~511,275~ S!/0,889
Depreciation 140,220 11311,373 493,641> $304,086
Intercsron CustomerDepasitsAAdvances $17,349 $171549 0 $1711011
rIT $21g691 519007 -S19,830 $169,009
Return 5111,013 $340,125 446,816, $334,896
RmnueDenclenc Excess $430639 1147558 d3712171 < 4l06b
i
A discussion of eacl, of the issues raised and changes recommenced by DUCI is presented r,
A
in the holancn of this report and the overall impact is set forth on Schedule 1,
3
c
c.
DUCI has met with the Company to share the preliminary Report findings and conclusions ti
with LSGC staff Further, DUCI has reviewed the Company's response and/or comments regarding
issues raised in this case. After thorough review of the Company's filing, responses to
interrogatories, and the Company's comrnents on issues raised, DUCT has concluded that a rate
increase k notjustiU.
We invite the Mayor and City Council Members to review In detail the various sections of
this report and the various recommendations and adjustments made to the Companys cost of service.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this service to the City, and we are prepared to answer any
questions that may arise from your review of this report. If the Mayor Adler City Council
Members desires any additional analyses or assistance, we will be available to usist you, your staff
or your legal counsel to the extent required,
PV ERS16F 11D UTILITY CONS k
i
w
a, G
f
I
6
.
a
ca
6
TABLE OF.CONfENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
Analysis Process ........................................................1
Overview of Specific Issues .............2
The Texas Ulilities/ENSERCII Merger 6
SECTION 1- EXPENSES AND PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS 9
O&M Expenses Overview ...............................9
Allocation from I.SGC to Denton Distribution System 9
Labor and Supplies Growth Adjustment 10
Labor Reduction ........................................................10
Normalize! Expense ....................................................11
Depreciation Adjustment .................................................12
Federal Income Taxes ("FIT") .............................................13
Taxes Other Than FIT ...................................................14
Expense Summary ........................................15
SECTION It - RATE BASE ADJUSTMENTS 16
Rate Base Overview , ...........................................t6
Allocation Changes from LSGC . .............................16
Construction Work in Progress ("CW1P") 17
Cash Working Capital ...................................................IS
Rate Base Summary .....................................................19
Rctum ................................................................19
SECTION Ill - REVENUES/COST OF GAS 20
SEC"f10N IV - COST OF CAPimxAPPPAL STRUCTURE 21 "
SECTION V - ADJUSTMENT CLAUSES 23
Adjustment Clauses O-erview 23
Weather Normalization Adjustment Clause 23
Cost of Scrvice Adjustment Clause 24
Plant Investment Cost Adjustment Clause 25
SECTION VI - RATE CASE EXPENSES 27
I
5
t'
I
t
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Analysis Process j
in the process of analyzing the Company's earning position, several factors are taken into II
account. The ultimate goal is to determine whether the normalized overall rate of return earned by
the Company is above a "just and reasonable" level. The process starts with examining a test year
period of data. The test year consists of a twelve month period of operations which is used as a
proxy for the future period wh4n rates will be in effect. So long as revenues, expenses, and plant
investment are representative of the Company's operations • rates based on a test period will allow
the Company to recover its costs and provide an opportunity for a reasonable return or investment.
In this case, the Company filed its rate request based on a test year ending December 31,
1997. Such a test period Is reasonable so long as no major changes are expected to impact the
relative balance of revenues, expenses, and investment' While it is obvious the level of future
revenues, expenses, and investment will not remain the same, so long as the relative test year balance
of revenues, e4ensci, and investment is maintained, the rate based on the test year period will
continue to recover costs and provide an opportunity to cam a reasonable ratum.
The multi-step process first analyzes the various components of the following formula in
order to determine which side of the equation is greater and by what magnitude,
Base Rate Revenuer - O&M expense' + Taxes + Depreciation + Rcmm
Then the results of the above equation are compared to the results of a separate analysis
I
'As will be discussed in Sectson I of this report, the test period selected by the Company
ignores the impact of expense reductions expected from the Texas t ItilitieVENSERCH merger
complc'ed in August 1997.
'Total revenues less cost of gas revenues A,
'Total operating and maintenance expense;s less rhnncilable fuel expense.
i
6
5
1
t~
i
whlch attempts to determine an appropriate rate of return from the following formula:
Return - (Weighted Cost of Capital) X (Adjusted Rate Base)
In other words, there are four main areas in a rate case that require investigation (other than
rate design and cost allocution). The four areas are: (1) the level of base rate revenues; (2) 6c Icve'
of base rate expenses; (3) the overall level of i,,, .tment associated with the City of Denton
jurisdictional retail service; and (4) the appropriate cost and weighting of capital (ie, long-term debt,
preferred and common stock).
This report enumerates the various adjustments DUCI is recommending to the cost of service
analysis and rate request filed by LSGC with the City on October 13, 1998. As previously noted,
a very short time period was set for the review of the Company's cost of service analysis, and the
Company did not provide timely and/or complete responses to many data requests. Therefore, while
there are sizeable and numerous adjustmetts recommended herein, it should be noted that additional
adjustments may be warranted, If LSGC appeals any action by the City to the RCT, a more
extensive review of the Company's books and records should be undertaken JJ
Overview of Specific Issues
On December 16, 1998, the City of Denton retained DUCI to perform an analysis of LSGCs
requested rate increase. Due to the time constraint, DUCI performed a review concentrating on the
main components of the Company's request. DUCI is proposing several adjustments to the
` Company's request, Each of the Issues identified by DUCI are explained in the following sections
of the report and the "stand-alone" impact of each proposed adjustment. Numerous adjustments
interact with one another so that the combined impact of individual "stand-alone" adjustmo its are
not simply the summation of each adjustment, The combined impact of all the recommendations
herein results in an annual decrease of 545,061 to LSGC's adjusted present rate revenues.
The Company Is requesting an anni,d rate increase ror the City of Denton in the amount of
54'5,095. This represents a substantial increase in base rate costs, w iere base rates represent all
Y
~J
7 ~ tt
costs excluding the cost of gas. The fact that the Company's last general service increase in the City
of Denton occurred in January1982 does not in of itself mean an increase is justi fred. Whilo the cost
of consumer goods have increased over the past 17 years, the system has experienced decreases in
capital costs and taxes. This very fact was most recently recognized by the Railroad Commission
of Texas in Lone Star's gate rate case, Docket No. 8664, where the Commission ordered a rate
decrease of over $8 million annually. Such a decrease was ordered despite the fact that Lone Star's
previous gate rate case was in 1982.
The Company in its Gas Rate Request Summary puts forth three reasons causing the need
for the increase at this time:
I. Decrease in commercial class volumes;
ii. Increase in operating expenses (labor, supplies, and materials); and
iii. Increase in plant Investment (construction of new facilities).
DUCT has attempted to investigate these claims to determine whether the proposed Increase I
can be supported by these factors. First, the fact that commercial volumes arc declining does not
support such a large rate increase. Second, a roiew of the Company data shows that since 1994
rommercial class customers and votumer are Ircreasing, not decreasing.' Therefore, the Company's
claim that an increase isjustifred because commercial class volumes are declining Is not consistent
with die Company's own data.
The Company's second argument that operating expenses are increasing is not consistent with
the Company's actual experience. In response to DUCT RFl set No. I, Question 71, the Company ,
claims that operating expenses have been declining in the threeyeam since 1993. It would be a most
unusual event if op.-ration expenses were inner^Ing only in Denton while the remainder of the
Company's system expericnced decrepm. Again, the Company's claimed support for rate relief don
not conform to the Company's own operating exper'ance.
r
'LSG Response to I"RFI, Question 38.
i
r
The last claim made by the Company is that increases in plant investment have created the
need for the rate increase. A review of the Company's Annual Report to the Railroad Commission
of Texas for 1996 and 1997 shows about a 7% increase in net plant, but the Company's operating
repon for the twelve months ending June 30, shows net investment declining. While there may
be a slight increase in plant, this alone would not come close to supporting the Company's request.
Th, end result is that the Company's own operating data and other information conflicts with
the Company's stated reasons for this rate increase.
As previously noted in the cover letter to this report, DUCT has determined that LSGC is
overeaming by $45,061, DUCI however, does not object to the Company's proposed increases in
service Charges, Based on information provided by the Company in this proceeding and in LSGC's
last case before the RCV DUCT recommends that the City deny the Company's requested gas rate
increase. As shown in the balance of the report, LSGC has not provided support that demonstrates
it should be allowed an increase in the City of Denton. Given the August 1997 merger, it is
reasonable to assume the Company's a'located a. rl„ rate expenses and labor costs are decreasing, l
DUCE has adjusted expenses for merger relatni saving3 that the Company will experience during the
rate tear. These adjustments are discussed fully in Section 1,
The second issue that DUCI has with the Company's request is the use of its December 31,
1997 test year, First, it is over a year old and the data is not representative of the level LSGC
reasonably will incur during the rate year especially when the impact of the merger is considered.
The Gas Utility Regulator Act ("GURA") Section 101.003 (16) defines a test year as:
"-the most recent 12 months, beginning on the first day of a calendar or
fiscal year quarter, fer which operating data for a gas utility are available,"
(Emphasis Added)
The Company filed this rate incre+ is with the City on Gcto4ef 23, 1998. The Company
r
'Lone Star Gas Company Docket No. 8664.
v
9 `
t,
I
I
i
I
I
I
could have presented a test year of June 30, 1998. Using a later date may have captured a greater
amount of merger related savings. Another problem with the Company s test year is that it is in
abnormal year. During the last half of 1996 and all of 1997, the Company was involved In merger
related activities. In 1996 the Company incurred $6.8 million in merger costs and over $25 million
during 1997, the test year.' Ratty that may be in effect for a number of years in the City should not
be based on an abnormal test year or a period where unique and nonrecurring events occurred.
The next issue DUCT addressed is LSGC allocation from the Compa,iy to the Denton
Distribution System. The Company claims that it allocates costs from LSGC to the Denton
Distribution System based on customer allocation only.' This is not a reasonable basis as it puts the
same weight on large volume customers as it does on averag, to small volume customers.
Therefore, DUCI is recommending an allocation factor of 1,2972% that provides an average
weighting between customers and volumes. The Company's allocation factor is 1.3328%. This
change impacts both expenses and rate base components.
The next issue relates to allocating costs from the Denton Distribution System to the City of
Denton. According to LSGC, it does not have a revenue requirement for the City of Denton on a
stand alone basis. The Company stated it needs an increase In rates of 5476,095 for the City of
Denton.' To be able to provide the City with a recommendation regarding the proposed rate 1
increase, DUCI had to allocate costs between Denton and Corinth to develop its recommended
revenue requirement for the City of Denton. Consistent with its allocation ratio used to allocate
costs from LSGC to Denton Distribution System, DUCI used an average weighting of customers and
volumes to determine an allocation ratio of 97.597% for the City of Denton. Therefore, unless the
Company specifically provided Denton actual costs, DUCI utilized an allocation ratio of 97,597%.
'ENSERCI-I's December 31, 1997 IOK Report Company's response to the V RK
Question 9.
'Company's response to the I' FLFI, Question 37.
'The Company did state that this amount was determined by using the City's customer ! t'
count and volume.
i
10 y
f I
a
t!
The Company's requested increase of $476,1)95 or 6.24% is broken down as follows:10
REVENUES AMOUNT %INCREASE
Resldentl al S476,323 10.496
Commercial 433,895> <t2%>
(In Sale $440,428 !.1136
S.r 1ce Chartlea 133.651 33J96
Total Revenue Sl24A9S 6144%
As noted, the overall increase is 6.24%; however, the Company is actually requesting an
increase in residential revenue of 10.3% and a reduction in commercial revenues of 1.2%. DUCI
recommends that the City deny the Company's entire requested rate increase. LSGC. has not
provided adequate support for the increase and these costs are not representative of the rate year,
Each of the adjustments are discussed in detail in tha remainder of the report.
The Texas Utilttles/ENSERCII Allerger
On or about April 13, 1996 Texas Utilities ("TU") and ENSERCH (the parent company of
Lone Star Gas Distribution Company) announced a merger agreement. (See Form 8K Texas Utilities
Company August S, 1997) The TWENSERCH merger was completed on August S, 1997 (Id),
Parties to the merger claimed that there would be benefits to ratepayers and shareholders of the
merger. For example, in filings at the SEC, Texas Utilities acknowledged an expectation of 5850
million ormerger related savings. (See Gas Udlitics Dockct No. $664, Exceptions of Aligned Cities,
April 1997) Based on ENSERCH's financial advisors fairness opinion of the merger, ENSERCH's
shareholders received a 45aio premium. {
DUCI'nas attempted to evaluate merger savings impacts on customor costs. The Company
has stated than there is no tracking of merger savings. (See the Company's response to the 2n° RFI,
t
"Company's responsc to the 41 RFI, Question 1.
I
11
C~
l?
Question 44). ENSERCH's former president David W. Beiglerhas previously testified under oath
that the significant impact of merger savings will occur on the gas distribution side of the business.
(See Gas Utilities Docket No. 8664, Beigler recross examination, Tr. Vol. 3, p. 120) This rate case
in Denton is the distribution side of the business where the Company testified under oath merger
savings would be occurring. Further, other Lone Star testimony filed in locket No. 5664, indicated
merger savings would not be realized before 1998. (See rebuttal testimony of Joe D. Pace, p. 4)
Rates from this case will be In effect starting in 1999, almost two years after the merger.
Moreover, Company forecasts of merger savings for 1998 and 1999 are WA million and S77.1
million, respectively. (See Company responses to the 2nd RFI, Question 18)" The Company's
reliance on a 1997 test period without any attempt to adjust for the known and measurable merger
savings deprives ratepayers of lower costs and results in overeaming for the Company.
DUCI has made the following two adjustments to the Company's cost of service to reflect
merger savings. First, DUCI has reduced labor and benefits costs in the amount of 5109,076 to
reflect employees that accepted the Companys Enhanced Retirement Plan. According to a data
response," the Company stated 153 employees retired under thh plan. According to the Company's
criteria of accepting the retirement plan, these employees had over 15 years experience with the
Company." Therefore, DUCI has made an adjustment to reflect the reduction in labor cost the
Company will experience during the rate year. The impetus of the Enhanced Retirement Plan may
be a result of the merger or could be just part of the Company's ongoing restructuring efforts.
Whichever the case may be, they are reductions to the Company's cost of ser%ice and must be
recognized currently. The Company admits that these employee reductions have occurred, but have
made no attempt to account for the reduction in labor costs in its revenue requirement tequesl to the
City.
"This amours would need to be allocated to the Distribution Division.
"Company response to the 31 RFI, Question 47. r rr " A, c,
"Company response to the 3' RFI, Question 50.
I
l2
l
C
t.
I
The second adjustment in the amount of $101,995 was made to reflect a normalized expense
level for nine expense accounts. DUCI noted that the 1997 level for these accounts were
significantly higher than the prior two years. Therefore, DUCT reflected a three year average for
Giese accounts. The calculation of this adjustment is shown on Exhibit "V
I
I
f
r1
A,
t r,• t"
I
13
c
n_
SECTION I - EXPENSES AND.PROP.OSED ADJUSTMENTS
O&61 Expenses Overvfew
The Company has requested $1,448,985 in 0&M expenses for the Denton Distribution
System-Residential and Commercial. DUCT is recommending $1,134,635 which is a reduction of
5314,350 to the Company's request. DUCI's recommended O&M for the City Is $1,100,723.
The reduction is made up of four adjustments.
• Change in the allocation ratio from LSGC to the Denton Distribution System;
Reversing the Company's growth adjustment for labor and supplies;
• Reduction of labor benefits expense related to a decrease in employees
resulting from the merger; and
Reduction in expenses to normalize significant changes in various expense
accounts.
Each of these adjustments are discussed below.
Allocation from LSGC to Denton Distribution System
The Company allocates expenses from LSGC to the Denton Distribution System based on
a customer ratio." LSGC uses an allocation ratio of 1,3328° This is not a reasonable basis to
allocate costs to the Denton Diste bution System. A customer that uses a large amount of gas is
given the same weighting and allocated the same costs as ,t residential customer that uses a small
level of gas.
DUCT is proposing an allocation ratio based on equally weighting volumes and customers
in developing an allocation ratio rather than by customers only. This is a more reasonable allocation
methoe)iogy as it will level out the differences between customers based more closely on the use
i
i~
"Company's response to the V RFI, Question 37,
14
c
i
i
•I
of Company resources. Using both customers and volumes will provide a balance between the
different type of customers. This results in an allocation factor of 1,2972% compared to the
Company's 1,3328% allocator. Adjusting only the allocation ratio for 0&M expenses results in a
decrease of 537,746 to the Company's request, for the City's 0&M expenses.
Labor and Supplies Growth Adjustment
The Company has requested an increase to test yearlabor and supplies expense in the amount
of 521,675" related to customer growth at a year end level. The Company has proposed a phantom
adjustment based on an assumption that costs go up for each new customer. This is not true. Adding
new customers or losing customers may not change a Company's 0&M costs. C +sts should be
based on a t :st year level adjusted for known and reasonably measurable changes to reflect a level
that will be representative during the rate year. DUCT is recomntcriding disallowing this adjustment.
The revenue requirement Impact of this adjustment for the City Is $18,845.
Labor Reduction
DUCT is recommending a decrease in labor and benefits expense in the amount of $133,764
to remove payroll expense related to the reduction of employees due to the merger. This reduction
is comprised of two adjustments. First, a reduction of S109,076 is made to account for employees
who took early retirement. In response to a data request,' Is the Company stated 153 employees took
the Enhanced Retirement Plan in 1997. DUCI has used the reduction of employees in 1997 to
establish a level of labor costs that the Company will reasonably incur during the rate year when the
rates from this case will be in e%,~ct. Moreover, the Company admits these employee reductions
took place, but is requesting ratepayers pay salaries of non-existent employees.
The second adjustment In the amount of 546,688 relates to LSGC's employees that
terminated employment with the Company during the test year. In respo,ise to a data request, the
"Company's Schedule, page 3.1•T ):al Denton Distribution System.
"Company's response to 3rd RFI, Question 47.
13
tc
i
Company provided its employee termination report for the test year.' DUCT has removed labor
expense included in 1997 for these terminated employeei.
i
A major component of cost savings in a merger is labor and benefits expense reduction.
Labor reductions are inevitable with Company mergers. The reduction comes from early retirement
programs, attrition and eliminating positions. When companies merge, duplicate positions are
i
eliminated and othercompany expenses are reduced to incur merger related savings.
The Company's use of a December 1997 test year does not capture the actual level of
employees that the Company will have during the rate year. Most likely a more significant
adjustment should be made; however, the Company has not provided DUCT with the data to
calculate an additional adjustment. A more detailed explanation of the merger and merger savings
is included in the Executive Summary Section • The Texas Utilitic&ENSERCH Merger. Therefore,
DUCT Is recommending a total decrease of 5155,764 to the Company's request.
Normalized Expense
The Company's request is based on a test year ending December 31, 1997. According to the
Company, the last half of 1796 and all of 1997 was a unique year filled with merger related
activities. In the Company's annual report, it stated that in 1996 it incurred $6.8 million in merger
related expenses and over $25 million in merger related expenses in 1997. Even though the test year '
was a unique year with significant merger related expenses included in the test year and the
Company had not fully implemented all of its cost savings programs that will be in effect during 1
the rate year, the Company still chose to file its rate increase request with the City of Denton using
1991 as its test year. According to Tom Baker, President of the Distribution business unit, he stated
"..he secs 1998 as the transition year when many new or merged systems will be installed and people
will be moved and predicts that by 1999, we'll be pretty well together, with many systems working
i
"Company's response to the I" RFI, Question 6,
16
V
r
u
I
on a combined basis.""
The Company has not prodded DUCI sufficient information to be We to remove merger
related costs or reductions of expenses due to the merger in LSGCs request. The most efficient way
to handle this would be to reject the Company's request. LSGCs request is based on a test year that
is more than a year old, includes significant merger related costs and does not capture merger savings
that the Company will incur during the rate year. If the Company's request Is not rejected, costs that
I
have changed significantly in 1997 compared to 1995 and 1996 should be normalized. i
In analyzing the Company's expenses for 1995 through 1997, nine accounts appeared to
include abnormally high levels of costs durir; 1997. DUCI is recommending using a three year
average of these accounts to establish a levei of expenses that will be more representative of the rate
year. The Company should not be allowed to receive a windfall profit from the customers in the
City due to the Company's Inappropriate use of a December 1997 test year and not proposing any
adjustments to reflect merger savings that have and will occur in the rate year. DUCI is
recommending at the ve,y least these costs should be adjusted to reflect a three year average even 1
though other accounts should be reduced. Exhibit "A" shows the calculation for this adjustment.
This results In an adjustment of SI01,995 to the Company's Pity of Denton requr•',
Depreciation Adjustment '
The Company has requested 5405,220 In total depreciation expense." The Company's
request is calculated using the rare'. employed Equal Life Group ("ELG") calculation procedure.
The reliance on this rarely used and inappropriate method artificially accelerates the Company's
depreciation expense. Less than S% of the utilities in the United States even request this
s methodology.
"Spotlight •(AugttsJSeptember 19,7; pagou 6) • Newsletter published for active fund i
retired cmployeesofTcxarUtilities. "Denton Distribution System- Resident"al and Commercial.
a'
17
~ f
r
c
a
DUC[ had recalculated the Company's distribution depreciation expense utilizing the
standard Average Life Group ("ALG") methodology. This calculation is the method recommended
by most utilities and approved by most regulators in the United States. This method was adopted
by the RCT in the most recent major litigated p: jceeding.20
The second adjustment that DUC[ recommends is a change in the Company's requested net
salvage from a negative 300/c to a negative 20%. This adjustment is a result of correcting the
Company's error in calculating the in.pact of reimbursed retirements. The Company's methodology
artificially increases the Company's negative net salvage and artificially reduces the lire of plant.
Reimbursed retirements should be booked to gross salvage of the retired plant. This is the correct
methodology according to the Unifonn System orAccounts. It is also the method used by ISGC's
parent company, Texas Utilities and the method used by LSGC historically until 1996.
The combination of these two adjustments results in a decrease to the Company's
depreciation expense of $91,647. DUCI calculated its recommended depreciation expense by first
reducing the Company requested distribution depreciation expense by 5109,494. Next, the
Company's requested General Pint expense of 53,784,043 was multiplied by DUCI's adjusted
allocation ratio of 1.2972% to reflect general depreciation expense at the Denton Distribution System
level. The sum ordistribution and general depreciation expense of 5368,813 was multiplied by the
Company's requested p:rcentage of 84.48% to remove industrial customers. This results in a total '
Denton Distribution Residential and Commercial depreciation expense of $311,573. This amount
was multiplied by DUCI's recommended allocation for the City of Denton of 97.597% to calculate
the City's depreciation expense of 5304,086.
Federal Income Taxes ("FIIT
The Company has requested 5210,691 in its revenue requirement for FIT, As shown on
Schedule 1, DUCT is recommending atotal PIT expense or5190,857 which is a decrease of S19,834,
DUC] is recommending total FIT expenses orS189,009 for the City of Denton. This adjustment
''Southern Union Gas Company Docket No. 8878, November 1998.
18
C
is
i
relates exclusively to Was recommended adjustment to rate base and rate of return. DUCT is not
recommending any adjustments to the Company's calculation.
DUCI calculated LSGC's FIT expense using the return method and interest synchronization.
FIT expense was calculated by reducing the recommended return by the Company's synchronized
interest expense." Next, this amount was multiplied by the tax gross up factor's and finally
multiplied by the tax rate of 35% to calculate the total FIT expense.
Taxes Other.Tb sin FIT
The Company is requesting total Taxes Other Than FIT of S569,175. DUCI is
recommending three adjustments to the Company's request resulting in a decrease of S l 1,215. The
Taxes Other Than FIT is comprised of the following components:
TAXES OTHER THAN FIT
Company's DUCI'a City's Othtr
Request Recommendation Adjustment Taxes
Property Related Taxes $133,922 $132,922 n 5129,728
PayroIIRelated Times $45,174 $44,92) <31,11ly 543,829
Revenue Related Taxes $311,197 $304,604 <S6,593> 5291,811
Franchise Fee Expense $71,88] $7$.451 <S3,4J 1> 575.<5!
r
Total SS69.tJi 55519))0 sS1117S? fS90,8BA
The first adjustment is a reduction or$1,251 to payroll taxes, The Company requested an
increase in payroll taxes related to its customer growth adjustment. Consistent with the adjustment
proposed by DUCI to disallow the growth adjustments in labor and change the allocation factor
from LSGC to the Denton Distribution System, DUCI is recommending a reduction in payroll taxes
"The gross up factor is (]1(1.0.35)) - 1.53846. "Synehronized Interest is calculated by taking the weighted cost of debt multiplied 1y
rate base.
19
c•
• 1
4
for these adjus:menls. Rates should be based on test year amounts adjusted for known and
• measurable changes. Increasing or decreasing the customer base does not necessarily increase costs
to the Company. ,
The second adjustment Is a decrease of $6,593 for Revenue Related Taxes. DUCI Is
recommending a change to the Company's revenues; therefore, it is necessary to change revenue
related taxes. We calculated the adjustment utilizing the Company's proposed effective tax rate.
The third adjustment Is a decrease of $3,431 for franchise fee expense. Franchise fee
reimbursement is l% of total revenues for the City of Denton only. As DUCT Is recommending a
change in revenues, it is appropriate to adjust franchise fee reimbursement, accordingly,
ExpenseSummary
The Company has requested total expenses, excluding cost of got, In the amount of
53,238,633 a DUCI Is recommending a total expense amount of $2,752,639 for the Denton systern
and $2,686,708 for the City of Denton. This results in a reduction to the Company's requested
expenses in the amount of S485,994 or 15%.
Comrany'e Oucre Cily'e
RequM Recommmdetiin Adiuetmml Coo of Service
OaMExpense (Schedule If $1,148,913 $1,131,633 <f3 t1.530> $1,160,723
tuee06erthan FIt S569,175 $SS7,900 411,27$> 8!40,419
ItNepreclatiorl $405,220 s311,s73 493,647> 1304,046
Interest on Custmnei Deposiis A Advances 117,549 S t 7,549 so 811,to5
FIT $214691 $190,137 <819,130 8119,071
Return 3567,013 $510,125 446,848:! $331,196
Toot 83 231.633 821752,639 4ASSMAa 52,616,706
"This Includes DAM expense, depreciation, Interest on customer dgposits and advances,
FIT expense and return.
20
t~
i
i
SECTION Hit RATE BASE ADJUSTDIENTS
Rate But Orerview
Px Company has requested total rate base for the Denton Distribution System-Residential
and C e,,nercial in the amount of $6,499,541. DUCT is recommending total Denton Distribution
System rate base of $6,165,803 or a City of Denton rate base of 56,106,123. The reduction is
comprised of the following three adjustments:
Allocation change from LSGC to the Denton Distribution System. This
results in a revenue requirement impact of $1,678.
Removal of Construction Work in Progress. This results in a revenue
requirement impact of 512,419.
Recognition of an appropriate cash working capital level based on a lead-lag
analysis. This results In a revenue requirement impact of $26,859.
Each of these rdjustments are discussed In greater detail below,
Allocation Changes from LSGC
The first adjustment DUC1 is recommending to rate base is a change in the allocation factor
ibr the rate base components that are allocated from LSGC to the Denton Distribution System.
As discussed in greater dctail in Section I • Expenses, LSGC allocates costs from LSGC to ,
the Denton Distribution System based only on & customer allocation ratio, This is not a reasonable
allocation ratio, as it does not take into account customers whose volumes are considerably higher
than the avetage customers. DUCT is recommending a weighted average allocation factor based on
F customers and volumes. This results in an allocation ratio of 1,2972% compared to the Company's
allocation of 1.3328%.
in rat base, this allocation change effects general p4nt, retired wori, in process, material and
supplies, inventory, and prepayments, Changing the allocation ratio for these components results
in a reduction to rate base of $13,679 and a revenue requirement Impact of $1,678.
21
t'
i
Construction Work to Progress GIMPT)
DUCI is recommending disallowing the Company's request for CWIP in rate base consistent
with the Railroad Commission of Texas Substantive Rule 7.48(c).
Section 7,48(c) states: "a utility may be permitted to include CWIP in its rate
bate only where necessary to the financial integrity of the utility. CWIP shall
be deemed necessary to the financial integrity of a utility only where shown
by clear and convincing evidence that its inclusion Is necessary in order to
maintain a sufficient Financial liquidity so as to meet all capital obligations
and to allow the utility to raise needed capital or Is necessary to prevent the
impairment of a utilitys service. A mere averment or demonstration that
exclusion of CWIP would result in an increase in the cost of funds to the
utility or general assertions that the financial Integrity of the utility would be
impaired shall not be deemed sufficient to permit such inclusion."
To be granted CWIP in rate base, a utility must clearly prove that it Is necessary for the
financial integrity ofthe company and necessary to prevent the impairment of a utility's service, In
a data response from LSGC, the Company states that CWIP was requested for financial Integrity
reasons " Lone Star Gas is not in any financial distress. This Is a very healthy Company. The
financial health and stability of the Company is more fully discussed on Section IV - Cost of Capital.
The Company has claimed that the CWIP balance at test year end is plant in service as of
Juno 1, 1998. DUCI has no opposition to including the Company's requested CWIP balances in rate
base, so long as a corresponding adjustment Is made to accumulated depreciation, The net result
would be an additional 534,595 reduction to plant in service" causing a further reduction to revenue
requirement of 56,700. The C impany can not take one component of rate base out past test year end
without bringing all components out to the same point,
Adjusting only certain components of rale base results in a rolling test year, DUCI
"Company response to the I" RFI, Questioa 13. ~
I-Tecording six months of Depreciation (S1?5,787) minus the Company's CWIP balance
($101,192) s $54,595,
22
c~
u
recommends that you disallow the Company's CWIP balance in rate base. This results in a revenue
requirement impact of S12,419. irthe Council allows the Company's requested CWIP balance and
adjusts the accumulated depreciation through June 1998, the revenue requirement Impact is a
reduction of $19,119.
Cash Working Capital
LSGC stated it concluded a zero balance in its requested rate base for cash working capital
is reasonable because it had not performed a lead-lag study, Phis is not an acceptable response or
even a possible result. The Company should not be allowed to profit on its lack of data at the
ratepayers expense. The Company has been on notice by the RCT to perform a more up-to-date
lead-lag study to determine its actual working capital amount for several years, LSGC has
performed a study in 1985, In the last litigated proceeding before the RCT, the Commission
determined that a negative S614,549 was an appropriate level of cash working capital for Souther
Union {ias,"
DUCI performed a review utilizing the limited information provided by the Company and
information reviewed from LSGC's Docket No, 8664. This analysis resulted In a reduction in the
City of Denton rate baso in the amount of $210,213, The payment lag on the Company gas
purchases alone results in a negative $95,668 cash working capital amount. This one component
makes the Company requested zero balance not only unreasonable but an impossible result.
DUCI's recommended cash working capital may be larger if the Company had performed a
1 Icad-lag study and provided complete data for DUCI to review, However, at this time, DUCI is
recommending a decrease of 5218,846 to th,r Company's total requested rate base or 5110,213 to the
City of Denton's rate Nast for cash working capital. This results Ina revenue requirement impact
of 526,83'3.
r~
~ jr \
"Gas Utilities Docket No, 8878, dated November 1998,
23
i
ru
f
Ii
Rate Base Summary
The Company has requested total residential and commerc'al rate base for the Denton
Distribution System in the amount of S6,499,541. As shown in Schedule 3, DUCE is recommending
a decrease to the Company's request in the amount of 5333,736, resulting in a total recommended
rate base of 56,165,803 and a total rate base for the City of Denton of $6,106,123.
LONE STAR OAS COMPANY'S RATE BASE
TEST YEAR END 1213IN7
Company's Duct's City's
Request Recommendation Adjustment Rate Bait
Distributlon Plant 37,299,207 $7,199,180 427> $7,223,136
General plant 5461,114 5448,796 413,318> 5438,013
CWIP $101,192 So <S1M,192> 0
S16 <5130>
RN'IP <SISO> <S130
Customer Deposits A Advance 6433,080> 4433,080> so 1422,128>
Injuries k Damage <S]7,507. <$31,507> so <531,241>
ITC <$192,230 <S192,254> so <f190,929> I
Accumulated Wetted Taxes W50,207~ 4730,207> so <5143,036>
M&S Inventory 57,708 $7,307 <3207, 51,322
Prepaymems S43,si9 $42,336 <51,162> 541,338
Me so 4218,840 sS218.E46z ss21o,213>.
Total Rate Bast $6,499jil S6.153.895 X53,13.136>_ $6,1W13
Return
The Company requested a total return of 5587,013. DUCT Is recommending a total return
of 5540,125 which results in a reduction of S46,888 to the Company's request. DUCI's
recommended rclum for the City of Denton is $534,896. DUCT calculated its recommended return
by taking DUCI's recommended City of Denton's Rate Base of $6,106,123 times DUCI's
recommended Rate of Return ("k0R") of 8.761,16.
A
I
24
f;
G
1
I
SECTION III _.REVENUESICOST_OEGAS
DUCI has reviewed the Company's lest year normalized revenues and gas cost levels
proposed in this case and is proposing one adjustment regarding the test year calculation of
customers and billing determinants. The Company's calculation or normalization of test year
customers reflects the average level of customers p7 DUCI recommends that the test year customer
level be taken to a year end level. DUCI's approach results in billing determinants and revenues
representative of the period when rates will be in effect DUCI's recommended customer level is
consistent with the customer levels experienced in 1998.
TEST YEAR CUSTOMER AND REVENUE LEVELS
Car. pany Proposed DUCI Recommended Difference
Customers
Residential 16,136 16,326 190
Con,merclat 2,146 2,2o9 63
Sales Mcrs Mcfs Mcfs
Residrntial 1,011,487 1,025,070 I ),SES
17119
Commercial 7$0384 760,173
The impact of the customer and sales adjustments Increase present rate revenues, increase
gas salts expense, increase franchise fee reimbursement, and Increase revenue related fees and taxes.
The net revenue impact of this adjustment to test year billing determinants is a net Increase in
distribution system revenues of about $59,000.
s
"The Company calculates test year customers by I eking the difference between 1996 and A
1997 average customers and dividing the difference (growth) by two. DUCI'.t approach employes
the total growth In customers for the test year.
a
i
25
1
1
t'
w
SECTION IV.-- -COST OF_CAPITAWCAPITAL STRUCTURE
this section of the report contains DUCI's review and resulting recommendations regarding
LSGC's cost of equity, capital structure and overall cost of capital.
The Company has requested an l 1.01/o Return on Equity and overall cost of capital of 9.03%.
The allowed Return on Equity component of capital costs is typically a major component of
ra'.yaycrs re% enue requirement. LSGC's requested return is excessive when viewed in conjunction
with the weather normalization clause that is In effect. DUCE is recommending a total Return on
Equity of 10.5% and overall return of 8.76%.
The Company's Return on Equity of 11% is based on the return allowed by the Commission
in Docket No. 8664, dated November 25,1997. The actual return allowed in this case was 10.9451,
Since the Commission's Final Order in 1997, interest rates and capital costs have declined and the
TU/ENSERCH merger has been completed. Given sit of the above, a 10.5% Return on Equity Is
r
reasonable in this case and most reasonable when the impect of the risk shifting weather
normalization clause is taken into consideration.
Based on the information provided by the Company and a review performa.t by DUCT, we
recommend the following capital structure and overall cost of capital be adopted.
RECOMMENDED CAPITALIZATION AND COST RATES
Dascription Ratio Call Rate Weighted Cost
Long Term Drbt 44.22% 611% 3 01%
Prraff ed Stock 2 33614 643% Me
Common Ecluity 13.M 10150% $19%
Total ' v
i~
In summary, the objective is to determine tha appropriate o!troll cost of capital. DUCT Is
recommending a total Rate of Return of 8.76°/x, Applying this Rste of Return with DUCI's
26
v
tv
w
recommended rate base, DUCT is recommending an overall retum of $540,125. This is $46,888 less i
than the Company's requested return of $587,011.
A review of the Company's financials does not Indicate any financial integrity problems or
financial deterioration. Moreover, since the TU/ENSERCH merger, the Company is supported by
the financial resources of Texas Utilities Company,
i
i
P
i
I
I
i
SECTIONY_- ADJUSTMENT-CLAUSES
Adjustment Clauses Ovenfew
The Company has included in its proposed tariffs three adjustment clauses applicable to the
City or Denton ratepayers. no first adjustment clause is the Weather Normalization Adjustment
Clause ("WNA") which has been in effect u Ince June 4,1996. As discussed below, DUCT does not
oppose continuation of the WNA, but has recommended some specific adjustments to the clause.
In addition, DUCT recommends a reduction to the Company's equity return in recognition of the
earnings volatility risk sh'1'ing resulting from the WNA from shareholders to ratepayers.
The second adjustment clause is the cost of Scrvlce Adjustment ("COSA"). The COSA
would allow the Company to make annual adjustments (either up or down) to the customer charge
portion of residential and commercial customer s. bills. The COSA will be adjusted for Increases or
decreases In the cost per customer of providing gas service (including depreciation expenses but
excluding the co. -t of gas, gross receipts taxes, Income taxes, and return). The operating expenses
used in calculating the COSA shall be those expenses reported for the distribution system in the
Company's Annual Reports to the Railroad Commission of Texas.
I
The third proposed adjustment clause is the Plant Investment Cost Adjustment ("PICA"),
Under the PICA, an annual adjustment will be made to the residential and commercial customer
charge portion of the bill for changes in the return and associated income taxes, and revenue related
tares mvith annual changes In net distribution plant investment.
Each of the proposed adjustment clauses along with DUCI's recommendation to the City for
each adjustment clause is discussed below,
Weather Normallzatioa Adjustment Clause
The Company is proposing continuation of a Weather Normalization Adjustment Clause
which was authorized by the City in s rate ordinance dated June 4, 1996, The purpose of the WNA
is to adjust revenues and rates in the October through Ma) billing periods to reflect normal weather
28
c
c,
conditions. Rates are set based on gas sales under normal weather conditions where normal weather j
is defined by the average of temperatures occurring at the D,TW Airport weather station for the
previous 30 years.
DUCT does not normally recommend that such weather adjustments be implemented because
variations in weather which can Increase or decrease the Company's bottom line earnings is a
shareholder's risk, The WNA shifts the Company's (shareholders) risk to ratepayers.
In this case, recognizing that the City recently approved the WNA, DUCT does not object to
the Company's WNA proposal except for three adjustments. First, the language of the proposr3
tariff needs to be rewritten to remove ambiguity from the Company's proposal. Second, the margin
per MeF included In the commodity portion of the rates should be specifically identified in the tariff.
Third, given that the WHA removes the risk on earnings resulting from variability in weather and
shifts that risk to ratepayers, the return on equity should be reduced by 23 basis ?Dints. ;,fnce the
WNA became operational in October 1996, significant monthly rate adjustine-n,is have been made
to normalize revenues for weather volatility. These rate adjustments have shielded shareholders
from the 'sk of earnings erosion and earnings fluctuation due to abnormal weather. This risk is
shifted to mlepaycn. In recognition of this risk shifting, the shareholders equity return should be
reduced. DUCT recommends a 23 basis point reduction to reflect the continuation of the WNA.
Cost of Sem ice Adjustment Clause
DUCT recommends that the City decline the Company's invitation to adopt the proposed
COSA. The first problem with the clause is that adjustments are ma•+datory, not permissive. Thus,
if the COSA is approved in the case, the City is requiring the Company to change rates annually.
Moreover, there is no provision for City review of the proposed annual charges. At the very least
-och annual changes should be permissive with revlcw and approval of the City,
Second, while the annal costs are Ili sited to the change in the rate of inflation, a+y cost
changes above inflation will b. deferred and carried forward to future years. Such a provision is at
the least a deferred accounting mechanism and at worst retroactive ratemaking, In either ease, '
29
r
t-
deferred accounting or retroactive ratemaking are impermissible forms of ratemaking."
Third, the COSA represents piecemeal ratemaking. Stated another way, only expenses are j
examined while revenues are ignored, Thus, while expenses may increase In some years, revenues i
may also increase because of customer growth. Conspicuously absent from the Company's COSA
Is a mechanism to capture revenue growth. Thus, under the Company's COSA, expense increases
would be passed on to customers while revenue growth flows to bottom line earnings to the benefit
of the shareholders.
Plant Investment Cost Adjustment Clause
DUCI recommends that the City deny the Company's request for a PICA. The PICA suffers
from all the same infirmities that were discussed with regard to the COSA and those problems need
not be reiterated, The PICA like the COSA, is nothing more than a mechanism to secure
shareholders benefit by shifting operating risks from the Company to ratepayers.
I
One of the benefits that the Company claims will result from implementation of the COSA
and PICA is to, delay the need, for further rate cases, the expenses of which will be borne by
customers and thus allow the Company to focus its efforts in providing excellent services(,)" Such
a benefit is rather curious given that this is the first rate change filed by the Company since January
1932. Thv Company operated all the previous 17 years without the need for a ra: • request and '
without the benefit of these clauses, Moreover, there is no evidence that the Company has lost focus
on providing excellent services because a few folks in the corporate rate department are busy with
1 this and other rate proceedings.
Another claimed benefit of the PICA is that such a clause will enable the Company to
provide continued system improvements as(Inecded to its plant-in-service in the City of Denton
without having to file an expensive and time-consuming rate case." The Company operated for 17
"Deferred accounting is allowed c my where it is necessary to preserve financial integrity. ' (J;-
Financial integrity is not an issue in this case.
30
t•
c~
years since 1482 without the PICA and there is no eviden:e that needed syster. Improvements have
not been made in Denton.
DUCI rinds that there are no real benefits to the ratepayers by sidopting the PICA or COSA.
Therefore, DUCT recommends that the City deny these automatic adjustment mechanisms.
i
i
I
I
i
I
i
a
31
V 1
C
U
M
SECTION _Vl .~RATE CASE EXPENSES
The Company has requested recovery of the current rate ease expenses through a six month
surcharge. In DUCI's opinion, the Company should not have initialized a rate increase in the City
of Denton; therefore, ratepayers should not be held responsible for these costs. This repot. shows
that the Company is over earning by W.061, rather than under recovering costs as the Company
claims. DUCT is recommending that the City not allow the Company to recover current rate case
expenses in this proceeding. If the Council determines that LSGC should recover a portion of these
rate case expenses, DUCT recommends no shorter than a one year surcharge period should be
ordered,
}
f
32
V
u
I
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
S
Y(e;~
1
31
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY $CHEDULES
CITY OF DENTON SERVICE AREA ! t,
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1997
SUMMARY OF REVENUE REQUIREMENT RESIDENTIAL
x rnsaaaaar
Ll Company Di Denton's
9 DAsafpORn RaQuesteG Adjustmtn! Recommendation Q01of Seryk
OPERAWM RE'tMInt•
1 Residential 4,721,560 70,604 4,792,164 4,627,424
2 Commercial 3,007,833 74,836 3,082,669 3,017,885
3 Franchise Fee Reimbursement 74.520 931 75"451 76.451
4 Total Gas Sales 7,803,913 146,371 7,950,2e4 7,620,560
5 Other Service Revenue 409.547 36,794 148,341 141A
6 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES 117-g1141 11831@5 ,$,QQ$,¢j5 17 j8241t1
QPERAM EYPENeES'
I
Gas Purchases:
7 Gas Purchases • Residential 2,785,129 37,401 2,822,630 2,694,856
6 Gas Rhrohases•Commercial 2,066,182 48,982 2,115,164 2,085,314
9 Unaccounted for Gas 254,175 4,660 258,735 250,480
O&M Expense:
10 Distribution Expense 508,114 (20,234) 485,680 474,043
11 Customer Acct d Sales Expense 304,260 (12,182) 292,098 284,982
12 A&G Expense 638,611 (281,955) 356,656 341,897
Taxes Other Than F1T:
13 Property Related Taxes 132,022 0 132,922 129,728
14 Payroll Related Taxes 48,174 (1,251) 44,923 43,829
15 Revenue Related Taxes 311,197 (6,593) 304,004 291,681
18 Franchise Fee Expense 78,882 (3,431) 75,451 75,451
17 Deprec, A Amort Exp 405,220 (93,647) 311,573 304,088
18 interest on Customer Deposrts 16,100 0 18,100 15,693
19 Inlerest on Customer Advances 1.449 p I M2 1At2
20 Total Operetinq Expense Belpre FII 7,546,415 (326,330) 7,216,085 6,993,452
21 Federal Income Taxes 210.891 (19'1 190,857 169,009
22 Retur h 587.013 146 9881 MOM 5X cQ~ r r'
d
23 TolalRev anueRequirement 8,344,119 (395,052) 7,949,067 7,717,357
24 Adjus,ed Revenues L213A 181185 H95.915 LZ62A
25 Revenue Deflelencyl(Excoss) HVAU ~ ~ ~111.@k!1
34
f
r
rtrucnm r: s
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
CITY OF DENTON SERVICE AREA
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,1997
i
SUMMARY CF O&M EXPENSES • RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL
Ufw Company DUCrs Denton
D"crilaton Regutal. Adltulm Recomcnands
4iMEaRtaltt
JDL) tti» -
1 Operation Labor 158.817 (6,350) 152,467 148,753
2 Operation Supplies 6 Exp 114,276 (8,967) 187,309 183,233
3 Meintonanee Labor 114,840 (4,583) 110,OS7 107,376
4 Maintenance Supplies it Exp (2.3351 58.018 54.5:0
5 Subtotal Distribution Expense $5-6,114 )$20,235) 5185,879 $474,043
8 Labor 153,103 (6,120) 146,983 143,402
7 Supplies S Expense 119,346 (4,771) 114,575 111,781
Customer Service 8• tntornotion
8 Labor 1,812 (73) 1,739 1,897
9 Supplies b Expense 965 (38) 927 904
&11111:
10 Labor 1S,709 (828) 15,061 14,714
11 Supplies 6 Expense 19.329 (532) 12295 12 AU
12 Subtotal Customer Acct3Sale s $304,260 ($12,162) 5292,098 $284,982
AW Expense
13 Labor 184,284 (7,387) 178,917 172,607 ,
14 Supplies A Expense 418,497 (16,828) 401,88^ 391,881
15 Uncollecoble 35,830 0 35,83! 34,969
18 Labor Reduction Adjustment 0 )109,076) 1109,076, (109,076)
17 Labor Reduction • Temdnat<,! Empt, 0 )48,888) (46.6m) )4(108. )
16 Normalize Expenses Adjustment Q (101.9951
19 Subtotal A&G Expense X11 UZIU541 11356-65j 5341.898
r
20 Total Operatlnq Expense 1111,44111,91 (1311.1111 11,jaill 11,101.72
r
35
r
ACIiFr111r F
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
CITY OF DENTON
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31t 11997
RATE BASE • RESIDENTIAL & COMMERCIAL.
Line Company OUCI's Denton
9 Descriptio flt nest Adiustmon Recommendation Rata Base
1 Not DistrlbuW Plant 7,299,207 (27) 7,299,180 7,225,138
2 Net General Plant 481.114 (12.3181 445.i8Il 4.012
3 Net PIS $7,760,321 (512,345) $7,747,976 $7,883,148
4 CYNIP 101,192 (101,192) 0 0
5 RNP (150) 16 (134) (130)
6 Customer Deposits (268,339) 0 (268,339) (281,553)
7 Customer Advances (164,741) 0 (164,741) (160,575) I
8 Injuries and Damages (37,507) 0 (37,507) (37,249)
9 Investment Tax Cradle (192,254) 0 (192,254) (190,929)
10 Accum Def Taxes (750,207) 0 1750,207) (745,036)
Other Rate Base Items:
11 MAS Inventory 7,708 (207) 7,501 7,322
12 Prepayments 43,518 (1,162) 42,356 41,338
13 CWC 0 t21fl.I3461 (219.!)!R' (210,213]
14 TOTAL RATE BASE 18,429,541 im 55,161,50 1 15,106.121
15 Rate of Return km UA% lLz %
16 REQUIRED RETURN 1587.010 1146.8851 1640.121 1514.646
i
t'
36
V
FXHIAIT~
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
NORMALIZING EXPENSES FOR 1997
BASED ON 3 YEAR AnRAGE (1906. •1971
I
k
Ln 7 Year
! Description 1w Im Im Avtran
1 Balance ($1,548,074) $1,233,249
2 687002000 Operstlons S&E $9,791 $1,086 $22,633 $9,137
3 587402000 Maintenance S&E 30,462 ",613 71,026 48,700
4 588501000 Mamteriance Labor 16,938 2,780 37,838 19,175
5 568502000 Maintenance S&E 240 277 22,165 7,561
6 592122000 Genera! Office SdE 55,034 44,634 76,541 68,738
7 692301000 Temp Help 0 0 13,024 4,341
8 592304000 Spec. Svc 3,632 3,697 8,004 6,078
9 SM50400018D 21,904 28,643 45,129 31,859
10 592604100 Aqaor Reg Asset 0 0 16,575 5,525
11 TOTAL ($1,233,249) $1,423,361
3
12 Total Adjusted Expenses S3,423,361
13 RFI 145 Total 51.546.074
114 Difference ($122,713)
15 Co. Allocator 1.3328%
16 Total LSGC ($9,207,158)
17 DUCI's Nlocator 1.2972%
I8 Total Adjustment (51119,435;
19 Resid a Cor-tmercial % vl~n
20 Denton Dist Ibution System Adj. ($104.60c)
21 City of Denton Mocator 97.547tiz ,
22 City of Denton Adjustment jg 1 9951
Source' Response to RFI 1-45
37
I
r
I
EXHIBIT 2
i
i
J .
t
DIVERSIFIED UTILITY CONSULTANTS, INC.'S
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
REGARDING LONE STAR GAS COMPANY'S
( STATEMENT OF INTENT TO INCREASE RATES
FEBRUARY 9, 1999
39
c4',
I
SUMMARY OF DUG'S PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS
1 '
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT
IMPACT
REVENUES
Customer Growth Adjusim. ($146,371)
Other Service Revenues (SM794)
COST OF GAS
Customer Growth Adjustm, $00,943
EXPENSES:
Change Allot % from LSOD ($37,746)
Remove Growth adj to Labor d Supplies ($18,845)
Labor Reduction due to Merger - Reliremenl ($109,076)
Employees Termin. Employment During Ty ($46,6ti8)
Normalize Expenses due to Merger
($101,995)
DEPRECIATION ($93,647)
Change to ALG vs ELG
Change Net Salvage from (304 ) to (2o%)
C FEDERAL INCOME TAX ($19,834)
TAXES OTHER THAN FIT
Payroll Related Taxes ($1,251)
Revenue Related Taxe> ($6.693)
Franchise Fee Expense ($3,431)
RETURN (SAWS
TOTAL REDUCTION TO DENTON SYSTEM
RATE BASE COMPONENTS:
Change Anoc % from LSGO 13,679) ($1,678)
Remove CWIP ($101,192) ($12,419)
Cash Working Capital Adj --11218.846 E (MM
Total Rale Base Change [5339.7171 Il ~j
i
RETURN ON EQUITY; ! ~Reduced ROE from 11% to 10.596
40
U'
k
...a d...~.. :~~•:t.e r ,.,C.r .1. a'7"s ,~A~fiys;~a ..~~°tfk`~°'~r~. ~'.LSGC's Requested Cost of Service
FIT
2.5%
Interest on Cust
0.2% l i
Depreciation Return ,
4.9% 7.0%
Other Taxes
6.8%
i
r O&M Cost of Gas
17.4% 61.2%
■ Cost of Gas ■ Other Taxes ■ Interest on Cust S Return
■ O&M r.1 Depreciation ■ FIT
I
G
G
'~'.s..x iu~:.ntuT:•}~i $n. ~«~~~Yk'.a1S 'l "~:'aw: 4,'r ~e 7 P't's!f4•'-ii"eY ~ r.'R v.s .G. y.. i
LSGC's Requested Cost of Service
Return
18.1°k
FIT
6.5% O&M
interest on Cust 44.7%
N 0.5%
Depreciation j
12.5'
f
s Other Taxes
■ 0&M ■ Depreciation ■ FIT
■ Other Taxes C~ Interest on Cust ■ Return
R
1
F ~r+.Y i~ ♦ 1,
!n\ f*
Y ,;a
R'
-a K Y 1
x ~ Y
Lone star as C0" ny s
Statement of Inten
mom
Rates
14M ll~,
DIVERSIFIED UTILITY
i
CONSULTANTS, INC.
a
x'
~r
I S s U e s
Revenues
Cost of Gas
Operations & Maintenance
- Allocation Change From LSGD
- Growth Adjustment
- Labor & ExpeneeNo_ilzAt
any`'`: s`
Issues (Cant')
e Depreciation
Federal Income Taxes
o Return
m ;special Adjustment Clauses
Weather Normalization Clause
, iA nil ry { r 'y J ; ,
..r Cost'
PI
J _
y,
REVENUES
e Customer Growth Adjustment
- Revenue Requirement Impact - ($146,371)
oD other Service Revenue
- (Connection Charges, Returned Checks, etc.)
` J T t
I Revenue
COST OF GAS
• Customer Growth Adjustment
- Revenue Requirement Impact - $900943
i .
r,~
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE EXT"
e Change Allocation From LSGD Company
to Denton Distribution System
Revenue Requirement Impact - ($379746)
* Remove Growth Adjustment For Labor,
y
Supplies & Expenses
- Revenue Requite 01
it
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
AL ~Am~~
OPERATIONS &
MAINTENANCE EX
e Labor Reduction Adjustment Due to
Merger
- Employees Retired ($109,076)
- Employees Terminated 46,688)
- Revenue Requirement Impact • ($155,764)
i., 't x i, .",.M1 5( yak, ~v a +,o• r'±n
® Nor
R
tf~
' xti
k
DEPRECIATION ;
j tM
o Average Life Group vs. Equal Life Group
oChange Net Salvage from (30%) to (20%) -
Reimbursed Retirements
Revgnue Requirement Impact - ,093,647)
r 3 r
J
r2 r
TAXES OTHER TH
Payroll belated Taxes -
- Revenue Requirement Impact - ($19251)
o Revenue Related Taxes .
- Revenue Requirement Impact - ($6,593)
* Frandhis~'
b.t4 x ~J.:
. /Re~i
I
~Y
FEDERAL INCOME,,,,
* Change in Rate Base & Return effects
Recommended FIT
- Revenue Requirement Impact - ($199834)
Q Reduced Rate Base Request by $333 736,
® Reduce#S
J
RETURN ~t
® Change in Rate Base & Change in the Rate
of Return Effects Return
Revenue Requirement Impact - ($46,888)
' ,'y
V A ~ If ~r r ~ ti i Kr'. ~ .
t1T 1Y .
J
'IY
RATE BASE
* Removed CWIP - ($1019192)
- Revenue Requirement Impact - ($12,419)
® Cash Working Capital - ($2189846)
Revenue Requirement Impact - ($269859)
Change:in AlioCati.n:°,ol"orri`g 'x ,r~sR
y
RATE OF RETURN
* Company requested total ROR of 9.03%
with a return on equity ("ROE") of 11%.
* Company's ROE is based on the return
allowed by the Commission in Docket No.
6664, dated November 25, 1997.
. 1 M1 ~ t ' a7 y
f Ii'
R Y:' t ~ . W r
i A
"Z
J
III
I
II
a
RATE OF RETURN
DUCI is recommending a ROR of 8.76%
with a return on equity of 10.5%;
- Actual ROE in Docket No. 8664 was 10.94%;
- Adjusted ROE for shift of risk due to the weather
normalization clause
f
` At r "V
co
J
it
r
I'
SPECIAL ADJUSTM
CLAUSES
• Weather Normalisation Adjustment Clause
• Cost of Service Adjustment Clause
• Plant Investment Adjustment Clause
77 + _
• J Y~
s'sC~
* r e..
e
!l r
J
WEATHER NORMAL I
ADJUSTMENT CLAUNin•
o Authorized by the City in a rate ordinance
dated June 4, 19960
* Proposed language change to remove
ambiguity In tariff;
4. ) ( t 1 kISt C::I :.1
® Due tc~~ F
risk
COST OF SERVICE
ADJUSTMENT CLAO,
® DUCI recommends the City decline the
COSA adjustment
* The Clause requires LSGD to change rates
annually, with no provision for the City to
review, Even though changes are limited
to inffatia~t~'h` `ngebovei ~atf'ns:y}.
. willrv
Pie
PLANT INVESTMEADJUSTMENT Ci
i
• DUCI recommends the City decline the
PICA adjustment;
• The PICA Clause suffers from the same
infirmities as the COSA discussed earlier.
yvn, c%. r I
J
I
CLAIMED BENEFITS{(
CLAUSES
® "Delay the need for further rate cases[;]"
- the last rate proceeding was 17 Years ago.
0 "Allow Company to focus its efforts in
providing excellent service[.]"
- No evldenc that this Company: has` lost'
prb;W Ih", ,
co
ra
nJ
i
CLAIMED BENEFITSz
(CONT9D) w.
® "provide continued system improvements
as needed to its plant-in-service in the City
of Denton without having to file an
expensive and time-consuming rate case."
- The Company has operated for 17 years without the
PICA and there Is no.evidence that naedgd system,
improvemen s h,t,~'
h"'lp i
LSGC's Winter Residential Rates
Oenlon
Argyle
Corlnth
Gnnd Prairie
Knim
Mesquite ■ Base Hates
Pilot Point
Sangor
Shady Shores
Tioga
Valley View
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Rates
I
LSGC's Winter Commercial Rates
Denton
Argyle
Corinth
Grand Prairie
Krum
Mesquite ■ Base Rates
v Pilot Point
Sangor
Shady Shores
Tioga
Valley View
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Bates
r, I
a
c~
EXHIBIT 3
64
n
s
E
Executive Re-Cap
Lone Star Gas Company
Executive Summary of Consultants Report
Denton Distribudon System
February 2, 1999
Lone Star Gas ComM's last rate in( a.'eue for Denton occurred In January 1982. The October 2),
1998 request for a 6.24% revenue increase is reasoeable in light of the act that the Consumer Price
Index was up 95% for the same time period. Fnv businesses or government entities, if anv, have
operated as efticiemly over this same period of tune.
DUCI recommended a levd of operating and maintenance expenses per customer similar to the level
Lon, Star Gm utuely experienced In 1980.
The Railroad Commission realized in Docket MM that was not prudent to adjust operating
expeoN. due to the changing nature of the organization. In fact they recommended a specific time
be established to review actual operating expenses to Insure any savings are passed to the customers.
The proposed Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) would serve that purse for the City of Demon
without having to file expensive rate uses to manure inerases or deatem in operating exp. ues,
The Oas Utility Re.+ulstory Act (OURA) Oct regulator the authority to determine rates based on
ghat Is ressoaable.
This Lone Star rate case is patterned after it's 1996 Railroad Commission ruling in Docket 8664 and
supported by other put tistribution cases.
tr
{ f00 a
r,.
i
6S
c
c~
Executive Summary
Lone Star Gas Company r
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
These comments respond to the above referenced review by Diversified Utility Consultants Inc. (DUCI).
In general, the differences between Lone Star's request and the consultant's recommendation are
recognized within the Texas Utilities Code wir0 allows for a meeting of the minds es to what is
reasonable.
Given the fact that Lone Star's last rate Increase for Denton occurred in January 1982, and that this filing
has been patterned after our last Railroad Commission Docket $664, the 62514 increase request Is
reasonable and modest
1. DUCT Uses it 10.5% Return on Equity, Resulting in a Reduction to Lone Star's 11%
Request of Approximately (page 10) $28,000
LSO Response • Thhe hinted Souihom Unkn sn 11.25% return on
equity In Gas Utilities Docket No. 88111, Consolidated (Appal of Southern Union from the
Action of the City of El Pao, Final Order, dated November 17, 1998). Lone Star's method Is
reosonable
2. DUCI Reduces Invested Capital by Eliminating Construction Work in Progress (CWIP)
Rewithl in a Reduction from Lone Star's Request of Approximately (page 12) $13,000
LSO Response • DUCI rot wed $101,192 of CWIP from rote (rue. KI of this amount at
Doan*a 31, 1997, repeeseras non•m enue producing CWIP that is now in service and would
be dmvd by Il><);d miiCmuds im beW on action taken In Docket 8661. Lone Sue's
method Is reamabk.
3. DUCI Lowers Invested Capital by Using Negative Cash Working Capital of $216,846
Resulting In a Reduction from Lone Star's Request of Approximately (page 13) $28,000
LSO Rapmx m • The gailmildStaiYlml stated In Docket No it6W that Lone Star's cash
%oding capital balance of rcro is reamabte.
4. DUCI Lowers the Company's Proposed Depreciation Expense by Approximately
(page 14) $97,000
LSO Ralmm - DUCI recanunendcd the A%emSe Life Group (ALO) nwthedology. Equal life
Group (ELO) methodology used by Lone Slot was approved by the Idilmed CaYdalsia In
Lone Star's City Gate Rate Case, Ducker 8564, The 140MIdSaYisaioa Order stated:
"Because it pm Ides a more accursto estimate of the moat consumption of property,
the ELO depraiation proccdnre foq"od by Lone Star is reasoaabte."
h
DIICI also recommended changing net salvage calculation, The RailtgllLCglastak" In 6~ e
Docket 8664 approved Lone Star's of age calculation Including the way It used
tdrnbursemenls In Its sahage calculations. The B Order sided:
"The senior iha and soly oge volues propoxd by Lone Star are eeawssble"
66
V
I
i
i
S. DUCI Incorrectly Determines the Level of Test Yeu Customers and Volumes Which
559,988
Increases the Margin ffom Present Rates by (page 15)
Lso Reapotue • DUCT apparently misinterprotod the Lone Sur a4uslmenis because the actual
mmben proved the tat yeas eahculatloas cm rect, The lAmd Ca mMa has woeptod
Lone Stu's ctwomer a1,ntmeat methodology in Plot appeals, as have numerous
municipalities 4nd other eonaultsnu. Lone Star's method Is reaaoaabk.
6. DUCI'a Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Exper&s of (yoga 17) $39,251
LSO Response • The customer allocation. used by lane Sur for the last 13 years has been
woopled by the in past Low Sur appeals and by the cities that Lone Sur
serves. Lone Suf's method is reasonable.
7. DUCI's Adjustment to Operating and Maintemwe Expenses of (par. IS) $19,596
LSO Response • DUCI has Incorrectly asened that the Company is proposing a phamom
a4ustment,
The avmage number of."We tNar and eommetclat automers for the twelve month, ended Tune
30, 1999 are 16,164 and 2,106 respectively. These numbers are lower than what the Company
had proposed for December 31, M. which slaws that the Company's adjustment is
conservative and reasoaabk (page 20.21).
j S. DUCT Reduced Labor Expenses for a Reductim in Employees by (page 22) $113,424
M Reapmre • Those employ" reductiom did not take place all at once, they took place over
several months In 1997. Some employea were called back on a umporsry basis while other
have been xplaeed lane Stn's traftw of tlds lade expanse Is a customary business practice
in a roorganizlnIr company and Is reamabk.
DUCI's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of (page 23) $106,061
1.sa Response • DUCT asaru that 9 accounts have been odjualed by wing a 3•ytsr avenge
11995.1997) of that somums due to higher Ineb costs In 1997. It is not pouible to determine
if this a4ustmem has merit, no detail was provided by the coesulu t. Late Stu's ORM
ever" are reasonable.
lo, other (including Other Tax" and LUG) $27,000
a Total DUCI Adjustments $531,320
r
>
r
t
c'
c.
iV
Non Revenue Items.
Weather NormalivAtlon Adjustment (WNA) . . 24
• The City rooenlly appnnod the WNA os ii wau tropuxd in doing so, the City Joined 297 oNf cities scrvod
by Lone Star who bare approved a WNA with ut amendment, DUCt does tot oppox allowing the WNA
to continue, because the City hts already approved a WNA which is designed lobe revenue neutral.
• DUCI recommends that the residential and commercial margins be specifically statod In the clause. Lone
Star Is not opposed to specifically feting the margins. The 297 cities pee page 25) served by Lone St6t who
have approved WNAs have ad required the margins to be specifically F m d. Lone Star's proposed WNA
is reasonable.
Proposed Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) 26
• Lone Star has proposed the approval of a Cost of Service Adjustment clause to addn:ss annual changes in
the cost of service. Approval of this clause will alleviWe any comms the City may have regarding Nwre
merger savings being passed on to customers In a Iimety maruicr.
• The COSA 4 sot ainor atic In that the City an rcvl w and adjust it anytime, partalarly when the annual
statement Is filed with the City each April.
• More than 250 of Lone Star's Cities hm a COSA in effoct (See page 217
a The COSA Lnr.OUes the Cb'a M WW review, COSAsm+a Cities the lime and effort of dating with full-
Nowm role ass by making minor adjustments to the rate. Lae Star will pfinent any information tlat the
City desires and will make hny presentation to the City it requests.
• COSA operates in both directions - drerooom as well as increases - and Is limited to the amount of inflation.
Adjustments are made in May, when in tills dodim; to their lowest levels, with the adjustment typically
ranging around s, 21e per r,onih. Lone Star's propo ed COSA is reasonable.
Proposed Plant Investment Cost Adjustment (PICA) . , . , . . , 28
• The PICA is not automatic in that the City an renew and adjust it anytime, pr nicularly when the annual
I statement is filed with the City each April,
• PSCA L am! Cih's mguletorv miew. PICA saves Cities the lime and effort of dealing with full-
blown rate ales by making minor adjustments to rates,
• PICA allows Lone Star to request rote Increases less omen.
• r,CA opesatrs in both diroiloas-- &xroases as will as increases - in growing areas, will likely be Increases.
PICA adjustments are made in May, with the annual adjustment ranging from a minus 70 p'r month to a
plus Mt; per month (Soe page 29).
r
,
• MCA Is limited to the approved rate of return (which locks In the cost of capital at historical low levels).
• PICA is currently suihorUed in I Lone Star Cities (Balch Springs, Cokman, Cranbury, Grand Pravie,
Mesquite, Muenster, Srngoville and Sunmvale) and this proposed s4tuamenl Is raanable.
tig
c,
U
V
Comments on
Consultant's Report
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution
System
FEBRUARY 1999
69
C
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Differences Between Lonq Star's Request and the Consultant's
Recommendation Are Recognized Within the Texas Utilities Code,
Which Allows for a Meeting of the Minds as to What Is Reasonable 1
Company vs. Consultant Operating and Maintenance Expense
per Customer Comparison: 2
Company's Response to DUCI's Overview of Specific Issues 3
A. GAS RATE REQUEST SUMMARY 3
B. TEST YEAR USED FOR RATE FILING 5
C. MERGER COSTS 8
D. ALLOCATION RATIO FROM LONE STAR TO DENTON 8
E. DENTON AND THE CORINTHlDENTON SEGMENT . 8
i
Summary of Differences Between Lone Star's Request and DUCI's Report 9
DUCI Uses A 10.5% Return On Equity, Resulting In A Reduction To Lone Star's
Request Of Approximately $28,000 10
DUCI Reduces Invested Capital By Eliminating Construction Work In Progress (CWIP)
Resulting In A Reduction From Lone Star's Request Of Approximately $13,000 12
DUCI Lowers Invested Capital By Using Negative Cash Working Capital of $218,848,
Resulting In A Reduction From Lone Star's Request Of Approximately $28,000 13
DUCI Lowers the Company's proposed Depreciation Expense by
Approximately $97000 14
DUCI Incorrectly Determines the Level of Test Year Customers and Volumes Which
Increases the Margin from Present Rates by $59,988 15
1 DUCI's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of $39,251 17
DUCI's Adjustment to Operating and Maintenance Expenses of $19,598 18
DUCI Reduced Labor Expenses by $113,424 for a Reduction in Employees , , 22
DUCI's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of $108,081 23
Weather Normalization Adjustment (WNA) 24 ti
Proposed Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) 28
i
Proposed Plant Investment Cost Adjustment (PICA) . . 28
70
C
U
_ i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Differences -Between Lone Star's Request and the Consultant's
Recommendation Are Recognized Within the Texas Utilities Code
Which Allows for a Meeting of the Minds as to What Is Reasonable
• Lone Star's last rate increase for Denton occurred In January 1982,
• We have patterned this filing after our last Railroad Commission case,
Docket 8664 (City Gate Rate Case).
• The 6.24% Increase we are seeking Is modest compared to the effect of
inflation. inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index has totaled
94,9 % since our previous rate filing In Denton. Since the previous case,
we have also incurred the Investment costs and operating expenses to
serve over 4,900 additional customers in this Distribution System, That
represents a 37.3% Increase in the number of customers served,
• The requested rate relief Is obviously needed, but we are willing to work
with the City in order to reach a mutually acceptable conclusion to this j
case, thereby avoiding an appeal to the Railroad Commission or a re-filing
of the case on a short turn-around.
7l
r ,
u
i
~I
Lona Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Company vs Consultant Operating and Maintenance Expense p'a_r
Customer Comparisons
Test Year 1984 Test Year 1997
Lone Star $61 $77
DUCI NA $62
DUCI has recommended a level of operating and maintenance expense of $62
per customer, Rates were established In the previous Denton rate case (based
on a test year ended December 31, 1980) using operating and maintenance
expense per customer of $61. Over the past 17 years, Inflation as measured by
the Consumer Price Index, has risen 94,9%.
• Lone Star has proposed an operating expense per customer of $77. Lone
Star's expense per customer has risen only 26% (($77- $61)1$61), This is
a very modest increase, which is approximately only one fourth of the
general rate of inflation, and Is reflective of Lone Star's efforts to keep costs
as low as reasonably possible. The DUCI Increase over this 17-year period
amounts to a total Increase of a meager 1.5%,
• Very few, if any, businesses or govemmental organizations have been able
to hold their operating and maintenance costs to this level during this time
period. The Lone Star request is prudent and reasonable.
0
v
l
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
I
• Company's Response to DDUCI's Overview of Specific Issues
A. GAS RATE REQUEST SUMMARY
DUCI asserts that the Company's operating data conflicts with the reasons
for this rate Increase.
• The Consultant Intentionally selected operating data for commercial
customers beginning with 1994, which serves as the basis for one of
the Consultant's false accusations.
• The Company did not file a rate increase In 1994, the consultant's
use of this year's data shows no relation to the test year data.
• The Company compared its last test year data (December 1980) to 1
this test year data (December 1997). Page 4 shows the reasons for .
filing cited by the Company in the Gas Rate Request Summary,
namely: (1) there has been a decrease in commercial volumes of gas
sold; (2) operating expenses have Increased; and (3) investment has
Increased.
w
73
i
c
e
fl
LONE STAR OAS COMPANY
DENTON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
REASONS FOR REQUESTING A RATE INCREASE
LAST THIS
TEST YEAR TEST YEAR %
1997_, _ Changa_ Change
1. VOLUMES OF OAS
Commercial
Weather normalized consumplbn (Mc) 959,838.0 750,384,0
Adjusted customers 1,379 2,148
Consumption per customer 896.0 319.7 (3481) 49.8%
X
11. OPERATING EXPENSES 1010 1997 Change__, _ Change
Per books operating expenses $604,016.38 P,W671.66
Per books customers 13,140 16,042
Expense per customer $61 $86 $25 41.0%
X
III. PLANT INVESTMENT (tNVESTEO CAPITAL) 1040 1907 Change. _ -Change
Invested Capital $3,638636 31,x72,968
Per books customers 13,140 18,042
Invested Capital per customer $278 $431 $153 65.0%
J '
74
V i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Company's Response to DUCI's Overview (cont'_d)
• DUCI stated that the Company's Annual Report to the Raifroad
Commission of Texas for 1998 and 1997 shows about a 7% Increase
In net plant, but the Company's operating report for the twelve mont!is
ending June 30, 1998 shows net Investment declining (the deci(ne
shown was approximately $22,500). The Company's operating} report
for the twelve months ending June 30, 1998, does not Includo over $1
million of construction work In progress in the Denton Distribution
System at June 30, 1998, most of which has been placed in service.
Plant investment continues to Increase in the Denton Distribution
System, as stated by the Company as one of the reasons for filing.
B. TEST YEAR USED_FORRATE FILING
t
The Consultant takes Issue with the Test Year used by the Company.
e At the time of the fling on October 23, 1998, the data was not over a
year old.
• Moreover, data for a June 30, 1998 test year were not available due
to changing computer systems.
• The Company has always filed the most recent available test year
data in compliance with Texas Utilities Code 101.003(16), as cited in
the consultants report on Page 5.
As'
7S
i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Company's Resorinse to DUCI's Overview (cont'd1
C. MERGER COSTS
DUCI cites ENSERCH Corporation SEC Forms 10-K for 1996 and 1997 In
quantifying merger costs of $6.8 million in 1996 and over $25 million In 1997.
These items, which are for ENSERCH Corporation, not just associated with
Lone Star Gas, are cited as a reason to normalize (reduce) Lone Star's
expenses In Denton by $101,995.
• Lone Star responded to DUCI RFI No. 2-37 that the only merger-
related costs Included in the Denton rate case totaled $1,236,721,
before allocation to Denton. The allocated amount totals $14,804.
The $1,236,721 represents the 1997 portion of what will be a thirteen-
year amortization of costs resulting from the merger-related early
retirement program. ,
• ENSERCH Corporation Incurred the $6.8 million and the $25 million
of merger costs; however, none of these amounts was Included In the
Denton rate case. These costs were recorded on ENSERCH
Corporation's books in the Other (Income) - Net account, which is a
below-the-line expense, borne by the Company's shareholders, and
not allocated to the Denton ratepayers.
D. AI I OCADON RATIO FROM LONE STAR TO DEN10N
DUCI recommended an allocation factor based on a 50/50 weighting of
customers and annual volume, rather than relying on the customer allocation
used by Lone Star to allocate costs from Lone Star to Denton.
76
.
i
C
li
1
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Company's Response to DUCI's Overview (co
• The costs allocated from Lone Star to Denton are fixed costs that do
not vary with the level of consumption. They are required to serve the
customers in Denton and would be the same regardless of the
volume usage in Denton.
• The only variable costs are gas cost and the associated revenue-
related taxes. These costs are captured at the local level. They are
not allocated from Lone Star.
• The customer allocation used by Lone Star for the last 25 years has
been accepted by the Railroad Commission In past Lone Star
appeals and by the cities that Lone Star serves.
• DUCI also recommended a weighting different than one based solely
upon tha number of customers, In the Southern Unlon Gas (SUG)
appeal o' actions taken by the City of El Paso (Gas Utilities Docket
No. 8878, Consolidated, Final Order Issued November 17, 1998).
The Railroad Commission order states:
"SUG's method for allocating costs among the Texas service
areas based on the slogle factor of the number of customers Is
reasonable."
• Lone Star's method of allocation is reasonable and compllefi with ,
regulatory requirements. ' ' ,
c~
cr
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
E. DENTON AND THE CORINTHIDENTON SEGMEN
The Consultant asserts that it was necessary to allocate costs between
Denton and the Corlnth/Denton segment but this Is Incorrect.
• Lone Star uses a 2-step process to determine the Increase for Denton
only. First, the total Denton system (i.e. Denton Including the
Corinth'Denton segment) revenue requirement was determined and,
second, the resulting proposed rate Is then applied only to the
customers and volumes for Denton to determine the Increase dollar
and percentage applicable to the City of Denton. Lone Star's detail
calculation showing this dollar and percentage increase was
furnished to the consultant In response to RFI#4.1.
I
'A T
78
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Repori
• Sumrnary of Differences @ebb~een Lone Star's Ree~est and DLCI's
Ruod
Amou71n$00
Lone Star's Total Increase (5.44%) Consultant's Adjustments:
Change In Cost of Capital (Page 10) Disallowed Invested Capital:
Construction Work In Progress - (12,913) (Page 12)
Negative Cash Working Capital - (27,926) (Page 13)
Other - (1,748)
Revenue Effect of Total Disallowed Invested Capital (.43)
Reduce Depreciation Expense (Page 14) (97)
Increase Margin from Present Rates by Increasing Customers + (60)
Volume (Page 15)
Disallowed 0 &A7 Expenses: (278)
Allocation from Lone Star Gas Distribution - (39,251) (Page 17)
Company Customer Adjustments - (19,596) (Page 18)
DUCI Adjustment to Labor - (113,424) (Page 22)
DUCI O&M Normalization Adjustment - (106,061) (Page 23)
Other (Including Other Taxes & LUG) (26)
,,d Total Adjustments (531)
1
1
1
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCT Uses A 10.5% Return On Equity, Result! g In A Reduction To
Lone Star's Request Of Approximately 528,000
0 DUCI accepts the Company's proposed capital structure and costs of debt
and preferred stock.
s DUCI recommends a 10.50% return on equity versus the 11.0% return on
equity proposed by Lone Star.
• The Railroad Commission granted Lone Star a 10.94% return on equity in
Gas Utilities Docket No. 8664 (Final Order, dated November 25, 1997.)
• DUCI cites the WNA as a reason to reduce the return on equity by 25 basis,
points. No reduction in return on equity is appropriate because rates are
based on normal weather and, over time, the weather will be normal. The
WNA allows the rates to be billed assuming the weather is normal.
• The Railroad Commission granted Southern Union an 11.25% return on
equity in Gas Utilities Docket No. 8878, Consolidated (Appeal of Southern
Union from the Action of the City of El Paso, Final Order, dated November
17, 1998).
e DUCI was the consultant for El Paso in Docket No. 8878 and did not
oppose the Company's proposed rate of return.
+ DUCI was provided Information shown on Page 11 In response to RFI No.
1-39 listing returns on equity approved in jurisdictions around the country
over the period of 1997 through September 1998 in gas rate cases. This
listing supports a return on equity in excess of 10.50%. The average
approved return on equity over that period was 11.59%.
so
I
Schedule 5
APPROVED RETURNS ON COMMON EQUITY
IN GAS RATE CASES OVER THE PERIOD OF
1997 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 19984
Approved Approval
Company Jurisdiction ROE Month
Bangor Gas ME 15.00% Jun-98
Bay State Gas MA 11.40% 0ec-97
Brooklyn Union Gas NY 1175% Apr-98
Cheyenne Light, Fuel, d Power WY 11.71% Sep-97
Consumors Energy MI 13.51% Oec-97
Delta Natural Gas KY 11.80% Nov-97
Lone Star Gas TX 1014% Nov-91
Madison Gas A Electric WI 12.00% Jul-98
Michigan Gas Utilities MI 10.75% Mar-97
Missouri Gas Energy MO 10.93% Aug-97
Montana Power MT 11.25% Oct-97
New York State Electric 8 Gas NY 1250% Sep-98
Nashville Gas TN 11.50% Feb-97
Northern Stctes Power IV1 11.90% Sep-98
Pacifx Gas A Electric CA 11.Pj% 000-97
Peninsular Gas MI 1200% Jut-97
Providence Gas RI 1090% Mar-98
Public Service Co of New Mexico NM 11.00% Feb-97
Roanoke Gas VA 11.20% Aug-98
Rocky Mountain Natural Gas CO 10.43% Jan-97
St, Lawrence Gas NY 10.00% Jan-98
SEMCO ^_nergy Gas MI 10.75% Oct-97
Shenandoah Gas VA 10.70% Jul-98
South Carolina Pipeline SC 12$0% Jun-98
South Jersey Gas NJ 11.23% Dec-97
Southwestern Virginia Gas VA 10.80% Jul-98
United Cities Gas IL 10,95% Jun-91
UtillCorp United CO 12,89% Jan-9!
` Vermont Gas VT 11,25% Nov-97
Virginia Natural Gas VA 1040% Apr-98
Wisconsin Electric Power WI 11.80% Mar-91
Wisconsin Public Service W1 11.80% Feb-91
Average 11.59%
f
'Source: Public Utility Reports, Advance Shoots, November 15. IM.
el
i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCI Reduces Invested Capital By Eliminating Construction Work In
Progress (CWIP) Resulting In A Reduction From Lone OWN Rests
Of Annroxtmately $13,000
• DUCI removed $101,192 of CWIP from rate base. All of this amount at
December 31, 1997, represents non-revenue producing CWIP that Is now
In service and would be allowed by the Railroad Commission, based on
actlon taken in Docket 8664. The Railroad Commission stated that this
type of CWIP represents Investment already placed In service and,
therefore, Is not properly considered CWIP as defined In Substantive Rul
7.48(c).
• All of this $101,192 investment is currently in service and is being used to
provide gas service to customers. Thus, customers should pay a
reasonable return on this used and useful Investment.
• DUCI did not understand when it said that Lone Star stated that CWIP was
requested for financial Integrity purposes. Lone Star could easily pass any
financial Integrity test, since Its actual return on common equity as of the
end of the test year was a meager 3.24%, and return on Invested capital
was 3.67% for the Denton system.
k
82
I
cl
i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distrlbution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCI Lowers Invested Capital By Using Negative Cash Working
Capital of 8218 $46, Reau ng h A Reduction From Lora Star's
Request Of Approximateiy $28,000
E • DUCI stated that it performed a review utilizing the limited information
provided by the Company and Information reviewed from L SG's Docket No.
8664. It Is unrealistic to base a lead-lag study on piecemeal Information,
such as the alleged payment lag on the Company gas purchases. The
Railroad Commission stated In Docket No. 8664 that Lone Star's cash
working capital balanco of zero Is reasonable.
i
o
83
l
V
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUM Lowers the Company's proposed Depreciation Expense -by
Approximately S97, 000
• DUCI's first depreciation adjustment was to recalculate depreciation
expense by utilizing the Average Life Group (ALG) methodology, rather that
the Equal Life Group (ELG) methodology used by Lone Star. ELG Is an
acceptable depreciation method used by a number of utilities and was
approved by the Railroad Commission In Lone Star's City Gate Rate Case,
Docket 8664. The Railroad Commisslon Order stated;
"Because it provides a more accurate estimate of the actual
consumption of property, the ELG depreciation procedure requested
by Lone Star is reasonable."
ELG has also been approved in Lone Star's distribution rate cases by all i
cities In cases filed since Docket 8664 (over 40 cities), There is no valid
reason to reject the ELG method.
• DUCT was the consultant In Docket 8664 when the Commission accepted
the use of the ELG method proposed by Lone Star over the ALG method
recommended by the consultant.
• DUCI's second depreciation adjustment was to recomniand a change in
tone Star's requested net salvage from a negative 30% to a negative 20%
because of reimbursed retirements. Lone Star's salvage calculations,
Including the way it used reimbursements in its salvage calculations, was ,
approves: by the Railroad Commisslon in Docket 8664. The Rc.,road
Commisslon Order stated; f t` `
"The service lives and salvage values proposed by Lone Star are
reasonable."
84
c~
I
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCI Incorrectly Determines the Level of Test Year Customers and
Volumes which Increases the Margin from Print Rates by $59.968,
• The consultant recommends that the test year customers be taken to a
year-end level on page 19 of his report.
• In fact, tone Star has already adjusted customers to a year-end level at
December 31, 1997.
• The Consultant states on page 19, footnote 21: "The Company calculates
year end customers by taking the difference between 1996 and 1997
average customers and dividing the difference (growth) by two..." The
consultant has not understood the Company's adjustment.
• Lone Star, In fact, has used the average number of customers for 1996 and
1997 to determine a rate of growth in customers, not Just a difference. This
rate of growth was applied to the 1997 average to :ring customers to a
year end level at December 31, 1997.
0 The graphs of residential and commercial customers on pages 20 and 21
show the recent numbers of customers in the Denton Distribution System
as well as Lone Star proposed and DUCI recommended.
• Clearly, the graphs illustrate that the Consultant's customers are too high
at December 31, 1997.
• The average number of residential and commercial customers for the
twelve months ended June 30, 1998, are 16,104 and 2,106, respectively.
These numbers are lower that what the Company had proposed for
December 31, 1997, which shows that the Company's adjustment is
conservative.
B5
a
u
I
III
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• D.UCI Incorrectly Determines the Level of Test Year Customers (cont'dl
• The Railroad Commission has accepted Lone Star's customer adjustment
methodology in prior appeals, as have numerous municipalities and other
consultants.
A8
J
c•
i(
I
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCI's A Justments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses
539.251
• The costs allocated from Lone Star to Denton are fixed costs that do not
vary with the leval of consumption. They are rec ulred to serve the
customers in Denton and would be the same regardless of the volume
usage in Denton.
• The only variable costs are gas cost and the associated revenue-related
taxes. These costs are captured at the local level. They are not allocated
from Lone Star,
• The customer allocation used by Lone Star for the last 25 years has been
accepted by the Railroad Commission in past Lone Star appeals and by the
cities that Lone Star serves.
e DUCI recommended a weighting different than one, based solely upon the /
number of customers, in the Southern Union Gas appeal of actions taken
by the City of El Peso (Gas Utilities Docket No. 881'8, Consolidated, Final
Order Issued November 17, 1998). The Railroad Commilssion order states:
"SUG's method for allocating costs among the Texas service areas
based on the single factor of the number of customers Is, reasonable,"
• Lone Star's method of allocation Is reasonable and compl'es with
regulatory requirements,
• Any differences in the costs associated with serving Industrial versus
residential and commercial customers are properly addressed In the
Company's class cost allocation,
81
I
i
1
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
DUCI'S Adlustment W Operating and Maintenance Exnerses of
$19,596
a DUCI has Incorrectly asserted that the Company Is proposing a phantom
adjustment.
0 In fact, the Company has adjusted buth revenue and expense for an
addHonal 252 customers produced by the Company's customer growth
adjustment to year end. The Company adjusts revenue and expenses as
if those customers had been on-line throughout the test year. DUCI's
adjustment reaches beyond the end of the test year. That Is Improper
unless all items (Including Investment) are taken to the same point In lime
beyond the end of the test year. The funr.Amental concept of matching is
violated by DUCI's methodology.
• DUCI, on page 19 of its report, claims the customer adjustment should be ,
Increased by 253 more customers for a total test year customer adjustment
of 505, yet it asserts that there may be no additional expense from
additional customers on Page 8 of its report.
• This growth has an undeniable effect on Company operations, and the
Denton Distribution System is only called upon to shoulder its fair share.
To do otherwise would be to place a burden on other customers and other
distribution systems where it does not belong.
• The Company's adjustment to operation and maintenance expense does ,
not Increase the per customer expense. It only gives recognition to the
growth in the number of customers to a year-end level.
e The average number of residential and commercial customers for the
twelve months ended June 30, 1998, are 16,104 and 2,106, respectively.
These numbars are lower than what the Company had proposed for
ee
r
c.
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCUs a ustment to Oporatina and Maintenance Exnanse_ _ s of $19.50
(co December 31, 1997, which shows that the Company's adjustment Is
conservative.
69
i
I
e
I
LONE STAR (SAS COMPANY
DENTON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
COMPANY VS CONSULTANT CUSTOMER'S
I
Residential Customers Ii
16,4no ~ f
10,220 ~
14n Mora
Customer
18,150 16,120.
10,90 190
c 151900 155
15,791
169
15,650 15,10'22
168
15,454
M
15,400
YE Jun-96 YE Da-06 YE Jun-07 YE Doc-07 At 0". 21,10
Average Customer
H Aooldentlet Customers a Lana Star Proposed 4 DUCI Recommended
t
J
r
u
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
DENTON DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
COMPANY VS CONSULTANT CUSTOMERS
Commercial Customers
2,225
2,200 .
63 Mors
2,116 Cuslomers
2,146 ♦
9,126 1 1
2,006 61 1
2,076
60
2,026 r
1 47
1,076
1,275 ryl'
4,441
r _
E Jun• l$ YE 0sc46 YE Jun-97 YE Dec-07 Al 00.
Average CueMomen
r Commercial Customers ♦ Lone blur Proposed a DUCT Rea mmend♦d i
r, I
1
i
t
c
u
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Dlstrlbutlon System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCt Reduced Labor Expenses by 5113.424 for a Reduction in
Employees
• DUCI recommends reducing labor and benefits expense by $109,076 to
account for the Impact of 163 tone Star Gas employees who voluntarily
took an early retirement package in 1997. This number is unsubstantiated,
• These employee reductions did not take place all at once, as DUCI
assumes, but took place over several months in 1997. Moreover, some
employees were called back on a temporary basis, while others have been
replaced.
e If an adjustment Is made, it Is not appropriate to utilize an annual amount
because the employees left during the test year, not after the test year.
1
4
f
92
f
r
u
h
Lone Star Gas "ompany
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• DUCI's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of
$106sO61
• DUCI esserts that 9 accounts have been adjusted by using a 3-year
average (1995-1997) of theses accounts due to higher level costs In 1997.
• it is not possible to determine if this adjustment has merit, because no
detail has been provided.
- I
r
1 r
93
I
C
U
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
• Weather Normalization Adiuskme n (WNA
• DUCI dorse not oppose allowing the WNA to continue because the City has
already approved a WNA, which Is designed to be revenue neutral.
• DUCI says that the WNA should be revised to remove ambiguity from the
clause. The City recently approved the WNA as it was proposed. In doing
so, the City joins 297 other cities served by Lone Star who have approved
a WNA without amendment.
• DUCI recommends that the residential and commercial margins be
specifically stated In the clause. Lone Star is not opposed to specifically
listing the margins; however, it Is not necessary to do so. The 291 cities
(see page 25) nerved by Lone Star who have approved WNAs have not
required the margins to be specifically stated.
I
i
94
M L'
I
R
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
CITIES I1AVIN'G A WEATHER NORMALIZATION
ADJUSTMENT (VV'A)
I Abbon 61 Cockrell Hill 120 Granger 179 MoGregm 233 Rosebud
2 Addison 62 Coleman 121 Groesbeck 180 Melissa 239 Rosa
3 Alba 63 College 'station 122 Gunter 181 Meridian 240 Rotan
4 Albany w Collinszille 123 Gustine 182 Merkel 241 Roxlon
I Altarodo 65 Comamhe 124 Hallom City 183 Mesquite 242 RoyseCity
6 Angus 66 Como 123 Hamilton 184 8fir0a 243 Rule
7 Anson 67 Coolis'Ie 126 Ham!in 183 Midway, 244 Sadler
8 Argyle 68 Coops 12" Haskcil 186 Mile: 245 Saginaw
9 Mery 69 Coppel1 12. Hearne 187 hhlfotd 246 Saint Jo
M Aubrey 70 Copper Canyon t2 Hedley is$ Moran 247 San Motto
1 I Athens 71 Copper is Cote 0 11 189 Manila-, 248 San Saba
12 BairJ 72 Corinth 13 Hew in 190 8lurchlam 249 Sanger
13 Balch Springs 73 Covington 132 '4i Wand PA 191 Newcastle 250 Sansom Park
14 Bangs 74 Crawford 13) Nit,' _^e Village 02 Newark 251 Sam Anna
15 Bardwell 75 Crowley 134 Hdlsbow 19) Nocona 252 Savoy
16 Barry 76 Cumby 135 Holland 194 NolaliOlie 253 S080% le
17 Bartlett 77 Dallas 136 Holliday 193 Normangee 254 Seymour
18 Bcilctue 78 Dawson 137 Hubbard 196 North Richland Hills 255 Shady Shores
19 Bellmead 79 Decatur 138 lowl Park 197 NoOm 236 Somerville
20 Benbwk 80 Dcican 139 Itedell 198 Oakwood 251 Springtown
21 Benjuinin 11 Denison 140 Ilasm 199 Oglesby 258 Star Harbor
21 Bctcity Hills 92 Denton 141 Joschpine 20D O'Brien 239 Stephenville
23 Blackwell 83 DcTim 142 Joshua 201 Paducah 260 Strown
24 Blooming Grate 14 Dcoott 143 Justin 202 Paint Rock 261 Streetman
25 Waite Mound 85 Dodd City 144 Kaufman 203 Palestine 262 Sulphur Springs
26 Blum 86 Double0ak 145 Kerns 204 Palmer 263 Sunnyvale
27 Bagma 87 Dublin 146 Kemp 205 Paris 264 SwMwater
28 Bowie 88 Duncanville 147 Kennedale 206 PecmGap 26$ Taylor
24 Boyd 89 Eden 148 Kefens 201 Penelope 266 Tchuacanit
10 Brcii.ond 90 EdgeclilTVillage 149 Killem 208 Petrolia 267 ThOmdalke
11 Bridgeport 91 Edom 150 Knox City 209 Pilot Point 268 Thornton !
32 Bronic 92 Emory 151 KoSVe 210 Plano 269 Throckmortnn
13 Brow nshs ro 93 Ennis 152 Krum 211 Pleasant Valley 270 twig
34 Brownowd 94 Estelline 133 Lary-Lakaiew 212 Ponder 271 Tom '
35 Brucavillc-Eddy 95 Eustam 154 Ladonia 213 Poy nor 272 Tom Bean
36 Bryan 46 Ctant 155 Lake Worth 214 Ponmicri 273 Trenton
17 Buckholn 91 Eterman 150 Lakeside 215 Putnam 274 Trinidad
18 Buffalo 98 rain'ew 157 lek6iew 116 Quanah 215 Tye
34 SutTtlo Gap 99 Farmcrr Branch 1581. ampmas 217 Quinlan 276 University Park !
40 Burkbumen 100 Farticrwrle 119 Lama 218 Quitman 277 Vi ley View !
41 Burleson 101 Ferns 160 Leonard 219 Ranger 178 Van Alstyne _
42 Burnet 102 FlawerMound 161 Lewimille 220 Red Oak 279 Venus
41 Bt ers 103 Forcm Hal 162 Lex ington 221 Reno (L amar Cc 1 280 Walnut Sptings
44 ciao!th11a IN Fomry 163 Lindsay 211 Reno (Puke Co.) 281 Waco
45 Cameron 105 Fort W'orh 164 Lipan 22) Retreat 282 Watauga
44) Cannm 1136 Franklin 165 LinterRiker-Academy 224 Rhome 283 Waxahachie
47 Carbon 107 Fmnkslan 166 Llano 225 Rice 214 W'einert
4R Carrollwn 108 Frisco 167 Lomita '26 Richardson 283 Wnt
49 CcIcste 109 Frost 168 Lune Oak 221 Richhrd 286 W'ellos er Hills
<0 Celina 110 Garland 169 Loraine 218 Rich [at d Hills 281 W'estworth Village
!I Ccmmille III Carrell 170 Lon 219 Riesel 288 While Settlement
51 ('handler 112 Glen Rose 171 Lueders 230 Ric, %11!u 289 Wbilehouse
51 ('h.Irwl Hill 113 Godley 172 8tabank 231 Rive- Oaks 290 k'hitesboro r
54 ch,cn I14 Gnadluw 173 \tod.wmilie 211 Robert Lee 291 11'himey !4t
55 (luldrea 115 Gordon 174 Malone 233 Robinson 292 W'lch its Fans
Sit C hdli"00 1l6 Gorm 173 Mansfield 213 Roby 293 W'Inten
5' Cisco 117 Gorman 176 Marlin 213 Rockdale 244 WnlfeCity
14 (larcmdon lib Gnnhury 177'.lart 236 Rockeail 295 Waduay
59 Clurk,o Ile IN Grand%iew 178 Staypcarl 237 Roscoe 296 wortbam
no Cleburne
95
r
c
i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
0 Proposed Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA)
• Lone Star has proposed the approval of a Cost of Service Adjustment
clause to address annual changes in the cost of service. Approval of this
clause will alleviate any concerns the City may have regarding future
merger savings.
• The COSA isn't automatic in that the City can review and adjust it anytime,
particularly when the annual statement is filed with the City each April,
• The COSA Increases the City's regulatory review.
• COSA tends to moderate the frequency of full rate increases.
• COSA operates in both directions decreases as well as Increases and 1
is limited to the amount of inflation. k
COSA saves Cities the time and effort of dealing with full-blown rate cases
by making minor adjustments to rates, but tone Star will present any
information that the City desires and will make any presentation to the City
Council that they request.
0 Over 250 of Lone Star's Cities have COSA in effect (See page 27)
• COSA adjustments are made in May, when gas bills decline to their lowest
levels, with the adjustment typically ranging around only t 250 per month. ,
96
f 1•
I
I
f
6
o~E I Als cAS corjANY
C I I I rPtAV l tC A COST 0 SERVICE
ADJUSiAli,i (ILOSA) AS OF 11131198
i ,
1 A6har 64 Con6dgc III Ladonim 490 Rhome
2 Alba AS CasP+sY 126 Lakeview 191 Rice
3 .Aihany 66 Corinth 129 Lampasas 192 Richland
4 Ah arid" 67 Cnsinglan 130 Levon 193 Riesel
3 Allard 68 Crandall III Lawn 194 Rio Vuu
6 Angus 69 Craw furl 132 Leona 195 Roanoke
7 Anna 70 Cumby 133 Leonard 196 Rohm Lee
E Anson 71 Dawson 134 Leninglun 197 Roby
4 1rgJle 72 DeLeon 135 Lipan 198 R,"dale
In Athena 73 Dquen 136 Lei Elm 199 Roden
11 Aubrey 74 Mimic 137 Link Rver-.Academy 200 Roscoe
12 As:ry 73 DodJCot) 135 Llano 201 Rows
13 Band 76 Dublin 139 Lomelm 202 R+Un
14 Balch Spnngv 77 ri'dand 140 Lane Oak 203 RNem
I$ Banderi 78 Kier 141 Loraine 204 Ill City
16 Banalw 19 tdell 142 Loren 205 Rule
17 Bardwcli 10 E&rm 143 Len 206 Sanger
IF Barr) E1 Emory 144 Lueders 207 San Sara
19 Balker 112 Eelelhne 145 Murank 208 Samu Aug
20 a0lr+ue 93 runlui 145 Madisn Me 219 SAVO)
:1 Ban4enun 14 Evanl 147 Siafakuff 2to SeaFosille
12 Bertram AS Fain CA 14A Milnnr 211 Shady Sham
23 old, k%ell No remlr 149 Manholl Crock 212 Snyder
24 Plarkr /7 Forney 150 Man 213 Somen ille
25 61+hmi no Cirwe AE FrmNm 151 6'•vpearl 2E1 Southmayd
25 BL+shom 19 Fnnksb-n 152 McGreg+w 215 5pringwwn
90 Fredericksburg 153 Melissa 216 Stamford
2? Blow Ridge
25 Blum 91 reel 154 Meridian 217 Sur Harbor
:o &,gala 92 Gdiey III Mail 218 Stra%n
irl Pyd 9J Gnodlow 156 Mes9vire 214 Slreetman
31 Brrmond 94 Goree 157 ,Midway 220 Sunnyvale
32 8rdgci6.,rt 91 Crel 159 Sh1es 221 5Aw%a:+
11 Bnmta 96 Granhury 159 Shtford 222 Taylor
14 Brr, +w•hvo 97 Grand Praere 160 Sloran 2,11 Tape
11 Br,ra+dlc I"41s 91 Grund,tcw 161 Morgan 224 Tehurans
it buJ.hwirs 99 Granger 162 Alunday 223 Thorndak a
31 B,11 do 1191 Greslxok Ih1 Vlun'hiii0n 226 Thomlen
?9 BuI11L-Gap 10t Gunter 1h4 Ne%wk 227 Thrall
39 Buwncl 102 Guomoo 165 %411 Casde 225 1'hrakmonon
40 0, or, 103 Hamlin 166 %ovena 229 Twin
41 CYddo 61d14 I(A Ha $o Ireights 161 Nolaneille 230 Tmn
42 Caldwell l0s 11,11104 165 Vnrtnangee 231 Tom Ban
}1 (zr ell 106 Hawlq 169 Vo+ke 232 Trent
34 1 jwa, n l07 WWII 170 Oakwood 213 Trenwn
13 CmnphcIl 100 Jledlcy 171 O'Brien 214 Trinidad
46 ("aman ll"1 Hennena 172 Ogl"by 233 Troy
1 ( !rl.m II$) Iloll and 173 Paducah 236 Tuscola
4 I.1c.tc III Holliday 174 Paint 11 237 Tyr
4'1 I. Iran III II,%t 175 Palmer 235 Valley View
I,I ( a ion lllc 11) Hoh6ard 176 Pamm Gap 219 Vam Alstyno
!I Ihandler 114 Ilumn 111 Prnclayse I40 Vrnus
!2 fbap:a 11,11 113 Iowa Park 171 Pclrnha gel Walnut Spnngw
SI thii: lib Iredcll 179 PdoIPoint 242 Weiner
01 I hllh<r (lie 117 Italy 150 Paml 243 Westmingn _
J. 114 Imsn 131 Pond<r 244 W'bitehouae 2 s
<h Cluro)d,m 1 i9 Joerrhme 152 Pini 245'A hitesboro A
('Iarksuile 120 Juslln 113 Princeton 246 V1hi lnry
<1 I kde 121 Kaufman 194 Quanah 247 Wmilov t
I I llsniar, 122 Keene 115 Q„rnkin 241 NMicro
n: Ii41rn,u11, 121 Ili 196 Ranger 249 lkblfe Crry
61 Csdrude l ity 124 Kcrrm 117 Rena ll amar Co.l 230 Wortham
62 ComAn.he 125 Kane 111E 111~ l Parker Co. 1 251 Yantis
63 Cnrna 12h Krum 189 Reirval
i
97
h
i
i
i
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
Comments on Consultant's Report
O Proposed Plant Investment Cost Adiustment (PICA)
• The PICA Isn't automatic in that the City can review and adjust it anytime,
particularly when the annual statement is filed with the City each April.
• The PICA increases the City's regulatory review.
• PICA allows Lone Star to not request rate increases as often.
• PICA operates in both directions decreases as well as increases but,
in growing areas, will likely be increases.
• PICA is limited to the approved rate of return (which locks in the cost of
capital at historical low levels).
• PICA saves Cities the time and effort of dealing with full-blown rate cases
by making minor adjustments to rates, but Lone Star will present any
infonnation that the City desires and will make any presentation to the City
Council that they request.
• PICA is currently authorized in 8 Lone Star Cities (Batch Springs, Coleman,
Granbury, Grand Prairie, Mesquite, Muenster, Seagoville and Sunnyvale).
• PICA adjustments are made in May, when gas bills, historically, decline to
their lowest levels, with the annual adjustment ranging from a minus 7¢ per
month to a plus 80¢ per month (See page 29). ,
98
o
F
c,
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
PICA HISTORY
19% 1997 1998
PICA PICA PICA
NO, TOWNS CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE
I COLEMAN $0.41 $0.33 $0,19
2 GRANSURY 1) NA NA (50.07)
3 MUENSTER $0.01 ($0.02) $080
1) 1998 was the first year the PICA was etlscUve In Granbury.
i
i
99
C"
U
i
EXHIBIT 4
r
100
i
I'I ONE STAR Gds COMPANY
COSA HISTORY w
i _ 11996 - 1997 1998
COSA COSA COSA
NO, TOWNS CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE
i ABBOTT ($0.24) $018 $0 21
2 ALBA $007i ($0 24) $0.22;
3 ALBANY ($0.40) ($0 22) ($6.19)
4 6 ANGUS ALVARADO (($034) 24 S0 21 _ $020 S0 19
$021' 'ANNA 03 7 w'; (So 39 l$6.22)
8 ANO _
10 (So.24
28 (SO.SB) (30.19
ARGYLE ($0
I
11 A ATTHENS HENS 3394) $0.23 $0.24',
1
430,1T~
$0 23
112 3 AVER $0.28) $0.09' l 23)
BAIRD ito 0.13) $0,
1
14 BANDERA 5 BANGS ! i l 051 1.22 (p,24 23 16 DY $0 .27`
11 BARRY
ETT $0.21 ~ $0.22
18 BAR I ..$0.19 I $441
19 BELLEVUE ($030k ($023} ($023
$0
20 BENJAMIN { ($038) 1 ($022) (24
21 BERTRAM ($205) $009 $019,
22 BLACKWELL ($0.30f ($0.201 (50.22)
23 BLANKET ($025) $020 $022
24 BLOOMING GROVE $0,27 $009 $0 23'
($0.18j
25 BLOSSOM $0.27 $043'
26 BLUE RI $035' so 25: e o ~s
27 BLUM $0.23
28 BOGATADGE r ( . 0) $020 {$0.06
29 BOYD (so.35) 23
23
30 BREMONO ($0,33) ($022 ($0.2
31 BRIDGEPORT (S9 321 ($0 21 1 ($0.24
4
32 BRONTE $0.26
33 BROWNSBORO ($0.38) ($0.22) ($0.251
34 BRUCEVILLE-ECDY $0.19 ($0.14) $0.20,
35 BUCKHOLTS ($0,10) SO.C5 $022;
36 BUFFALO $0.32 $012 $0251
37 BUFFALO GAP $0,24 $0.19
38 BURNET ($0,29) (3020) ($020
39 BYERS (51.15) $021
40 CADDO MILLS $0 23'
$0 21 ($0
ISuss
4 1 CA 01
42 CA LVERT LDWELL ~ 22 sd ~ ~
($1.17(
43 CAMERON $0211
44 CAMPIELL ( } $0 19 $0 24; r,
43 CANTON $0,19' $0 25 ; Ji \
43 CARBON (51.94) $013' $624'
47 CELESTE $026
48 CELINA ($028) ($0.19) ($0.19)
49 CENTERVILLE ($012j ($0.20) ($023)
i
101
r
c:
ONE STAR GAS COMPANY
C06A HI~TOftl~ i
i
t
1096 ~ j 1991 1998 }
1 COSA COSA COSA 1
NO TOWNS CHANGE CHANGE ` CHANGE
j
51 CCHANDLE 0.37 ($022)
{ $0,22,
HCHAPEL HR L ($0.34 13) (($0.23)
( ) ($024
53 CHILLICOTHE ($18T~ ($0.21 $0,23
54 CISCO (50.38) { 1$0.23) ($0,25)
55 CLARENDON ($0.33) ($0.20) ($0,22)
56 CLARKSVILLE $0.32 $0.25 $021S57 CLYDE I ($028 ) $0 21' $0,22
58 COLEMAN (SO42 ) ($0251 I )
59 j ($0.2323y
60' 'COLONRADO CITY ` (50 37I ($0 21 (
61 COMANCHE j ($0.31 50.23 $026
62' .COMO $D.32 025 '1 29
$0.231
63 COOLIDGE (S0.
64 COOPER 52 $0,2 $0 32 $O -81
65' CORINTH f (5031 ($0.19 ($022
66 COVINGTON l$031 $0.221 50.251
66 'CRANDALL f (32.16 $D.191 50.20
68 CRAWFORD 50.22 $0.19 $0.22
69 CUMBY ($0.35 ($0.19) (50.23
70 DAWSON ($0.32) $0,20 $0.221
7
72' DEPORT 1 DELEON ( ) ($0.67 ISO ~24
73 4 'DETROIT DCITY $1 8 1 ($6 D $0
.24 _ ( 0~ 16'
7
75 DUBLIN ($0.341 $0.21
76 EASTLAND (50.39) ($0.24) ! ($0.211
77 ECTOR ($2.x41 $0.23 ($0.53
78 EDEN ($0.331 150.20) $0.25.
79 EDOM ($0.361 ($0.19) ($0.21)
80 EMORY $0.06 ($0.23) $0.22
81 ESTELLINE ($0.33J (50.21) ($0.23)
82 EUSTACE ($0.41) (50.24) ($0.24)
83 EVANT ($0.34( (50.201 ($023
84 FAIRVIEW $014 0.23 $0.34
85 FERRIS (50.40) ($0211 ($0.22,
86 FORNEY (50.311 (50.191 (50.221
87 FRANKLIN (50,17( $020 $014,
88 FRANKSTON (5033) (50221 ($0,231
89 FREDERICKSBURG $000 W', 1) $0131
90 FROST $0,28 $D,W' 50.22,
91 GODLEY 50,30 $0221 50.151
92 GOODLOW $0,21' $0.18; 50.16,
93 GOREE
.24
94 GORMAN ($0.36) ($012 {$6.24
95 GRANBURY $0
$0,24'
GRANDVIE
9 ($1.64 5001 56.19;
RANGERW
977 G
98 GROESBECK ($2,331 $011' $014,
102
J
I
f
L ~ONE.STAR
A HIS dmPANY
i
I f _ I r ...1996 ~ i997 I i998 _-7
;
I
COSA _ C66A ± COSA i
NO.i~lOWNS CHANGE { CHANGE CHANGE
99 GUN7ER 1 (50.301 50 01 { $0.25
1 { (0.23J
01' 'HAMLIN {$0.38 ~cp
102 H(,RKER HEIGHTS s2.13 (50,14 $0.21
, I )
103 HASKELL 1$0.29 j ($0.21 ($0.221
104 HAWLEY $0,24 solo i $0.18;
;0o5 HEATH $024 3021; $0.23'
( ($0.21
i
( HEDLEY ($033 ($0.21
107 HENRIETTA 23
$0.321 24
toe HOLLAND AY ( {$O22 ($0 ,
~ 1,62 $0 23 so
109, 111 HUBBARD j ($0 31 I SO 21 $023
110 42 HUTTO ($1.79 $0, 0 so -
.20
1
113 IOWA PARK $0.31 (50.21 _(S0.22
114 ~IRED£Ll ` (s018~ 4 50.21 $623
`
115 ITALY ($2.13 80 23 $624
116' ITASCA j $0 is
117 !JOSEPHINE ($177 $018 3020
118, ,JUSTIN { ($0.29 (30.18 {302 I
119, KAUFMAN ($0.31 { ($020 ($021 2
120 KEENE (E0.34~ $0.26 5011;
121 KEMF $0.21;
422 KERENS $027, 50.18 I_ $0,16
123 KOSSE ($0.3d~ $0.191 sd32`
124' KRUM ($0,26). 16 16
125 LADONIA (so.42) ~ ($0.28 $029 OA6
126 'LAKVEW Ij. ` ($0.38 h ($0.23} ($028
127 LAMPASAS ($033)
128, .LAV01J 50 24, ($0 30 ($6
129 'LAWN (S0561
130 LEONA $004 $022 $0.2
$0.24
($0 27) 24 6.16
191 LEONARD `
132 LEXINGTON ($0941 $019 $0.23
133 'LIPAN ($033) (E021 50.24
134 LITTLE ELM ($0,56 ($0 23 s0.18j
135 LITTLE 137 LOMEOgIVER-ACADEMY ($029( ($p19 ($0.18
'
(s0 21 ($po
138 LONE OAK 4015 (30.22 (sb 23~
139140 LORENA {$1.68 $0.18 ,22
t41 IOTTINE Y (Sd.33 - (S0020 .9 {$0$0.23
022
142 LUEDERS 1 ($020 is0.22
143 130.26 4 > 1~~
MAEiANK ($0.0 ~ ($026
144 MADISONVILLE ($0.33 $$0221 $0,251
145 MALAKOFF {53.54 $0.24 $0.25'
146 MALONE 1 23 0.19 $0.23
147 MARSHALL CREEK ($1.85} 50.181 50.05
103
l
I
M f
.ONE STAR GAS COMPANY ,
COSA Hi TOR
X
14 1998 { ~ 1997 I 1998 ~ (
! COSH [ COSA COSA
NO. TOWNS CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE
148 MART (so i
(so- ($0. 81 ($0191,
149 MAYPEARL
150 MCGREGOR 025 50,21E $0.24:
151MELISSA ($013j ($0.221 96231
152 MERIDIAN 3632' {50.23) $023
MERKEL (50,31) ($0.20) ($023)
153
154 :MIDWAY (5031) ($0.12) $014,
155 MILES (x,31) $023 $024
X$0
156 MILFORD 33 (.21) ($022j
; I
157 157 ~MORAN ($6.45
) {$0231 ($026)
MORGAN ($0.54 ~$0.31 ) $6.23
159 MUNDAY (30 31 {~0 22) ($008)
160, MURCHISON ($037) ($0.22) (SQ23
161 NEWARK ($034,1 ($0.17) ($018
NEWCASTLE ($0 _ 2^) 0211 (SO 22)
163 NOCCNA $022 - $0 23
164 NOLANVILLE ($2.73) 4 ($0.14 ($0211
165 NORMANGEE ($2.31) $0,20, SO 23
17 $0.06; i 3Q 23
5019 )
166 168 OoAKWOOD ($0 )
$0 24 30261 k
O 30.24' $0.08, $022
170 AOUCAH ;
' ($0 311 ($0.19) (SO 221
171 169 PAINT GLESBY ROCK ~I (9043) l ($0,22) ($026)
172 PALMER (Sb,38) $022 50.21;
173 PECAN GAP (30.35) $0.10' $0.28
174 PENELOPE ($0.04) 50.20' $023
175 'PETROLIA ($0.311 j .02 $023''
176 PILOT POINT ($0.29) {$0191 ($021)
177 'POINT ($0 28) {$0.57) $023
176 PONDER ($026) ($0.15) ($018)
179' POYNOR (50.34) $010 ($022)
180 PRINCETON ($045) (30.16) ($0021
161 QUANAH ($0.35j (30.22) ($0331
182 QUINLAN ($1.(9 (5013) 50.22
183 RANGER ($0391 ($0.24) (3o26)
184 RENO(LAMARCO) $027; $0.22 ($0.09)
185 RENO(PARKERCO) ($0291 ($0.101 (SO.i7)
186 RETREAT $021 $0.19 $020
187 RHOME ($034j ($0.18 {$020
188 RICE ($038 j ($0 271
189 RICHLAND ($1.79) $020 {30 24
190 'RIESEL ($031) ($0.19
J 21 {$0 231
191 RIO VISTA ($036 ($021
i $0,05
192 'ROANOKE ,85 $6 is;
$0.23
193 ROBERT LEE ($026 $0, 150 I
194 ROBY ($0,32j ($0 ioj ,22)
. 1
1% ROCKDALE ($0.28) $0.20 $024
196 ROGERS ($020) 5020 $022,
104
ONE SCOSA HI TOR~MPANY I
Ii l I1I I { ~ ~
I k 1996 I ~ 1997 ~ , 1998 I
COSA COSA COSA
CHANGE 1
NO. SCE I CHANGE
$1.141 CHANGE
197 RO I $0 23
$0.22`
I
19d' A09ESUQ I ! 28E I
199 'ROSS _ (3025' 5024]
200 ROTAN (50,31 ($0231
261, ;RO)(TON $0.261 So 231 S6A1
202 :ROYSE CITY 014 1,
$0.22
RULE
2031
204 ` :SAN SABA ($oAl $0.24 { $0 28{
8 (30.31 ($0.20( (50.22)
2205 SANGER
SANTA ANNA 150.42 ($0 Z6 ($0.27J
0
2071 SAVOY ($0.51 5023 $0.06',
208 ;SHADY SHORES 1 ($0 31 (50191 (50.22
209 SNYDER ($0.31 ($022
0
1I {SOUTHMAYD ($0,47 $0 50 B !8OMERVILLE $0.03. 2"
221 $0 .6
i
, _ _ ($0
21 60
1
2121 SPRINOTOWN ($034 ($0.18 ($6,M
213 STAMEORD 3508 50.23 $0.251
2141STAR HARBOR $035 f (30.20 ($022
STRAWN ($0.34 50.21
215216' ' STREETMAN ($0,33 f (50.221 {50 25
217 'SWEETWATER ($09 $0.22 $023
218, iTAYLOR $0,00 $0.04', $o 20
219 'TEAbUE (5214 ; 020, $029
220' ITEHUACANA f ($0.30 ($018 ($022
2211 ITHORNOALE (51.73 50 18 ;r0.19I
4
59 $7.22
THORNTON (52,63 0,1
222
223 THRALL (3168 ~So'05 50.181 ,
~
224 { THkbCKMORTON ($0,35 ($0 211 $624
225 ~TIOGA $031 $04211 ($0'17
228 'TOCO $0.29 $0001 ($025
227, TOM BEAN ($0.53)
228 TOM ($0.33( ($0 r4 1$021
229 TRENTON ($0141 I (50.21 ($023)
230' TRINIDAD ($038) ($).231 ($024)
231' TROY 30.19' {51~.35J $011
ar ^ i j O23 ; ; $6 { $0.20;
233 TYE i ($0.03 22
) ? i $0 , 23
$0 22
234' VALLEY VIEW $6.09 $0,281
235 ,VAN ALSTYNE ($0.29) (t0 21 (30.22
238 'VENUS ($0,36 (3d.21~ ($0.22
237 'WALNUT SPR I NGS (3033 $0.20' f $0.18
238 'WEINERT ($0.33 ($0.21 150.23
239, WESTMINSTER ($0.72 $010 E $0.21 j ,
240 'WWHITEHOUSE HIT£SBORO 36
24 f
242 WHITNEY ($3,261 3b22j $0.06
243 WINOOM Ro 36 $0.00 0091 { tr
($0 29 23
244 WINTERS $0,(3
$Onj
245 WOLf.. CITY $024 j
I ,
105
t,
i
~ ~ BONE STAR G_ S COMPANY_ _ ~ ~
j _ C0311 HI TOR ! ?4
1997 { 1995
~I CoSA_. COSA COSA
0241
246 lWORTHAM CFI/aNGS30.30 CNAN~ibb1} CNANG
0,23
247+ [YANTIS X24
t
AMOUC ELIMINATED 00. l' 142.98
}
~I
~ { 1
r
106
4
1 r
c
I
EXHIBIT 5
w
107
C
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CHARGES
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $8 AND /OR $14 RESPECTIVELY
Residential commercial
city Winter _ Summer Year round Winter _ .Summer Year round
1 Abbott 8,51 14.61
2 Atilene 8.00 14.Do
3 Alvarado 9.60 15,60
4 Alvord 6,93 14.93
5 Angus 8.37 10,87
6 Anson 814 14.34
7 Athens 8.68 6.68 12.68 8.68
8 Aubrey 8.25 6.25 12.25 8.25
9 Baird 8.62 14.62
10 Belch Springs 8.00 14.00
11 Bardwell 10.07 15.07
12 Barry 9.00 14.78
13 Bartlett 8.40 14.40
14 Sambrook 8.00 14.00
15 Benjamin 8.40 14,40
16 Bertram 8,45 8.45 1245 8.45
17 Blackwell 8.00 14,00
16 Blue Ridge 9171 15.71
19 Bonham 6.00 14.00
20 Bowie Boo 14.00
k i Boyd 8.63 %63
22 aremond 8.46 8,46 12.48 6.46
23 BrldgepoA 8.65 14,65
24 Sronte 9,83 15.83
25 Brownwo',d 8,00 14.00
26 Bryan 8.00 14.00
27 Buffalo 9.15 1SAS
28 Buffalo Gap 9,01 16.04
29 Burleson Boo 14 W
30 Caddo Mills 8.23 14.23
31 Conlon 8.44 14.40
32 Celeste 8.91 14.91
33 Centerville 8.32 14,32
34 Chapel Hill 8.22 14.22
35 Clarendon 0.31 114,31 6.015 ~1~~\ C
36 Clarksville 10.05
31 Cleburne 8.00 14.00
• 38 Coleman 9.09 12.64
39 College Station $ Do 14.00
108
ti
' t.
tt
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY `
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CHARGES
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $8 AND /OR W RESPECTIVELY
Reswenual Commercial '
City Winter Summer Year--round Winter Summer Year-round
40 Comanche 9.04 1544
41 Coro 10.03 1603
42 Coolidge 9.32 15.32
43 Cooper 8.45 6,45 12.45 8.45
44 Copperas cove 8.00 14.00
45 Covinglon 8.67 14.57
46 Crawford 8.75 6.76 1215 8.75
47 Crowey 6.00 14,00
48 Dawson 8.78 14.78
49 Decatur 800 14.00
50 Deport 8.31 14.31
61 Dodd City 9.05 15 05
62 Dublin 8.83 12.24
63 Edgecliff Ylla~e 8.00 1400
64 Event 8.31 6.31 12.31 8.31
65 Everman 8.00 14.00
66 Fa?fiield 8.00 14.00
67 Fairview 8.66 11.13
68 Forest Hill 840 1400
69 Fort worth s.oo 14.00
60 Franklin 9.39 15,39
61 Frisco 6.50 14.00
62 Glen Rose 7.00 1400
63 GodieV 9.95 16.95
64 Gordon 8.00 .1.00
65 Goree 8.24 1424
66 Granbury 8,17 1417
67 Grandview 8.24 14.24
68 Groesbeck 9.02 7 02 1302 9,02
69 Haltom City 8,00 1400
70 Harker Heights 8,80 1480
71 Heame &OV 14.00
72 Hadley 8,10 14.10 r
73 Hillsboro 8.00 14.00 /
74 Holland 8.19; it r
14.19
76 Honey Grove 8,00 14.00 ( O,
76 Hubbard 8.76 14.75
77 Hutchins 8.00 14.00
78 Impact 8.00 14,00
79 Iredell 9.68 14.66
I09
a
r
LONE STAR OAS COMPANY
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CHARGS$
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $8 AND /OR $14 RESPECIWELY
Residential Commercial
city Wlnler Summer Year-round Winter Summer Year-round
_ a
80 1'?sca 8.16 14.16
III Joshua 8.00 -400
02 Justin 8,11 14.11
83 Keene 6.06 14.00
84 Kemp 8.21 14,21
85 Kennedale 8 00 100
86 Kerans :.52
87 Knoliwood 8.00 14.00
88 Knox City 8.00 14.00
89 Kosse 9.29 13.29
90 Krum 8.19 8.19 12,19 8.19
91 Lakeside 8A0 14.00
92 Lake Worth &DO 14.00
f
93 Lampasas 6.85 1485
04 Lavon 8.75 12.75
95 Leona 9.17 15.17
96 Leonard 8.40 14.40
97 Lexlrran 8.35 6,35 12.35 8.35
98 Lindsey 8.00 14,00 {
99 Lott 8.03 8.03 1203 .8 8,03
90 Lueders 8.33 103
10i Mebank 6.45 14.45
102 Madisonville 9.46 15.48
103 Mansfield 8.00 100
104 Martin 800 14.00
105 McGregor 9.01 7,01 13,01 9.01
106 Merwien 9.37 16.37
107 Mesquite 8,00 14.00
108 Maxie 8.00 14.00
109 Midway 7.99 14.99
110 Miles 8.48 14.48
111 Moran 6,48 14.48
112 Munday 8.00 14.00
113 Newcastle 8.06 14.06
114 Nocona 8.45 14.45 s A~ t,,
115 Nolanville 6.11 14.11 ~ff
116 Normanpee 9.03 16.03
117 North Richland KH& 8 C.' 14.00
118 Novice 823 14.23
110
,Jl V
c
I
I
i
a ~I
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CHARGES
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $8 AND !OR W RESPECTIVELY
Reeldentia_t Commercial
City Wnter Summer Year-round 4Vlnter Summer Year-round
119 O'Been 8,98 8.98 12.98 8.98
120 Oakwood 8.48 14.48
121 Paducah 8.21 14.21
122 Palestine 8.00 14.00
123 Palmer 8,88 14.88
124 Paris 8.00 14.00
125 Pecan Gap 8.63 14.53
126 Petrone 8.79 14.79
127 Pilot point 8.08 14.08
128 Poynor 8.72 1412
129 Princeton 8.00 14.00
130 Putnam 8.00 14.00
131 Ouansh 8.34 14.34
132 Quitman 8.00 14.00 I
133 Reno 8.09 14.09
134 Reheat 8.66 9.16
135 Richland Hills 8.00 14.00
136 Rio Vista 8.04 14.04
137 River Oaks 8.00 14.00 I
138 Robert Lee 8.24 6.24 12,24 8.24
139 Rochester 8.00 14.00
140 Rockwell 6,00 14,00
141 Rosebud 4.00 14.00
142 Rotan 6,61 4,61 14.61 7,61
143 Royse City 6.24 14.24
144 Rule 8.22 14.22
145 Sadler 8.00 14,00
146 Saint Jo 8.00 14.00
147 Sansom Park 8.00 1400
148 Seagoville 8.00 14.00
149 Seymour 8.00 14.00
I 150 Sherman 8.00 14.00
151 Snyder 9.42 7.42 13.42 9.42
152 Somerville 9.49 13.49
13,3 Spnngtow1 3.43 14.43 '',4
154 St?miord 8.78 14.76 lr
155 Stephenville 6.00 14.00
158 Strewn 6.98 14.96
157 Sulphur Springs 8,00 14.40
l11
•
a
LL
asrrnrrsarner
r.
I
t
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER CHARGES
GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO $8 AND !OR $14 RESPECTIVELY
Residential _ Commercial
city Winter Summer Year-round Winter Summer Year-round
158 Sunnyvale 8.00 1400
159 Taylor 8.24 14.24
160 Teague e.24 8.24 12.24 8.24
161 Thornton 8.35 8,35 12.35 8.35
162 Throckmorton 8.09 14.69
163 Trent 8.33 14,33
164 Walnut Songs 8.88 14188
165 Watauga Boo 14.00
166 Weinert 8.08 14.08
167 Westover Hills 8 0o 14.00
168 Wesworth Village 8.00 100
169 Whitehouse 8,24 1424
170 While Settlement 8.00 14.00
171 W Imer 8.00 14.00
172 Windom 9.16 15.18
173 Winters 8.34 14.34
174 Wortham 8.89 14.89
1
i
x
r~
r
Ar r
I
1
I
112
l
I
EXHIBIT 6A
r
1 t
113
I
,
i
I
ij
LSO Denton Distribution System
Test Year: 12/97
DUCT RFI Set No. I
Question No. 31
Page I of i
I
REQUEST:
Rate Request - Please provide a list of each rate request made by jurisdiction during the last 3
years along with the date riled, the amount requested and the amount granted.
RESPONSE: j
Information concerning municipal rate cases filed by the Company in municipalities other than
the municipality afrected by this filing is not relevant however, for the rate cases based on test
year ended December 31, 1997, following is a listing of the proposed and approved amounts for
each city.
No,of %of
Date Amount Amount Alrected Request
City Filed Requested Granted Custs. Granted
Addison 7.10-93 $152,119 $132,848 2,240 87% J
Balch Springs 7.10-98 1(19,050 109,050 3,519 1006/0
1
Carrollton 7.10-98 792,325 343,355 21,644 43%' j
Coppcll 7-24-98 272,879 155,905 7,498 43%*
Copper Canyon 7-24.98 143 107 7 750%
Double Oak 7-24.98 3,893 993 130 26%
Farmers Branch 11.10-98 318,614 151,731 8,346 48%0
Flower Mound 7-24-98 329,576 128,700 11,429 39%4
Grand Prairie 9-25.98 284,944 186,490 17,813 65%4
Highland Village 7.24.98 106,997 34,646 3,650 32%
Lewisville 7-24.98 244,838 t48,852 12,298 61%' !
Mesquite 7-10-98 943,959 943,959 24,879 100°/.
Seagoville 7.10-98 $1,189 51,189 1,431 1000/9
Sunnyvale 7-10-98 23,961 25,961 568 1000/0
All of these increases were approved at the City level.
• indicates independent rate consultant involved. ( #
I
I
114
i
r
c:
f
i
I
~II
EXHIBIT 6B
r
115
i
,
r
i
LONE STAR GAS COMPANY
COMPARISONS OF AMOUNTS GRANTED TO AMOUNTS REQUESTED
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 311* 1107
o. of s Yo of Approved
Affected Request 1 Customer Charges
ry Amount Amount
System CI pled Requested ! Granted ' Customers Granted ! Rea. Com.
Carrollton Total System 1,263,058 627,934 32,230 50%
Addison 7.10-98 152,119 432,648 2,240 $5,00 $10,00
Carrollton 7.10.98 792,325 343,355 21,644 $5.00 $10.00
Farmers Branch 7.10.98 318,614 151,731 8,346 $5.00 $10. DO
Grand Prairie *Total System 0625.98 264,944 186,490 17,813 70% $7.00 $12.00
Lewisville Total System 915,257 426,134 35,012 47%
Coppell 7.24.98 272,879 155,905 7,498 $7.25 $12.50
Copper Canyon 7.24-98 143 107 7 $7.25 $12.50
Double Oak 7.24.98 3,893 993 130 $7.25 $12.50
Flower Mound 7.24.98 329,576 128,700 11,429 $7.25 $12.50
Highland Village 7.24.98 106,997 34,646 3,650 $7.25 $12.60
Lewisville 1.24.98 244,838 148,852 12,298 $7.25 $12.50
Mesquite Total System 1,173,228 1,173,228 30,397 100%
Balch Springs 7.10-98 109,050 109,0Ed 3,519 $8.00 $14,00
Mesquite. 7.10-98 943,659 943,959 24,879 $8,00 $14.00
Seagoville 7.10-98 51,189 51,189 1,431 $8.00 $14.00
Sunnyvale 7-10.98 25,961 25,961 568 $8.00 $14.00
c
• Amount requested was adjusted downward from $284,944 due to a $20,000 revenue reduction after the
case was f led.
i
t~
t
AGENDA INFOWMATION SHEET AgondsNa, 9/'!~~~.
Agapda Item.
S(
0316-
AGENDA DATE: February 9, 1999
DEPARTMENT: Planning Department
CM/DCM/ACM: Rick Svehln, 349.77150
SUBJECT-Thistle Hill (A-79)
Receive a preliminary assessment, hold a discussion, and consider approval of a schedule of
public hearings with regard to the proposed annexation of a S2.49 acre tract located on the south
side of Ryan Road, approximately one hundred and fifty (150) feet east of Forest Ridge Drive in
the City of Denton's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) (see Attachment l).
BACKGROUND
The petitioner requests the property be annexed and zoned with a permanent lond use
classification of Single-Family 10 (SF-10) and Single-Family 16 (SF-16) zo0ig districts. The
property owners desire to subdiOde the tract into one hundred and t"enty-nine t129) residential
lots developed in two (2) phases (scn: Attachment 2). The first phase would co%er the northern
21.49 acres adjacent to Ryan Road and contain thirty-six lots. The remaining thirty-one acres
would be subdivided Into ninety-three (93) lots.
SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION
The Groa1h Management Plan indicates that this area should be developed as low density
residential. Since this property is outside of the city limits, annexation is the logical step to
ensure that this in fact occurs. It will provide the City of Denton the authority to regulate land
use based upon a zoning classification Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council
conduct a thorough analysis regarding this request for annexation and zoning by approving the
attached annexation public hearing schedule (see Attachment 4). Approval of this schedule will
allow staff to proceed with the I)rmal annexation review process.
P$I_OR ACTON/REVIEW (Coyp•Ei13Boacds. Commissional
None at this time.
FISCAL IN ORMATION r
None nt this time.
1 r; e
i r r n ,+ri n n I+d, i, tl k. ~ 1 doh ~
0
ATTACHMENTS
1, Vicinity Map
2. Proposed Residential Subdivision,
3. Preliminary Annexation Assessment.
4. Proposed Annexation Schedule,
S. Proposed Notice of Public Nearing.
6. Petition for Annexation.
Rea tfully submi
e Hill
Director of Planning and Development
Prep red by:
ayne ed
Plane I
C
4
r
1-,')C A m ple9Ihop? 51 iPIlule J+ull Repn4 den
r~
c+
ATTANMENT 1 A-79 (THISTLE HILL ESTATES) NORTH
N
4
Noll"
FIRE RATION M
T AN RD
r
VICINITY MAP
J
Agenda Data: February 9. 1909 Scale: None I
3.
i
I
V
I
U
I
M
A weld
9T AIIHVI-21 ONIS
I OT AZIWYd-2'IJNI5
r
AN" Mow - T
- 10
h I r 1! t
fin
■ j _ ~a gg
Hmm
6 ,m Mat"
nMi:lu~ sn :w
IIM~AyIYU.M .IA. 1'~-~1
IJ.M~ Wr/I~~IMM ~1 Ilrl Y
1~l IIMIMIIMr lIr_MM4 ~i~_
■~.II.IAM1YY~4111
~1 »w n~.~.rr afJlir~flrs►fllY'rlr ME
r.~r
/.wew+wlllwdr
/-M~II~WI WIM■ I
i
t.
i
i
.j
ATTACHMENT 3
PRELIMINARY ANNEXATION ASSESSMENT
(A-79) `
Thistle Hill Estates
~ i
Owner Information: Ryan Road Enterprises
Charles Stafford and Debbie Johnson
I 172 Bent Oaks
Denton, TX 76205
Developer Information: Ryan Road Enterprises
1172 Bent Oaks
Denton, T^ 76203
Location and Size: On the south side of Ryan Road, approximately one
hundred and fifty (150) feet east of Forestridge Drive.
Existing Land Use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Use. West: Undeveloped
East; Undeveloped
North: Single-family subdivision
South: Undeveloped
Proposed Development: A one hundred and twenty-nine (129) residential lot
subdivision with Single-Family 10 (SF-10) and Single-
Family 16 (SF-16) zoning districts (see Attachment 2).
The SF-16 zoning district area, covering the northern 21.49
acres adjacent to Ryan Road, would contain thirty-six (36) it
lots. The remaining thirty-one acres in the SF-10 zoning
district would be subdivided into ninety-three (93) lots.
Analysk:
m The subject property is adjacent to the existing city limits, running along Ryan Road. South
Dcoton has been experiencing a great deal of residential growth over the past year and a half, '
especially along the Teasley Lane (F.M. 2181) corridor. As real estate has been developed
closest to the freeway (1.35 E), development has steadily moved south down the toad. This
proposed subdivision is but an extension of that trend.
• Annexation (along with the corresponding zoning request) will ensure that the subdivision
maintalns large lot sizes.
V, The development as proposed will require public Improvements. The following Is a
preliminary list of those improvements which will be triggered by the platting process:
I, Right-oGway dedication along Ryan Road and proposed collector street along the
southern property line,
2. Right and left turn lanes on Ryan Road Into the subdivision.
3. Participation In a traffic signal at Ryan Road and Teasley Lane,
4. Construction of internal streets, r~
5. Construction of sidewalks along all public streets. ! <<
6. Extension of existing twelve (12) Inch water line located at the Intersection of Forestridge
Drive and Ryan Road along the entire frontage of the properly.
7. Possible upsizing of existing Granada lift station and sewer tines.
8. Installation of fire hydrants,
9. Dedication of public utility easements.
to. Dedication of the flood plain area as a drainage easement.
A 7P PrehmfearyAism"I dot
5.
ATTACHMENT 4
A-79
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE
November 23, 1998 Staff receives annexation petition.
I
January 31,1999 Notice published In Denton Record-Chronl6tr for first public hearing.
a Annexation Study prepared and available for public review.
a Service Plan prepared and available for public review.
February 9, 1999 City Council receives a preliminary sssessme•it, gives direction to
Work Session staff L nd considers approval of a schedule for public hearings
regarding the proposed annexation.
a PreliminaryAnnexation Assessment prepared.
a Annexation Schedule prepared.
February 14, 1999 Notice published in Denton Record-Chronlcle for Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing.
February 14, 1099 Notice published In Denton Record-Chronicle for second City Council
public hearing.
February 16, 1999 City Council conducts first public hearing.
• Public notice must be no less than W drys and no more thsn 20
days before public hearing.
February 24, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing and
considers making a recommendation to the City Council regarding
the proposed annexation and the proposed zoning.
• Public notice must be no less than 10 days before public hearing,
Mach 2, 1999 City Council conducts second public hearing,
Public notice must be no less than 10 days and no more than 20
days before public hearing.
March 7, 1999 Publication of annexation ordinance In Denton Record-Chronicle.
March 23, 1999 City Council by a four-fifths vote institutes annexation proceedings.
First reading of inexation ordinance.
Action must be more than 20 days after the second public hearing
but less than 40 days from the first public hearing. r
April 20, 1999 City Council by a four-fifths vote takes final action. Second reading
and adoption of the annexation ordinance. City Council considers
approval of zoning request. j
• Council action must be more than 30 days after publication of l
ordinance and less than 90 days after council Initiates annexation
proceedings.
A 79 A,,, uo a lam tkhod, do doc 6 .
U
U
ATTACHMENT S
A•79
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT: The City
of Denton, Texas proposed to Institute annexation proceedings to slier the
boundary limits of the City to add the territory described In exhibit "A", attached
hereto and Incorporated by reference herein, to the corporate city limits of the
City of Denton. The City Council of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing
on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, to oonelder annexation of the subject 62A)
acres located on the South aide of Ryan Road. The meeting will be held at 8,00
PM In the City Council Chambers located in City Hall at 216 E. McKinney Street,
Denton, Texas, All persons Interested In the annexation are Invited to attend tie
public hearing and shall be given the opportunity to appear and be heard,
Wayne Rood
Planner II, Development Review
TO BE PUBLISHED: SUNDAY, January 31, 11999
I
r
A' f
. r;
,e':+IrWf4Y• l it l T l la"ie 11rdriq,w 7
..r
1
/1\r V
INS,
e
i
i
I f
ATTACHMENT 6
AMXATION D 4
TO THg PUNHINO AND EONINO coWISSION
AND
CITY COUNCIL
or
THE CITY OF DINTONj TEXAS
The Weis~gngd doe/ hereby petition tar an, xstion of a0re/ located
3c) '/o
at .j 1"•lirf'' A n
o
f the City of Denton, Texas. The PropertI$he ot/ Particularly scribediIn
the
a
its
lso aaertitiesuthat the follovir.g required lntormation oo concerning the dlandg and e and completion nhabiof nsaid iInforrmation easonably to scheduled aotioa/rthio
raque/t tLy the
City of Denton. on
I. Is petition being initiated by owner(/) or majority of registered voters
area of request? Yoe in
✓
of the applicant? No It no, what to the status
-
2. How many dwelling units are located within the area requested for
annexation? l.' _
3. New many businesses or nontesldential land use/ art located within the area
at the request? ---12. Please provide a general description at that#
land use/ including the n&ms(s) of businesses, it known
A. Does area of request include any territory within the city limit/ or tra.
territorial jurisdiction of another city? Yes No
S. ietlma
led
population of the area
at request
Adults
Children Number of registered voter/?
6. At the time of this petition, have any ether anaoxatlon p
Initiated for al; or any part of the ara& requested In this Pet been
begun
ition?
Yes Nc re
and their status. . If yet, please expiate the procedures begun
Does a water supply district Its within tba boundaries of the area proposed
for annexation? Yes No ✓
I
8. What toning, it any, other ghan
agtlultueal (A), if being requested under
separate petition? ~.,i JF•/L .,rs F/O ~
Now much of tor} e tort' proposed for annexation is Included in sontrA '
petition?
8.
S'
c
Petition tot Annexatt. '
Page two
e ✓✓.../.i If 'I 14l
9. Wat to the pu P se Of annexation?
✓ r ✓/wI
10. Planned land use (it sorting Is be+.ng requested)t proposed Unit
Category i total Pet Acre And/Or
Souars Pootaae
a. Single family detected S ip- q; l unit r.'`
b. Single family attached (tewnhouseI
ciustea, etc.)
o. Attached gestic/garden/sero lot line
d. Duplex
e. Multi-family -
f. Office
A. Neighborhood service -
h. General Retail
i. Commercial -
J. light industrial
k. Heavy Industrial
proposed use(s) it specific use permit or planned development (PD) being
requested. -
it. Nave petitioner(s) familiarised themsely with the official annexation
policy, land use policies, and the stand, muniotpol service plan of the
Cit; of Denton? Yes _ No
qs; 3d? i~il!
Neese of Owner(s) + Telephone L
Signature(s) r +t, pate it'll
Address(es) larf tr. r•. n,...
It petitioner is tot the owner of the propertli Status
Petittotse
Near(s) Telephone j 1 Signature(s) Date
-
Addrsee(es)
e Field Notes and Location Map for area proposed for annexation must be
submitted along with completed petition before process begins.
0g62~
' 9.
{
Agaunak~,_9/~'~j
AquIda Itzm-4th
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: February 9,1999
3
DEPARTMENT: Fire Department
CM/DCMIACM: Michael Jez, City Manager
SUBJECTS
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding a proposed Denton Fire
Department Five-Year Strategic Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Staff will present an Executive Summary of its proposed Five (5)-Year Strategic Plan at the
City Council Work Session on February 9,1999. With the resulting direction from City
Council, staff will come back at another Council Work Session with a Anal version of the
Executive Summary as well as the entire Strategic Plan for further discussion and questions.
The goal of this last work session will be a finalized Denton Fire Department Five-Yrar
Strategic Plan to present to the City Council for adoption at a regularly scheduled meeting.
The City of Denton Is a well managed community. Its leadership is committed to providing
excellent service and has encouraged efforts to Improve service quality in all City
departments. This approach allows the Denton Fire Department to positively address our
human and physical resources and supports an environment that encourages excellence.
Keeping with this philosophy, we propose a five-year Strategic Plan for the Denton Fire
Department. It makes many findings and observations and then presents several goals for the
next five years along with recommended five-year strategies and actions to accomplish those
goals.
The attached Executive Summary is a "Readers Digest" vemlon of the Denton Fire
Department's Five-Year Strategic Plan. The Executive Summary gdy highlights MAW
ply lssues while the Five-Year Strategic Plan comprehensively looks at all the operations
of the Denton Fire Department. The Strategic Plan details how the Department should adjust
to anticipated changes in the next five years. Particularly, it positively moves the Denton
Fire Department to a Neighborhood Service Delivery model similar to the Policy
Department's COPS Program.
The Denton Fire Department strives to meet the desires of out community. To do this, our
focus in this proposed Strategic Plan must be consistent with the overall goals and objectives
of our community, This becomes especially significant with the City's adoption of the
Growth Management Plan and Comprehensive Management Plan, ! r 1
As an integral member of the City of Demon's quality team, The Fire Department is
committed to functioning effectively in a real world where multiple requirements must be
c
c~
1
S
supported with 111nited resources. Therefore, we will strive to achieve maximum results with
every dollar wa np*nd, Our Strategic plan's goals attempt to do that. I
FISCAIKFO M~TIAN
Msny of the goals, if adopted ae policy, will have signifloaat impacts on upcoming fiscal
budgets. However, these Impacts will be considered as part of the City's annual budget
process and approved by the City Council ae part of the annual budget
In addition, certain capita items should be put in the City's Five-Yeas Capital Improvements
Plan.
RespecttWl Submitted;
r
Rose Chadwick
Fire Chdef
AgAdLmll<t!-
D City Coancll Slide Preentation on Fin Departmeu Spangle Plan f
F.xecutlve Summa y of Dowon Fire Department Five., Year Strategic Plan
i
t.
r
u
Aponda Ilemw npp
call
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE; February 9, 1999
DEPARTMENT.- Management and Budget
CM/DCMlAC : Kathy Du$ose, Assistant City Manager for Fiscal) V
and Municipal Services
SUBJECTi
Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended
September 30, 1998.
BACKGROUND
Comprehensive An,wal Financial Report for the year ended September 30, 1998,
provided under separate cover.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council. Boards, Commlsslons)
None
EUf 1, INFORMATION
None
Respectfully submitted,
I
ortune
toro
f Iv agement and Budget
4iF
Prepared by,
r,
Nevam
Assistant Director of Management and Budget
t,
c
Agenda IWO.
AGENDA WORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: February 9, 1949
DEPARTMENT: Economic Development Department
ACM: Kathy DuBose, ACM, Fiscal and Municipal Services N
SUBJECT
Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the economic development program.
BACKOROIJND
I
At the January 12, 1999 meeting, City Council received a report on the current economic
development partnership with the Denton Chamber of Commerce. Council received
information on current activities and the roles of each department. In addition, Council
reviewed survey data on other economic development organizations throughout Texas
and available economic development tools,
The City Council asked that staff return with additional Information in two phases. The j
attached Information and discussion tonight reflects the short-term or first phase request.
I. Council asked for additional Informa:ion. on Public Improvement Distracts (PID) and
Municipal Management Districts (MMD). Attachment A and B are excerpts from the
Attorney General's Handbook on Economic Development Laws for Texas Cities. In
brief, both PIDs and MMUs provide a way to build or Improve infrastructure and/or
provide other improvements by way of assessing those property owners within the '
district. Both require approval by a majority of property owners.
2. Council requested copies of the minutes of the Economic Development Committee
meetings (Attachment Q.
3. Council requested a total amount of public and private sector investment over the life
of the program (Attachment D).
ESTIMATED SCI(EDULE OF PROJEC.1
It is estimated that the second phase report will be completed In March. It will Include
the following information:
t
Y A report on other economic development programs, Including a comparative analysis, c
of Denton 's current program,
)o Research of existing data and surveys on target mvketing and the impact to chins.
i Report on our ability to establish small area enterprise zones
1,
t~
i
EXHIBITS
A & B. Excerpts from Attorney General's
Nandhook on Economic Development Laws for Texas Cities
A. Public Improvement Districts
B. Municipal Management Districts
C. Minutes from Economic Development Committee Meetings
D. Public/Private Sector Investments
Respectfully submitted:
Linda Radiff, Director
Economic Development Departmen
s.
t '
i
I
a
V11. Eommic Oaraloppmd Throyh hrlraa"dww hopwe elft
a
Public Improvement Districts
Cities often need to make certain improvements to their Infrastructure to facilitate economic growth
within an area. New businesses may choose not to locate where there are inadequate streets,
substandard utility service, or other public facilities or services that are Inferior, It is also difficult
for existing businesses to prosper in areas that have poor public infrastructure. Texas law provides {
a number of ways to finance needed public improvements, including the use of special assessments.
Public Improvement Districts (PIDs) offer cities a means for undertaking such a project.
The Public Improvement District Assessment Act allows any city to levy and collect special
assessments on property that is within the city or within the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction
(ETA'" The statute authorizing the creation of PIDs is found in Chapter 372 of the Local
Government Code. The public improvement district may be formed to accomplish any of the
following Improvements:"
water, wastewater, he,dth and sanitation, or drainage improvements (including
acquisition, construction, or improvements of water, wastewater, or drainage
Improvements);
street and sidewalk improvements (acquiring, constructing, improving, widening,
narrowing, closing, or rerouting sidewalks, streets, or any other roadways or their rights.
of way);
mass transit Improvements (acquisition, construction, improvement, or rerouting of mass
transportation facilities);
. parking Improvements (acquisW%. :onstruction, or Improvement of off-street parking
facilities);
library improvements (acquisition, construction, or improvement of libraries);
M park, recreation, and cultural improvements (the establishment or improvement of parks);
landscaping and other aesthetic improvements (erection of fountains, distinctive lighting,
and signs);
/r1
art Installation (acquisition and installation of pieces of art); - 4
creation of pedestrian malls (construction or improvement of pedestrian malls);
similar Impro vements (projects similar to those listed above);
W" A * A"" GOMW - Poo 1 a f
3. A
r
NI. EM$Om a Owaiopead Through Infr dm&jrar haprmaMWft
supplemental safety services (supplemental safety services for the improvement of the
district, including public safety and security services); or
supplemental business-related services (supplemental business-related services for the
improvement of the district, including advertising and business recruitment and
development).
The nine steps involved in creating a public improvement district are as follows;
Step 1. The city or a group of the affected property owners must Initiate a
petition that calls for a defined area of the city to be declared a puMk
improvement district.att
The petition must state"13
1) the general nature of the proposed improvements;
2) the estimated cost of the improvements; E
3) the boundaries of the Improvements; f
4) the proposed method of assessment, which may specify Included or excluded classes of
assessable property;
S) the proposed apportionment of costs between the public improvement district and the
municipality as a whole;
b) whether the district will be managed by the municipality, by the private sector, or by a
partnership of the two;
7) that the persons signing the petition request or concur with the establishment of the
district; and
8) that an advisory board may be established to develop and recommend an improvement
plan to the governing body of the municipality.
The petition is sufficient if it meets two conditions. Fim it mast be signed by owners of more than
30 percent of the taxab'e real property value that Is subject to aaadmml: under the proposal. Second,
the petition must also include signatures from more than SO percent of the number of taxa" : I '
property owners who would be assessed, or Include signatures from owners of more than $0 l t'
of the surface area to be assessed under the proposal.
ofnos of dw Atta nay eanwal -rya 1 e9
4 A
t.
c~
NI. EDOnomta DarNOMa d Threvo In1mWudwW tmpr&VwntS
6
Step 2. After receiving a petition to establish a public Improvement district,
the governing body of the city may appoint an advisory board to develop an
Improvement plan for the PID.a"
Texas statutes do not provide a set number of members for the advisory board. The membership on
the board, however, must be sufficient to meet two criteria, First, it must be composed of taxable real
property owners who represent more than 50 percent of the appraised value of taxable real property
that is subject to assessment. Second, this board must Include representation by more than 50 percent
of the property owners wiio would be liable for assessment, or Include more than 50 percent of the
owners of taxable surface area under the proposed plan.
Upon initiation of the P1D by petition, the goveming body of the city should prepare a report on
whether the improvements are feasible and whether the plan should be augmented by other
authorized improvements.s" The feasibility report may be conducted using the services of municipal
employees or outside consultants. The purpose of the report is to determine whether an improvement
should be made as proposed by the petition, or in combination with other Improvements authorized
under Chapter 372 of the Local Qovernment Code.
Step 3. A public hearing on the advisability of the Improvements must be
conducted after meeting statutory notice requirements ata
After the feasibility study is completed, a public hearing must be held by the governing body of the
city to determine the advisability of the proposed Improvements. Notice of the public hearing must
be published In a newspaper of genera) circulation in the munkipality rno.e than 13 days prior to the
date of the hearing, Additionally, notice of the PID must be mailed snore than 15 days prior to the
date of the hearing to the owners of property within the proposed PID. The notice must contain the
following Information:
1) the time and place of the hearing;
2) the general nature of the proposed improvemenu;
3) the estimated cost of the Improvements;
4) the boundaries of the proposed district;
5) the proposed method of assessment; and
i
6) the proposed apportionment of cost between the improvement district and the .A;
municipality as a whole.
k,
otrfoa N tsw PAIN I" eaearat - PAO I U
5 A
r
.f
NI. Economk embpmm Through Inrrutrad" Ingememeah
The municipality must make findings regarding items 2) through 6) by resolution from information
gathered at the public hearing. Additionally, the municipality must make findings (by resolution)
regarding the advisability of the proposed improvements.
I
Step 4. The governing body of the city must adopt a resolution by majority
vote authorizing the creation of a PID ste
The authorization of the PID must be done within six months of the public hearing on the PID. The
authorization is effective once notice of the resolution is published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the municipality. If any part of the improvement district is located in the extraterritorial 1
jurisdiction (ETJ) of the municipality, the notice must also be published once in a newspaper of
general circulation in the city's ET).
Step 5. Twenty days after authorization of the PID, the city may uegin
construction of the Improvements.st'
Construction may not begin, however, if within the 20 day-period a protest petition Is filed. Such a
petition must be signed by owners representing at least two-thirds of the taxable surface area of the
district or by two-thirds of all the land owners in the district. In response, the governing body of the I
city may choose to assess only part or none of the area of the district"" The area to be assessed may
not, in any case, be increased beyond the boundaries described in the original notices unless an
additional notice and public hearing are provided.6'
Step 6. A five-year on-going service and assessment plan must be
developed,aao
The service and assessment plan must define the annual Indebtedness and projected costs of the
Improvements for the PID, The plan must also be reviewed and updated annually for purposes of .
determining an annual budget for the PID. The plan may be prepared by the municipality or by the
PID advisory board, if one Is appointed.
In addition, the governing body of the city must prepare an assessment plan °s' The assessment plan
must provide that at least ten percent of the cost of the Improvements is covered by assessments
against taxable property within the PID. Assessments must be based upon the special benefits that
accrue to the property because of an improvement.'" Costs my be assessed In any manner that
results in equal shares of the cost being absorbed by similarly benefitted properties within the PID. l i
Assessments may be adjusted annually upon review of the service plan, The city Is responsible for
I
OMloa d ara A#W" go" - rya tit
6 A I
c•
V1I. Economic Developowl Through Inhaatructunl Improveawds
t
payment of assessments against exempt municipal property within the district"' Payment of
assessments by other tax exempt jurisdictions must be established by contract. EI
E
Step 7. The ck must provide notice and a hearing to determine the total cost
of the Improvements and to prepare an assessment roll."'
A copy of the proposed assessment roll must be filed with the city secretary. Notice of the public
hearing on the roll must be mailed to affected property owners. The notice must also be published
in the newspaper in the same manner that notice was given for the creation of the PID, except that
at least ten days' notice must be provided. An additional statement must be included in this notice
that written or oral objections will be considered at the public hearing. At the public hearing, the
governing body must hear and rule on any objections that are raisedM
Step S. Auer all the objections have been heard and considered, the
governing body may levy, by ordinance the special assessment against the
taxable properties within the distriet.aaa
The ordinance must Include the method of payment and may provide for installment payments to
meet annual costs and retire any indebtedness for the improvements within the district. The
assessment is a first and prior lien against the property, superior to all other liens and claims except
liens for state, county, school district, or city ad valorem takes'"
The costs of the improvements called for under the district may be paid from available general funds
of the municipality, any special assessments levied, and from proceeds of the sale of general
obligation bonds and related revenue bonds, temporary notes, and time warrents't'
Step 9. The governing body may make additional assessments against
property within the district to correct oinissions or mistakes regarding the
costs of the improvements.a"
Before such an additional assessment may be asussed, the city must provide the same type of notice
and public hearing that was required for the original assessment.
A public improvement district may also be dissolved after public notice and a public hearing has
been held'" The notice and hearing requiremer is at the same as those required to create a PID. A
petition requesting dissolution must be filed with the city secretary end must contain the signatures
of at least the same number of property owned required to create the PID. If the distrkt is dissolved, 4
it rays in effect until it has paid off any indebtedness that remains for the improvements.
Ofttoa of the Attorax y 6eeant « Pap I GO
7 A
r
W. Ecoaank Devetopmeal Throyah Inlrastraalwal Impovementa
Municipal Management Districts
Municipal management districts are a relatively new statutory vehicle that allows commercial
property owners to enhance a defined business area. The districts, also called downtown management
districts, we created within an existing commercial area to finance facilities, Infrastructure, and
services beyond those already provided by individual property owners or by the municipality, The `
improvements may be paid for by a combination of self-imposed property taxes, special assessments,
and Impact fees, or by other charges against property owners within the district. The creation of such
a district does not relieve a city from providing basic services to an area included within the district.'
A district is created to supplement, not to supplant, the municipal services available to the aros. A
number of Texas cities have used municipal m :-sgement districts to provide much-needed funding
to enhance the economic vitality of the business centers within the municipality, k
The statutes governing mudcipal management districts are located In Chapter 375 of the Local
Govemment Code, An area Is eligible for designation as a municipal management district if it is
devoted primarily to commercial development or business activity!t' A district may include the 1
extraterritorial Jurisdiction of & city, if the city has a population of at least 25,000 and if the aria has
an assessed valuation of $500 million or more according to the appraisal district. A muni:ipal
management district is comiderod a governmental agency and a political subdivision of the state.r'=
The creation of a Municipal Management District within an eligible commercial area basically
involves five steps.
Step 1. The owssers of a majority of the assessed vWw of the red pri qw^ in
the proposed dhtMct, or 50 persons who own real property In the prriposed
district, must sign a petition asking for the creation of a dishid,erts
This petition must htclude the proposed district boundaries, purposes, general nature of the projects
or services to be unc'ernken by the district, the estimated cost of the proposed work, the names of
the proposed directors (noting the directors' experience and length of initial service). TM petition
must also include a copy of a resolution that was adopted by the governing body. of the city In
support of the district. The crane of the district must mart with a general description of the location
of the district followed by the term "Management Distriet."'rho description of the boundary of the r r'
proposed district must be by metes and bounds or by lot and block number (f these is a recorded nap
or plat and survey of the area), All of these documents, along with the petition requesting creation
of the district, must be submitted to the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission for
appro%J of the district.
Onla 01 ON Atsarnay nsaaed - rata t N
C'
V11. Ecoraaadc 0avalywMN > Infrvbudval Iwpw+MUU
Step 2. The Tex" Natural Resources CO"ervatlon G+mmisaMn (TNRCC) or
a person authorized by the TNRCC sets a date, tile, And place for a public
hearing to consider the petition °a"
The TNRCC must publish notice of the hearing once a week for two consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the municipality in which the district is to be located °'s The fast
publicati on must occur not later than the 31 st day before the date on which the hearing will be held.
Upon request, the TNRCC must also mail the county and the municipality the aforementioned notice.
A municipality may make such a request to the TNRCC in January of each year to receive these
notices by mail.
Step 3. The petitioner has a duty to send by certiRed mall a notice of the
public hearing to each property Owner In the proposed district who did not
sign the petition. The notice must be sent at lead 30 days prior to the
hearinla"
The notice must include all of the information noted In the second step.
Step 4. The TNRCC Must hold the publk hearing and oonsider the need for
the district and the suRiciency of the underlying documentation
At the hearing, the MCC examines the petition and hears testimony from any interested person
on the sufficiency of the petition, whether the district Is feasible and necessary, and whether the j
district would be a benefit to all or Just part of the land to be included. The availability of comparable 1
services from other systems and the reasonableness of the proposed projects and services are factors
to be considered by the TNRCC. If the TNRCC finds that the district is feasible, necessary, and it
public benefit, the TNRCC orders that finding, grants the petition, and appoints the Initial board of
directors"' The initial board of directors is composed of at least nine but not mom than 30 directors
who serve staggered terms of two or four years"' To be qualified to serve as a director, it person
must fit one of the following characteristics: own property within the district, own stock of a
corporate entity within the district, be the beneficiary of a trust that owns property in the district, be
an agent, employee or tenant of any of the aforementioned entities, or be a resident of the district.ma
Step 5, Upon approval of the petition by TNKC, the municipal management
district board appoints its oftkers"'
Each of the appointed officers must execute a bond of S 10,000 and take a written and oral oath of
office,"' Once qualified, the board members themselves must elect a president, a vice-president, it secretary, and any other officers the board considers necessary. One-half of
the number of directors
Woe of uu Atlorasy GumM - Pap 141
9 B
r
z
Ott. Economic Ilewlosnaeut Thmah IMnttructwW impfWAmeats
constitutes a quorum, and a concurrence of a majority of a quorum of directors is required for any j
official action of the district."' The initial and succeeding board of directors recommend to the f
governing body of the city persons to serve on subsequent boards.!" Appointments to the board must
be occupied by persons aith experience in one of the areas outlined by Section 37$.064 of the Local
Government Code. The city's governing body shall approve or disapprove the directors
recommended by the board. Board members may serve successive terms.
A director may be removed by the governing body of the city after a public hearing for misconduct
or by petition of the board of directors for failure to carry out duties."t A vacancy is filled by the
remaining members of the board for the unexpired term."' Directors serve without compensation
but are entitled to reimbursement for actual expenses." A director generally may not vote on matters
that affect property owned by the director or that affect the directoei employer sac
Rights and Powers of the District
To accomplish its purposes, the district may employ the rights granied to political subdivisions tinder
Article 16, Section 59, of the Texas Constitution (powers of a conservation and reclamation district), I
including those conferred by Chapter $4 of the Water Code (powers of a municipal utility district),
and the powers under Article 3, Section 32, of the Teius Constitution (powers of a rod district and
the power to levy property taxes).$"
Specifically, the district has the power to levy an ad valorem property tax for water, wastewater,
drainage, road, or mass transit improvements that are located inside and outside of the district." A
district may also levy impact fees pursuant to the state impact fee act (Chapter 395 of the Local
Government Code)."' To atnlririze the Ievy of property rotes, impact fees, or to propose the issuance
of bonds, the board must obtain the written consent of at least two•ibttds of the number of directors
of the district."a
A district may, under certain circumstances, levy special assessments against the benefitted properly
within the district.''' Special assessments may be used to pay for all or part of the construction or
maintenance of the following types of improvements: landscaping, lighting, signs, meets and
walkways, drainage, solid waste, water, sewer, power facilities, parks, W04de area, works of art,
perking facilities, transit systems, and c1her similar Improvemenu. The suessinenu may also fund
suppitine. W services for advertising, economic development, business recur unit, promotion of ,
health and sanitation, public safety, traffic control, recreation, and Cultural eahmmetit. t~
In order to use special assessments to finance a project or service, the Wet must first receive a
petition to make such improvements, signed by the owners of SO percent or more of the assessed
valued the properly in the district, or signed by the ownersof SO peram or more of the surface ues
0111a M ttw Atsenwy A m - Myer t M
10 8
r
W. Eoeaaatto owder.Mr Throu/h IMnatr>rawal WtWmenoft
of the eistrict"' The area to be assessed may be the entire district or any part of the district"" Before
le+ying a special assessment, the district must provide notice of a hearing on the proposed
improvements and the proposed method of assessment.'" The notice must be published at least 30
days before the hearing and must be sent by certified mail to the owners subject to the assessment
at least 30 days before the hearing.
The cost of the improvements shell be apportioned by any reasonable assessment plan that bases the
assessment on the special benefits that accrue to the property because of the improvement or
service"' Governmental entities may contract with the district to provide for the payment of
assessments on publicly owned property!"r Certain residential properties at exempt from
assessments and Impact fees as defined by Section 315,161 of the Local Government Code.
A district may incur liabilities, borrow money, issue bonds and notes, purchase, sell, or receive real
and personal property"" The board may call a bond election on the written petition of the owners
of 30 percent of the assessed value of the property In the district or by a petition of owners of at least
50 percent of the surface area of the district 0' IU approval of the governing body of the city must
also be obtained to Issue bonds for an improvenunt project"' Additionally, if a project involves the
right-of-way of streets or the use of city land or easements, the district must receive the city's
approval before undertaking such a project.
A district may own and operate facilities Wide or outside of the district, and may enter into contracts
for joint use of district fecilities."r It may charge rents or fees for use of constructed improvements
owned or operated by the district. The district may hire employees and consult4.:ts and do all things
necessary to carry out the purposes of the district, except that a district may not exeirvise the power
of eminent domain.-" A district has an obligation to attempt to stimulate the growth of
disadvantaged businesses inside its boundaries by encouraging participation of these businesses
during procurement and other district activities." The district is subject to competitive bidding
requirements as described by Section 375.221 of the Local Government Code. Although this is not
addressed in the implementing legislation, a district because of its status AS a governmental body
would also be subject to the Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act.'"
Finally, the district may be dissolved upon a vote of the board of directors or upon a petition of the
owners of 15 percent of the assessed value of the property within the district or by petition of the
owners of 75 percent of the surface area of the district.'" Additionally, the district, by ordinance of
i the city, may be dissolved pursuant to a vote of two-thirds of the governing body of the city In this
circumstance, the city succeeds to the assets and liabilities of the district. The district may be
dissolved,1,owever, only after any remaining bonded indebtedness has been paid or assumed by the ,
municipality r"n
a Za a ON ABareay OWWW - r"w tee
11 B
i
l
c•
4
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
December 19,
Present: lack Miller Hill Patterson
Ted Benavides Tony Clark
Bob Coplen Chuck Carpenter
Howard Martin Ken Burdick
Linda Ratliff June McNeill
Kim Tolbert
The meeting was called to order by Ken Burdick at 9:12 a.m. The first item on the agenda
was to elect a chairman and vice chairman of the committee. Bill Patterson nominated
Jack Miller to serve as Chairman. Ted Benavides nominated Tony Clark to s.n-e as Vice
Chairman. There were no furher nominations and both were elected unanimously,
Chairman Miller encouraged the committee to discuss what they felt their role should be--
how will the focus of the grour x created? Consensus was voiced that the entire
committee should be kept completely informed and be involved so as to take positions and
lend support to efforts of the economic development staffs. Confidentiality should not be a
problem since this Is strictly an advisory board and Is not subject to open meetings law.
The committee will expect Ken to keep them completely informed regarding what is
happening and how the money is being spent.
Benavides urged the group to develop what their focus was going to be and then stick to
that and not be distracted by criticism or suggestions. Patterson emphasized the
importance of communication between the city and the chamber. Coplen suggested that
the committee rank priorities of who is coming into the city and give guidance. Chairman
Miller stated that the committee should look closely at potential prospects and be sure the
city has the tools to be responsive. Ile stated the committee needs to be very professional,
remain focused and he the main "chxrlcaders" as far as this being a good place to come.
Also, it was suggested that tax abatement should be looked at as a "leveraging" toot rather
than as a huge "gift". The committee needs to educate the public on incentives.
Carpenter stated that the roles of each economic development entity need to be clarified.
Also, the Importance of the partnership needs to be cmphaslzed,
r~~ 1
Burdick discussed the Chamber economic development marketing plans for the private, as
well as the public sector, no concentration for marketing this fiscal year will be on (1
pharmaceutical companies. Since They do not attend or exhibit at trade shows, Burdick
will not be attending trade shows this year Several pharmaceutical ccinpanlei have been
contacted by mail, One is coming for a visit In early January, Ile will be reporting in
12 C
r
r•
I
I
i
I
~I
future meetings any progress in this area. Many of these companies are looking and
waiting to see what happens with International Isotopes, Inc.- how successful they are,
etc. The overall consensus was that the committee should keep Informed and change plans
if necessary.
I
It was suggested that the committee needs to remain sensitive to developmental stages of
International Isotopes, Inc„ and be prepared to respond to negative publicity.
The University has supplied a list of experts in the field who might possibly be available to
address problems that may arise. The possibility was raised of a meeting with
representatives or international Isotopes.
Suggestion was made that Trammell Crow come to a future meeting with the committee to
bring them up to date on the TI building. Two different groups are presently considering
the building..
i
Ken announced that an Allies Day in conjunction with 'Trammell Crow and Blnswanger is
being planned for late February or early March.
A presentation was given by Trammell Crow representatives Dave Noble, Robert
McFarlane and Seth Kelly along with their client, hit, Dean Brown of United Copper
Industries. They showed plans for a building being considered on property they have
under contract at U. S. 380 and Ocesiing Road here in Denton. Dave Noble stated that
Trammel Crow likes to purchase more land than they need, develop a business park and
have some control over who comes In adjacent to their operation. Ile described a similar
project they have done in Alton and stated that the enthusiasm of the community was one J
of the deciding factors in their choosing to go to Allen, They also have a project underway 1
In Lewisville.
I
Mr. Dcan Brown gave some background information on himself, his Involvement with
United Copper, what kind or a company they are, how they operate in a community, etc.
1 hcy are looking at one or two other communities within two hours of the Dallas/Fort
Worth Airport. they have asked Trammell Crow to help theta evaluate the communities
and will be making their decision by January 8, 1998.
.tuck Miller thanked Mr. Brown and the Trammell Crow representatives for coming and
expressed views on the "fit" of this company with the philosophy of the Vision for Denton.
It was decided that the committee would meet monthly until the need arises to meet more
open, 'the next meeting was scheduled for 9 a. m., Friday, January 16,1998 In the
Chamber meeting room,
1 he meeting was adjourned at 11:25 a.m.
I
I
13 C
' i
ti
r
r ~
~ I
Minutes
Joint t2ccnomic Development Committee
January 16, 1998
Present: Jack Miller Bill Patterson
Ted Benavides Tony Clark
Bob Coplen Chuck CarrRnter
Iloward Martin Ken Burdi.,k
Linda Ratliff June McNeill
Kim Tolbert
The meeting was held in the conference room at International Isotopes, Incorporated.
Chairman Miller called the meeting to order at 9;10 a.m. Members were asked to read
minutes from the previous meeting. Patterson made motion to approve, Coplen seconded;
minutes approved unanimously.
Mr. Lon Morgan, V Chairman, welcomed the committee, presented each member with an
information packet about the company and gave a brief summary of the radioisotope
industry and how V will be in: olved In both the diagnostic and the treatment areas of the
industry. Ile stated that many of their suppliers are looking at Denton and considering
locating here. Mr. Tommy Thompson, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Olliccr, gLti a the committee a tour of the facilities explaining the operation or the linear
accelerator and the cyclotron and how each will be used in the production of radioisotopes.
I to also pointed nut where the pharmacy portion of the operation will be constructed and
told the group about establishment of formal relationships with medical institutions and
universities in the southwestern United States.
Burdick gave a brief activity report touching on various projects and prospects In order to
bring the committee up-to-date.
Benavides reported on the approval of tax abatement by the City of Denton and the Denton
independent School District in order to finalize the United Capper Industries deal. Ile
stated that the site for the project is in a tripic-certified area and Denton County
Cooperative (now known as CoScrv Electric) Is bidding on service which possibly can
provide the company more of a savings than tax abatement would.
Burdick reported that an Allies Day Is being planned in conjunction with Binswanger and r
Trammell Crow with the plan of sho-.ving the Texas Instruments building- probably in r t ;
early March. Also being consldered Is an Investors and Senior Management Council joint J
meeting with U. S. Copper orlicials being guests.
i
14 C
e
S.
I
{
{
Ratliff gave a short report on tax abatement explaining that the Joint Committee on Tax
Abatement is continuing to meet and look at abatement in other communities In order to
establish a written policy for Denton. She further reported that the Radisson sale will be
finalized this week and the hotel will be adding 80 rooms and remodeling the restaurant.
Miller stated that City Council will be holding a public hearing reguding the reinvestment
zone which has to be done before tax abatement can be granted, lie stated that he would
provide a schedule to this committee so they can be prepared for the hearing.
Coplen requested that a future meeting be dedicated to discussion of tax abatement and that
a summary of abatement in other communities be provided.
The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, February 20, 9:00 a.m., Chamber conference
room.
Meeting adjourned at 11:17 a.m.
l~
1
1
r'
~lr'\
Is C
f
f
Minutes
Joint )economic Development Committee
February 20, 1998
Present; Jack Miller Bill Patterson
Ted Benavides Tony Clark
Bob Coplen Chuck Carpenter
Ken Burdick Kim Tolbert
June McNeill
i
Chairman Miller opened the meeting at 9;08 a,m Carpenter moved approval of the
minutes from the meeting on January 16, 1998, Clark seconded, minutes approved as
submitted.
Burdick gave an activity report updating various prospect files for the committee, as well
as noting possible expansions of local industry, I le stated that Mayday Manufacturing will
be making a decision within 90 days on purchase of the Eagle-Picher building for their
relocation from I lighland Village in the fall of 1998. Tolbert reported on various retail
prospects looking,, at Denton. She also reported on two business retention visits during the
past month-. Turbo Refrigerating and Russell-Newman, Inc, Their concerns were noted,
and city staff is working with them to resolve any problems.
Tolbert discussed the roles of city and chamber economic development staff. Carpenter
pointed out (hat based on chamber board action in July 1997 regarding its role, philosophy
is and has always been:
(1) chamber staff will not actively recruit retail business,
(2) chamber staff will recruit no Industry that would be in direct competition with
existing industry,
(3) chamber staff will continue to recruit industries that would be exporting at least
ti Ily one percent ortheir product outside of the city limits,
The committee agreed with this assignment orduties, and made no suggested changes to
the overall partnership.
Burdick reported on the Texas Instrumcnts)Allies Day Functlon, He stated that the plan r
was to combine a lour of the Texas Instruments building with a private investors update. r k r
Currently the plan is on April 17 to tour the building, tour the city, arrange golf for those a f
interested, then dinner for the whole group with an update, Suggestion was made that it be
held on a weekday in order to Improve attendance.
Miller raised the possibility of having Binswanger and Trammel Crow people up to discuss
the T I marketing plan.
16 C
,
1
t; I
i
u I
Benavides gave an update on the tax abatement policy, lie reported that the committee had
met the day before and voted to raise the threshhold from $S million to S[0 million. He
stated that there is some movement afoot to w1encourage We manufacturing; but so far
the point has been made that we need a range of employment, putting In "points" regarding
knowledge-based jobs and other criteria that must be met. Also discussed was a provision
for up-front loading-- 100% the first year, 25% second year, then zero, The cotnminee
also voted to simplify and clarify the application, The policy Is being re-written and copies
will be supplied to the Joint Economic Development Committee. The next meeting of the
Tax Abatement Committee is on March 3, The policy allows for the school district to do
something different if a portion of the reinvestment zone Is within the city's ETJ.
Benavides suggested that a reinvestment u ne be established that Included all of the city,
plus some of the ETJ, so that a zone need not be established for each projxt Cmpenter
suggested that a future meeting of the Joint Economic Development Committee include
looking at the school district abatement policy and taking a position.
U
"Research nder new business, Miller pointed out that there has been no re3olution on the name for 288 development that Is coming there, Miller istaa lot ofconcem about ted that
there Is a poi bplty of so some the
funding
available for alleviating that problem. Another concern Is the Interchange of Dallas Drive
and £•35, lie stated that TXDOT is doing it major investment study on 1.33 from Highway
380 south to Lewisville, Including the Loop 288 Spur.
Coplen brought up the subject again on business retention, fie asked If city staff sent out a
questionnaire prior to their visits In order to give the company a chance to voice their 1
concerns. Miller stated that the format Is very informal and that usually the dialogue '
allows company officials to express any and all concerns; arrangements are then made for
city stafrto work with the company to address their concerns.
The next mceti tg was set for Thursday, March 26, 9.00 a, m.
htecting adjoui red at 1033 a.m.
17C
r
r
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
March 26, 1998
Present; Jack Miller Bill Patterson
Ted Denavides Tony Clark
Bob Coplen Chuck Carpenter
Ken Burdick Kathy DuRose
June McNeill George Flighfill t
Chairman Miller opened the meeting at 9;05 am, Patterson moved approval of the
minutes from the meeting on February 20, 1998, Coplen seconded; minutes approved as
submitted.
Burdick reported that the Texas Instntments people had decided to postpone an open
I louse event in Denton, as they currently have two different prospects looking at tie
building. I It stated that the Allies Day event previously discussed has tentatively been
scheduled for June 16. Invitees for this event will be Texas Department of Economic
Developmert, Dallas Chamber and Dallas/Fort Worth brokers. The event will involve a
guided tour of local sites and buildings, golf and a lake cruise, followed by dinner that
evening, Representatives of local Industry will be, invited to the dinner to recognize them
and show appreciation.
Burdick gave a brief report on rrospects currently looking at Denton, The Staubach
Company has two large distribution facilities looking for land. Another company who
purchases Peterbilt trucks and manufactures the cement mixers to go on them is looking for
land,
Mayday Manu,acturing, presently located in highland Village, Is looking to relocate to
Denton as most of their 120 employees live In Denton they are scheduled to clog ,.u ute
Fagle•Pichcr building in the near future.
Burdick also reported that United Copper Industries will hold their groundbreaking on
April I. They were unable to get the governor here for the groundbreaking, but hope to
have him here for their ribboncutting 13ter.
Ratliffreported that the quarterly strategic plan update report has been completed and will
be mailed later in the week, She stated that the format was kept the same a, the original j
strategic plan fot ease in reading, but if anyone has questions they should feel free to call
her office.
18 C
I
I
i
I
1
Miller reported that he had just returned from a trip to Mexico City with Ted Benavides
and Eu!ine Brock. They were invited by the Peralta family who own the parent company
of United Copper Industries. They were treated to a tour of the various industries owned
by the Peralta family and met with the mayor of Mexico City.
I t was necessary for the mayor to lave as he had another commitment. He requested that
Tony Clark continue the meeting.
I
There was a discussion of the landscape ordinance currently under consideration by the
City Council. The next public hearing on the ordinance will be held on April 7.
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 23, 9:00 a.m.
The mm in& was adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
yr,
r
i
to C
t t
a
t
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
April 23, 1998
Present; Jack Miller Ted Benavides
To,iy Clark Kethy DuBose
Chuck Carpenter Ken Burdick
June McNeill Ucorge I I ighfill
Linda Ratliff
Miller opened the meeting at 9:15 a.,n, Minutes from the March 26 meeting were
approved as submitted.
Ratliff reported on a company that assembles concrete trucks looking to relocate to t
Denton. They have been looking at the Latimore site. They plan to be open for business in
September, By the end of 1998 the company will have 120 employees. Kenosha, a local
trucking company, µi11 deliver the trucks for them, The company has expressed concern
regarding availability of welders In the area. The city Is working with Workforce
Development to provide training,
i
Ratliff also reported that her office has been contacted by a company that does breading of
foods. A list of prospective customers has been provided to them; however, they have not
yet located a building or site,
Burdick informed the committee regarding the Project Zeus visit on April 22, They had
looked at McKinney on the previous day, They revisited sites they are Interested In; they
appeared to be most Interested in the site near Airport and Westport. They were very
interested In housing even though they only plan to relocate two or three people. They will
make their final decision by middle to late summer,
Burdick eported that contact had been made with state officials regarding the United
copper hearing before 1NRCC, All were very, helpful in working with TNRCC staff
members.
Burdick mentioned that he had attended the AMCON trade show and had visited with r
several companies that had considered Denton in the past. Be also reported on the Texas
Economic Development Council mld•year meeting in Lubbock. The focus of the meeting
was workforce development, Tills is practically a stulewide problem. Representatives
from Eagle Picher, Texas Instruments and Matrix (call center) discussed problems In hiring
qualified people, especially welders. North Central Texas College is preparing to offer a
welder training course in this area.
i
20 C
M
M
i
4
Burdick brought the committee up to date on various other projects. Ite reported
• the Industrial Revenue bonds have been approved for the Mayday deal,
• TRCA Is now looking at buying five acres from United Copper Industries,
• SafelyKleen is looking at buying a small acreage from UCI,
A manufacturing facility Is looking at a five-acre tract.
Miller reported oo the Robson project. Other landowners adjacent to the project are
considering participating In bringing the Infrastructure to the site. They are looking at
support services, financing methods, etc. The developer Is prepared to spend up to S1
million if the community Interest Is there. They would like to be annexed into the City of
Denton. They are not In the Denton school district at the present time.
Miller reported that feedback on the landscape ordinance as it was passed has been positive
so far.
Burdick reported that the Allies Day event is scheduled for June 16. Letters will go out
next week to approximately 130 people. Letters will also go to local sponsors to ask for
assistance in defraying expenses, A $200 sponsorship will Include dinner and two golfers.
The event will be held at Oakmont Country Club. We will have a but rot the tour and
I larry I tall will provide his boat for a lake cruise for those who do not golf,
j Under new business, Miller reported he had attended a meeting on transportation Issues for
the mctroplex, lie Informed the committee that "loop" category was taken off for funding
allocations at the present time. However, if proposed legislation passes, the 4.3% gasoline
tax currently being used to balance the budget will be used for highways. In order for them
to do that, the city will have to come up with some funding for a street to detour over the
railroad right-of-way as the trestle currently there will be done away with. A major
investment study will be done on WS, the loop, and the entrance from Dallas Drive to I-
35. l It stated that regional officials will make a presentation to the council at their work
session on Tuesday evening beginning at 6 p.m.
The next meeting was set for Thursday, May 21, 9 a.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 9;53 a.m.
I
i
21 C
t
r
t=
r
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
may 21, 1998
I
Present: Jack Miller Ted Benavides
Kathy DUBose Linda Ratliff
Kim Tolbert Bob Coplen
Chuck Carpenter Ken Burdick
June McNeill George Flighfill
Seth Kelly
Miller opened the meeting at 912 a.m. Minutes from the April 23rd meeting were
considered, motion made by Benavides for approval as submitted, seconded by Carpenter,
motion passed,
Burdick reported that there Is considerable activity at the Texas Instruments building. A
call center looked at it on May 20. Many groups are still looking at the building, among
them is the F'EMA group,
Seth Kelly with Trammell Crow Company gave the committee a brief description of the
different divisions in the company and explalned the dut;as of each. Ile reported on recent
activity by that company in this area. Ile stated that they have some retail projects in
process and are considering a "spec" building of 150,000 square feet along 1.35. Ile
thought that probably the Waters Ridge development In Lewisville would be the main
competition for companies locating in this area. One of the main selling points would be
the labor pool to the north.
Kelly asked whether the county development district established for the TI building and
land was still In cNct, Miller stated that it was; but because of political considerations,
would probably have to be hooked at agaln. Kelly also mentioned that TI does not want to
sell off any of the land because so many of the companles looking at it are interesied in
room rut expansion,
r~
Ratli IT reported that her staff has been talking with Rob4on again. They are still talking r s j,, r
about coming here. DuBose reported that they are talking about a total build-out of 6,0M
homes in the $150,000 to S700,000 range. A question was raised regarding soil samples
in the area they are considering. Burdick reported they have been taken and all tested out
to be adequate for this area. Ratiirf alsr, reported on vinous commercial developments
chat are either looking or definitely coming.
22C
f
1
s
1
Burdick reported on the last visit of the Zeus Project people. They recently did a one-day
tour in both McKinney and Denton. They will be making a final decision in June. They
will then dart their specific site search. Company officials reported that they were really
pleased with their visits with local industry officials.
Burdick reported that Anderson Merchandising has a very good working relationship with
the University of North Texas logistics program. Ile stated that k was his feeling that
sometime this summer it would be a good point to call on PACCAR and Boeing.
Burdick also reported on a company called Trim Systems, a supplier to Peterbilt, trying to
locate a site to build a building and would like to be in operation by November 1.
Burdick reported that he had advised this company that there might be a problem due to
the shortage of concrete in this area because of all the construction.
Burdick suggested it might be a good Idea to hold a welcoming luncheon for the officials
of Mayday, a company relocating from highland Village, who produces close tolerance
machined parts used in aerospace applications.
Burdick reported that he had assisted with the International Intermodal Expo in Dallas.
This was a logistics type meeting with 2400 registrants and 250 exhibitors, Denton
Economic Development shared a booth with TU/Lone Star Gas. Ile stated that the show
wus a little disappointing this year as the people attending were not the decision-makers for
relocation.
Burdick attended the Industrial Developers Research Council Spring meeting in Baltimore
last week This meeting was also a bit disappointing this year with only about 1300
registrants. This meeting is attended by corporate real estate executives and also by
developers, brokers, consultants, etc. Ile slated that this area of the country Is really in a
position for growth. Technology and distribution are the growth areas. The next meeting
for I DRC is scheduled to be held in San Antonio and attendance is expected to be much
better.
Burdick stated that on June 9 TUILone Star Gas Is sponsoring a communications industry
trade show in Atlanta, tieorgia. Five communities from thls area will be attending (I;lowcr
Mound is one of them). Burdick reported that on June 20 he will be making a direct.
marketing trip to New Jerscy, Ncw York, and surrounding area.
Burdick reported on plans for the upcoming "Allies Day", It will be held on June 16.
Arrangements have been made for buses for a tour of building and sites in Denton. The t ,
itinerary will include a tour of the Texas Instruments building, Ten sponsors have been ` C 1
recruited for an afternoon golf tournament, and a lake cruise has been arranged for those
not playing golf.
21 C
r
c
Burdick passed out copies of the marketing plan for this fiscal year and asked that
committee members look it over and give suggestions at the next meeting on what changes
or additions are needed.
The next meeting was schedule for Thursday, June 18, 9 a,m., at the Chamber of
Commerce.
The meeting was adjoumed at 10 a.m.
{
I
s, A
'A
24 C
r
F,
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
July 30, 1998
Present: Jack Miller Ted Benavides
Kathy DuBose Linda Ratliff
Kim Tolbert Bob Coplen
Chuck Carpenter Tony Clark
June McNeill George Ilighfill
Mike Jez
Miller opened the meeting at 9:06 a.m. Minutes from the May 21 meeting wer:
considered, Coplen moved for approval as submitted, seconded by Miller, mosion passed.
Miller welcomed new City Manager Mike Jez and expressed confidence in !ds ability to
lead the city.
Ratliff gave a staffactivity report bringing the committee up to date on Project Cardinal, a
manufacturer of insulated glass. The company is concerned about future road
improvements. City staff is putting together utility cost information for the prospect and
working with the landowner regarding road improvements.
Ratliff also reported on Project Robson, an upcoming business retention/recruitment trip to
Seattle, the Commercial Real Estate Expo in Dallas, a Small Business Exporting Workshop
Scries, the city tax abatement policy and the first Annual Report prepared by the city
Iconomic Dcv eloment Office.
Alillcr reported on the current status of the lawsuit involving United Copper Industries. Ile
also reported that United Copper has opened a local office and the plant manager, human
sources officer and a receptionist arc now in Ihnton,
C'arpcnter discussc I pans for the economic development program from now through
Sept.,mber. Ile reported that the chamber executive committee was originally hesitant to
hire snmcone for the vice president for economic development immediately following
Burdick's resignation since the city manager position had been vacant. 't'heir feeling was t
that the administralkc assistant title should be changed to economic development
coordinator, duties and responsibilities increased, and working with the president simply
respond to requests for proposals, continue to update demographics, building invcnto.•ies,
etc. Ifighfill stated that he felt the chamber should eventually fill the marketing position.
{
2 5C I
t
Carpenter explained the proposed budget for 1948.99. He noted that the total amount
requested was less due to no marketing otTicer being hired for several months and less
marketing travel. Discussion followed. Clark made a motion to recommend the budget as
proposed to City Council and Chamber Board of Directors for approval. Benavides
seconded, motion passed.
The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 9, 9:00 a.m.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
A a
I
1
I
26C
V
h
I
i`
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
September 9, 1998
Present: Jack Miller Mike Jez
Kathy DuBose Linda Ratliff
Chuck Carpenter Tony Clark
June McNeill George }lighfill
Lori Shelton Howard Martin
Miller opened the meeting at 9:06 a,m. Minutes from the July 30 meeting were
considered, Clark moved for •pproval as submitted, seconded by Jez, approve:' as
submitted,
Using information supplied by the Chamber Economic Development office combined with
information collected by her office, Ratliff gave a staff activity report. She reported that
June McNeill had been contacted by an additional Pelerbilt supplier interested in a 50,000
square-foot building. This company manufactures the hoods for Pelerbilt trucks. Ratliff,
Carpenter, Shelton and McNeill met with a company representative and discussed sites for
a build-to-suit and furnished a packet of information to be considered by the company.
Two owners of the company will visit Denton in the near future to look at sites. This
company uses a closed-mold process and there would be no emissions. l
Ratliff reported that Lori Shelton will continue her duties as Development Officer, but her
title will be changed to Economic Development Coordinator and she will have additional
duties as they continue to reorganize the City Economic Development Office by
downsizing by tao positions. She also reported that she will be hiring a Community
Relations Coordinator who will haau'le public relations activities and business retention.
Another item reported by Ratliff v,as the fact that three Job fairs will be conducted during
the month of October. One will be held in the Alliance area, FedEx will hold one at Martin
Luther King Recreation Ccuter on October 24, and the Hispanic Chamber has one
scheduled at Golden Triangle Mall on October 10.
Tractor Supply had contacted the Denton Chamber office approximately three 'ears ago.
Contact has been maintained over the years, and they announced a week ago teal they have i
plans to build a facility on 5 acres west of loop 288 and north of Spencer Road. Tractor A,
Supply sells farm maintenance supplies, feed, medicines and other agricultural and garden I
supplies.
A business retention visit was made by city Ell staf; to a marketing research company
named M/A/R/C. Inc. They are experiencing difficulties in hiring and retaining
employees. Contact was made by the Chamber of Commerce Economic Development
27C
i
I
~I
I~I
~I
I I,
i
Coordinator with an offer to assist in their research of wages at comparable companies. A
telemarketing packet was prepared by the Chamber ED office a few years ago which
included information on local universities, labor information, electricity and phone service
in the area, training, franchise fees and taxes and existing firms with number of employees
and wages.
Ratliff reported on a meeting with Mr. Ted Levine, Development Counsellors
International, and follow-up correspondence. He proposes to produce a "Marketing
Blueprint" and a "brand image" for Denton. He pointed out that we have two choices-
have the plan in place for a new marketing professional, or wait until the marketing
professional is on board and has his feet on the ground to proceed. The consensus of the
committee was that it would be better to wait until the new marketing position is defined
and he should then make that decision. Ratliff will contact Mr. Levine to let him know the
committee's decision.
Carpenter called attention to copies of the private sector budget included in packets for the
committee. Discussion was held on this budget which has the major portion of funds going
to construct and furnish an economic development presentation room. Carpenter reported
that a private investors update Is planned for October 28 to inform and get input on the
Economic Development Partnership. Ile stated that conceptually he would like the
committees approval on all this. Motion made by Jez that budget go forward to Chamber
board for approval, second by Clark, vote was unanimous. j
i
Carpenter reported that requests for proposata have been very slow daring the past month.
Miller reported on the marketing trip to Seattle by city and chamber represar; atives. The ~I
group felt it was r very worthwhile trip. A decision will be made on Proj,.ct'Leus during
the next year. A meeting was also arranged with PACCAR people and they were very
complimentary of Denton. A call was also made on Hoeing.
Carpenter reported on the NorJt Texas Commercial Association of Realtors Expo In
Dallas. T his expo is mainly for Dallas/Fort Worth commercial real estate brokers;
huwcvcr, many other entities attend, such as cbamben and economic development
organizations, specialty real estate groups, communications groups, business newspapers,
title and lam companies, market research people an,' investment services. The
Chamber, City booth had interest and collected business cards from over 50 people, Some
of these had specitic requests for information and we have responded to those and mailed
letters of appreciation to all others. Cards will be used to build a database for future
mailings,
r ~
Ratliff gave a short report on the tax abatement policy. It will go back to Council on A
September 15 for approval, It requires a super majority to pass. If not approved, the f ! '
existing policy remains in effect until February 2000. The county has the "equity" issue to
deal with, in that they cannot treat Denton any differently than any other city in the county.
'I he Mayor stated that it is hi, judgement that the legislature will step in and forbid school
districts from participating in tax abatements in the future, The United Copper tax
abatement signing is set for 3:30 p.m , September 14, in the Council Workroom.
28 C
i
r
u
I
Carpenter reported on the AwarenessJl;ducadon campaign proposed by the chamber's
private economic development budget. It was felt there was perhaps a perception problem
with the business community or with the chamber. A survey Is being conducted which will
include all areas of the community to determine the perceptions. This would be followed
by an awareness/education campaign to attempt to improve communication and
understanding.
Carpenter reported that the University of North Texas School of Community Service has
teamed up with North America's Superhighway Coalition to sponsor the 2nd Annual Public
Affairs Forum. This forum provides business and government leaders, faculty and citizens
an opportunity to hear community leaders and public officials discuss current topics of
interest to Texas and the rep ion. Carpenter suggested that the committee sponsor a table of
eight for $300 and that repres -ntatives from the committee and the economic development
staffs attend. The committee .,Creed that this would be a good thing to do. The forum
takes place on October 28, 1998.
I
Miller reported that on the matter of electric deregulation, things are moving ahead.
Representatives will be going to Washington next week to meet with legislators regarding j
deregulation from a federal standpoint. Also, work continues with state level legislators to
look at any bill that comes up in the next session. The best guess is that something will
come out of the next legislature. The results so far have been very favorable on electric de-
regulation. However, they are still working on it so resolutions might be helpful. !
Miller reported that city staff Is still working with the Robson people. There remain a lot J
of details to be worked out-water, wastewater, etc. 1
i
The next meeting was set for Wednesday, November 11, 9:00 a.m., at the Chamber of
Cc mmerce.
Miller suggested that the committee go to a schedule of meeting every two months, unless
a situation developed which required a special-called meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 10.26 a.m.
1
29 C
r
Minutes
Joint Economic Development Committee
January 6, 1999
Present: Jack Miller Bill Patterson
Kathy DuBose Linda Ratliff
Chuck Carpenter Tony Clark
June McNeill George Highfill
Lori Shelton
huller opened the meeting at 9:08 a.m. Clark moved for approval of the minutes from the
November 11 meeting as submitted, Coplt , seconder!, the motion carried,
Clark explained that Patterson was attending die meeting since he will be replacing
I lighfrll on April 1, 1999, as one of the chamber's voting representatives.
Carpenter reported on the Perception Survey meeting that will take place on Thursday,
January 7. 1 le stated d at the Chamber Board voted to conduct a survey of a cross-section
of the citizenry to determine their perception of the business community prior to beginning
an education/awareness campaign, funded by the private sector economic development
budget, to improve relations between various community groups. In trying io develop a
strategy flu the campaign, it was decided to invite all participants in the survey to meet and
go over the results. The general consensus of those surveyed is that the current funding
formula for public schools does not benefit DISD. Following this meeting, the chamber
will move into a; ear-long campaign to help educate and promote the importance of a
strong business community,
McNeill reported on staff activities for months of Novemer and December. She mentioned
meetings with Denton Regional Medical Center personnel regarding recruitment of a full-
service hotel adjacent to the new hospital. She reported on a meeting with a commercial
realtor specializing in hotels and a representative from the chamber's Convention & Visitor
Bureau. I he realtor advised that funds are not available at this time for hotel construction,
and in his opinion, the local occupancy rates at this time would not support a large full.
service hotel in Denton,
McNeill also reported on meetin6e with developers, city staff and Pelerbilt staff regarding
recruitment of Pelerbilt suppliers. The corporate Peterbilt Operations Manager will r
providealist ol'suppliers after meetings with company officials. They have agreed to E
allow us to mcke a presentation at their next meeting with suppliers. l
NI.Neill also reported on a meeting with staff from City of Denton, UNT, TWU, Denton
County, both hospitals, NCTC and Nonh Texas Computer Service regarding consideration
of an interlocal network.
30 C
fi
U
NcNeill also reported that she gave an economic development presentation to the Chamber
Leads Group on December 18.
Ratliff provided copies of the year-end economic development report prepared for City
Council and stated that the report will be presented for approval of Council at their meeting
on January 12. She informed the committee that there were no commercial building
permits issued during the month of November. She noted that November and December
are typically a very slow time.
Stiller reported that the Robson group still has some major issues to be resolved-water,
wastewater, etc. They still have not worked out n Memorandum of Understanding With the
City on utilities. The City of Northlakes has agreed to give up a portion of their extra
territorial jurisdiction.
Miller stated that the Radisson Hotel is still moving ahead with their expansion. lie also
reported that United Copper Industries has moved into their new facility; however, they
still have some legal issues to resolve. They will be holding their official grand opening on
March 26.
Carpenter di sussed the profile for Vice President, Economic Development. lie reported
results of opinions expressed on the questionnaire provided at the private investors and
November LD committee meetings. Majority seem to favor someone with a bachelors
degree in business administration or marketing, with a minimum of three years experience
in another economic development organization. The budget for this fiscal year indicates
plans to have a marketing officer in place on March 1, 1999. Ile stated that McNeill is
currently doing everything except external marketing. Ile stated that a crucial issue is
making our own constituency understand the need for recruiting large companies. Ile
stated that since 1987 we have had a policy that we will not actively recruit competition for
our existing members. The commonly accepted formula has been that fifty-one percent of
the product manufactured should be shipped outside " Denton. He requested that the
committee members review the job description again to see if they want to recommend
changes. I he committee was unanimous in their approval of the job description, and stated
they would serve as a selection committee, but Carpenter would have final decision in who
N% as hired. The committee directed Carpenter to move ahead with advertising the position,
screening applications and resumes and bringing his top choices to the next committee
meeting
Copicn stated that presentation skills should rate extremely high in any individual's
qualifications for the position. Ratliff suggested that each of the finalists in the process be
prepared to give a presentation during their final interview.
"there was a short discussion regarding the problem of recruiting without !ong-term
funding in place for retention. The consensus was that it should not be, problem since
many other agencies operate in much the same way-contract year by year.
31 C
i
0.
Carpenter inquired as to whether the city would still offer use of the video transfer process
in interviewing candidates. DuBose stated that they would. Carpenter was instructed to
prepare the advertisement and place it in the appropriate and affordable publications. The
committee felt that %vc should emphasize that the contract is a public/private partnership.
Consensus was that if an individual with the right skills and enthusiasm were found. the
contract would be self-perpetuating, The committee seemed to believe that in addition to
experience, enthusiasm and willingness to team were very important. Carpenter was
instructed to craft the announcement for the Internet very carefully regarding minimum
qualifications in order to avoid being deluged by "experts". Agreement was that a
statement should be added to the job description after degrees required: being able to
interpret corporate financial statements. Carpenter was instructed to place position
announcement immediately following City Council meeting on January 12.
The next meeting was set for Wednesday, February 10, 9:00 a.m., at the Chamber of
Commerce. DuBose suggested that Carpenter prepare a standard set of interview vuestions
and bring them along with resumes received to the next meeting. The committee instructed
Carpenter to fee) free to meet with city staff and work out any questions that arise and have
preliminary work done before the next committee meeting.
Carpenter reported on another item in the private sector budget-renovation plans for the
briefing center. Ile reviewed a preliminary drawing of the plans, as approved by the Board
of Directors in December, and stated that bids will be taken for a contract to complete this
wc.rk in a specified time period. lie stated that we will not be able to provide an elevator at
this time; however, we will meet legal requirements as long as we provide workspace
downstairs for anyone we might hire who is handicapped. DuBose suggested that we ask
the architect to get with city information services staff regarding wiring, cable, etc. to be
compatible with the interlocal network connection.
Carpenter also reported on the Leadership Denton class project to obtain funding and
complete paving of the chamber parking lot
Miller reported that the Corridor Ordinance failed to pass at the City Council meeting on
Tuesday, January 5, by a vote of 5 to 2. A super-majority vote was required since the
ordinance had already failed before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The formation
era task force will be brought up at a council work session in the near future.
Stiller reported that another important issue before the council is electric deregulation. fie
stated that the council had voted to hire consultants to assess the value of the city's electric
generating system, In case the decision is made in the future to sell the system, the city
could issue a request for proposal in good faith knowing the value of the system. J
Stiller urged everyone on the committee to vote on the Denton County Good Roads
Program.
DuBose reported that sales tar rebates for the t. ity of Denton are running l5 to 16% higher
than the same period last year,
32 C
CI
u
I
DENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Economic Development Funding
Year City Contribution Private Contribution Total
1988.81 $11,428 $22,859 $34,287
1967-88 26,145 52,298 78,443
1988-89 59,597 65,203 114,800
1989-90 51,422 96,851 148,073
1990-91 54,173 102,505 158,678
1991-92 64,173 76,139 129,312
1992-93 55,831 62,841 118,872
1993.94 55,735 41,214 96,94
1994-95 65,706 61,648 121,253
199'-96 55,000 53,271 108,271
1996.97 181,420 57,339 218,75
1997-984 161,217 82,673 223,890
Total $811,847 $743,641 1,555,38
52.20% 47 S0%
CdxMd u of SVt 10.11n PdnM MM pledy~d 1r FY 17.18 . br,1N, ( W up p ayby
pryrtrnharddrv prynrnh
ti.
t 41 / _ /f
I
33 D
V
U
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET Item
Data
AGENDA DATE: February9,1999
DEPARTMENT: Planning Department
CM/DCD1/ACM: Rick Svehla, 349-77)5
SUBJECT - Ryan Tract Annexation, (A-73)
Hold a public hearing and consider adopting an ordinance annexing a 114.76 acre tract located on the
north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair Elementary School and establishing Planned
Development (PD-169) zoning district classification and use designation through approval of a detailed
plan; and provide an effective date. First Reading, A-78.
BACKGROUND
Annexation and Development Proposal. Inlermandeco proposes to develop a 114.76-acre tract on
the north side of Hickory Creek Road, approximately one mile west of Teasley Lane in Denton's
extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). The tract is contiguous to the City of Denton along its eastern border i
and is adjacent to the O.As of Montecito subdivision, Acme Brick property, the Good Samaritan
development, and across Hickory Creek Road, the River Oaks subdivision and McNair Elementary
School. The petitioner requests annexation with the zoning category of Planned Development for
cluster development, accomplishing a number of housing units consistcni with SF-10 zoning for the
overall 114.76 acre site, but clustering it on 81.68 acres remaining after park land dedication.
Ad acent Zonin
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CURRENT APPROVED
_ ZONING DENSITY
Oaks of Monlecito SF-7 3.1 units per acre
River Oaks S1•7 3.5 units per acre
Acme Brick Agriculture Temporary zonin for mining
Good Samaritan PD-22 8 unit r acre
Changes to the Detailed Plan. Since its original submittal, some aspects of the proposed detailed
plan has changed ([he revised PD IX-failed Plan is enclosed as Attachment 1): j
■ The total number of housing units has decreased from 341 to 321, if all tracts are fully developed; II
■ The amount of park land dedication has increased from 31.42 acres to 33.08 acres;
• The unit mix has changed;
1.
C:
a
PD-169
Proposed Mix of Lot Sizes
Ori ig n~! Submittal Com ared to Latest Submittal
Original Latest Numeric
Plan Plan Change
SF-6 103 102 .1
SF-7 238 156 -82
SF-10 0 63 +63
TOTAL 34l 321 - 20
Park Land Dedication. Park dedication of 33.08 acres (an increase from previous depictions),
including the Fletcher Branch Creek is proposed as follows:
■ Floodwayofabout I$ acres;
■ 100 year floodplain (in addition to floodway) of about 14 acres;
• 100 year floodplain (in addition to floodway) of about l acre; and
• Additional dedication outside the flood plain ofabout .08 acres.
Minimum parkland dedication required by the city's ordinance would be 2.4 acres with 0.6 acres
outside the flood plain, even if the parkland dedication is not annexed. If the property is not annexed,
park improvement fees will not be collected from new residential units. if the property is annexed, the I
321 housing units proposed would generate an additional $93,411 for park improvements (at the
current assessment of $291 per home). The dedicated land would connect to a 3.21 acre paa.el
proposed as park land from the Oaks of Montecito subdivision and a 24.3 acre greenbelt in the River
Oaks subdivision that ultimately connects to Corps of Engineer property in the Fletcher Branch flood
plain.
Transportation Improvements. Development of the site will require the construction of collector
streets along the western and northern borders of the property as designated by the Denton Mobility
Plan The western collector will eventually tic in with the street system of the proposed Thistle Hill
subdivision and provide altemale access to Ryan Road, reducing the traffic impact on Hickory Creek
Road and Tcasiey Lane. Perimeter paving improvement on Hickory Creek Road, as well as a two lane
\ bridge at an estimated cost of $300,000, will also be required, A traffic impact analysis (TIA) has been
1 submitted and evaluated, The evaluation regarding traffic impact improvements Is attached. Specific
recommended improvetens include:
• Hickory Creek Road and Teasley Lane:
• Northbound left-rum lane (10% cost participation)
• Southbound right-turn lane (!0% cost participation)
• Additional eastbound lane, for a turn lane, on Hickory Creek Road (10% cost participation)
■ Traffic signal installation (10°16 cost participation)
i
n Hickory Creek Road and nortli'soulh collector street: f
Two southbound lanes (100% cost participation)
Westbound right-rum lane( 1001/6 cost part icipation)
2.
•
C
fi
S
The timing, details and expenses related to recommend transportationimprovements will be
coordinated by the Engineering and Transportation Department at the time of subdivision plat/
construction plan review and approval.
Annexation Study. An Annexation Study and Swvice Plan have been prepared for Council and
public review during the annexation process. The capacity of infrastructure such as water, wastewater,
streets, electric service and services such as police, fire, recreation, and general government are
evaluated with respect to the proposed annexation. DISD was contacted with a service analysis form,
which they completed and returned. This analysis, along with a police service analysis, has since been
revised and is attached separately.
Public Notice. Notice of the annexation request was published in the Denton Record-Chronicle on
December 23, 1998 and January 9,1999. Notice of the public hearings considering annexation and
zoning were published on January 3, IM and January 24, 1999. Six (6) property owners (per the city
tax rolls) were notified of the request on December 31, 1998. On January 5, 1998 additional
notification was mailed out to residents within a five hundred-foot range, but not listed in the city tax
rolls, but obtained through a field survey. As orthis writing, there have been seven (1) responses in
opposition (two from the same household), Three of these responses are within the 200-foot legal
notification range, constituting 2.3% of the required 20% for a super majority vote from council. The
twenty- percent rule is NOT in effect.
Total Land Acreage Total Land Acreage Represented
Within 200 Foot by List of Opposing Property The Twenty Percent Rate
Notification Range Owners Within That 200 Foot Is Not In Effect
NotificationRange
44.57 acres 1.02 acres 2.3% ualifled opposition
Any changes to the 20% rule will be reported to City Council during the February 9'h, 1999 meeting.
Several questions were raised by Council members regarding the application submitted by the
petitioner that combined the annexation petition with the PD zoning request. The City Attorney has
indicated that a four-fifths majority is required to approve the annexation petition, but that Council has
the authority to separate the zoning request and consider it apart from the annexation. Council would
need a simple majority vote to separate the annexation petition vote from the PD toning application
vole.
The first reading of the ordinance institutes formal annexation procedures and must be more than 20
days after the second public hearing (held January 19, 1999), but less than 40 days from the first public
hearing (held January 5, 1999). The February 9,1999 meeting date scheduled for the first reading
satisfies these requirements.
The second riding of the ordinance must be more than 30 day.4 after publication of the ordinance (to r
run February 19, 1999) and less than 90 days after council inslitutes annexation proceedings (February
9, 1999). The schedule fur public hearings -onsistent with the requirements of State Law is included.
f The March 23, 1999 meeting date scheduled for the second reading satisfies these requirements.
I
3.
i
i
i
~Q. ~IMENDA'~~ "
Staff recommends that the City Council initiate the formal annexe! on procedure with the proposed
Planned development zoning district and land use classification, making the following findings:
' Annexation and zoning of property are necessary steps in order to ma,:,Se development.
' The PD zoning district provides assurances as to the quality of design that other zone districts do
not provide: it establishes minimum building area, construction materials, and fence and monument
sign details,
' The proposed annexation and zoning are consistent with the adopted Growth Management Strategy
which states that annexing and zoning property are the necessary steps in order to manage
development.
' The proposal is consistent with the intensity designation ofthe 1988 Denton Development Plan,
' The proposal is consistent with the 1998 Denton Plan Policies (most particularly those sections
stating that floodplain and lloodway should be obtained and preserved),
' The gross density of this proposal is 2.79 units per acre, 3.32 r,et of the 18 acres of floodway. The
adjacent subdivisions, Oaks of Montecito and River Oaks, are developing at gross densities of 3.1
and 3,5 units per acre, respectively.
Site Deducted Net Site Total Dwellings
i
Acretge Acreage Acreage i7wcllings Units per
6Dcnnsit y DeseripI on ff'
114.76 - Acre i
0 114'76 321 2.80
inus Dediealions 114.76
nus Floods 114.76 33,06 81,68 321
18.00 96,7 6 3.93
321 3.32
Staff notes again that the proposed development Is consistent with the Growth Management Strategy
(GMS), adopted unanimously by Council on January 10, 1999, The Ryan Tract's proposed density of {
2.79 (321 units divided by 114,75 acres, lea:; 18 acres floodway equals, 3.32) dwelling units per acre
(DUA) is very close to the average 3.0 DUA identified in the GMS. Staff also nolcs that dedication of
floodplain, fioodway, and recreational land; collector R cl dedication along the western and northern
boundaries; primary arterial dedication along Hickory , ,eck Road; and off site traffic iml.rovements
(noted in the attached Traflic Impact Analysis Recommendations) serve to meet many I inning
objectives stated by the City of Denton in recent months. The only component of the pl that has not
yet been articulated is the assurance of quality subdivision design identified as necessary for hfghcr
densities that may not otherwise be considered appropriate. With a density of 3.32 units per
"buildable" acre, stafTdoes not believe the lack of conditions related to quality is sufficknt to raise
concerns of incompatibility or devaluation of neighboring properties. If Council feels that the density
proposed by the Ryan Tract developer will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, the
densities recently approved in the GINS may need to be revisited.
December 8 1998 ~ ,
City Council approved the Annexation Sched rte. Jf \
deltttari 5.1999
City Council conducted the first public hearing regard ng the annexation.
4.
f
k
January 13.1999
The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing regarding the annexation petition and PD
zoning application. The Commission recommended approval of the annexation (6.0) and
recommended approval of the Planned Development Zoning by separate vote (5.1, Rishel In
opposition, Ganzer absent) with the following conditions as proposed by the developer:
1. Tracts previously known as I B and 1 C, now known as 3C and 3D are to be designated for
minimum 10,000 square foot lots.
2. Two new tracts, called 3A and 313, will include the 104% directly adjacent to the floodpiain
(labcted on the January 13, 1999 P&Z PD Detailed Plan as Blocks J and K) . nd designated for
minimum 10,000 square foot lots.
3. Minimum dw, fling floor areas shall be established based on lot sizes as follows:
a. 6,000 square foot lots to have a minimum 1,400 square foot swelling size.
b. 7,000 s luare foot lots to have a minimum 1,700 square foot dwelling size.
c. 10,000 square foot lots to have a minimum 2,000 square foot dwelling size.
January 19.1999
City Council conducted the second public hearing regarding the annexation. During this public
hearing, several residents from the Oaks of Montecito Subdivision expressed opposition to the
proposed zoning, although annexation of the property was not specifically opposed. The Denton
Independent School District (DISD) offered a revised Service Analysis, indicating that the annexation
would not have a significant impact on school services since the property would be within DISD
boundaries regardless of the status of the annexation.
A neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 3, 1998, however there were no residents in
attendance. A second neighborhood meeting was held on January 12, 1999, Between this meeting and
the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting (January 13), a petition was formulated within the
neighborhood and submitted at the Planning and Zoning Meeting (Attachment 9). A third
neighborhood meeting was held January 21,1999. The residents have come to consensus on six
conditions that they would like to see in the detailed plan;
1. A gross density equivalent to SF-13 (ak,a. an SF-13 Overlay).
2. Average lot size of 9100 square feet with a minimum lot ~'le of 8200 square feel.
3. Largest lots to be in the areas with existing trees.
4. Follow Oaks of Montecito Deed Restrictions
5. Preserve the natural topography using curved streets.
6. Leave tracts between the Oaks of Monlecito and the floodplain (tracts 3C & 3D) untouched.
ifs
r
5.
FISCAL INFORMATI!J,r(
None at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Detailed Plan
2. Planning and Zoning Commission Report, January 13,1998, (Z-98-056)
3. Planning and Zoning Commission minutes from January 13,1948.
4. Draft Annexation Ordinance (Detailed Plan - Exhibit C of Attachment 4)
S. Staffs Proposal Regarding the TIA
6. D1SD Service Analysis
7. Schedule for Public Hearings as Required by State Law
8. Map of Opposing Property Owners
9. Neighborhood Petition (submitted by Oaks of Montecitio Residents)
Respectfully submitted
D ill
Erector of Planning and Development
Prepared by;
Trina Finney
Planner If
t/~\ o
F
6.
h
a
1
rr•w
.
i bs M f~ ~ ~ rw rte.-
rrr
i .__.____iu - rrw
rwrwr
err
~.1 1M~ r1 rrw
k --•Ar' ~ iuT~'~ r ~*k...''.. rrr
M • rYMIwIM •r-
YYwMr'11 } M(t/ rrr
;2:7 ~
lax
• - ~ .ate-.tom- i
m
re ra ro r• ra r, r'
t1 _ t ! Lssnna~e~arau'nrtr-
7 r . . r -
r a. 11` ~1
►~-.r r•wr•r ...r •rr
i
I
cs
Y
B~
a
W .~f 1• O V M fps
"'1 ~..•~y y
' 11 y1 ~1~,' l1F~.Til.r
{HYI {'11
(y'~ 1n rt.{ l7f~lfa,,gp 45X1
1031
Y ~ ~fi{.. ~ fir- •r rh sr s ~ ~ W
1 j , 'Q • 1 j r
alum
p(r~.~j-~~•
1 ,
AVPWA.
#wpm
oompm.
^n+►
• \ • i MA Ur rwrr
r r _
rrr
07
r•.•r
r.
M1O* w _1, r rrr 1~~
rr.r
f rl 1 ~iT r• r• • r. •rr~~r nw r•.rn~rrs~ rr !y
!1'L!1 ,tf{!" Agile r' r' r' `"{"~''l7~.1l5/r►'/.Y'r 1 -=ri 7M,
• q ' rrurrr rrr
,_yy
ti 11~RJfFr S .rrr WRIS 'wr• w rrr
ATTACHMENT 2
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION' 11111
STAFF REPokir Oah
Sublect: Annex and Zone 114.76 Acres Case Number: A-782-98-056
$t!f{: Trina (McElreath) Finney, Planner II Agenda Uale: January 13, 1999
,U,QSE. ~r
Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Coundi conceming the
annexation and zoning of 114.76 acres to a Planned Development (PD) zoning c Islrict and land use
designation according to the enclosed dets'I plan. The Intention Is develop a sing'edamily subdivision with
a large park dedication.
r
SITE N
W E
1~ S
LOCATION MAP
Location: On the north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair
Elementary School in Denton's extraterriiorlellurisdlction (ETJ),
Size: 114.76 acres
C
9.
i
i
Applicant: TaryArterburn owner: Mr. and Mrs. Charles Ryan
Mesa Design 1343 Eaton Ave,
3100 McKinnon Street San Carlos, CA 94070
Dallas, TX 75201
SUMMARY OF-ZONING REQUEST A
At section 34-35 (Annexa,lon 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 developments are proposed, occuring, or likely to
occur in the near future.
The subject 114.76 acre parcel includes a large portion located in flood plain which would be
dedicated .o the city. The applicant proposes to develop the property with a gross density of 2,97
units per nacre and to dedicate additional park land over and above the required flood plain for an
overall park land dedication of 31 acres.
I
I
One public hearing has been conducted in the annexation process. Upon Planning and Zoning
Commission action, City Council will conduct a third public hearing and then elect to initiate the
formal annexation procedure.
At section 35.14 (Platting property not permanently zoned) of the Zoning Regulations, the policy of
the city is stated that "If the planning and zoning commission holds a hearing on proposed
annexation, it may, at its discretion, at the same time hold a public hearing upon the permanent
zoning that Is to be given to tie area or tract to be annexed and make recommendation on both
matters to the city council so that the city council can, if it desires, act on the matter of permanent
zoning and annexation at the same time."
If the city chooses not to annex this property, it may still develop In the Denton extraterritorial
jurisdiction (ETJ). R 3sidents living in the ETJ still attend DISD schools and pay school taxes as
well as county taxeez, however would not be liable for city taxes. If in the ETJ, tha development will
not be subject to any zoning regulations, but will have to comply with the land use and
development regulations. City utilities will be provided through private contract to the development,
at an Increased rate. Police services would not be provided and fire protection services would only
be provided under mutual aid request from the City of Argyle. Emergency medical services would
be provided by the Denton fire department, All other city public facilities will be accessible to these
residents.
i
10.
i
I
C37M . EiENSWEP~AINrATA~YSIS:"i;;.,':
1988 Denton Development Plan Analysis
The 1488 Denton Development Plan (DDP) shows this area to be within Low Intensity Area
number 84, These areas are Intended to be developed primarily for single family residential
developmE nt. Neighborhoods are to be serviced by a network of small oommerclaVretail centers
spaced at about "/a mite intervals with direct access to a collector type street or larger thorouglFare.
Vehicular trip generation due to development within Low Intensity Areas is restricted to 60 tr r.s
per day per acre in order to balance land use with road capacity. Staff finds the proposed
devetopment to be consistent with both the policies and trip intensity standards of the 1988 DDP.
The table below provides a summary of the 1988 Denton Development Plan policies applicable to
this project:
Denton Development Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Low Intensity Are
Development Rating vs. Policy
slgNicmtiy Somewhat
POLICY COMMENTS Incanilstent Inconsistent Caislstent
Intent. These areas tepresent pAnury
housing areas within the City, x
Intensity. To be consistent Min the Allowed Intensity • 60 blps/M
a development OoA not exceca Is Allocated Intensity • 6W trtpytlte x i
site i : an eontrot, Strict properly
deve;4 dent control within 1,600 feet of
e dsbng low density residential areas, x
TrafNc Design. Access stauld be
provided to ensure that multl-famiry or
ron resldentlai uses have access to
coiledors or larger arterials with no Overt r
access through reodentlal streets. x
Open space. Sur64ent green apace,
recreational Wipes and diversity of parks
an provided. x
PuNIc Participation. Input into
1 panning try nNghborhood assodabons and
eoumei is encouraged, x
land Wei Diversity. Nonaesidental and
rrMb-hmlly development Is encouraged to
a Wed degree. HA
Manufactured Housing. This form or
ftngie-(amity housing may be compatble
w th developments in the low Intensity
areas subject to canditons, NA
Strip Commercial. Any form of
continuous pip commerdat is st7ongty
Gscpwaged Injor near knv Intensity areas. x '
t A p
1 1'~ \
]1.
i
i
I
1998 Denton Plan Policies Analysis
t The 1998 Denton Plan (DP) is to be used in conjunction with the 1988 Denton Development Plan in
evaluating the consistency of prc; ;ed development With the long range vision for the city. Staff finds
the proposed development to be consistent with the policies of the 1998 DP.
1. Transportation
A. Trip generation
I
Table 1. Proposed Land Use Trip Genera lon
Land Use Average Trlp Total Trip Maximum Buildout
Generation Per Generation
Singie-Famlly (Detached) 9.55 tripslday 3,256.65 341 detached homes
Total Trlp Generation 3,766.53 3418e"fech homes
Allowed Trip Generation 114.76 acres 6,885.6 60 tripslacre
Difference calculate 47% below allowed trips
' Calculations provided by the Institute of TanspoMllon Eoglneers,1991. j
I
13. Access
Access Is available onto Hickory Creek Road and to the collector street ti:at will bo required
With this development. This 60' right-of-way collector runs along the west and northern property
boundaries of this tract. It will connect to future collector linking to Ryan Road, thereby offering
an alternate route from Teasley Lane.
C. Road Capacity
Hickory Creek (primary major arterial) is currently designed to carry 11,000 l6ps/day, however
it Is not built to city standards, Hickory Creek Road Is Intended to be a six land dividecA
thoroughfare when It is built to standard. This design would increase the carrying capacity to
33,000 trips/day. At present, there are no traffic counts for this road.
1 0. Pedestrian Linkages
Sidewalks along all public streets are required.
2. Utilities
This site has access to existing water and sanitary sewar lines:
Water:
12" watc: line along the eastern boundary of the tract. A
Wastewater; ` r
15" sanitary sawer line along the eastern boundary of the tract.
12.
Fire:
Fire hydrants will need to be added with the single family development.
3. Drainage and Topography
New development will be required to design and construct a drainage system to city standards.
A preliminary drainage study will be required with the submissior. 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. There Is a great
deal of floodplain along the eastern portion of the subject tract. The develops, proposes to
dedicate that floodplain as a portion of a park land dedication package.
4. Signs
As per the sign ordinance.
5. Off-Street Parking
New development must provlda parking according to the regulations of Section 35-301 of the
Code of Ordinances. The total n fiber of parking spaces required by any one development is
a factor of two spaces for each single family dwelling unit.
6. Landscaping
This property will have to comply with the new Landscape Code, which requires fifteen (15)
trees per acre and twenty (20) percent of all surfaces to remain pervious (plantabie area).
7. Open Space
The proposal includes a 31 acre land dedication for park land.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of the zoning request was published in the Denton Record•Chronlcle on December 23,
1998 and January 3, 1999. Six (6) property owners (per the city tax rolls) were notified of the
request on December 31, 1998. On January 5, 1998 additional notification was mailed out to
residents within a five hundred foot range, but not listed in the city tax rolls. As of this writing,
there has been one response In opposition. The twenty percent rule Is NOT In effect. A
neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 3, 1998, however there were no residents
in attendance. A second neighborhood meeting Is scheduled for January 12, 1999 at 7:00 p.m.
RECOMMENDATION
A, Staff recommends approval of A•78 with Planned Development zoning c istrict classification
Lt~hat nd land use designati on, The Service Plan and Annexation Plas (see enclosures) Indicate
rea can be served. If the property were not annexed, it would still be served by nd services, but city taxes would be collected.
V
13.
C'
is
B. Staff recommends approval of Z-98-056 In accordance with the enclosed detail plan.
• The proposed zoning is consistent with the Intensity standards of the Denton Development
Plan.
The proposed zoning is compatible with other zoning In the area.
A. I move to recommend approval of A-78 With Planned Development zoning district classification
and land use designation.
B. I move to recommend approval of Z-98.058.
ALTERNATIVES I",
1. Recommend approval as submitted.
2. Recommend approval with conditions.
3. Recommend dental
4. Postpone consideration.
6. Table item.
sryy~p
ENCLOSURES ~ TK~II'x.
-r~+~.
1. Vicinity Map.
2, Zoning Map.
3. Utility Map.
4. 200' Property Owner Notification Map.
5. Site Plan.
6. Denton Plan Matrix.
7. Scenarios of annexed vs. non-annexed property
8. Annexation Study
9. Annexation Service Plan and Analyses
10. Mobility Plan (illustrating required collector streets)
11. Surrc. nding Property Owner Response
/ i
\ l4.
r
i
I
ENCLOSURE ]
Vicinity Map
A-78
Proposed Annexation Area
b
a
OaV.1
o:
Montedto
V OCEW
City McNalf
Llrt~il! Elementary
W £
S ,
VICINITY MAP
The Ryan Tract
114.76 Acre Annexation
is.
1i
4~
p
cr
ENCLOSURE
Zoning ap
A-78 t
I
fJ ~ J,
i
~ j ETJ ~
I
u.r A
r i
SITE ur A Eli N
W
T- s
1 0 I Mon
The Ryan Tract .
114.76 Acre Annexation
1 ,
i
16.
T ~
(7
I
ENCLOSURE 3
Utility Map
A-78
I
SITE
I:^ weer
Line
i
13"Sewn
Lint
Y N
W E
S
The Ryan Tract
114,76 Acre Annexation
Legend
Water Lines
Etectric Lines
Sower Lines
Pro Hydrants
Subject Traci
r
17,
t,
c~
ENCLOSURE
k-78- and 2-98-056 Ran Tract
R;lan Tract
6 D
N "
1
W E
01 0 0~ MM
Notification Map
1~' < r
r
u
I
I
i
. .r,,^ Y' .°'aY >,a t < ~ ,r,J.r`ke xrt#rC~C lo~lf.~.r~v ~^a. r'r~ r~:'~,' ~
0
0[LGI
r WOMM
Asp
_r
nCONUPN4 OtY4lOPPtM RAN ® ~
I
1 KK1.~1~1
i
I
t
ENCLOSURE 6 ~s
The table below provides a summary of the IP98 Denton Plan Policies applicable to this project: 4
V Denton Plan
Policy Analysis Summary Development Rating vs. Polity
CATAGORY POLICY Drtmnsistant Aiglloble Consistent
Transportation. Cornornents Denton' long-Range Tnoraughfare Ran. X
Pronvtes Access Management Practices X
Optimlres operations for emergency service provides and
other public snrvlce provtdem.
Promotes public transportation system. _
Contributes to the Denton Trans network x
stermweter Drainage. Protects tgayear Rood en areas In accordance with
DentonIs watershed management plans. x
Conforms to local wbdMOon regulations x
Contributes to reoarW detenUon faceltks. x
Provides for natural rlpanan envlronmerd along Roodplah x
y
Upgrades existing subsbndard dralnage systems as Will
and redeveloprnent occur. x •:'r
-W8-ter and Develops and mrntalns proprrty and private
Wastewater. InfrasOueWre. x
Creates appodunlty for oversldrq wale an4 wastewater Y
lines to meet future development demaM9. x
Provdes review of proposed water and wastewater
Infrastructure to ensure pudic safety and health. x
Prornotes Infill l nprovements over new Nne lxtendons. x
[ledaie. Provides underground electric servo for new residential
and noruesldenbal develop"". x
so116 W„te. Promotes efficient access to ea deveopment for solo 1
waste service detivuy, 'a x
x
Parks and Racrteft% locates parks and receabon fadilties In accordance with
the Parks,nd Recreation Strategic Plan.
Enhances parks and recreation opportunMes for re6dents. x
Preserves Roodplaln for parks and open spot to atd in "s
floodptain conservation efforts x
Allows combning of perks with other pudic fadlltks to
adleve togtffedve delivery of pubic serdces. x
c P"denbel development should dedicete land or fees In
ON of land for nelghbomood pane. + x
Environmental Quality. Promotes preAmabon of natural resources, x
integrates Wronmental protection with economic
growth and community develorxnent x
l
r dr -
L r r
20.
c
1996 Denton Plan Pollcles Analysis (continued) w.
Denton Plan
Policy Analysis Summary
Development Rating vs, Policy
CATAGORY POLICY vWkN,tent Apph~cabk t'.ondRent
Nalghborhoods. Provides rear to pause and community fadlltas for
residerUAnelobofioods. r x
Encousges a minus of lend user that bereft reddenti, x
Protect and p roan edsiing neVibNhoods. " X
Promotes tAcyde and pede"n traffe Wthln and
between nelgt wihwds to rAO vvNOAw tr4* x
Housing. Provlda a range of housing types that $Nei to dffwtng 'r FF
ecorark and k,dvtdual IlhaMes, x
often a vasty of si.ga-fwnay lot sire, bultdnp rm ..j I
and"rwom X
Ortrrves oJftlng housing hdudrp &I housing. X
1wum M housing oondnxlion.
[eonomie Corr Mn to a strorp and dv"Nd loot acaion+y by
Divara leation. k+ "ng employment and e»mdng BN Vs bane x
GoWmmant. Erausge 1mWwvwmw,hteoordnatimtoprovlde x
eostiftedWa Nibk wv4m
Urban Design. Addresses Mmmunriy app VM In a am preM*w
"%V&. _ i x
\ rNvrrsifes amN Aural appNSnee d tuft my mmwit. • x
Neipd,oriIII Infd devetopmerA ShWd be conpabbla 1 ..y"
Mth edsting and uses and bulldogs. x
Prutects and preserves DeMm's wddtedwO, albral and •Y
Enhances the appasrxe silong mapr entrwroewrys. x i
Prornotes the preserntlon d tree Ind anduaptng, x
Mile Invotvemant. PrOdes an om Alty for pubtk opinion duMg [N j
~a~ry fir, . i X
4
21.
c
ENCLOSURE 7
IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT ANNEXED: IF THE PROPERTY IS A3o'NEXED:
No City taxes will be collected City te:'es will be collected
No zoning controls can be Implemented, Zoning controls will be applied, peiitioner Is
therefore higher densities may be achieved •equesting Plailned Development Zoning
x)Istrict
No police services from t1 a City of Denton Pollee services will be provided
Private contracts with city utilities can be City utilities will be provided without contract
developed to provide services to the subdivision and at no extra charge above regular monthly
at minimal extra charge ($1.45 extra per month bxiling
for wetsr and $,95 extra per month for
wastewater) per Ordinances 98.263 and M264
Mutual Aid Fire Protection Only, Primary Fire protection service, with a faster response
Service Provided by City of Argyle Volunteer time than to non-annexed property, will be
Fire Department provided
First response EMS provided by the City of First response EMS provided
Denton
Residents will attend DISD schools and pay Residents will attend DISD schools and pay
school taxes school to.ee
i Residents will pay county taxes Residents will pay county taxes
Residents have access to City facilities (library, Residents have access to city facilities (library,
etc.) etc.)
~,,..A'
I
i ss.
I
ENCLOSURE 8
ANNEXATION STUDY
(A-7e)
Ryan Tract
Name and Address of Owners
Mr, and Mra. Charles Ryan
1343 Eaton Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070
Name and Address of Develapert
Intennandeco, Inc.
1401Bumham Drive
Plano, TX 13093
Location mad Size: 114.76 acres located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair
Elementary School in Denton'e extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ} f
Existing Load Use: Undeveloped
Surrounding Land Use: East: Oaks of Monteciro Single Family (SF-1) Development
West: Undeveloped land in the ETJ
North: Undeveloped Land In the ETJ
South: River Oaks Single Family (SF-7) Development
Proposed Development: Single Family Residential development at 2.97 wits per acre eonsia!mt with the
proposed l fled Plan for the Ryan Tract.
Analysis:
It is the general policy of the City of Denton to assess an I case-by-ease basis the annexation of areas in the ETJ
when significant developments ate proposed, oawring oe likely to occur In the near future,
The following arc guidelines for determining when an annexation study should be considered:
(1) Single family developments over rive acres; or
(2) Multi-family, Industrial or commercial development over one acre; or
(3) Any arts where the density exceeds 600 units per squirt mile, or
r'I Any development of area that might have a significant impact upon the city, including but not limited to
~rvice costs, Increased traffic, drainage Impact, utility reds or utilization, safety of health hvirds.
Guidelines for scope of study: In studying the questions of whether or rot an anti 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
umlm
(A) Streets and Roads: ?he existing road in the area, Hickory Creek Rd., will need paving improvements The
Long Range Mobility Plan calls for a collector on the western boundary of the ptopo.ed development. A
bridge w"I be required to traverse the Fletcher Branch of Hickory Creek
(B) WaitrVistewoter Services: Water service in the area will need to be extended, at the developer's expense,
along Hickory Creek Rd. Both water and wastewater limes are existing along the eastern boundary of the
proposed annexation. /
(C) Electric Distribution: Electric distribution Is capable of providing senletto the arts. / A
(D) Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The city currently provides solid waste services in the immediate
area. Any development in this area will result In an Increased demand for services. Additional personnel and
equipment will be necessary to provide service 10 slgni Scant development In the area.
r (E) Police Services: Any Future development of the property will result in Increased demand foe police services
In the a,ea, The area surrounding this property Is alrtady within the city. Response time I0 the subject property
would be comparable to that of surrounding property in the city. Additional personnel and equipment may be
necessary to provide sen lco to sign! Scant development in the area.
23. Jill
t(F) Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (EMS): Any future development of the property will
result In increased demand fur fire protection and EMS services in the area. Station a 6 is located near the
imemection of Te.Wey Lane and Lillian Miller Parkway, approximately two miles from the property and would
adequately serve the proposed development
(0) Parks and Recreation Services: No parks of facilities currently servo this arcs, A25 acre part, is pending
dedication In the River Oaks Subdivision, .S mile south of proposed annexation. Neighborhood parks will be
required as development oc las. Additional community facilities community and regional facilities maybe
necessary to provide service to the residents of the area if slplr;iant development in the arcs occurs,
(11) Library Services: Existing facilities cannot meet proposed annexation. Expansion requirements cannot be
determined until the forthcoming Library Master Plan Study Is completed, the results of which are anticipated
on January 20, 1999.
(1) Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health Services: New building activity will trigger
additional e.se work N the Code Enforcement, Building Inspections, and Consumer Health departments. Al
present. there Is no excess capacity In my orthese divisions.
(J) Planning and Development Services: &ning, platting and development activity will trigger additional cue
work for the Planning and Development department. At present there Is no excess capacity In any division of
the department.
(K) Miscellaneoux: 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 services to
significant development in the area.
(L) Capital Improvements Program (CI P): The CIP of the city is prioritized according to the following
guideline: (1) Provision of Capital Improvements as compared to other areas will be based on chnnrcterisites
ortopognphy, land utilization, popu'stion density, magnitude orproblems its related to comparable areas,
established technlcal standards and professional studies. (2) The overall con effectiveness of providing a
specific facility or improvement. The annexed area wilt be considered for public improvements in the upcoming
CIP. This property will be considered according to the established guidelines.
(2) The rellsbUlty, capacity and future publle cat, If soy, of current and planned provisions for community
facUldes ouch as roads, drainage, uttlides, etc.
r (A) Stress and Roars: The property's access will be via Hickory Creek Road. The city's mobility plan calls for
l s collector street to o t constructed with the development of this property. Construction of internal roods
required to provide access to futvre subdivisions c the property will be the responsibility of the developer.
There may be long term costs to the city to provide necessary upgrades and Improvements to the planned
collector and Hickory Creek Road, I
(B) Water/Wsstewatcr Services: Water distribution and wastewater coliectiun 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. Recently approved Impact fro arc deposited Into the
Enterprise 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,
1 Service connections will be the responsibility of the developer.
(D) Solid Witt Collection and Disposal: Equipment to provide ser ices 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 in this area occurs, more personnel and equipment may be necessary to maintain current
response times. Station 06 Is approximately two miles from property.
(F) Parks and Recreation, Library and General Government Services: The demand for these services Is a
runt' n of residential population. Additional development will result in more residents, which would result In
more demand rot facilities and servicesin the city,
(J) The need and quality of land use sod bulldingeootrols. Private controls wid be considered
This property Is located adjacent to two Single Family (SF-7) distr1eq which follows established city ordinances. t
C'onvol orthe quality of land and building development will be required
(J) Impact on rhr City, both current and long range, Including at a minimum:
Losses (A) Flseal cos' mad beci
The proposed development plan indicates that the residential development will have a toss density 0( 3,7 units
per acre, With sgnificont public beneAts Including:
24.
t'.
> The dedication of e 31.02 acre park aloo j Fletcher Branch Creek to potentially include a hike and bike trail
and additional recreations} facilities, at the developer's expense.
> Construction ore collator, as rr;ulrcd by the city's mobility plan.
{BI Traflle;
Hickory Creek Road will be the primary access point for this development untli other development uocuos to
complete the construction of the alternative collector streets that will disperse traffic in other dt.Mlons.
(C) Infrastructure near roads, nstlltlesand otbsr eommunlry Widn;
Water distribution and wastewater c0lection systems must be extended at the developer's expense. Roth
systems we currently adjacert to the property. Electric servicecan be provided Hickory Creek Road must be
enhaiced in the near future. Other community facilities may be necessary if signitlcam development occurs
rapidly.
(D) Safety and Healtbl
no proximity of this property to Are station a6 will provide a;equste response times for fire end emergency
services. The area Is already within the police service area. SIOAcant additional development may require
additional equipment and personnel to provide adequate response times.
(E) Buildlagor developmostqualioyt
The properly is not currently zone& The developer Is petitioning that a Plumed Development toning
classification be granted that would allow a gross density o(2.1 wilt per acre, A detail plan hm been submitted
and Is being reviewed by tuff, Land and building design standards can be Incorporated into any approved detail
plans.
(F) Aathetk quality;
The city's landscape ordinance and sign ordinance will apply to any new developmett. Land and building
design standards can be Incorporated into any approved detailed plant.
(G) Community cbarscuq }
The exisdng predominant character in the area is sin,le family (SP-1) residential development This new i
development will match the existing character and enhance the beauty of the area wish the park and tall
dedication.
(6) Cooformaece wltb or need to ensure conformance wlob obe oflkldty adopted master plans of tN city.
The 1988 Denton Development Plan Identifies this area at a"Low intensity Area", no low intensity desigtsadon is ,
the feast Intense development district in she city, Residential development of this properly with appropriate
nelghborhood-0rlerted mixed use can conform to the low Intensity devetopment standard.
I
1
i
i
-Aj
25.
t
L
i~
s-- Islas ENCLOSURE 9
ANNEXA'r10N StKviCE PLAN
,
CASE NUMBER; A-18
AREA: 114.76 acres
LOCATION: On the north side.. of Hickory Creek Reed, northwest of McNair Elemenivy School In
Denton's extrakrritorial Jurisdiction (ETJI.
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. Streea and Roads
Access Is available from Hickory Creek Rd. and a planned collector street that joins with -elter planned
collector street, leading to Ryan Rd A bridge will be required over Fletcher Branch Creea a she expense of
the developer.
9. Water/WastewaterServlees
Water Is currently available along the eastern boundary of the proposed development Wastewater service
is currently available along the eastern boundary of the proposed developmenL The extension or & i r
water line will be required along Hickory Creek PJ, to support this development.
C. Electric Diotrlbutloo
Electric service Is currently available in this area
D. Solid WasteCoBtetion and Disposal
The city can serve this property. Service may requird additional equipment, personnel and opening
l resources, One rear loader, a three person crew, and an additional residential route is needed to serve each
additional 1,300 households In the city.
E. Police Services
.he department estimates that service ca! b. provided within average response lima for she city $a a
whole. The city's priority response time Is 8.06 minutes, while Its average response time is l1 minutes.
Three additional personnel and additional vehicles will be required to serve this area
F. Fire Proteedoo and Emergeacy Medical Servkes (EMS)
The city currently serves adjacent property. Fitt Station 06 It approximately 2 miles from the subiecl
property.
C. Parks and Recreation Services
No parks or facilities currently serve this area. A 23 acre park is pending in the River Oaks Subdivislon,
hairs mile south of this of the subjed property, All acreage and facility requirements are based on ultimate
build-out Cost of improvements and maintenance will be phosed in, as population Increases.
H. Library Service
r'
The Library anticipates that tmc,tosed 4nnarA resulting from development in the city can not be met using 4d r,
existing materials, facilities and personnel. Future needs of the library are to be determined with the aAer
January 20, 199 the anticipated date of the libnry master plan study.
( 1. Code Enforetment, Building faspecdons and Coasamer lfealtis Servkes
rid city currently serves adjacent progeny.
26.
c
U
i
J, Planning and NvelopmenI Services
The city currently sores this property.
( K, Capital Improvemesls A'ogram (CIP)
Thr CIP of the city Is rio,itind according to the following guidelines:
(1) Rovision of Capitol Improvements as compared to other arer will be based on characlodsba of
topography, land tdilitdl^ population derulty, magnitude of problems as related to comparable Ares,
established technical standards and professional studies.
(2) The overall cost orwive"Is of providing a specine Mlity or improvement
no annexed area will be consdered for public Improvements in the upcoming CIP, We property will be
considered according to the established guidelines.
i
I
I
C
to
r
{
c.
ATTACHMENT 10
SERVICE ANALYSIS
A•17
r ENGINEERING AND TRANSPORTATION
1. What existing roads, bridges and other transportation facilities will be Impacted by this
proposed annexation and development In terms of needed Improvements or upgrades?
Name d kp J of I rovemen APPRXIM611 Coal
2. Are any of these Improvements presently scheduled to be done at state or federal
expense? PO_. If yes, please Identify facility and anticipated dale Improvements
will begin. _
3. Please list any drainage Improvements that may require local funding, and Include
estimated cost (if no specific Improvements can be determined, please make general
m~ ants con ng dr +nagq), r
"Am Cz-^
4. WII additional equipment and facilities be needed as a specifc result of this annexation
and development? .NIf yes, what type of equipment or facility?
6. Please comment on the cumuiatira Impact of annexation and development.
At what population level would additional equipment je required?
Is there an accepted equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? NO
is there an accepted employee to podulation ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? )o
Additional Comments:
j A,
P sm contact If ther er questions DaWL ,
Annexation Service Area Anslysis.doo
2B,
t.
12120096 111:45 1136173637334 1TIL1TrES ®Uu1BUi
SERVICE ANALYSIS
WATER I MUM= A-79
` 1. What Is the nearest City of Denton water line?
Size of water line. 1,2 - C~
Location of waterline, A
t_Q.~ 1„c ~aer~ti ~fe~ay Op ae►bsa>
Distance from proposed annexation. _ ,,i M~acytt
2. What Is the nearest City of Denton sewer line?
Size of sewer line. !S- «6--Zo le
Locution ofsewer line. srsca ~lL.~.re,~Ry G~ Peepasoo
Distance from proposed annexation, a ~4vacn,~z
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 oonstructton,
Size Year Location
Water tines 6U& 02
Sewer lines "
4. Are there any City of Denton lines included In the proposed annexation?
5. Please comment on the cumulative impact of annexation and development.
At what population level would additional equipment be required? E
C Is there an accepted equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? _
Is tnere an accepted employee to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes?
Additional Commonts; -
Post-lit' Fox Mote 76711 ar. ! 141" d "
To NM, y D
rnan r = e PINV.
' Y C M
Person to contact H ere are questions Date
Annexation Service Area Anslysis.doo
29.
c:
i
SERVICE ANALYSIS ,
ELECTRIC UTILITIEs A•~
1. What is the distance to, location of, and size of tho nearest City of Donlon electric tine? t
O/Y
2. What type of lines and facilities would be required to serve this area?
Will L" k
3. Are any new lines or facilities proposed for construction to serve this area?
4. Are there any potential responsibilities if this area Is annexed?
No
6. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development.
At what population level would additional equipment be required?
{ to 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:
y Oa~ iJ fa Q
0epfrt, *'IrOt r
C u S •t-o nI e r! .
e
Person to contact there are gyesti s Date
r
Annexation Service Area Analysls.doo
30.
c
h
SERVICE ANALYSIS
A-13
Solid Waste
1. Is residential solid waste service available too the proposed area for annexation?
' t t
2. Is commercial solid waste service available to the proposed area for annexation?
-~0- S
3. What is the estimated cost to provide this area with solid waste service?
Equipment and Maintenance.
Personnel.
4. What Is the typical revenue collected per.,
Household. / . ak r 3 o d~ y6 {
Commercial Business VAS: e-
6. Will additional equipment be needed to serve this aroa If annexed or developed?
Type of Equipmr -t, R L." Z'04 j- _
Cost of Equipment. k's s aoo l
e\ 6. Will additional employees be needed to serve this area If annexed or developed?
Type of Employees, .E'c s Dr,,Ut e ~ w I 'S
Number of Employees.
7. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development.
At what population level would additional equipment be required? /1-1-t /Nt acf 7C Fi E'
u.." na/rI,'~on~.(ptcv poz.14- a /2GO.4aac4.4,Alt,
Is there an accepted equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning
l purposes?
Is there an accepted employee to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? _
Additional Comments:
i
220 %ne St2rG6<.GAL /0~~/6~g~ ti / r•
Person to co tact If there a questions Date
i Amiexation Service Area Analysis,doo
J1.
Q
l+
SERVICE ANALYSIS
A•77
PQLIC~,
1. Estimated average resMnse time for this area based on current department conditions:
Priority 7_ minutes
Non-priority 15_ minutes
Average 11_ minutes
2. Appropriate average response time In the city based on current department oonditlons:
Priority 8 8_ minutes
Non-priority 15__,_. minutes
Average minutes
3. If annexed and developed as proposed will additional personnel be needed as a specific
result of this proposal? ~yesr If yes, how many? _3 What type?
_police officers
4. Will additional equipment and funding be needed to serve this area? _yes_ if yes,
what type? vehicles
5. Will a police substation or other facility be needed to serve this area as a result of
annexation and development? No if yes, when should the new
facilities be operational?
l 6. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development.
At what population level would another police facility be required? --apprx.
100,000
Is there an accepted facilitylequipment to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? No
Is there an accepted officer to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes?
No
Additional Comments:
1~e
( Person to contact If there are questions Date
Annexation Service Area Analysts.doc
32,
r
(7
SERVICE ANALYSIS
A-V .
EIRE
1. Fire a d Emergency Medical Services can b provided to the area from ste;ton(s)
#,located at 32~Z tea,~~ L■~e
I
2. Estimated response time. S minutes
3. Appropriate response time in the City. minutes 1
4. Is a new fire station approved in the CIP that could serve this area? NO if yes,
what Is the CiP program year?
5. Will a new fire station be requested in upcoming CIP proposals to serve this area?
If yea, wtien should thls station be operational?
6. Total estimated funding for equipment, employees and/or facilities needed to serve this
arve strictly based on annexation and proposed development.
~4 -tom ,S ol-eA
I
7. Please commula ' e Impact of annexation and development,
r At what popanother library facility be required?
Is the
re an ion to population ratio that cen be used for planning
purposes?
Is there an e to population ratio that can be used for planning
- > purposes?
E
Additional Comments:
1
w
Person to oontact If there are questions Date
Annexation Service Area Anslysis.doo
33.
C
i
SERVICE ANALYSIS J
A•79 a
r PARKS AND RECREATION
\ 1. What nelghborhood park and recreational facilities are currently serving this area or are
capable of serving this area annexed and/or developed (federal, state, 1)?
2. What projects and/or equipment will be need to adequately serve this area if annexed
and/or development based on the parks and recreation master plan or similar
standards?
Neighborhood Parks; a, acres per 1,000 population.
S acres minimum size.
,Ao &AeZe cost per acre.
Recreation Con at: av6 square feet per 1,000 population.
Ae11 i-efai.e-Q aV sgtiarefeet minimum size.
'7ot-~ ~i-~, e • btu , & oo~t per square foot.
Other facilities r per 1,040 population,
square feet minimum size.
most per square foot.
3. How much additional funding will be needed for malnienance H additional park facilities
ale developed to serve this area?
c~vo cost per acre.
_~,~aat flor aquara foot-.
4. How many additional personnel would be needed to property serve this area tf annexed '
and d veloped?
b. additional personnel per 1,000 population;
additional personnel per 1,000 square feet of facility; or
0.61/ a'3,.~ additional personnel per acre of park.
cost per additional personnel
Additional Comments: ,dtcy~ onr c./~%oS- VA
~r< e~xyo.f ewe c. A4• f Ces~' e~.
✓,~~a. i~(ice~o ,
Person to contact if they re questions Data r { r; r
\ t-
Annexation Service Area Analyais.doc
3S.
c
e.
.i
SERVICE ANALYSIS E
f
LIBRARY A•8
7. If annexed, can anticipated service demands be met using existing materials, facilities,
and personnel? "
8. If not, how many additional employes Ted w it ty e o facilities jind materials will be
needed to provide services? Bj.
9. Estimated additionallundlini eered s ct based on p osed annexation and
development. ,~iP
10, Please comment on the cumulative impact of annexation and development.
At whet population level would another library facility be required? 7, 4 51 0- Q
Is there an accepted cirqq~~la,tion to population ratio at can be used for planning
purposes?
Is there an accepted mpployr~~eeto po We~Uon ratio that cap be used for planning
purposes? 77.li~Pi /,7~'op a- -i.~P'
Additional Comments:
Person to contact If there are questions ate
t
Annexation Servlca Area Analysls,doo
3S.
c
JAS. -00' 99(FRi) 18:11 DENTOtiiSD TEL14NI150710 P. 00?
SERVICE ANALYSIS
D.I.S 12,
1. If annexed, Can anticipated service damands ba met using existing materials, facilities,
and personnel?
High school and middle school students may be accommodated at exirting
facilities and with existing personnel. However, additional materials would be
required.
Elementary school students may not be met with existing materials, facilities, and
personnel.
2. If not, how many additional employees and what type of facilities and materials will
be needed to provide service s?
An additional seven teachers and an additional seven (7) classrooms would be
required to meet *,e estimated elementary school impact.
3. Estimated additional fzAing needed strictly based on proposed annexation and l
development.
EXPENDITTMES (771IStudmts); S 1.20 twIlion -based on current budget
12EVENUTS (Average Value S150,000 per Dwelling Unit);
S 1.03 million - based on current tax rate
ADDI'C'.ONAL FUNDWO NEEDED; $170,000
4. Will projec,ed school taxes from this developmeut provide that additional funding? I
i
Prcject%~d school taxes from this development will not provide additional funding.
5. Please corn neat on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development.
f Annexation bas relatively limited Impact on the DJAD. since the development
would be located within the district boundaries whether annexed by the City of
Denton.
6. At what population level would other school facilities be required for the City of
Denton?
Specifications for new elementary, middle, and high school facilities have been r A4
developed to serve student enrollments of 6811 1,000, and 2,000 respectively. t (fir ti
I
36.
L'
l4
JAN.-Ol'9901) 18114 DENTONISD TW9403830718 P.001
7, Is there an acceptable employee to popartation ratio that can be used for plaon(ng
purposes?
1J.f.S.D. policy and state raostions have established the following
studonAncher ratios that may be used for ptanaing Purposes-
Elemeataryt 22 StudentsMeacher
Middles 28 S tudentsneacher
HiAt 28 Students/Tewher
I
tIt
l
Todd Parton January 8,1999 f
Person to Contact with Quesdom
C •
I
c
04.
111 I' I f ~ w f
4 1 i ~
1 640066
~1 •voHll i`9
~ 111 w S •1 ~ ~ i.
Lti r ;
IL
1~ , A,i!!a31±~r,!.tN ~rWn' L1R r..alas. r••N' ~ .._.i'
p 1 .voila'
•w..~
d'"00 m"
1
a• .•q.
•...1.•.... f f W
r
I ! j11~ 461 DNA' •
mra.wwr 11
rrru•■~■rrr WIIMMIJI
c~ r
W W IVY•nl 1•Vel'•M•Iw,olw O
IeWw Wbf 11IWJ ■ry Wlltl»Mw w 1"96611 pp •RIN
Iee aa tollMn.WnM 0.1.1•tM
lwan■WAf view. M4a"a-~~
Ik•dM.l I0•YM0,0114 wm6101e1.vnronllrllananweull DENTON MOBILITY PLAN-DRAFT
jeY~~'/•I'.'3•' ..r..r.......- 1•.u.•r••1 •ala C..1.«....,.,.......~ bf1A141A IAN nhtAAA~If`111Y
r
c
ul Woo FBI 11:15 F.it 04006M4 FURTH TEI4S PLALSTItS GDuU!
ENCLOSURE 11
i NU I lc.t: Ur rUISLito HtAKLM-7
■ L`iY`VJV
~t v 1 ,V,I, Iy O N LVllll y bVII NIY~if I V, V V ;zit OI
\ I\VII WNl IMIY O I YLI,V II ft."Ia Nil 41 GY,ItO~G~.
i Januarv 13, IM. to consider recommendim anDrovar to rifil Cy!ncll fnr c?~?-,tnn Ms vnninn nw
114.76 acres from ETJ to a Planned Davelopmernl zerdng &ttrict The 114.76 at-re L i==:cd cot ha
north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair Elementary School,The meeting will be held at
5:30 PM In the City Council Chambers located In City Hall at 215 E. W(inney Street, Denton, Texas.
The purpose of the zoning change Is single family subdivision and park development
The pubiie hearing will start at 5:30 p m in the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 21S E.
McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. because you own property wanin two hundred (2Uu) lest of the
subject property, the Planning and Zoning Commission would like to hear how you feet about this
zoning change request and lnvRes you to attend the public hearing, Please. In order for your opinion to
betaken into account return this force with your comments prior to the data of the public hearing. (This
in no way prohibits you from attending and participating in the public hearing.) You may fax It to the
number located at the bottom, Mal It 10 the address betowkor drop It off In person:
Planning and Development Department
221 N. £Im ST
Denton,TeXas 70201
Attn: Trim McElreath, Planner II
The zoning process Includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunltles for citizen
inVrllV(Wj.9nt AM rmmFnAnl Prier In the pl;hlip 1?ear({iot, lanAn,l Pre within rwm hhd;ad (200) feet of
the subject property are notMed of the zoning request by way of this notice. The first public hearing Is
held before the Piannlna and Toning r,xnrni", bm. ThA r mmltsion is informed of the percent of
1 responses in support and in opposition. Second, the zoning petition Is forwarded to the CRY Council for
final action providing the Commission recommends Approval. Should the Commission recommend
decrial, the pet>voner may then appeal the request to the City Council. N owners of more than twenty
(20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, than six
out of seven voles of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change. These talus am
used to calculate the pereentago of landowner opposidon.
Please circle one,
In favor or request Neutral to request / Opposed to request }
Cammontz:
Signature: _
PrinteC ::erne: ~..~Y
M-0,ng Address: M rwfiC~ }Qi
City, State Zip: S
Telephone Number. -
Physical Address of Property whhtn 200 feat l~(Xn U"►A 4.
CIIYOFOENrON, TEXAS CITY HALL VVEST • o¢rrroR,TOUs 71201 • 140.34d.6380 1 ~W.5491107
I
2•rrose, 2oa Nolesesras Leher.diod
39,
ATTACHMENT 3
_ f1
MINUTES
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 13, 1949
The regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday,
January 13, 1999, a15 30 p m. In the Coy Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Oenlon, Texas:
Present. Elizabeth Gourdie, Salty Rishel, Susan Apple, Jim Engelbrechl, Rudy Moreno, and
Bob Powell
Absent. Carol Ann Ganzer
Present from Staff: Mike Buck, First Assistant City Attorney, David Hilt, Director of Planning; Mark Donaldson
Asslslant Director of Planning, Wayne Reed, Planner I; David Salmon, Engineering
Administrator; and Trims McElreath, Planner II
PUBLIC HEARINGS-ZONING CHANGE
9. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendatlon to City Council concerning the
annexation and zoning of 11416 sans to a Planned Development zoning district The 114,76acre
property Is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair Elementary School,
(A•781248-056, Ryan Tract Trina (McElreath) Finney)
Commissioner Engelbrecht. At this lime, I'll reconvene the Commission, We will now maw on to the section entillsd
Public Hearings-Zoning Change Number 9 Is to hold a public hearing and consider making s recommendation to
City Council concerning the annexation and zoning of 114.76 actoo to a Planned Development district. The property
is located on the north side of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of IdcNait Elementary School. At this lima the public
,
hearing Is open. Ms. Finney will provide us with the staff report
Me, Trims Finney presented the staff report
Ms Finney. Thank you The subject 114.76-acre parcel Includes the large portion locatel In the flood plain, which
would be dedicated to the City. The applicant proposes to develop the property with Vie gross density of 2 97 units
per acre and to dedicate additional parktrnd over and above the required good plain for an overall parkland
dedication of 31 acres If the City chooses not to annex this property, the tract may still be developed In the ETJ.
Residents Ilving in the ETJ will still attend Denton Independent School District schools sod pay school taxes as well
as County taxer, however, would not be liable for City taxes. If in the ETJ, the development will not be subject to
any zoning regulations bul will have to comply with land use and development regulations. Coy utilities would be
provided Through prlvate contract developed with the City utilities at a slightly Increased rate, Police services would
not be proviled and fire protection tervices would only be provided umder a mutual aid request from the City of
Argyle Emeryancy medical services would be provided by the Donlon Fire Departmeml and all other public bdlilies
would be accessible In the residents of the development. This area Is within a low-intensity ores and does meet the
cnleria of the Donlon Development Plan A trip generated for this development Is 47% betow that which Is allocated
for low intensity areas being that 3,258 1, Ips would be generated while 6.885 are allowed. Access Is evallable onto
Hickory Creek Road and to the collector that worild be required on the weal and northern boundaries. The 60-fool
Fight of way collector also a part or our new major thoroughfare plan that Is pad of the growth momagement plan. It
will connect to future connector linking to Ryon Road thereby offering an alternate roule from Teasley Lane.
Hickory Creek, which is a primary major arterial Is currently designed to carry 11,000 hips per day. however, It Is not
built to City standards K0" Creek Is Intended to be a six-fane divided thoroughfare when it is bush 10 standards
Th-s design would Increase the carrylmg capacity to 33,000 trips per day. At present Thera are no traffic counts for
this road. This road is olso to be included with the County bond package that lit going to be considered this Veen
however, that is a ten-year bond package and we are not sure 0 Hickory Creek fails in the first year of the tenth Veer. r,
We are still Irying to pin that down. Sidewalks along all public streets would be required and these is water and
sanitary sewer available to this rile a you will note on the ulibly map. There is a 12-Inch water lime along the ! 1,
easlern boundary and a 15-inch sanilary sewer time also along The eastern boundary , This Is black and white. 11
doesn't show up very well. This is the property end there Is the 1"mch sewer too and the 12-Inch water lime, fire .
hydrants will obviously need to be added as the property Is boing developed within the tract. New development will
be required to dosigm and cunsbvct drainage to City standards end a preliminary study will be required with the
~0.
u
u
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,
Pape 2 of 34
I
preliminary plat. The developer mull Indicate the method by which runoff will be carried away across the property or ,
stored on the property with the floodplaln on there that will be used to help m8lgsle the flood warty drainage. Notice
of the zoning request was published In the Denton Record-Chronicle on December 23, 1995, and January 3, 1999,
Initially, six property owners per the City tax rolls were notified of the request on December 31. On January 5,
additional notification was malted out to residents within a Mfoot range as a courtesy notice These residents
were not listed In the City tax toffs, but were obtained thro h a field vls t by staff. As of this writing, there had been
one response in opposilion. Since than. I have received several more that I will pass to you. The 20% full Is not In
effect and a neighborhood meeting was conducted on December 3 with no residents in attendance; however, that
was according to the six mall-outs that were sent. We had a second neighborhood meeting last night at which we
had 33 attend and that was according to the courtesy notice that was sent out. Let me gat those opinions, excuse
me. As you'll note, we have four loners of opposition, two letters in favor, and one otter that Is neutral; however, the
neutral faller has concerns with lighting and traffic and there was one other that's written. Tonight we are looking at
a detail plan, which should be Included In your backup. Looks like wears nol going to be able to zoom out on this so
I willmove il. This is r+onh over here. North being the top of" page, this Is part of the collector and thit would be
the western boundary where the collector would run. This Is Hickory Creek Rood and this is the proposed
development here. Except for this tract 1B and tract 1C, this right here, you sea, Is partial Aoodplain, partial
ftoodway, and partial additional dedication, Rounding numbers, we are looking at about 10 acres of floodwsy, 14
acres of f oodplain, and than an additional 5 or 1 acres of just dedicated land along the buf oring edges. This Use
right here to a 3-acre perk that Is being dedicated as part of the replat with the Oaks of Monteclto, This continues
down to a 25-acre dedlcetlon as part of the River Oaks development end will continue up with future development to
the north. So, we are looking at a nke floodwoy corridor here to which the Parks Department has k4calad--you
can see the trait, this being River Oaks, Oaks of Montecito, and the proposed development. Ed Hodney with Parks
Is well aware of this and they have talked about different amenities going through this. Right now, of course,
everything is still In abstract. What you are considering tonight Is a combination of onnexallon and zoning.
Normally, on annexation would be considered mild would come back end be zoned; however, we have a provision In
our zoning adinence that toys the Commission and the Council have the discretion to zonelannex property at the
time N is annexed. Therefore, this petitioner Is asking that Oils be zoned Planned Development with thlo detail plan
that they presented you 10111 gM4 That Is what you win be considering fonlght. Thank you.
Commissioner Engelbrechl. Commissioners, are there questions for Ms. Finney? Yes, Mr, Powell.
Mr. Powell , Ma'am, you said when you started that if If is not annexed they can still dovelop'P
Ms. Finney: Yes, air.
Mr. Powell: Would they be able to develop n the way they are looking at here or would then be some kind of hitch In
the'getalong' that I am not aware or?
Ms. Finney. They can develop It so n Is proposed before you now. They can develop 4 at a higher density being-1'M
just throw out a number-3,000 square fool Wa. They can develop h of any density because we win have no zoning
Controls over this.
Mr. Powell What kind of controls w 3uld be over 0
Me, Finney: If n were In the ETJ?
Mr. Powell: Correct,
Ms. Finney, They would have to comply with the zoning bred regulations, whkh meant..,
Commissioner Engelbrechl Subdivision,
Ms. Finney: l em sorry , Thank you, Subdivision regulations, which means they would have to put In the akfewana, y
the road improvements, water and sewer throughout the property under private contract, floodwey dedlc! don, ' .
floodptain dedication unless they reclaim n, an sort of things. i ,
Mr. Powell: Thank you very much.
Ms Finney You're welcome. I
41.
,I
t
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,1999
Page 3 of 34
Commissioner Engelbrechl Yes.
Mr. Rischel Why do we not have a traffic study?
Ms. Finney: We have a balfc study that is being reviewed by TraIAUEngineedng of this lime. They have looked at
it, They have not made any concrete recommendations. They have made some observations and I have a copy
here that I can lei you browse through. It is a draA copy, N is not finalized yet because Traffic/Engineering has not
had a chance to get their comments back to them. Some of the things that have been holed in the Traffic Impact
Prelysls were turn lanes, especially of the Intersection of Teasley and Hickory Creek and at the entrance off
Hickory Creek into the subdivision. Down the line, they are looking at a signalized Intersection at Hickory Creek and
Teasley. Of course, that would be as development Increases and the criteria for a signalized Intersection era met.
Right now, those criteria ere not mot because there isn't enough development in the area, long-range plans
Indicated that that would be required. These things will also be considered when the County puts this In the bond
package and they're upgrading The road, S would like, at this time, also since we are talking about transportation to
indicate that there is a bridge going over the Fletcher branch of that right there. That bridge would be required as
part of this development and as a two-lane bridge traffic going In each direction one tone. We are looking at about a
$300.000 cost to the developer with jut' the bridge alone,
i
Commissloner Engelbrecht. Any other questions for Ms. Finney?
i
Mr, Bucek: Ms. Finney, would you refresh our memory? It It is not annexed, the plat will still comeback to the P&Z
for approvet?
Me Finney Yes, sir. If this property Is not annexed, they will still have to plat and you wilt seethe plat. Preliminary
end final.
Mr Powell. Oueslion, I
Commissioner Engelbrsaht. Yes, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Cr The ptat would not have to look like that would it? N coull have smeller lots?
Ms, Flnney: Yes.
Mr. Powell: Thank you
1
Mr. Bucek: I apologize. My reason for bringing that up is that's the point which we could havill
Traffic/Englneii study has to be oomptele by the patting stage, not by the swing stage is the point I wanted to
make.
Ms, Finney, Correct. j
Ms. Gou16o But when N gets to the platting stage, aren't we required to approve It N N meals all the crllli So,
what's the purpose of having a traffic Impact study Iwo can't do anything about N.
Mr, Bucek: The trafpe impact study though-when you are talking about Patric 619nalizsllcn, in other words, you wilt
have the ability it Englneedng says it meets the criteria of the subdivision rules and regulations, you an require
signalization and things like that, I thought Thal was where Salty, was going That Is what I was trying to clarify.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. I have a question. 11 you would please, and I have to And N now In the backup. This
consists of a number of trade Would you point those out?
Ms Finney Codsiniy. I have a color dril ing that I did just for myself that wilt help point that out.
r
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Great.
T, r
Ms Finney Highlighted on hers in purple are the areas that are being proposed at 7,000 square feet, And in !
orange are the areas proposed for 8,000 squats feet The overall density for this-considering that you re taking out
31 acres for park would be the same as d you developed the whole thing at 10,000 square foot lots. But, because
42.
1
f`
i. I
i
Plann Ing and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1899
Pape 4 of 34 k
they are dedicating 31 acres for parkland and just moving that density to either side, that's why you pet the smalloir
leis, It still his a density of less Won three units per acre.
Commissioner Engelbrecht Mr. Powell.
Mr, Powell: Help me out here, Three units per acre for the whole facility?
Ms. Finney: For the gross, yes.
Mr. Powell: Gross number of aeres?
Ms. Finney: Yes, sir,
Mr. Powell: It's not three units pot acre of develop&a lend, assuming you can't develop most of what I see them In
blue,
Ms. Finney: You can develop all but about 10 scree of this d they did a letter of map revision with FEMA.
Mr. Powell: That's something fhal hadn't been mentioned Thank you very much.
Ms Finney: You're welcome
Commissioner EngelbrschL Would you explain how they would acquire access to the purple area on the lop side of
that particular map, the larger one? Yes, that one right there. Would that be from adjacent property at such time
that 4 is developed?
Ms, Finney: I am nut sure that they would be allowed to coma off Hickory Creek. That would be a question for
David Salmon Sul the Oaks of Montecilo an right here with cul-de-secs shutting We. There are just cut-de-sacs II
abusing this area. In the teat lain) Ones, you an see there It a cul-de-sac here and here. And than an L-shaped I
Went here. Whether or not they would be able to go Shrough, i doubt, it would probably be here That is a question
for the developer really, how they propose to access that
Commissioner Engelbrecht If they access there, how would they pet across the Aoodplaln?
Mm Finney. In discussions at tho Development Review Committee, there has been talk about going through here
which would require another bridge, Thera has also been some discussion that These of the developableness are
not guaranteed on those lots because they are so difficult to access, It would be vnry expensive to acceu them, but
they did want to show them there. They are accessible and they compile about 31 lots.
Commissloner EngalbrechL So, the Oevelopment Review Committee has talked with the developer about the !
difficulties of getting into those particular propedies.
Ms. Finney: Yes, and that's one of the main reasons that they are not shown with lots tight now.
Commissioner Engelbrccht Thank you Okay, could you ON out to me, If you know, where the
Lake Forest Good Samaritan property Is relative to this property? And, If you could, point owl where their sort of little
lake Is, their holding facility?
Ms Finney I'm not familiar with where thelr holding facility is, but Good Samaritan Is rghl up here David Salmon
may be able lo-he may know that.
Mr, Salmon: Trine is correct. The Lake Forest Good Samaritan property Is just to the north and east of this subjed
trail. Their lake Is right in this area just off the map. The lake, which Is located right here, Is just to the north and
east ohhe subject property.
r
Commissioner Engethrechl: Okay. Do you happen to know If the topography there Is such that will development in t ,
this area drain back into that? As this property is being developed, will the runoff drain beds Into that holding facility
or is 4 going to go south?
Mr. Salmon: South
/3.
r
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13.1999
Page 5 of 31
Commissioner Engetbrecht: Okay. So, any sediment and that soft of thing shouldn't fall Into that,..
Mr. Salmon: Right. This should cause no sedimentation problem at art, at least for the Good Samaritan plate.
Commissioner Engelbracht: Okay. Thank you, I appreciate that. Thank you for the overlay. Are there any other
quastlons for slafl? If not, did you have any other staff remarks at this time?
Mr. Salmon: No.
Commissioner Engelbrecht; Okay, thank you is the petitioner or petitioner's representative present? If you would,
give us your name and business address please.
Mr. Anerbum: Good evening, my name is Terry Anerburrl, I am employed with Mesa Design Group. We are land
planners and landscape architects. Our address Is 3100 McKennen, Dallrs, 75201. 1 think Trine has probably made
a lot of the presentation that I was anticipating introducing you to the property. Site context map, which Is here,
basically shows proximity to other neighborhoods The Oaks of Montecilo here, McNair Elementary School here, the
Centex River Oaks project to the south, a Finch-Hill Estates project that I believe to In the process of Coming to
zoning In the near lufurs which polentially could be a Continuation of 0)1% westbound collector. I think one of the sort
of community advantages of this p"cuter application Is that this particular piece of parkland, which the developer is
willing to dedicate, I think is significant acreage, about 31 scram and could be In our discussion with the
Parks Department, a sizeable community park, sort at, In the entire green bent And It Is also relatively useable Our
plans era not to rill In the Aoodplaln whatsoever t1nilke some of the other developers have done in this vklnity but to
leave all of that undeveloped in the perk dedlcakri. Just to kind of-tan we pullback on this just* little NO 1 Can
you slack some of thole boards out here so they can see them? I'll hold this up. This lithe 114-weiltalusil to
give you a little bit clearer defirnl"on. The park property Is attention hers What we have stlemplad to do on the
property Is we've looked at pnsudible), This Is teaAy just for study purposes We've looked at what the
10,000 square loot lot layout would be over just this acreage not rawly taking into account the Aoodplaln and It
produces about 360 lots We can ties that density assort of our mind hams for this now for this particular housing
development as we realize th at that was the density that the City has been discussing on other properties. What we
did Is-we essentiamy are proposing to collect that density on the west approxlmoley 70175 acres% of developable
property outslds the Aoodpiaim. And In this zoning application, we hays actually asked for 7,000 square tact lots ~
hers I'll explain that In just a minute. The rest developable propels for the moor future is on thla aide, We
specifically did what we were asking for about 7,000 and 6,000 square kit lots In order to get our density up to this
equivalent 10,000 square foW lots In this pa licutar ippllcalion. So, there are two tracts of 6,000 square loot lots,
which will be approximately 00 houses, end one large tract of 7,000 square foot lots on this aide, which would bo
about 210 houses There are an additional 171 outea available within the zoning oppik tom on the east side of fire If
property, it Is anticipated that that will not be developed In the nen fulura and possibly mot ever. And there srm s
couple of things I would like h ay about that. This particular place of property and really this one could be
accessed by a angle-loaded collector, however
I
Commlsslonor Engelbrechk Could you hold If up?
Ms. Apple: Excuse me. N there some way that as he's explaining he could both turn A so that the audience an
see? Because these people are here for this And I think A would be great 0 there was some way that everyone
could see what you are talking about,
Mr AMrburn: I'm sorry.
Me Apple: Thanks okay It's our fault.
Commissioner Engeibrecht. There you go
Mr Arterburn: Where was 17 At any rate, we have looked at the feasibility that N you could access the property to /
the east by a single-loaded cWlector, but because A is predominantly forest and the efficiency of developing property
In terms of s cost perspective. We have actually had a conversation with Ed Hodnsy about this He exhib4od q Ar r.
(1 "
Interest n the possibility of the City purchaiing this additional 10 acres 0 you la0y looked it IMs it a Community
park to 61ually expand the park. The developer is open to that as on Ides and 10 we wanted to came put that on
the tabto Wo have hid that discussion with staff. They resm to be Interested In A. We didnt feel like it was
honestly app, lpnate to make additional park dedication beatuss we mods esssntlally 33 acres of park dedication
11.
i
t' I
I
i
Planning and Zoning Comm fission Minutes
January 13,1999
Page 5 of 34
when ere IS
wouir! with no development o not even Aepossibly sold to a single l individual orysometh nrg like that.Tl his property would probably
coming th ough the Aurae Brick sae future ° d t ey have no immediate pie dt
held elong term and has ito you know,
years after us because access o
vacate their property,
Commissioner Engeloechl, If you would leave that set so that the audience can see R somewhere
Mr. Anerburn', (inaudible) on on easel or do R like the17 Wdl that work9
Commissioner we haEe ea map lb(a here in our anitup sgonst Ih.e podium. Then,
se hopefully, the look+In the audience can sea It packet Mr. Anerburn Heft is a smaller version of R right h •e. Just to give you some additional Information and
I'll do this
on this side of the room. There Is t 14-r 7a Roodway, Which Is delineated in red In the middle of this. Then, the
floodptaln delineated In yellow on the outside. our plans were not to develop in the hoodpioln but if you look at the
2 97, Ifyou look tit net of the floodway which is officially not
don I Ill based v on this
City entire stench 11 the , as Trims i Is 3 5, r
dove opable
Mr. Hill Excuse me, I'm lorry to interrupt We don't have you on microphone.
Commissioner Enget etchl Shank you, Drvd l em sorry.
Mr. Anerburn. The density, if you net out the fioodw+y Is 3 5; however, if you. you know, 'oke out otentii lotsInto on
your
that side which are probably not developable In the foreseeable future, It does bring
three units of acre range. I'd like to review in the packages that w acreage d h out~plthis just tom and the factits about
the particular project, The acreage total has the Pool tide h 11, the east side lei 01. The densities are pretty Bch as I described them. The total numrber of units that
were actually proposing in this particular detail plan Is 294. It does not Include nylots dedicationin the eas Is t3r arod at the
time The perk dedication requirement for this Bits is 2 25 acres our proposed
parkland available for purchase by the City. H they were to interested, would be this 10 acret that is on the so it title
and the potential possible parkland would to upwards of 43 acres on the second sheet, Just kind of addressi q
toccurred ronhHk.Mory Creek , +la" has requested hattthe Hickory Crook road Improvements be made which atclua'lly
And,
has not the
mnimurn cost of Sly 000, Possibly higher than th tool think N ssun fortunate th at Hickory bridge, which Is
no other
lanes probably a developer
Domu In In particular jeti.
sout been Dad+cipeled In by other developers Especially, the dev era trying t to do ouh who batthis not really 60MG
addition. the overall community Cgood i suppose
to 3 years
eddied,pu putting In • yso boundary f r, which prwould not operty, I would say there Is near tom pof ibilitytwithin thilt, which It
if 14 op the entire western boatern bou undary o of the
if the property that I've described to the northwest west Is s developed to actually complete this Cdllecla through to Ryen,
which I believe would really help the traffic problem. Because. you could at least get a minlmunt distribution of traffic
cal ect ell the ayvover to Totaley n And lf wise were-we
to Ryan which is on the Hick" n rt ern p opt ytll e, which will Amid then we also
t probably talk to
followed with the City lSID. Adutly, one of thea residentthey ad r some dislcusproposing to kind of s an with them, which they Oilthese
you about. But there Is a possibility 4 this park Is developed that the ISO might participate In N as an educational
private and actua dome things liks that am
ventursiutoothat n with ides
facility for the lwdof, IAnd we n a Joint are very open
other park properties with, talked 0 the PAnclptt of
McNair and r said "there are 783 I they have Students two future rtes planned fil Cris tartan average of Oakmont Site And one is a M 2 81 tlS
r
rap sorialive te
They have not decided which one of those to develop at this time, but they do anticipate developing one of those two
utas with anchor TDO student that would begin some time In the year 2000.21101, And there is e bond program
students future per ha d aril A I partial of Students Del household. we visa looked
at th If we d the
that the Denore ton ISthe plxesf O Handards of putting elerentary for that
294 houses that were projected on the west side here. R would be 117 elementary students projected end these
mould be built out over the next three to five years. I don't think 0 Is a crushing sat of elementary school skustlon
45.
l
I
Planning and Ionl no Commission Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 7 of 34
from this particular project. You are looking at maybe adding 25 students a year over the next three to live years, I
think that might help out some of the lean, I know that schools and traffic are kind of the two big community Its use
when looking at zoning in this particular area. The other thing I think that is Important to say, besides the obvious
amenities of the park, Is that this developer who we have a longterm relationship with Is actually a very quality
oriented developer. I wanted to show you some of our projects and their projects that would be similar to the quality
level we anticipate building a masonry well elm] the entirely of Hickory Cmek. These are tome other projects both
our firm and theif company have done that would be similar in quality to the development. We like to pay a lot of
■llention to detail end I think that the projects hove been generally very successful and very well received by most of
the municipalities that they and 'n have developed In, The price range of the houses, which I may let the
representalive, one of the partners of the development company, come over and talk to you about that they are
proposing is in the 51404195,000 range. We had a meeting last night with mostly citizens of the Oaks of
Montecilo. Besides the school end the traffic concems, I think their main concerns seem to be centered ground
property values and not lowering their property values Apparently, the subdivision to the south may haves. negative
Impact on some of their properly values. Were open to discussion. Since this is a Planned Development we could
propose minimum square footages for the 11,000.7,000 square foot lots. We have actually had a discussion with
some of the partners of the development company today and they are open to that I'd like to discuss that, maybe
later In the process after you have heard their Input, Also, we would be willing to look at some other alternatives
possibly and decide, We would like to kind of work with you, I guess, at much as possible. There Is the obvious
question. Why ore we annexing and zoning? I think we are really trying to be cooperelive with the City of Denton, It
Is not our purpose to try to abuse She situation We think this Is actually a very wlnlwln Situation with the City. In
fact, I have to soy that In the history clout land planning, I don't think there has ever been a property that we have
had almost 40% of the land be proposed lot public open space, And I feeble that you probably will hear a number
of negaliva comments, which are redly centered around the lot size, But I think this Is really an Incredible
opporlunity for the City and I don't really feel like housing that is In the price range of $140.20,000 Is redly
something that Is undesirable In this pert of town. I think you have to look at the posslbility, of various price points
wilhin a particular market. I think it is two that other things con be done on this property, but that Is really not the
proposal of hand, I think this particular developer has a very solid track record, They have a very solid group of
builders and I think they will do you a very good job. Thal Is gll I have to fay. Thanks.
Commissloner Engelbrecht, Commissioners, questions for the petitioner's representative? Thank you, Sir. lather*
anyone prosenl to speak In favor of this ~otition? Yes, ma am. Would you please give us your name and address
for Ot record?
Me. Phillips Sure My name is Brands Phillips and I live at 1101 Bueno Vista In the Oaka of Monteclto. I am a
homeowner diracity on the fence line on the eastern side of this developmonl under considersliori We're In the
cul-de sec. I have a couple of questions I'd like to bring up to you and some Concerns. Currently, we are supporting
annexation in our home and we are supporting the park development part of this proposal. We have some Concerns
about the single-family home section as you might anticipate I'd like to first bring up some concerns that I believe
we had In the neighborhood about notification procedures We did not know about the annexation until we heard
about n when the signs went up, We understand that It was in the newspaper, but that was the day of the Ice dorm
and I don t believe hardly any of us got our papers or if we did, they were destroyed or damaged by the storm, The
second has 10 do with zoning end notifying us about the wing regulations. We do live wilhin 200 feet of the
properly. We were not notified None of the folks who live along the fence line on the eastern side were notified
about the zoning until lost Thursday. I undenland that the zoning notiAatlons come from the Apprdwl District from
the tax records We are not suppogody, on the tax records. So, I brought with me the copy of my tax bill. We abed
the City and then received nolifiation In the mall and they were addressed to'resident ' We all got them last
Thursday, which I believe does not give the ten-day notification as was your intent, In terms of the zoning loan,
there IS what we all s'double-barreled' question on there, It says the purpose of the zoning chenge Is Single-family
subdivision and park development. 1 teach Graduate Research Valhod► at Texas Woman's University 11 msde A f
very difficult lot the homeowners to make any type of decision about this particular development that's under
consideration because you might support one or both Of neither, So, we fecomnfand that you would reconsider this
form and how it IS you notify people. 1 believe that I concur with a number of my neighbors about single-family
dwellings over there that we would pfefer larger lot sizes and somewhat higher pnad homes We are a custom
home community in the Oaks of Montecilo We lake great pride I" n r homes and have tried to be good citizens In
this community and would request that I believe u,mo of my neighbors with mare expertise will speak to you on
more specifics on that. So, our support would be contingernl upon these kinds of conditions. We are very excAod, I
think, about the perk and our home and a number of our neip ibons cafe, ospeclsby the Inclusion of the Aoodplain. I
46.
r
Planning end Zoning Commisslon Minules
January 13,1999
Page B of 34
have expertise in the area of disasters. I have an international reputation. I am on execullus officer on the
Inremational Research Committee on disasters I received funding numerous times from the Notional Sclence
Foundation. I currently have a field team studying the flooding situation In Cuero, Texas arid I urge you to take the
flooding siluation and the drainage situation into serious consideration in south Denton. They have filled In the
development across the street at McNair and built in the floodplaln and we are very eoncamed about the drainage
and the runoff and how It affects our properties I don't want to have to be studyln. my own community on the
recovery from a major flood So, please look at that very carefully. Our homeowners need assurance that they win
be safe. We also have asked the developer to Include tract 1C In the park on the resident who had the Idea about
the educational center, but frankly part or my concern Is also that tract 10 would ghy us additional floodptaln safety
because of the development going on in the south Denton are, Those ors my comments and N you have any
queslwns, I'd be happy 10 answer.
Commissioner Engelbrecht Yes, Ms Gourd!*
Ms. Gourd* Ms. Phillips, you hit on a few things that you would like to see happen and you would be fully In fowor
of this development. What were those things that you were eluding M1
Ms. Phillips I think some of my neighbor will speak to those Issues But larger lot size lot request Net we are
going to make, I believe, and higher priced homes so the' they are compatible to the homes in the adjacent
community,
Ms. Oourdie So, you believe that 5200,000 on up would be the appropriate price for a home?
Me, Phillips We have some expertise In the neighborhood of people who are experienced In real elate and
appraisal. I think they are going to speak to that,
Me Gourdie: Okay, thank you
Commissioner Engelbrechl Any other question? Htvs vnu talked with the Parks Department?
Ms, Phillips Yes, I have,
Commissioner Engelbrechf. You hens? Okay, Good. I am assuming you will have a continuing dialogue with thorn
with regard to those concerns?
Me Phillips: I've spoken to just about everyone M City Hall. Thank you very much.
Commistloner Engelbrechl; Thank you Oh, yes I'm sorry. Excuse me. There appears to be another questions
Me. Apple: I Just have a question es to just your Impression. What makes you associate home value with lot size?
Me. Phillips: I think I am going to defer that question to one of our experts
Me Apple, No, I am just asking because you expressed the opinion that you fell like [hat would W-1 am just
curious.
Me. Phillips: I think so it's more consistent to what we hove built In the are and as a eonlinusbon of the are to the
north Forrettrldge and Southrldge and Ihosa ones.
Me Apple' Okay. I guess the reason I ask Is, in Plano, you know, there are $4D0,0D0 homes with two feel of lot In
the rronl and a sidewalk end They Ilk@ It like that. Bo, I guess I am having a little trouble aphlnlng „
Me Phillips: I don't considor that sastheliully pleasing. That's one reason
Me Apple: So that, In your opinion, Is not aesthetically pleasing. So, I was just wondering what made you equals v v
lol size with the value of homes r
Me PNtllps: Consistency In the neighborhoods Is one Issue. And quilt frankly, we moved here to Denton because
we like the look of Denton, because of the way that the homes are laid out, because we've had a little more elbow
room, because we cannot look out the window dghl Into our neighbor's kitchen shle and see them ailing breakfast.
47.
C
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,1999
Page 9 of 34
oenlon is a great place to live. Its a community and I think this would help us malnlain a sense of community that
so many of us nerved here for.
Ms, Apple, Were you aware when you bought your property that land was vacant and that it had the potential to be
zoned In another manner?
Ms. Phillips, I sneulcatly recall a conversallon with the person who sold us the land who said that this would be a
floodplain and could not be developed So, we thought we were buying a lot that would romain Inlad.
Ms Apple, I wri sure with your expertise you know you can't always believe everything they tail you. Thank you
Appreciate It.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Is there anyone also present who would like to speak In favor of this petition? If you
would, sir, please give us your namo and address for the record,
Mr. Cobb: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name Is Cary Cobb. I am with Intermandico h c, We are
the developer of 1401 Burnham Drive in Plano, Texas, In looking at this piece of property, number one, I want to
make myself available for questions. I also wan) to give you some of the insights we have looked at from the
beginning on this tract of land, In looking at the place of property, it Is truly unique in ft offers a tremendous amount
of potential for maintaining the elbowroom of which Brenda just spoke about. That Is specifically why we haven't
pushed the limit to the aoodway and have made the out parcels, which I cull them, on this property potentlally
available to the City for park expansion. I would like to make note of the fact that the detail plan Is proposing a total
unit count or 341. In realistic terms, however, we ere more looking on a pro forms be all at 298 because of the fact
that these two out-parcels which are in the zoning plan tiny very well not occur, ever, 0 not In the distant future.
Actually, that number was 294. Given that and given some of the other Improvements that need to be made with this
piece of property, we have considered lileralty all of our options In going forward with the plan. We caealnly have a
strong track record In a price range point from {130 up to 1200 and do have communities well above $200,000 In the
Plano area. We ere Involved In development In McKinney and Frisco, We have done pest developments In Flower
Mound, t.ewlsvllle, and many other communities. We are currently wrapping up a community In Corinth, Texas
called Cyprus Point, which Is on the north side of 2181 just north of Kencinglon Estates The project there, although
not wholly comparable to this piece of property, we view this plea of property in the development put before you as
a notch above a Cyprus Point but we would hove a similar builder mix in this community. We feel that the price point
will probably be from $140 maybe 1145 up to ; 200. I'd just like to ask you to consldor the foci that In viewing We I
Irad, we've tried to pay attention to all the, 1) environmentally sens4lve gems. 2) any drainage consWersllons and
further, really done all we can to potentially turn tills parkland Into a great asset for the city In doing to, we do still
have to make sense, financial sense, or the property and therefore have tried to concentrate the density on the
western place or property.
Commissioner Engelbrecht, Thank you. Any questions for Mr Cobb?
Ms Gourdia Actually, I am a bit confused here because two of you have come up here to spook right now and you
both kind of said you don't really think you're going to be developing on those eastern lots up against the Oaks of
Monlecito I guess I am just wondering why are we-I kind of feel like you all should just give It up because N sounds
as if you are wilting to use N as a bargaining tool, I am just wondering Is that really something that you wan; to
bargain with or is N something that-11 don't see how you're going to get to N to develop this. So, I'm just wondering
what is your Ihought? N we didn't bargain with it, say Acme Brick is at their spol, Ora you assuming that Acme Srkk
will open up a road somehow to get In there? What Is yatl's plan? I mesa, you don't know the plan, you're the
developer I am just trying to seethe future ten years down the road
Mr Cobb, The current eonslderannn Is INS: In all of the discussions wive hold up to the point, of courss, where you
can pre-zone it, So, no Arm of Anal decisions can be made. Our feeling Is this. On the piece of property near
Hickory Creek Road, which Is the small section, that does have-4 you look at It on the surface-that does have some
potenlial for, let's soy d you were to develop N, you'd put a single-load street there and maybe have a few lots The r ,
cost of the street plus where the street would have to hit Hickory Creek is pretty much where the bridge or pan and
parcel of the bridge Is going to be. So, we are looking at that It potential park dedication, The other one Is, of 1
course, cast prohibited on a development standpoint and, nevertheless, pan of this piece of property So, 4
definitely needs to be Included In the detail plan. So, Owe are toning the piece of property, N Is not In the floodplain.
That's v.hy we went ahead and included 4 and actushy applied a lot count to N. I am real! sties lly looking at K and
saying were not going to get to thou lots anyway. So, I am not Irying to bargain with N.
48.
1
I
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1099
Page 10 of 34 k,
Ms. Gourdie: I want to hear different things and I see different things. Your mind starts to question everything. My
other question too Is In this nice packet you oil gave to us those lots are stated as SF-6. Yet you all say SF-7 on the
plans that you gave us. Was fhel upped somehow?
Mr. Cobb: That 18-both of these tracts on the eastern boundary art supposed to be 7 and actually Trims had ft
colored correctly
Me. Gourdie: I Just wanted t+ make auto because s9aln when you see these thloge, you're not sure what to do.
Thank you.
Mr. Rishel 'Nero not a bit surprised.
Commissioner EngelbrechL Any other questions for Mr. Cobb? Is there anyone else present who would like to
speak In favor of Oils pelitlon? Anyone present to speak In favor of the petition? In that case. Is there anyone
present who would like to speak In opposition to the pattion? Yes, sir. If you would.
Mr. Connell, My name is Pale Connell. I live at 2471 Hickory Creek Road, I em just a lKle east cr the Oaks of
Monlecito. I am currently unJer construction on a 3,800 square foot house. It seems to me Ural the City of Donlon
has an Opportunity to take Some of the most besubfut property both horn terrain and foliage, very large Pecans.
Blackjacks, and other types of Oak treat and extend what has been set as a precedence In both the SouVutdge,
Wintecito, and Forrestridge areas. AN those areas ore built-out and this Is a natural extension of that type of
developmenl Into the southern regions. The M sizes in the type of development you rte talking about are not similar
to the Plano development in that Plano requires alleys and rear-entry garages So, even though you may have
8,500 square foot lots in, Plana, they all have nor-entry garages. These would all be front-entry garages, which I
think really sett the stage for your neighborhood as being a Starter home, lower finandst stualon. It would not be
consistent with the custom homes of the Oaks of Montalto of what I am doing a little further down the street. We
feel tike the developer Is rsnamly capable of doing a nke development there, but I don't think h needs to be In this
location. I think this Is the wrong place to put that sire of lots. 1 think that the executives who ere looking at the
Denton area to move Into wish the advent of the hoW:fel and other developments within the city commerce, ate.
They are going to say, well I can't rind anything to move Into In Denton, So, t guess I'll go to Argyle or I'll find larger
facilities elsewhere Lere keep them In Denton. To do Vial, we need to extend the Forrestddgil type development
through there. I think Mr. fttz Is going logo Into detail why Out should be dons T'iank you.
Commis3loner £ngelbracht. Commissioners, are there questions? Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Mr. Connell, I've got to assume that you realize that It Is not in Denton now. And 91 understand the
enowers to the questions I asked earlier, they are not obligated to be In Donlon,
Mr. Connell Correct. I understand also frnn a marketing standpoint, they mood to be in the cloy of Denton fa the
fire protection, for the polifx protection. I don't know that they can have a successful development without being in
the city boundadoo,
Mr. Powell, I don't know either, but I've seen a lot of them that are. Ism not a rest estate expert, but 1 an Ill you d
you ddvr round unincorporated areas In Denton county, you will see a lot of them that are successful. I'm only
pointing out that they are not h Denton. They don't even have to be M Donlon. I just want to make that clear,
Commissioner EngetbrechL Me. Ooutdis
Ms 1,1owJie: Mr. Connell, I am just Irying to figure out what to do here and I am looking for compromise Do you
see any kind of compfomiss at all In this situation horn your perspective?
Mr Connell Well, I'd tike to see on SF-10 developmenl, I think 4 would make tense to back larger tote Into the
fioodplain ores. I think the price tinge that they could Schlevs for thaas lots would eenalnly justify sconornleady
looking at that type of development, r r
t
Ms, Gourdie: And as for-you made the comment about garages loo you sea any compromise on garages V they 1 \ r
were willing to do something, let's Say put side-entry garages In, Would you be willing to give a little bit?
Mc Conneh Side-entries, Swing-entries, or give them the optkort of putting In alleys
49r
i
i
Planning and Zan Ing Cammission Minutes
January 9, 1999
Pape 11 of 34
Ms. GOurdte: Would you be willing to give up on pal of the square footage for each lotd they were to compromise In
that way?
Mr. Connell: IT have to see their ptan to say yes or no to that.
Ms. Gourdie: I am Net asking 0 they said we will come in and we will do aide-entry garages and we will do thla-
maybe SF-10 lots towards the noodptain and smaller ones toward the other thing Would you be willing to
wnrnromise your opposrtum on that?
Mr. Connell; I ean'I Jusl say yes or no to that at this point. I would have to see what they are talking about
Ms. Gourdie: An fight. Thank you.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Any other questions for Mr. Connell? I do went to apologize to the group, We have
only recently staled using these cards and I've been down here a long time and we didn't use them end my
tendency is just to Immediately ask it there Is anyone who would like to speak. I was reminded that I had this set of
cards here. They didn't Indicate any order, Mr. Cheek, Bill Cheek. II you would, give us your name and address for
the record, please
Mr. Cheek: My name is Bin Cheek, Jr. I live at 1200 Vlela Verde in the Oaks of Monlecilo. I agree with everyone
that has spoken to for in opposition as wen as Brenda who spoke in favor with her contingencies. I don't normally
oppose any development In Donlon. In fact, t am usually very much in favor of It. II Is my life's blood. I'm a road
contractor, That Is what I do for a living, However, h has hit a little close to home this time and I am a this more
personalty lnvobed In It. So, I've kind of developed a different opinion. I know that nine times out of ten on
developments that we go Into, we level all the trees All the trees are taken out, every bit of them. Thal is so that
there won't be anything to get In the way of building the homes We dso flatten out the contours. 1 haven't seam s
grading plan. I don't know what ft Is going to M like, Ism doing this on assumption hers ON history of what I've
seen. If you've gone to the Oaks of Monlec8o where Ilya. that hasn't necessarily been done that way. I had to
cut down trees after l nerved Into my home, They left end worked around the trees out there so beautifully, ills
really a nest subdivision. II you haven't been out there, you need to drive through h. The future plans-there's
another phase being developed at the Oakm of Monteclto as well. I forgel the slits n was, i think It was about it0 to
150 lots. I don't remember, honestly. And ms you might or might not know, they just arm developing smaller homes
across the road from us ovur by McHelr Elementary, which in addition to the 26 students approximately per Veer that
this development will odd, I don't hays the numbers on that, bull an guess that it Is going lobe a lol store They
ore definitely staler homes from the SON all the way up to the !1401 1 believe, which Is usually going to point out 10
Smelter children as weft Another problem that has moll been addrossud and I know this may riot ev_n be soy of you
all's business but the other side of Hickory Creek Road Is m intalmed by Donlon County. Evmntuony, that will be pal
of the city from what I understand from your future road plaro, but neither one of thou roads Is both b City
standarde. I know that I was Involved with moverat of the temporary malntenanoa that has been done to them. You
are obviously going to look of-elncs we don't have a valid traffic plan. I guess-4s that coned? It hasn't been looked
over correctly by the City yet. We don't know what those problems win he. Donlon County Road and Bridge maybe
somebody that's difficult to deal with, When traffic does go the other wey, because we have all found a shortcut to
1 the other side of town A lot of us go down a Denton County road, the Denton County aide of the toad, and it Is
going to present a problem. I think I've run cul of things to say ive about summed h up h anybody has any
questions,
Commissioner En etbrechl An
g y questions? Yas, Ms Oourdle
Me Gourdie: I am just going to ask this question of everyone. I know you all ere displeased with this end I am just i
wondering what is your compromise to this ailuellon?
Mr. Cheek, My compromise is probably to have something aesthaticaly slmllar to *hot Is already there And we've r
missed a few things 0 1 believe this fpht the Cenlex homes fight scrota the street h4vm been there about
ten years, the plat had been coned. I don't featly know, but It sneaked up on everybody and we're Ir*0 Io prevent k, -
this. I think we still hays the tendency. We a,a not for. We five fight off Montecilo Drive, but R Is not tylmg Into 1
Monleclta but it goes Into the Monteeho area, Forrastridge, and Southridge. To answer your question directly, my
compromise would be larger lot size, larger square footage homes, and deal with the tree Issue. Make a percentage
of trees Ih4t stay.
s4,
c•
c
Pla riming end Zoning Comml ssion Minutes I
January III. 1 ng l
Page 12 of 34
Ms. Gourdie: Being the way they say that Tracts 18 and IC possibly will not be developed, you will have at least a
fl00doot buffer yard, which none of us get that opportunity to hove a Wool buffer yard. We are lucky to get 15
feel worth of trees through our subdivlsion and the nest divislon and I rive at Southrldge. I can promise you that I
don't have a 300-fool buffer yard in Southridge. What I em wondering is. H these people where to say that the
trails 18 and 1C say SF-10, those tracts even though they might not be developed, but If they were, they would be
SF-10. How would feel about thereat of Iha property being what they proposed?
Me. Cheek: If the lot die come up. Is that what you are saying"
Ms. Gourdie Well, the ones nearest you all on Oakmont, these here,
Mr. Cheek: No, I am more concerned not dust about my neighborhood, not Just about this development, I am
concerned about the frond of development that Is continuing to happen. That is my problem.
Ms. Gourdie: Okay that Is what I wanted to know.
Mr. Cheek: I doml know where to draw the tine.
Ms. Gourdie: I understand. Thank you,
Ms. Apple: Mr. Cheek, in your Impression, what would you say that " range of home values is In your
neighborhood?
Mr. Cheek' In my neighborhood? Probably 1170 up lo-l think there is a $ 5 million doflar horn there. Most of them
are Silo Ic M. I would Imagine.
Ms Apple: Do you all have an entanee? Did the developer do a mks entrance?
i
Mr. Cheek: We have an entrance but I like the Intents better then hie entrance Our entrance is not very nice.
Me Apple: That's what Is funny to me. The way that t view the Oaks of Montecno and the way that you all view lit
from the inside Is probably different When I drive by, I see a lot of the time knee-high weeds and no mowing and no
entrance. J
Mr. Cheek: That's out In the city right-of-way, right? It is the fight-of-way. 1
Ms. Apple: No, I wondered because his entrances, you know, look oppealing and stuff and I wondered If there was
something that I was missing Is there,..
Mr, Cheek: You probably need to make a trip over there and take a look Inside because what you're seeing Is the
original wood fences that were build. They Hayed. That was the property owners It could hive been planned a
lithe boner They're doing 8 on the other side They could have done h a little better, It's not a greet entremeo-no,
Bul the high gross is not In anybody's yard that you're seeing It's In the right-of-way.
Ms Apple: Just behind the fences
Mr. Cheek: That's correct and that's the right-ol-way. In fact, one person..
Ms Apple- Well, depending, I don't know where they put, IF they put their fences-1 can't say because I don't know N
they put that? fences on their property line or not.
Mr, Cheek: Yu, I'm telling you though. I'm certain of that,
Me Apple Okay 1
Mr. Cheek I can tell you on Instance it you want to support d. I mean, there's a swimming pool that got Wed to be A~ r
built with then the Loop 288 plan was still In phase and It was going into the right-of-way And Ihd was the fens (t r
that was further back and so ttrors's about 10-foot-one fence goes 10-fool Into the rightcf-way. Yea. I
Me Apple: So, you would think that the lead, the lowed paced home In your neighborhood would begin of
1110,0K
51,
1
l
CPlanning and Toning Commission Minutes
January 13, M
Page 13 of 34
Mr. Cheek: I believe to.
Ms. Apple: Oihey.
Mr. Cheek: I don't krhow that for certain.
Ms. Apple: Okay, Thanks, I didn't-4 won't hold you to that,
Commissioner EngelbreaL Offer questions for Mr. Cheek? Thank you
Mr. Cheek Thant you. j
Commissioner Engelbrech! Darrell Doss.
Mr. Doss: Hello, I'm Darren Doss. I live at 1212 Buena Vista and I Just wanted to speak in opposition to this, mainly
on three points. One Is the transportation, the second Is the schools, and the third is Me servlces to the area. I think
on the basis of the schools, with the addition going In across the street, they are now having to bus people out of our
area to other areas. That's what We going to amount to. And I "I think that's right for We to have to be bussed to
other areas when there are schools right in tK* own neighborhood rm not sure [hat this contributes to helping that
arty. I know that lewisvifle and dower Mound Nave just put a moratorium on building because the growth hes been
to fast that they can't handle the facilities to support t. And that's wh:,t I'm afraid Is going to happen in Denton as
people from Flower Mound start looking farther noalh. The growth is going to grow faster and the mare we open it up
to development, the faster we're going to need the services and the Infrostndurs. And rm not sure that that
Infrastructure is there yet In terms of transportation or in terms of schools or terms of servkes to support It. With the
700 houses going in across the street that's probably going to produce at least 1,500 kids. And they're going to
have to go to school somewhere around there. And t they're not starling another school until the year 2002, we're
probably Iool&g a1 five years before we have another school in the area. I think h would be very bene"al to annex
the land, hold on to it but not develop k at this time. And that would be my thoughts.
Commissioner Enge'brecht. Ouestions for Mr. Doss? Yes, Ms. Apple.
Ms. Apple: Do you understand that the transportation, some of the aspects of that would actually be Improved by the
developer aiding in the 5300.000 cost of that brita ,nd,..
Mr. Doss: Yes, I think d would probably aid the area down closer to the development but I don't think it would
Improve the situation from there back towards Hickory, towards Teasley Larne.
Ms. Apple, Any, just in your opinion, would you prefer instead of having the 33 acres of parkland, world you prefer
that that 2 acres only be dedicated for that In loss be house lots, would that...
Mr Doss. Would I prefer having more houses In the area?
W Apple: Yes.
Mr. Doss: I think more houses ere just going to contribute to the problem. I mean even built out at 10,000 sluare
loot lots, d you built the whole thing out they're going to exasperate the problem that way also.
Ms, Apple: Okay. Thanks.
Mr. Doss: May.
Commissioner Engelbrecht Any other question:?
i
Mr Moreno' Yes ( r
f '
Mr Bucek: Mr. Doss, excuse me, Go ahead. fir r
(lr~
I Mr Moreno I have a question for staff. Mr. Hill, can you glvs me a sense of how msly single-family building
`~1! permits were issued in 18987
Mr. Hill: Yes, I can.
52. E
c•
Planning ar d Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 14 of a
Mc Moreno: Tell me.
Mr. Hill: Five hundred and sixty-slx.
Mr. Moreno: Five hundred and sixty-six. How about 19977
Mr. Hill: About 300: teas than 306.
Mr. Moreno: Give me a projection for 1999.
Mr. [lift: For tha fiscal year'9849, which ttaeed on October, we're using the number 800.
Mr, Moreno. Eight hundred Thank you, air,
Mr. Powell: Mr. Doss, you said that you thought, and don't let me misquote you. You said, I think, that you thought
that we should zone It, annex It, and hold ft. My understanding after about four years here Is that we don't have a
choice We can annex it and we can zone R. but we can't hold ft. If the owner wanks to develop K. we can't stop
them.
Mr. Doss: But you can control zoning once you annex R.
Mr. Powell: We can control the zoning. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doss' I don't understand why the zoning has to be tied to the annexing.
Mr. Pcwel: I don't either, but that's what ft's being asked for.
Mr. Doss: Yes,
Mr. Powell: I do know from experience though that when we annex and don't Immediately zone ft, ft's zoned Ag.
Mr. Doss: a there a problem with that being toned Ag?
Mr. Powell. Not from my viewpoint, but then [here's no problem with this either from my viewpoint that I've seen so
fa
Mr. Doss, I know that just from a standpoint of the housing. I think they said ft was Legacy Engle and one other
builder and those are typically smaller houses They're not typically the size of houses that are In that area, But rm
more concerned about the Infrastructure of the community and-I participated In the Growth Management Program
and one of the fop things that were mentioned was quality. I mean that came out at the top of everybody's lisl and I !
think whenever wn Marl to p-ish things too quickly we're pushing [hat quality envelope to a level where we're gdng
to have to pay the consequuncas sometinie and I think, at some point, we have to say, "What's the right thing to
do?" and 'Mat keeps the quality level at the level ft should be?"
l Commissioner EngelbrechL Okay. Other questions for Mr. Doss? Thank you.
Mc Powell, I have...
Commissioner Engelbrechl: Yes
Mr Powell: I have one for staff
Commissioner Engelbrechl: Okay.
Mr. Powell: Not for Mr. Doss
Commissioner Engelbrechl Thank you, Mr. Doss. A
Mr. Powell. Sir? To the best of your knowledge, d the petitioner hadn't asked us to lake in this particular ii of
property, we wouldn't be talking about R tonight. Would we? I mean, this Is not something that the City Is baking al
In the near Allure and annexing unless the petitioner had asked us for 117
53.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,1994
Page 15 of 34
Mr. Donaldson: The recent history of the City Council has been not to initiate Involuntary annexations. Through the
growth management strategy discussion process, we have talked about adopting a policy towards becoming more
aggressive about annexation. That has not yet been adopted.
Mr. Powell: Under normal conditions then, unless the petitioner came to us, this would remain in the foreseeable
future as unincorporated land.
Mr. Donaldson: Coned.
Mr. Powell: Thank you.
Commissioner Engelbrechk Okay. Mr. Klutz.
Mr Klutz: Klutz
Commissioner Engelbrechf. Klutz. Yes, str.
Mr. Klutz: I'm not going lc stand up (inaudible)
Commissioner Engeibrecht. Okay, you would like to go last.
Mr. Klutz: So, that way you can tell. I can answer any (inaudible)
Commissioner Engelbrechf That will be fine Oh, that's fine, Christine Powell or Rowell. Excuse me.
Christine Rowell. On sorry
Me, Rowell. My name is Christine Rowell with an R, Rowell. I live at 1300 Vista Verde, Denton, In Oaks of
Montecto I have a couple of things I want to bring In front of the Commissioner. First of all, it is a real concernIn
our development about the property value. I would think that's our main concern. We had no'say so.' Y all had no
'say so' an the Centex property. We think that's going to affect our values If you're putting in smaller, less valued
homes than which you currently Ilve in, aV going to be hard to sell your house as more expenshve We're In a
situation where Acme Brick owns the property right to the north of us. Centex now owns to the south. And if this
development goes into the west, then we're blocked in. I understand out to the east also, some of that property has
been sold, I'm being a little more aggressive, I want to see us F•18 on that property. And I'll give you my reasons
why When you see the map that Steve Klutz win show you later on, we have a lot of $F•y going on all around the
area. We have plenty of that going in right now, We have a problem, with larger sized homes. Il I want to move Into
a larger sized home, really my opportunity Is Forrsstndge. Forrestridge Is really sold out. There are very few pieces
of land left and most of that Is owned by private people. If I want to go any place else, it would have to be outside
the city of Denton. The unusual part-1 have lived and walked in Denton. Most people go down south. I work in
Denton. I'm not opposed to development at all. I'm very involved with the Chamber of Commerce actively seeking
development But, I also see the need of the right kind of development. What I think that Denton needs Is the larger
tomes. We have Uniled Copper coming in, I-Cubed , the Denton Regional Hospital, We need a place for these
executives to live And that Is an Important issue. If I didn't live In the city of Denton, I would not contribute a lot to
the community, which I do do. I'm Store Manager at Dillaru"i !'1e have done a b1 with Uniled Way. We do a lot in
giving out to these schoos around us, We participate with [he Adopt•A•School Program. We do a [of of Interaction
with UNT/7WIJ If I didn't live in Donlon, I doubt if I would have community spirit to let my employees and their time
be spent out in the community. Nor would I be wanting to, willing to give out to the community with the amount of
merchandise I give out to all the local schools. If my property value starts to deplete, I won't have an option but to
move out of the city of Donlon And I don't want to see that happen. So, d is a concern of mine that we make sure
[hat thn land developed near us, which we can still seml-control, is developed Into larger lots. Really, the area that
we would have to lock, as homeowners, Is Coneyville in terms of the larger lots right now. I particularly don't want to
move there their loxes are ndic,tous. But, I do think we need to make sure we do develop Denton In a way that we
con make sure that everybody lives there. I'm all for the slarter-up homes But, now we've got plenty of them on the r
map We need to look the other direction also.
Commissioner Engelbrechf. Any questions of Ma Rowell? f f
Ms Gourd,e Well, I realize that F•16 Is a wonderful Journey-that we need to proceed in some venture here In
0^nton We need to start looking that way too I agree with you. But, 1 need to ask you. I didn't ask Mr. Doss
i
it
54.
r
c:
Planning and Zoning CommissionMinutes
January 13, 1999
Page IS of 34 4
because he seemed to have different issues about traffic and stuff, which we can't do anything afoul. But, being
that two issues are home sizes, what do you see as a compromise? Is there one in your mind at all?
Ms. Rowell: A home can be 1,600 square feet and be a $300,000 home. So, It's hard to look at it that way. i would
look at the value of the house, the price of the horse, I would also, I really think the city needs more executive
homes,
Ms. Gourdie. Would you compromise with setting a square footage minimum at all?
Me, Rowell: I don't think square footage really has to do with the Issue, per se, as much as Cie price of the horse.
Now, typically, common sense tens me that if I'm going to be building a bigger home. I need a larger sized lot to do
that with.
Ms. Gourdie: Wen, y'en keep commenting about Southridge and stuff like that. But a of of those homes are $160%
and $140m. 1 mean they're not the higher end A lot of people seem to assume that they are. I'm just wondering,
because f rove in that smaller end of N. I just wonder, you know, how do we work a comprom se? It's such a nice
neighborhood as we've got going with Southridge, Hunters Ridge, and Forrestridge, working down to Oaks of
Monlecito. I mean, it's all worked with an different lot sizes. And, you know. I'm just trying to grid a compromise
here. We might just end up with a bunch of lots. Thor can do anythi% they went. This Is Ohe whole thing. We hove
to And a compromise because options ere they can do it, you know, whether we disagree or not Ti ey can come In
with whatever they choose and just present a plat to us. And 0 It fits all the regulations, we've had this happen
before, you have to approve R.
Ms. Rowell: It has lobe zoned.
Ms. Gourdie: So, what rm looking for Is, how do we compromise as neighborhoods? Wlh developers who are
coming In with these pressures from Oro community who went start-up homes and the other parts of the community j
who want larger homes for the executives which you speak of. How do we, you know, how do we not force the
hand?
I
Ms, Rowell. I think when you look at Mr, Klutz' map showing that how many of these SF-76 are going In, you can
see, it's there already. What we're missing Is the other side of it. The smallest I would see Is SF-10
10. 1
Ms. Gourdie: Okay,
Ms. Rowell. That would be the smallest.
Ms Gourdie, Okay, And is there any other compromise you could offer?
Ms. Rowen: I would still wank restrictions. I would not want front entry garages. I would want a percent of masonry
1 done on !t. Those would be my main concerns, Here again, N goes back 10 the property value.
Ms. Gourd* Okay Thank you, Ms Rowell. I appreciate n.
Commissioner Engetbrecht. Other questions? Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell, Yes, Ms. Rower, you sabf something jusl a second ago. You said It would have to be zoned. If ilis not
annexed, R doesn't have to be zoned.
Ms. Rower: RIOM and that brings up s good point. I wouldn't went to move to a community 9 t wean l living In a city.
Mr. Power: I understand. /
Ms. Rowell, You know, that's. I do not really think a developer would go In there and put up a bunch of homes k,
because personally, I would want the assets that Ddlard's Donlon has to offer and Diltard s.
Commissioner Engelbrecht There's no uharge for plugs here,
Ms Rowell, I need some advertising. You know, I don't see anybody moving Into an area that Is not in a city.
55.
f
r•
t~
Planning "Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 17 of 34
Mr. Powell: Ma'am, I don't either. I live In Denton and I Ova In a zoned area, obviously, and I understand where
you're going with that. But, like 1 explained to one of the other gentlemen, and I work for the Sheriff it Department. 1
see this whole county. I can assure you there are lot3 of developments that just seem to sell fine that srer t zoned.
You know,..
Ma, Rowell, That aren't In a city?
Mr. Powell: I'm not saying. They are not In a Pity They are not zoned
Ms. Rowell: And how are those progenies?
Mr. Powell: Theyre properties of all sizes.
Ms. Rowell: I don't think that a lot of us are opposed to the annexation, but were just concerned about how Is It
going to be zoned.
Mr. Powell: Iunderstand.
Ms. Rowell: We would really like to see annexation so we do have contrd over that.
Mr. Powell: I agree. rm nol against annexation. And all rm saying to you is, you have to understand and maybe
you do and maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill and If to, then I apologize, My understanding is they
don't even have to be before us. All they have to do Is bring in a plat and if they have met all the c6lena, we're
obligated by State law to raise our hand and vole for k.
Ms. Rowell: If they were not annexed.
Mr. Powell: if they were not annexed.
Ms. Rowell: Right , I understand that.
Mr. Powell: Thank you.
Commissoner Engetlxeohl Any other questions of Ms. Rowell? Thank you very much. Ch. I'm sorry. Mr. Rishel.
Mr. Rishel. Where do you see the value of the homes In your neighborhood?
Commissioner Engelbrechh Would you turn that mike on? I think We j
Mr. Rishel: Dueling microphones.
Commissioner EngelMecht. Thera you go.
Ms. Rowell. The last one I think told for around $280,000. The one before $179,000.
Mr. Rishel: What Is the spread? Whet do you see it from lo?
Ms. Rowell: I believe it's from around $166 to $300. That one home was purchased ground $300 and sold at $280
when they had to resell R.
Mr. Rishel: Thank you.
Mr. Powell: I'm sorry, I do have one more.
Commissioner Engelbrechl: Yrs. r
Mr. Powell: Tell me the size of the lots In your subdivision? {
Ms. Rowell Durs are 10,000 t think k's zoned for 7,000, but they did do 10,000.
Mr. Powell. Thank you,
I
56.
F
r
i
f
l
Planning end Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1994
Page 18 of 34
Commissioner Engelbfechl, Any other questions? Mr. Rowell.
Mr. R.nwell', Good evening My name is Steve Rowell. As you may have already gcessed, I live at
1300 Vista Verde. In the Interest of new material, 1 think a lot of what I have here will be covered by Mr. Klutz. I
think Ms. Apple came up with a wonderful Idea. And I would like to challenge the developer to go on record and to
be willing to do this development with a minimum-In other words, when they develop our to sell to builders who will
do minimum $400,000 houses on these lots. I think that Is a wonderful Idea, f would Indude with that to maintain
the trees as much as possible and the contour of the topology as much ^a possible. Keep in consideration the
floodplain aspect of this area. The other key point that I wanted to bring up Is, I'm not sure why we feel like we're In
a rush to do something. In other words, 9 R's possible for us to all take a deep breath and decline this tonight and
slap back and take a look at A. Left do that. Let's decline it tonight and see if we can't come up with a really good
solution for Denton. That's an It ave. Thanks.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Questions of Mr. Rowe77 Ms. Apple.
Ms, Apple. I just want to clarify something since he gave me credit for wanting he developer to build S4o0,000
homes on these, Actually, what I said was that, In my mind and in a lot of people's mind, lot size does not
necessarily equate to a nice neighborhood or to the value of a home. I have seen SF-40s and larger that are not
mowed, that have trash In the front yard that have, you know, are very unsighly and are expensive hornet. I've also
seen homes on small lots that are very well kept I guess, In my mind, I don't really see the correlation between how
much grass you have in front of and in back of your house and the value of that home. I should have disagreed
earlier, but i disagree with the gentleman who mentioned afoul the homes in Plano. We visit frequently some
friends in Plano who have a $425,000 home. They have a Front entry garage. They do not have on alfey behind
their house. And they literally have 3' of grass with a sidewalk and a small swimming pool with two plants in he
bade yard, They are both executives. They don't have time to do the upkeep on a yaM. There's an entire huge
neighborhood that likes that just fine. When Ms. Rowell is talking about executives, I know a Id of executives It al
are looking for Mt that-a large home without a yard to keep up, They may not have chldrii They may not have
the same concerns. What I Pink we're not thinking about Is trying to provide a place fa everyone and thinking that
everybody has the same needs and the same goals and the same aesthetics that you do, And I just wanted to
clarify that that was not my Intent. And you may have been being sarcastic, but I just wanted to make that clear. My
point was, I don't equate lot size with properly value,
Mr. Rowel: If I could respond. I'd like to reinforce hat. t agree with you completely. And I wasn't being sarcastic. I
would love..
Ms, Apple Okay
Mr. Rowell, I personally prefer the extra green spec, I think it's aesthetic, In answer to a likely question, my
compromise is let's get them to agree to putting in $400,000 homes like you're talking about. That's a step in the
fight direction, i don't think we're going to see too many executives running toward a development of $430,000
houses I just don't think that's reasonable. This particular corridor is in an especially aesthetic, especially pretty
part of Denton. it Is due south of Fonestridge and Is a compleley, logical corridor to continue this type of building.
Mr. Rishel: Just like to say that most or my trash Is in the backyard too.
Mr. Powell. Yeah, we have noticed ft.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Mr. Rowell, you had made the suggestion that this be turned down this evr, dng I Just
wanted 10 make sure that you undarstand that if we recommend denial, 0 ultimately a was denied, they could simply
plat Iha properly. And you recognize, obviously, they may ml want to that because they are not within the city limils,
i but you recognize the two options?
r
Mr Rowell I do understand that and my point Is Iefs not let that be the overriding comm. I don't believe that a Is
clear that they will do that. I think there Is some economics that wilt keep them from doing that. r A
Mr Bucek, Jim, let me make a comment, legally, not really so e,recdy on what Mr. Rowell woo saying, You know,
I've heard the conversations tonight about the value of the homes. I think the reason you see deed restricliona In
reference to lot size or square footage is because there are cases brat support and defend those types of comments.
I've never seen a case that allowed a city, as a condition on zoning, b put a value In. As a matter of tact. I haven't
57.
r
c:
r
I
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,1999
Pape 1 g of 3t w
even seen any deed restrictions where a developer has attempted to do that. S0,1 think she kind of concepts you're
tacking about of masonry and square footage are the things we need to took et. I really think to talk aboul putting a
value of a house into an ordinance would be a very precarious legal situation for us.
Mr, Rowell: Can I respond? It you bar that and I think N becomes more reasonable. This Is probably +vhy N's done
on a consistent basis, to assume that the economics of s larger lot size Is going to tend to cause a higher price
range.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Thank you. Mr. Klutz, before you come down N you wenled to be the lest one, let me
ask fi there Is anyone else who would like to speak?
Mr. KhAz: (inaudible)
Comrnlssionei Cngelbrecht: That's fine. That Is why I was asking. There Is only one more card. ThatY fine. That's
right. We f aven'i had them worm up In the back too often.
Mr. Rabold: My name is Frank Ral I I at 1301 Buena Nate In Montecilo Oaks. My concern Is everything that
Is going on around me. When we first moved oul here some years ago, I was the only guy an the road at 6:30 In the
naming. I loved & When I came home in the evening, t was pretty near the omy guy on the road driving all the way
up Swisher. In the moming now I find new potholes that weren't there the night before. rm about twenty people
deep in traft, What I keep hearing from my elected and appointed of els Is. "No can't lake care of that until them
are 1,000 people (here. We can't lake Care of that until there are another 1,000 people there.' Weve got an
Infrastnrdure Ihars falling apart, that can't support the growth that's there now. Why isn't that taken eve of before
expansion is allowed? Theis my concern.
Commissioner Engdbrecht. Okay. Any questions? Yes, Me Gourdie.
Me Gourdie: I would love to take care of the roads. if you can suggest any way of doing this and stop development,
which we can't do unless were Flower Mound and And s way to slop growth for sh months.
Mr. Rabahd. But I thought thalY why you were an here, to serve us I'm bringing a concern here.
Ms, Gourdie: I agree with you whoWhes tedly, but the problam is, rve been told that development is here. We
cannot turn out development. And the reason why we're here Is to by b bring about the best development possible
and we have an these differing varying attitudes from. We need starter bon" and I agree with you. I think we
need more higher range homes, but that argument is not being put out there enough nowadays. Everyone's fighting
for the smarter, less valued homes. Maybe we need to get more people talking about higher value homes and roads,
and en that good stuff.
Mr. Rabold If you don't have the roads and everything else, N's an going to fag apart.
Ms. Gourdiw I agree, so we need more voices to speak up to help us make our choices
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Is there anyone else who would like to speak in opposition? Yes ma'am. Come on
wn end give us your name and address for the record,
i
Ms. KW. I Just have one quick question.
i
Commissioner Engelbrecht 1 don't know that we have an answer, f
Ms Klutz: My name la Diane Klutz. I five at 1102 Vista Verde In the Oaks of Monledto and I have @ question.
l
Mr. Rishel: Ercuse me, the name again?
f
Ms. Klutz: Diane Klutz.
A
Mr. Rishel Thank you.
i
58.
C
I~ Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
Jenuary 13,
Page 20 of 34
Me Klutz: My question is on the annexation. Can't you all vote on annex.ton tonight and say okay we can annex
this, but let's sit back nd talk about zoning later? Why does it all have to be tied in together? I don't understand
that when It's not useaity done that way?
Commissioner Engelbrecht. If you would hold on to that, we are going to get an answer to that question in a little bit.
I plan to ask that one of staff so that n is presented.
Ms. Klutz Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Is there anyone else who would like to Speak In apposition? Okay, Mr. Klutz, 8 would
appear...
Mr. Klutz: I speak io front of you all In a friendly situation this time. II Is an oppositional situation. My name Is
Steve Klutz. I live at 1102 Vista Verde, which Is right on that little 2.9 acre tract. II abuts 0. 1 am here to State my
opposition. My experience is I am a commercial real estate appraiser. I am a member of the Appraisal InstiMe. I
have probably appraised at least 20 Subdivisions In this county, Seven-1 just kind of briefly put down. If you just
bear with me, I am going to get to the point Is what I'd Eke to do. I think this Is a wonderful piece of property end I'd
like to gee it annexed it we can do something better with it. We're willing to work with the developer on that situation.
I've appraised, as I said, at least 20 subdivisions in the county In the last 3 to 4 years, Fonestridge I, ll, and ill;
Montecilo; the Wind River I, II, and III; and Sundown Ranch. I can go on and on. I think I have a lot of experience in
evaluation and experience. Mr. Powell, I went you to ask me that question about annexation of whet you See in the
county versus Ihis tract. I'll get to that. It's called economics. I've prepared some notes so I won't ramble, but I'll
probably ramble anyway. I would, from the City, you have a wonderful Graphics Department. And I round my
wishbook right here by asking some questions. This Is a map and I'll try to get a representation on the viewer. This
is of the subdivisions that are preliminary plat activity, final plat activity and I made some notes from things that 1
have seen. I am going to talk, not about absorption I'm just going 10 tell you, kind of, the facts as I see them, as a
layman and semi-professional In your field as to what we have going on In the city, what we need to keep our eyes
open and where a lot of the protest and opposition is at this time, I wish I could get this microphone up a little.
There we go. I have taken the subdivisions that are plstled w 'hin this school district boundary of Denton. I have
also taken the subdivision that Is platted. We have two areas d g owlh in this town, I hope you don't beep me 10
death with the 5-minute gong, You have to the north of Denton, ba;kally, going from above the Mall forward. We
were restricted with development up in this area because of the Loop We have a defining confined bonleneck that
we are going to hope to get straightened out Ina few years, You heve 3801hal will enhance, We have a lot of
acreage up there, but right now that Is a separate market, The next market we have Is the South area of the dry of
Denton. It's very inleresting in the fad that I counted from the City's figures, I would really love to be corrected On
this, we have 22 subdivisions in various stages of pi.Bing, planning, being platted, and being developed out. Of
which, we have a lot total In the SF-71 of 3,207 lots. N, w that is, this Is 1.35. This is U.S. 77, This Is Corinth. This
is Cyprus Point that we were larking about What I am showing you Is 2181. This is your concentration of SF-7-
3,200 platted lots. The value of the homes is this from $110000 actually
conferences we have had with the developers, we've one from $1 $90,000 to shoal 're up 0. In floe
30
9 ,000 last Might. Now we're
at
$200,000. So, I'm kind of wondering where they're going to up $145 to
problem that we have In our streets and In the whole system rildwa yet l to deal In economic fad, This subdivision
was kind of forced upon it and that's just a fact. This is the one hats south of us, which Centex is developing, with
697 homes Let's eat that and gat on down the road. We have another subdivision that's a23. which has 218
homes that's SF-7. We have the Sundown Ranch, which Is up in this area that has 445 homes platted, ready to go,
getting on the line, getting'onstream,' SF-7, some SF-10. Here are somethings that I want to bring up and this Is to
the City and then I'd like to pet to the densityd t may. The City, presently, has for McNair Elementary we will, within
the next-please verify this with the school district-we'll have 2,000 children there by the year 2001. 2000-iffy a
high school; firs a safety issue. That's a lot of kids and why. Because of these 800 people that we have, the majority
of our permits are for south Denton. You look at Corinth; it's going to be built out in about three years as far as tie
f tempest Stricture will go, going from 9,000 to potentially 18,000, Flower Mound cant handir+ 8. Here's the big
concern we have We're going to keep on adding and adding and adding And when you keep our densities lover
and lower and lower and we're going to have start-up homes or homes at the $120 to $170. 1 love 4. I think "'a
great, but somewhere with 3,200, we've got to say I think we've got enough, I think we've got enough for a while
Let's look of some other type homes, 2,000 students at your elementary by 2001. Now, let's take another look at
• Hickory Creek The road ilself-we don't have env bond money on that road Not unlit, I believe, the year 2005 Or
2008 It's a two-way, non-shouldered, asphah-paved connector , The other end of the road, Ms. Apple when you talk
about the bridge, a brio a doesn't help All our growth is the other may There are no homes except for four on this
59. !I
Planning and coning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1099
Page 21 of 3< +
sidn of a bridge between whore they have the bridge and Country Club Road-four Mmes. Who cares about the
b use right now? You ale, have a road that Is not a City standard road. This particular rood, right nor, we have
approximately and I don't know the traffic, k win be Interesting, I'm Just saying as an uneducated figure, things 1 can
count-we press. My have about 60 homes from the Oaks of Montecito and also to the easL This is 218 1. This Is the
Oaks of Monteodo, This is the object subdivision. We're going to add from this subdivision within the next three to
five years also the Oaks of Montecilo and Nme portions of this subdivision, we're going to add another 726 cars or
horses, rooftops in the next three to rive years. We don't have any bond Issues. We have nothing on the books for
Hickory Creek. Nov, we have done 60 where we have a wailing rime. Also, 1 believe thsr McNair has only 900
students end we are going to bring it up to 2,000. We have a wailing list already to get an of Uv traffic, just getting
onto the freeway-onto 2181. Now, we are going to add another 767 hontss That doesn't count this subdivision.
Add this so.,divislon and you'll have 1,000 Mmes In the next three to M years and no relief for Hickory Creek
These are some concerns we have-real concerns. Forget the Infrastructure. We got infrastructure out there. What
we don't have is roads. We don't have schools, This is what we say. We have 3,200 plafted lots at SF-7. And tlb
next thing that concerns us Is, we kind of say, "all, why are you guys saying you don't want SF-??* The Issue Is
this Now, this is to me to the City. This is a guy who has seen the city. I appraise ft. 1 embrace k. 1 kwe R. Here's
the thing you OL ihl to really consider In your planning. Talk to some of the hlghend developers. Talk to Kent, talk
to a few other p:. ople like that. I won't mention names on this. But right now, let's take a look at what wo Nye.
Right now in this city, we have a v,onderld, wonderful opportunity. We have been 04111 for-rat's gel wrime
executives In here Let me say what I en going to say to an executive that comes and says, by the way, we're gol g
to bus your child 1' re got 2,000 students at this school, we're going to bus your child. No, you're not, rat me. I don't
care wi,a! the s'!e of the lot is. I don't care what the value of the home hr. You're going to bus this child. Here's
these things thuds xciUng while we're looking about this sector of the city. I don't want to redline anything and I
doo'1 want to anho ca anything. The Hills of Argyle are one-ecre lots Inside of our city. ifs basically sold! out.
They've developed ind they take them down as quickly as they develop them. Homes are $220 to $350,000 and
up. You have the cr iRs of Montecilo at this location. You have an extension of ft. Now you have Forre•tridge I, It,
and III. I've apprae a them an. As fast as they get the lots on the ground, they were, basically, taken dove by
levelopers. Now v, • have Kent Key who is going out and asking for another extension. He's going to buy 9 to 20
awes. Basically, y,, it find that the people in this area aren't going to cox :t to li They are wilting to disceurd their
b, price or their ec age price to they can get SF-11 homes versus selling it for double that armuunt because they
don't want the li densityhomes. We do not have SF-16 and Susan. I think you are wrrod. Lets nol talk about
SF-16 as much as .ve don't have ~.evnes that are In the $175 to $350,000 level for mid level executives end for
executives in this ' con. If you wind show me a big subdivision that we have and H you could show me a lot ~
available, It could to -t wonderful. Her Ws the Impici point. We've jumped the take. Remember that? I don't know I
that you always he r,d of that term of Denton's going to catch up when we Jump the lake. We've Jumped the lake.
Flower Mound has a inoralortum. People are coming up and they are looking for homes, Our biiN;i point Is that
this lantf is a beautiful piece of property. If you go out and look at ft you win see. It is well suited for more higher-end
homes That's whel we are saying, let's look at the continuation of this
Commissioner Engelbracht: I wonder if you could wrap ft up, We've given you a considerably,., II
Mr Klutz Our biggest point of this is oentenllon. I blank you for your extra bone. Thank you very much. Our f
biggest point k this Look, we've got several problems that face Denton. We have several problems that face our i
school districts. We have several problems on the tiibutades. But we also haves big problem of not having quality
home development in this town for people that we are trying to aftrod. We have ptenty of homes for ,v .7s and
SF,F % Thank you very much for your Urns. Any questions?
Commi3sioner EngeWecht. Yes, Me, Apple.
Ms Apple Just want to clarify something that you said, Mr. Iii You mentioned that Hickory Creek was not being
I udires red end ft Is In the bon' proposal and k is, as we discussed a couple of Umes tonight, on target for being a
six-lane road
/
Mr. Klutz: I'm afraid I am goir,) to have to disagree with you, I think the: you might want to address that and take a
look al the traffic Number 1, it might be addressed as a six•lans rood, but ft does not have any funding. Number 2, I
believe it Is going to be 2008 before we can even look al things 2002, Yes, Nis stated lobe a elrldana road, which
it will probably never be
Ms Appler Could be It is slated In the bond proposal, is ft moll
r
b0. i
c
Plan ning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 22 of 34
Commissioner Engelbrechl. We according to our City Council person, it is not.
Mr, Powell: It Is in the Denton County bond proposal,
Ms. Apple, Well, your City Council.,.
Mr. Klutz: It's In the County, but 1 believe if you see it's actual structure-
Vs , Apple Actually there's $1,500.000.
Commissioner Engelbrecht We'll get that from staff.
Ms. Apple. You said that like g was tact and I lust wanted to let you know.
Mr. Klutz: I jusl wanted to say that I don't believe we'll see that road improved. There is a big difference between 0
being bonded and constructed.
Ms, Apple: But there is also a difference In you saying it hadn't been addressed and d Is in that bond proposal. I just
wanted to make everyone aware of that. My secor clarification, lot point of clarification, the Hills of Argyle is riot
sold oul, It Is right across the street from my house I was there Sunday and spoke with the developer. They are
not sold, even their first phase is not sold and they've got three to go.
Mr, Klutz: That's inoorred. Lel me say This. There is a big difference between sold the ground and take downs from
builders Most of those lots are taken down.
Ms Apple I'm talking about literal lots that are not owned by anyone that are for sale and spec lames that are
setting there and have not been purchased.
Mr Ktui All right, Ih il's fine
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Any other questions for Mr Klutz?
Mr. Klutz: I was going to say, Mr. Powell, on yours as far-you had a couple of fime , what d they don't annex it?
i
Mr. Powell Well, my question was really was to make sure that the speakers understood that we can't force them to
annex. And d they don't annex, we can't force them to not build. The speakers did understand that, I Just wanted to
make sure. So, I don't think we need to go any further.
Mr. Klutz: I was just going to say that for the price they paid, I don't think that they would want to develop it in a 1
smalldensity. I can show you economics on that.
Commissioner Engelbrechl. Thank you. Is there anyone else presenl who would like to "akin opposition? That i
being the case. I'll gfve the petitioner an opportunity for rebuttal.
Mr. Arterbum Just a few points of clariflcal'on, The zoning around the property of River Oaks to the south is
7,000 square foot zoning. The Oaks of Monlecilo is a little over 7,000. About half of the subdivlsinn was developed
as 10,000 square foot lots. The new phase is being developed currently-some developers were actually there last j
night-is 7,000 square fool lots. A couple of other things Why are we annexing and zoning al the same Il The
developer has this property under contract from the Ryan family. They do not own it currently. We do not feel like H
was fair to the Ryans to have this annexed and not zoned because the developer wall not close on the property
without zoning, which he feel% is feasible So, I do not want to put the Ryans In the position of having k annexed and
not zoned. I would like to just return it to them In Its existing condition. That la why we asked for this process to be
simultaneous. The trial couple of things are. Why are we annexing it is probably the $24 question? Actually, when
r
we asked this question from staff originally, we were led to believe that we would not be allowed to have City
services like water and sewer without annexation We have since found out that staff has clarified that that in fad Is
a possibility of developing a private contract with the City. It Is very much a borderline situation to be honest with 1 r
you. Since we had initialed this process, we thought that k would be good to kind of continue on with it I chink that
there are some benefits of toeing in the city . Obviously I City, d adds to the tax base, I think that the only
✓ difference Is really fire and police protection, which is-I think they will not completely avoid protecting that community
if it is not annexed Thal could actually be something that the developer would consider doing d they didn't feel like
i
I
61.
V
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13. M
Page 23 of 34
zoning would be feasible for their economic plan that they have. I think that our feeling is that even though there
may be some subtle correlation between lot size and house value. Bul we have worked on plenty of projects
throughout the metropol'Aan area where 7,000 square foot lots are considered to be large. In fact, in the
neighborhood that I he In, there are houses in the $300 to $400,000 range on those size lots an over the place. I
don't think that this developers program-we have to really deal with whars proposed tonight to you. They are
probably not going to develop or sell lots to builders that will be In the $300 to $500,000 prica range. We don't want
to promise that, but we think we can be a step above the Centex project to the south. We are willing to look at some
concessions like you had mentioned One of those might be considering rlnimum square footage ca the lots, i
don't know if this is the proper time to engage that conversation, but I'll be happy to do that later or now. Whalever
your reeling is, I thought that maybe you an would like to ask some questions. That Is kind of our feeluigs on things.
We don't feet 7,000 square Not lots, which are predominately In the neighborhood, are now the pyorrhea for the
neighborhood to be honest with you, t guess there seems to be a misconception about the quality level. I think,
actually, the quality level in this project will probably exceed that of both neighbors In the amount of open space and
the quality level of the infrastructure that Is planned, I feel very confident in committing to that because I've seen the
projects that these people have done over aba.d a ten-year period. At this point, I'll just let you open up for
questions,
Commissioner Engelbrochl: That win be fine. Before we begin those, I would like to say that A's been two hours as
most of you have noticed. What I might suggest is that A we have some questions for the petitioner, we will ask
some of those We will take a break and come back before we close the public hearing and give you an opportunity
to think about some of these options, If we close the public hearing then we've really finished with the petitioner and
we may have some things to ask him alter the tweak or we can simply take the break right now and then ask aft
questions after. Which would you prefer?
Mr. Powell: I'd prefer to ask the questions, take the break, and then come beck.
Commissioner Engetbrecht: Okay. Very fine.
Mc Rishel. I appreciate already the spirit of compromise that has been brought to the table. Is N Mr. Arterburn?
Mr, Arterbum: Yes, Sir. I think that the position that you've taken with regard to evaluating where the project might
be going and how you can work w h the neighborhoods Immediately adjacent to you needs to be commended. I
think what we see that as a board is a consistency of builders Coming to us and developing what we might consider
15 years ago as smaller lots We're seeing smaller lots with larger homes on them with larger values to them, This
Is a trend, I think, that maybe our citizenry maybe needs to look at. People who ward to be in a nice establishment
but don't want the yard to take care of. I know that that is where we are going with a lot of things I hnk when we
developed SF. 10 to begin with, we never envisioned the fad that we would be subtracting out the clear space and
applying that to what the lot size was going to be. So. I know there Is some confusion on how we have gone In
direction as a city and where we continue to go, with regard to where we Consider SF-10 and SF-7 and the other
nomenclature we have there, Thank you.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Other questions, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powers, Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Mr. Anerburn, 1 think A was Elizabeth that asked a very pregnant
question-lel me rephrase that-a vary good question. I Nought it was wperb, You mentioned Elizabeth, that it was
a4 thought you said-a W0-fool distance between the houses In this subdivision and the houses in the next
subd4sion where all the people We that have been speaking to us lon4ht. Is that what you said DMfeet about?
Ma, Gourdie. Well, if the tract 18 end C were not developed, A would be about a 60Og00-foot buffer yard.
Mr. Powell. 600 fool, well, that's fine,
Ms, Gourdie Depending on where on the map, v r
A t
Mr. Powell, Someone also mentioned and maybe A was you that the size of these loft In these two east tracts be
changed
Mr Arterburn Acluany, on the detailed devekpmenl plan that we submitted, there are 7,000 square loot lots,
i
I
I 1
I
62.
t,
Fla nning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,
Page 24 of 34
Mr. Powell: My question to you Is, Mr. Arterbum, would you consider making them 100
Mr. Arterbum: t think Nal we would be open for that. I just would need to cunfirm 4.
Mr. Powell: I understand. But that would be getting close to a fair compromise and at least ft would from my
viewpoint. I point that out because If these were tens and the houses In the other subdivision are tens or at least
developed as tens and then there Is the 800 feet between that and this subdivision. Like Elizabeth said, none of us
have that kind of a gap between us, you know, the subdivisions, That would appear tome to be a good way to go.
Now, ask staff. Is that something we could officially do tonlghO
Mr. Donaldson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Power, We could say that the toning Is approved based on those rvo areas being SF-10.
Mr. Donaldson: You may want to break down the two areas, 11e last phase of Oaks of Monlecito has recontiy
amended the preliminary plat and has done to that it more accurately reflects SF-7 lots.
Mr. Powell. I understood that part, but I think that we have an opportunity here, I don't think, in my opinion, the
developer is going to object to SF-104 over there and it would appear to me to be a compromise that's worth a shot
And after that I'll hush. Thank you Mr. Chairman for that lime.
Commissioner EngelbrechL Any other questions? Ms Gourdie
Ms. Gourdia. I guess we opened a big house her"Inge for you an to discuss and I hope it was to a bcnefd instead
of a detriment. I do want compromise. What I'm wondering. we also had some concerns about side garages versus
front-entry garages. Would that be a stipulation that you in are willing to work on?
Mr. Arterburn: I think on a 10,000 square fool lot that that would not be a problem, I think in the 8,000s, It would
present a problem. I thirk one compromise that we could do Is have a restriction In the zoning that sets the garages {
back 18 feet, which would really keep them out of the public visibility. In the 7,0004, it's a conversation, but we
would really have to talk to the engineer about the feasibility of tt. I really feel like you-our preference would be to 1
keep front-entry garages as a possibility in the 6 and 7s. We would be willing to look at a restriction in zoning, which
would be 18 feet on the front building setback.
Ms, Gourdle, With your front building setback you say 25 feet, Is that what you are saying-38 feet back from the
house would be the garage setback?
Mr. Arterbum, Yes, Thal way, % kind of keeps the whole garage and any adjacent cars out of the public view.
Ms. Gourdie f also haves question for you. On tract2A on the btueprinls that I have in front of me, 4 Is stating that
you are bowing at a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. Yet, at the very bottom dwefling density of units, ft says
2.15. 1 am just kind of curious as to SF4 and looking attract 2B of 4.43. I realize there is a ratio happening with
balance of distribution going on. I am wondering why that would be so few homes on an acts versus SF•7s, which
have" 3.7, 4.3, and 4 2.
Mr. Arterburn: Can I ask which blueprint you're looking at?
Ms, Gourdie, This one here. Your front page at the very bottom In the tract Information section-development
standards in the middle, At the bottom, It says dwelling density units per sae 2,75 acres In trod 2A and tract 28
4,43 units per acre.
I
Mc Arierbum: I see what you are saying here Let us cheer the map on thal to see what we have.
Mr Poweft. Why don't we make that one of the things we do over the break and you can answer after the break. r
Mr Arterburn. You're rlghl. It appears to be Incorrect 111 check the map on that. ? 1
Ms. Gourdie. Okay, because that was my next question. Problems begin with lot size and I realize we have
discussed larger homes on smaller lots and 4 Is a possible thing to do, Again, I am just putting It out Nara, fm not i
i
63.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,109
Page 25 of 3e v
doing sns thing but chat. Would you folks be willing to go no less than 517-7 in the whole tract as a whole and mmove
the $F-e7
Mr. Arterburn: We have discussed that. I think lhal if this were the discussion, then the 10% would probably not be a
discussion. So, there might be two alternatives. One, which would be 10,000 square foot lots as Mr, Powell
s iggested in keeping the other densities like they were or potentially the entire tract at SF-7, i think, would be
acceptable to the developer.
Ms.Gourdie: Being that tracts I B and 1C are we know the east side and thdl's an 'iffy" situation and we are trying 10
keep the Oaks of Montecito Ina rituolion where we are still Ina goes( neighbor territory , What ifyou ail were fo do
anything the'. butts up against the Boodplaln as SPON and leaving SF-e In the smeller areas, which Is furthest away,
Would you be willing to do something like that as an option?
Mr. Arterburm I think that would be a possible thing. I'd like to confer wlth the developer maybe during the break
about that. We actually have discussed that and. I think, Est as a point of clarification, if we did that, N would be the
lots that back to the creek, not the lots that face the creek along the road. Does That make sense?
Ms. Gourde: Right, Ju31 the ones with their backyard at the Iloodplain.
Mr Arterburn: I think that would be another possibility.
Ms. Gourdi3: Thank you for considering all those. I appreciate you ell talking about N.
Commissioner Engelbreohl: Mr Moreno,
Mr. Moreno: Mr. Chairman, I really just had a comment. I'll reserve N fur alter the break.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Oh, all right. Okay. Ms. Apple.
Ms. Apple I want to thank the developer for the spirit of comprom'se as Commissioner Rishel did I guess I om s
little confused here because I Mirk Commissioner Powell's suggea,ion about raising those lots to 10,000 square fool
would be an okay compromise, Sul, then, I'd have to say that the Oaks of Montoollo Is approximately ate-thlyd
SF-10. A large part of what would back up to what we would be considering asking for to change to SF-10 Is SF-7,
Two-thirds of the Oaks of Montecila Is SF-7. To me. that Is consistent with what this would back up 104 It would be '
SF-1 backing up 10 SF-7. It's only In this lower quadrant, little bigger than a quadrant. There Is going to be if only
that anction that's $F•10. They may not resUe that, but west of Montecito, that big t, which Is around 30 acres Is
SF-1,
Mr Arterbum, And it appears the new development trend on that property has to be within those parameters.
Ms. Rowell. So, I would be concerned about backing up, mWmg you nave SF-10 lots backing up to SF-7s because
the people might not want to buy SF-10s to bock up to their SF-7s.
Mr Arterburm, I can undersrand your point.
f
Ms, Rowell: l can foresee them saying why would I want to be un against these smaller lots So, I Just wanted to
t•Ing that pulnl up, Because now fm realty confused.
Mr Arterburn: I think, you know, we're open to, I think, possibly ail of Ms. Gourdia's suggestion, and maybe we
would rely on the wisdom of the PU b, kind of help us through that process.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Are there any morn qua dons at this point?
Mr Powell: Cuaimenl. I wes looking at the two ease trans. To be honest with you and I hate to use these words. r
Sul I was looking at those as a thrrwswey I was looking at that as a giveaway to comprorml4e with the oNW i
subdivisior . You said two or three times $!Iat the likelihood of the development over there, I'm not gotng to quote f
you, but It was close to slim and none /
i
fi 4
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13,1599
Page 28 of 34 e.
Mr. Arterbum: I think it's low in the near term if the City decided that they vire not interested In Purchasing it.
possibly for additional park space. I think that land would 44 there for as maybe as much as ten years. And then
possibly when some other developer come over here, [hey might acquire that land.
Mr. Powell: I felt that If wasn't going to hurl you econornicaly...
Mr. Arterbum: Right.
Mr. Powell: To change that to SF-10. So, I was kind of looking at [hat as a giveaway for lack of a better term.
Mr. Arlerbum: That's true and I don't think we have a lot of resistance to that Idea.
Comm! astoner Engetbrechl. Any other questiora at this point In time? We will come back after the break.
Mr. Rishel: I can no longer smile.
^.ommissioner Engelbrechl.. Let me just say this There were also some questions about minimum square footage
aboO the coverage of masonry on the foods, I wonder if you want talk about those aAer the break as welt at the
issue of trees and preserving trees We'll leave It at that. IT ask you to talk about that. We're going to lake
fifteen minutes, ladies and gentlemen.
The Commisslon recessed for a break.
The Commisii reconvened the meeting.
Commissioner EngelbrechC Okay, ladies and gentlemen, we will reconvene of ' i i time and continue with item, I,
which is a public hearing regarding rezoning end annexation of 114 acres along Hickory Creek Road At this lime, I
would ask the petitioner if he would come back, There were s number of questions that were put to the pelitioner
prior to the break and t wanted to give you an opportunity to address those and then we may have other questions at
this time.
Mr. Anerburn: At the break, Mr. Powell suggested that we -xme up with a concrete plan as a proposal to PdZ, so
that we didn't spend until midnight discussing all the nuances and so we have done that In the break and I would like
to just read those to you if that would be acceptable We propose to amend the application as follows: Tracts 18
and 10, which happen to be the two eastern tracts, he changed from 7,000 square foot minimums to 10,000 must* j
foot minimums I'll be glad to re-reed these O you need A.
Mr. Moreno, Would you please.
Mr. Anerburn: Tracts IS and i ~ be changed from 7,000 square foot minimum to 10,000 square foot minimum. Point
e2-s new tract 10 be created for those lots back Into the eocdpla[n at a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.
What that would be so that everyone Is clear on that.
Commissioner Engeibrechl. If you would slop to the mike
Mr. Anerburn: Clarificelion, iI would be this tier of lots and this Ile r of lots.
Commissioner Engelbrechl. If you would turn that around and kind of show everyone else,
Mr. Arterbum. (inaudible) A mew tract 1D be created for those lots backing to the floodplain of a minimum lot size of
10,000 square feet. Point e3-minimum square footage of houses be established as follows: In the 8,000 square
fool minimum, lot size tracts, which are 2A and 29, a minimum house size of 1,400 square feet. This is not what tha
developer anticipates being it a actual size of the houses, but k would be the minlr, um. Currently, just for your
inform -lion, there Is na minimum house size In Donlon according io the s'sef. To repast that, the e,000 square foot r
Iracts, to and 28-1,400 square fool minimum houses. The 7,000 square foot tract 1A-1,700 square fool minimums: ' k
and the 10,000 square foot trscts 19. IC, and 1 D would be 2,000 square fool minimums. If I Could make an editorial
comment on this for a moment. This may seem a little lower than the nelghborhood mtghl went but I think It does {
give the builders a little bit of flexibility in product without getting rest complicated aboad making 50% of the lots this,
that, and the other Its a conservative estimate. I really think the square footages will and up being probably 25 to
I
65. I
I
Planning and Zoning Commission Mlnules
January 13,
Page 27 of 34
50% higher than these numbers. Point "minmum percentage of 70% masonry be established for houses,
which Is defined as the net surface area of the structure excluding doors and windows.
Mr. Rishel: Sir, I was thinking there was already something In here that said 75%. Was that not already part of this?
Ms Gourdle, Yes.
Mr. Arterburn: Actually, you're right. it was 75%.
Mr. Rishel: Can we amend that?
Mr. Arterbum, I guess we can just leave that point totally off since we already had 11 in there. Honesify, I had
forgotten that. That Is the extent at which t think k Is feasible for the developer to ask at the moment. Unless you
have further questions, we will be seated, Are there any other questions?
Commissioner Engelbrechl: Are there questions for th4 petitioner?
Mr, Rishel: Mr. Chairman, you had three questions before the break.
Commissioner Engelbrei Personally, those questions were answered. They had to do with s:luera footage and
masonry. Actually, I did have one other one. Thank you. That had to do with preservation of the trees, which was
the question that was asked.
Mr, Arlerburn: tt Is the developefs Intent to follow the subdivision ordinance, which is relatively strict if you have
read k with regard to tree preservation.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Are there other questions? No other questions? Thank you. That being the cue, the
public hearing is dosed. Before l ask Commtulot s . If you have any other comments. I would I,ke to ask staff to
answer one that was brought up Wis.* that had to do with notification. There was a quo Alan about notification and I
was wondering If you could address that briefly.
Mr, Donaldson: We use the most recently approved lax roll that Is provided to us from the Appraisal District.
Sometimes, that Is out of dale and legging by the time it gets to us. There can be cases when in active subdivisions,
we don't get the recent buyers, In this case, the evidence was the people had been in there for two years and I can't +
understand why we don't have them on our approved Ii at.
Commissioner Engelbrechl. Thank you. '
Ms. Gourdle Doesn't that create a Iegat problem then?
.
Mr, Donaldson. The State and the local code read that we were supposed to use the most recent approved tax roll
Mr. f;ishel, I em curious why in our backup data that the service analysis for police was not completed.
Mr. Lonaldson: Trlna probably could address that.
Ms Finney: II Is completed. II Is typewritte"dority seven minutes, nori ority 15 minutes.
Mr Rishel, I see, thank you, looks so much like a form.
Commissioner Engetbrecht: Yes, Ms. Apple.
Ms Apple, I just wanted, just for informatonal purposes, 9 Mr. Salmon would address the Hickory Creek Road we
said that we would talk about.
Mr. Rishel: Can I back up as a point of cider? A completed form ought to have a signed signature, Trims. On r
page 21, that Is not signed. t
Me, Finney Many, of these service analyses didn't come to me as requested by the due date and I was making
r/ phone calls to get them back. This pe l ct ar one, I made the phone cell and he sold, 'Can I just give you those
66.
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1 M
Page 28 of 34
numbers over the telephone,' So, that Is where this came from. I typed them as he said them. There was no one
there to sign n.
Mr Donaldson That Is just an internal document for us to gather Information,
Commissioner Engelbrechl, Okay. In the future, if you would just put as provided by-from whatever department,
please. Ms, Apple?
Mr. Salmon: Hickory Creek Road-as I understand it, Denton County has Included funding for Hickory Creek Road in
their bond election, Of course, we don't know d that Is going to pass because the election hasn't been held. I think
that was the gentleman's point. M currently have nothing In our current CIP Ie address additional Improvements, I
am talking about the City's CIP now to address improvements on Hickory Creek Road. We're In the last year of our
current CIP. I understand that we are looking at possibly having another election In the near future, e4hough I don't
know exactly when, That is certainly a possibility in our next CIP, but there Is nothing In the current CIP. We're In
the last year of that, We have been pretty conalslently getting Improvements for Hickory Creek Road from other
developments es they have pone in, mostly in the form or payments In lieu of actual Improvements, We've been
collecting money in lieu of Improvements for a traffic signal at Hickory Creek Road and Teasley. Men the second
phase of River Oaks Subdivision goes in, you'll be seeing a right-turn lane at Teasley and Hickory Creek Road
Chaucer Estates, which Is another subdivision you will probably be seeing In the near future, is proposing
deceleration tames Into their subdivision off Hickory Creek Road, Al these subdivisions I am mentioning are putting
money toward the traffic signal. If you've been out there recently, you will notice that River Oaks Subdivision is also
reconstructing the Intersection of Montecifo Road and Hickory Road to provide additional turn lane capacity at the
School. I think there are some Improvements that are pending or actually happening at Hickory Creek Road and we
are collecting money Rom development toward a traffic signal t Ihlnk there ere a few things happening.
Ms, Apple, Hickory Creek Road is on our mobility-future mobility plan?
i
Mc Salmon, It Is shown to he s primaryartarial
Ms, Apple, ti's a Six...
Mr. Salmon. Yes. Primary arterial is ultimately a six tans d'rulded road. We would anticipa'.e that at Selma point In
time, Hickory Ci eek Road will probably be buin as a four-lane dlvld d road with a future expansion to six d we ever
needed it
Commissioner Engelbrechl, Ms Gourdie.
Ms. Gourdie. Actually, I have a question about the roads loo. As I was looking through the traffic analysis report
that Trina had, a lot or the LOS'S were F's, D's, and to forth. Of course, If you average them out, they become Co or
an A or a 8, but there are obviously times when the road Is fading t realize this subdivision was talking aboul a
three to five-year build out, Vvhat Is the possibility that all those things that you've just spoke about will be
happening In five years?
Mr, Salmon You might have noticed when you read the traffic report that they sold some particular improvement
would help this situation. Those are the types of Ihings-when they come back In with the preliminary plat and offer
we have had an opportunity to completely review the study, those are the types of things they have listed in that that
we are going to say okay, this Is vfiat you need to do In order to maintain that level of Service C, I would expect that
when this subdivision comes In far platting, you ere probably going to see a contribution toward the traffic signal.
You may see some additional turn lane Improvements at Hickory Creek Road and Teasley, Yotin see turn lane
improvements at their entrance, You'll see paving Improvements In front of their subdivision as wen as the bridge
improvement that we spoke of this evening I think the way we will address that Is that as they develop the property,
they are going to be required to participate In some Improvements to help offset their development,
Ms Gourd a So, you feel when the Centex Homes in this development and everyone else Is at the:, full capacity,
you believe all the developers will have conlributed what they need to contribute to make the road not worse Nan a ir
C. which If Is already at? We don't have fun development at this time.
Mr. Hill: Correct, With the traffic signal and with turn lanes as proposed I would expect that the road would operate
at a level of service C with the level of developments we've got right now that are being proposed,
67.
i
I
Planning and Zoning Commission Mioule s
January 13,1999
Page 29 of 34 4
Commissioner Engelbrechl, Yes, please.
Mr. Hill: One more thing about Hickory Creek that I wanted to briny to your attention. I think roadways and schools
have to be kind of coked at together here. We're trying very herd to work with the school district to develop a
database that we both ogres on. I'm not sure that we are at a point where we can give you anv abong conclusions
One thing tint we ere beginning to suspect though from the data that we have been sharing 'tilt approxlmaley
70% of the population enrollment at McNair Is from Corinth residents. Is that about right, Mark?
Mr.DonaUsom, 85%.
Mr. Hill, The way we look at It Is that if you took all the Corinth students out, there would be 100 kids at McNair. Not
to make fun of Corinth of make it sound be though we are against each other. N Is a problem we have to work out
regic4*y The point I'm trying to make Is all those parents are bringing their We Into McNair down
Hiek;iey Creek Road in the mornings and they are picking them up in the afternoon. That Is an Impact that we do not
believe that we can assign to the development that occurs. like on Hickory. To think that all of the subdivisions that
are going to be built are the only generators causing problems for Hickory Creek Road Is probably a misperception.
We have to figure out as a community along with our regional neighbors, how we are going to figure out tome of this
regional trafic ftw as well? I think that is an important point.
Commissioner Engelbrechl Ara there other questions for s]afr?
Mr. Rishek I have o queoeon and o comment The petitioner has proposed several amendments to the detail plan.
My question is are Me smendmente, specifically ID for example or the new ID. Is that going to require the
submission of a new delsit plan?
Mc Donaldson, It will require an amendment by the time it gels to the City Council to reflect any condition that you
place upon It.
I
Mr. Rishel: So Ihat Is not gang to delay the process tonight?
Mr. Donaldson: No, we have time to amend N.
Mr. Rishel: Just a comment if I may There has been quite a bit or discussion about the correlation between lot size
and home values. Apparently, if Inn understanding the people In the audience correctly, they feel like there is a
correlation between lot sizes and home vsl'ies Ms. Apple. I think, spoke to that issue when she relayed her
experlence In seeing very exclusive homes Al relatively small lots. I just went to relate to the audience that the E
reverse is also true. Over In my neighborhood, the Beverly Perks Addition, which we spoke of during our consent
agenda, Is zoned SF•10, but the billboard on the freeway says that the home values or prices start at loss than a
$100,000 ]just wanted to kind of throw that out for whatever N's worth.
Commissioner Engelbrecht Are there questions for staff or comments? If you wlN give us your name for the record
please.
Mr. Hllt My name Is Dove Hill, I am the Director of Planning for the City. The one other thing that I wanted to bring
upend I had talked with Mr. Buoek about this it She break Is from a planning standpoint, I lust went you lo know the
Planning staff Is uncomfortable with the minimum square foologe for the houses We know that that !a commonly
conducted either through deed restrictions or private covenants I think that is the p0ole rectors prerogative to do
that Whether it is legal of"Is something that Mr. Bucek would have to talc to you about, We don't think that N Is
good practice tl certainly is not something that we feet local government should get involved In. We do not do N
now, I don't believe since I've been here we have ever had that kind of a requirement. Mork, correct ms N I am
wrong, has that happened before?
i
Mr. Donaldson. I believe we have had one Zoning r
Mr. Hill, Marc N was offered by the developer? k, .
Mr. Donaldson That's something that we would scluatly discourage-feeommendatlons of that mature Not to say
that that It illegal.
,
Planning and Znning Commission Minutes
January13, 1999
Page 30 of 34 s
Commissioner Engetbrechf 1 did want to point out that I did talk to Mr. Bucek briefly. This Is a
Planned Development. It would seem that that gives us a tittle more prerogativs than straight toning would where
we would add a Condition.
Mr. Hill. Again, I am not speaking to the legal part of t
Mc Bucek: The comment, I guess, thal I would make following through what Dave Is saying is the fad that the
developer, in his presentation, raised the Issue he might be open to that pad, then he presented what you have. I
think if you started negotiating and wanted to move those figures up. I think that is where Dave Is coming from.
Thai's where we are going Edo new ground Someone is willing to say it is pad of their case. This Is what they want
to do, Well, we will leave If In there like that. That probably would be the case you are talking about. The developer
put n in and we left It The concept of just passing an ordinance which said that. and I think some cities may have
these, I don't think they have been litigated, but avnve cities may have a rule that says 7,0110 square toot tat
minimum 1,800 square feet and they may have P. different size lot and a different-most of them haven't been
litigated. What I was sharing with Dave Is In '77 or '78 when I first tesearched this Itam, the Rice University area
around Houston had a minimum-1 Mink that is called University Park but I am not sure what the name is-they had a
minimum requirement they had taken to court and lost all laving a minimum requirement. Five or six years ago, I
ran across a case -s different result Both of those cases, neither one, to my reconection, went to the
Supreme Court What we are doing as we discuss this nem-1 don't think you're being arbitrary and Capricious 0 you
take what the developer has recommended to you and you leave a In there, I think that ff we later had litigation over
that, you won't be arbitrary and capricious. You won't be subject to any kind of damages. I don't want to maki any
kind of commitment to you that we know we'll win or Unat we will lose that case, I think it Is one of those kinds of
those things that are very factspecific and we will just have to cross that bridge later.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. Other questions for staff? Mr Rishel. E
Mr. Rishel: I just wanted to point out that I appreciate the nelghtxrhood coming forth and bringing their argument
and I hope that R,e discussion rhal has gone on has been fruitful. One of the things that I very much appreciate was
that each person that presented made an effort to present new Information and something that was fresh from the
argument Mr. Rowel I think would appreciate d if I re-mention perhaps One of the things which he had mentioned
was that we still have the opportunity to postpone this, put some more thinking Into It and put n on hold for a period
of time to look at where we are going with our direction. I just wanted to bring that up again for Aim.
Mr. Bucek. Lei me comment on that. The annexalion petition that's been fled, ones you start that process, it's very
time controlled, mainly because the Slate taw that when you start that petition you have to do certain publications in I
the newspaper or certain notices If It was involuntary to the property owners being impacted, I think what would
occur and not toying that N's not something the Council wouldn't agree with. I think 0 you were to say you wanted to
postpone It and you don't make your recommendation tonight, It basically-we rnn't meet the rest of the requirements
Slate low puts upon us. We'd have to start that process over. That Is possible lo do.
Mr Rishel, My concem Is mainly our notice And I know Mr. Donaldson Apologized for the people he might have
missed because of the tat rolls. I still think his imperative on us as a committee ands board to make sure we have
gotten notice to those people and done It timely, I don't know 4 we've done that In this particular case i
h` Mr. Bucek: The only point I want lobe clear. If we postpone where we are tonight having met a prima fascia case In
legality and complying with the lax records we have. If we postpone, I think the only thing that happens Is we have
If to start the process over again. That might be a cocl that the City would have to pick up so opposed to the
applicant, I don't know what that cost Is I just wanted to be sure you understand there are some monetary costs
the City could submit itself to, 4 we postpone We matter or do something on those ands that would be out of the
ordinary
Commissioner Engelbrechl. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Bucak, with regard Io that. This was submitted to on
annexation and a zoning case Would that make a difference as opposed to simply just a airalght annexation with ,
regard to the law as ff applies to the time frame for onnexation7 k,
Mr. Bucek: I think the concept Is you are pulling condition- on, I think you can make a recommendation for
something other then PO You can do things like that. The concept Is we have the ability to do the sorting a part of
the annexation. vfiat you are saying Is 4 we were just to pull that out and go back say to A- If we mow ahead Calk
A, would there be a problem?
69.
Planning and Zoning Commission Mir ules
January 13,1999
Page 31 of 31 ?
Commissioner Engelbrechl: No, I think my question is I have personal concarn about spilling them up because of
what the applicant has sold and I understand and I happen to know that Mr. Ryan before he passed on rat long ago
was very adamant about that-annexation. He had come down here on more than one occasion, I believe, to oppose
that, I think that obviously they don't went annexation without The zoning because the contract Is contingent on the
zc,aing I guess my question Is assuming that they are tied together and they came to us together, In other words,
there was an application for annexation and zoning does that have any impact on the time frame with regard to
which the annexation has 10 proceed? In other words, would d be considered separately because We a joint case by
the law?
Mr. Bucek: I think once fi becomes a joint case, we are bound by the annexation time frames. From a siantlySrt d
say to nave ahead today, 90% of the time we are dealing with an annexation that Is voluntary but it is temporarily
zoned A because they don't know what they mcy want. If you wanted to change the zonin,t from PO to A, you could
do that, I think the response of the developer could be he could probably withdraw his retilion for annexation. That
would probably be his way out,
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Other questions for staff or corvnents or a motion?
Mr. Powell I am ready to move. I'll ask for assistance from legal here. My guess I" we move A the way A ready
here
Commissioner Engelbrecht Can I Interrupt here,..,
Mr. Powell, Absolutely.
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Ws been pointed out 10 me...
Ms. Finney, Make some closing comments here,,.
Commissioner Engelbrecht I spologtze to you, Mr. Powell end Ms, Finney.
Ms. Finney, First, I would just like to apologize to Mr. Collins to put on retold-so. I caned on Mr. Salmon. But,
Mr, Jim Collier is here if you hale any further questions about drainage. Secondly, I would-with the developer
leaving Tracts 18 and 1C empty as they are even with this condition of 10,DDO square feel unless the leis are dawn
In (hero. We would require a detailed plan At the lime they are do%vioped In the future unless when the new cutail
plan goes back they go ahead and draw those lots In there A third pant I'd like to make Is regarding notification.
The notification is not required to be delivered to each individual house ko annexation; however, it was-you can't
see that very well put in the paper a1 two separate occasions. The nobficallon for the zoning which would go by our
City tax rolls, we were made aware h was not oehing to the residents becr, tie of what our tax rd's Indicated so we
did drive out there and get the addresses through a lied survey So et Mona, not just within " 200 feel but
beyond the 800 feet was notified of this meeting In addition to a reiphborhood meeting So I think, f roomy must say
that our nolilication was met, N has Actually gone beyond whet Is expected. 1 hope that satisfies any curiosity for
notification procedures I would like to say that staff recommends approval of this Annexation and zoning, City-
because of the following reasons We get 1Soodway and 8oodplaln and possible dedication of IS and 1C or n could
be the I xresse of minimum lot size, In any regard, we're looking At a 31 -acre dedicaba!, potentially a 11.7-sue
dedication We're also looking at 60-feel of dght-ofway dedication :long the west edge end on the north edge with
a 10-foot collector being constructed; a $300,000 bridge; zoning control through annexation. The ill posal would be
consistent with the 1988 DDP And with the Growth Management Strategy The ongoing evep-atlon of Ne traffic
impact onalysls to determine if o}laite traffic Improvements are needed as Mr. Solmcn has point d out irou!d also be j
obtalned. And so, with all of these in mind, staff recommends approval of this.
,
i Commissioner Enpelbrechl: Oueslions for Ms. Finney? Thank you. Mr, Powell
r
Mr. Pov, ell I'll repeal my question to staff. I'm, I Intend to move A as N Is on page 8 and I Ir +enJ to move 8 as ft Is
with Ua w4ddion of the three points, three additional points made by the petitioner, I'm golf g to gat ft. Do you sea
anything wrong with that from a technical point of view? A'
fri'ti
Commissioner Engeibrechl. I believe there ware four points fro.o the developer.
Mr. Powell. He asked four (Ins ufte).
70.
r
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
January 13, M
Page 32 of 34 t
Mr. Rishel: But the City's only recommended two.
Ms. Gourdie', No. He withdrew the last ones
Ms. Apple He withdrew the 70% because 75% masonry
Mr. Oonatdsom One of them's already on the detailed plan.
Commissioner EngeMaecht Okay. That's right.
Mr, Powell. Let me make sure You had four points and took off one, Thal left three. Correct?
Commissioner Engelbrecht, Yes, that's right.
Mr. Rishel: And the third one,..
Commissioner Engelbreat I'm sorry. You're corred.
Mr. Rishel: David was recommending that we not include
Mr. Powell: No, the fourth one.
Ms, Gourdle: No,
Mr. Rishel. The first one was that lots or areas 10 and f0 were 10,000 square foot nimimum and the second one
w as new tract 0 be vested that would bo 10,000 square foot that backs to the creek.
Mr. Powell: And the other one.
Mr Rishel, The third one represented kill sizes and Mr, HIM, square footage of those. and Mr. Hilt re:omrnended
those not be Included, Is that corned?
Mr. Powell: He did but I'm not,
Mr. Rishel Okay.
Mr. Powell, Mr. Hill knows I don't always go by what he reoommands. I think In this case since the petitioner
brought them forward, I see no different than if they were written in hie original pelition and I'm going to recommend
them. Okay. I guess we do these one at a time I move to recummend approval of A-71 with Planned Development
toning district classification and lend use eeslgnstion.
Commissioner Engelbrschl. Is there a second?
Mr. Rishel: Second.
Commissioner Engelbrechl. Is there any discussion on the motion and this has to do with the annexation. Any
discussion? AM In favor of the nation please raise your right hand. Motion cards a unenimwsy. (A -0)
Mr Powell, I move to recommend approval of 2-WO56 with the addition of the thrw additional points
recommended by tf.e petitioner
Me. App,e Second.
Commissioner Engelbrecht. It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of the toning with the three
conditions of the petitioner. Is there discussion on the notion?
Mr. Moreno, Could we read those throe conditions? k1 r
Ms, Pinney, I can read them 4 you like Condition 1-that trads 18 and 1C have a minimum square Motage of
10.000 square fool. Condition 2-that a new tract 1D be created for those W backing to the Anodplain containing a
minimum of 10,000 square lest. Condition 3-1hol We indicated at 1,000 minimum square kotagc hove also a
minimum square footage of 1,400 square Fool building area, excuse mgt-building size That the lots designated as
Planning and 2oning Commission Minutes
January 13, 1999
Page 33 of 34
7.000 square toot have a minimum building size of 1,700 square rest. And the lots designated at minimum
10,000 square feet have a minimum building square footage of 2,000 square reef.
Mr. Rishel And as a friendly amendment I'd like to move that we tome 03 from N recommendation with the
understanding that staff la trying to clean up whets I think we're at end be eensislent In how we write our codes and
ordinances. So I put that as a frlendty amendment.
Mr. Powell I refuse tor- epl that es a friendly amendment. I would like tot ?te on ft.
Commissioner Engetbrecht I befieve we have.
Mr. Powell You can amend H but I mean, but I want to vole on H.
Commissioner Engetbrecht Discussion on the motion?
Ms. Gourdie, I have discussion. t just want to say thank you rot listening and being objective and working with us. I
don't think A's the optimum choice here. I have to agree with the neighborhood Ina lot of sense. I think we need the
SF-6 gone and I hope, 1 don't know how this Is going to develop. I mean, I'll vote in favor of it but I hope that when
gall get to Council you might be able to work your figures out a little bit more and remove the SF-G because I really
don't think SF-8 Is necesson, In that part of town. We do need to start looking rot higher. more, and I realize a lot of
my panel doesn't agree wit',t this but I think we flood to look for a higher lot We and I Just want to say thank you. I
appreciate y'aA working w,th us. I appreciate you listening It's refreshing and I wish you all the bast here in Denton
and 1 hope soon we'll be able to gel bigger sizes from y'all but thank you.
Commissioner Engefirecht: Other discusWn?
Mr. Powell Wore we vote i want to make sure Sally doesn't want to make an amendment because this Is the time
If you're going to amend the motion before we vole en it,
Mr. Rishel: It's fine.
Commissioner Engelbrecht Any other discussion? I do want to say that t appreciate everyone who's come out (of
the case-the nelghborhood, the residents, and the developer's discussions with us. It would appear to me that wo,
one area that seems to be at odds here and H's not the first time and probably won't be the lost has to do with the
value of the homes from one area to another and thar'e one that we just really have, that's a tough one to address
here. kWth regard to the Idea of lrensAlun, 4 has been the policy as I know A In this city over a long period of time to
transition lot sires back to bock and we have done that here with the SF-7 to 10's and then we have o large buffer
with which we transition to the other areas So, I left like we have met those sorts of translllonat requirements. It
wood be very nice to see some mare expensive homes In tome pad of our city. That doesn't seen to be what's
coming at the moment and I'm riot sure what the story Is with the market there I will soy Ihat over the last three
years we see SF-7, SF-0 and estate lots and that seems to be the range When I was on before, we saw a good
deal of SF-16 and 13's and we just don't see that anymore, for whatever reason. So, with that I wilt shut up and ask
if any other-no other comments? Okay AN in favor of the motion please raise your right hand, Opposed. (Motion
carries 6 to 1, Mr. Rishel testing the nay vole) And t would point out there was a question about this
Mr. Donaldson, could you tell us when this Is scheduled lot City Counc117
Mr. Donaldson I W Trine can right off the top or her head,
Commissioner Engelbrecht: Or Ms. Finney can
Ms Finney. This is going to go before City Council on January 19" for the second public hearing It will go again
before city Council on February 9"' at a Special Caged meeting for the first reading and then again on March 23" fot
the second reading and that *11 be the brtel action.
J
Commissioner Engeibrecht You might explain why A Is, and I know irs because of the annexation, why we have, f
why it's going so many limes when a normal zo" case would go once to us and once to City Council.
Ms, Finney State law requires that there be two publlu hearings before City Council and two readings before
City Council In order td approve an ennexallon or to accept an annexaton and that's whet we are doing. State law
also builds in time frames and that's why they're spread like they are. There Is a minimum 20!10, no less than 20 no
i
72.
r I
Planning end Zoning Commission Minules
January 11, IM
Page 34 of 54
more than 40 time differentiation and there's also a minimum Vne that you have to have it published In the
newspapv before you an have the reading for Mo ordinance. So, with all of these different State law requirements
and the fact that we have to have it completed within W days from when we start it, this schedule is very precarious
and very dil%cNl to obtain, as a metier of fad
Commissioner Engeltuechl: M right. Thank you.
Ms Finney: You're welcome.
Commissioner Ergerbrecht: I would say and I don't know if Ms. Phillips is still here, I would like tom appreciated her
comments with regard to the notification form and 1 wourd ask staff to Wng that to us at a wor% sesslon In the Arturo.
We might talk about the wording on dat to make sure that Ifs dear. That there are dear distinctions with regard to
the case. Thank you.
i
r
73. ffI
r
ATTACHMENT 4
WI
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 114.76 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HICKORY CREEK
ROAD, NORTHWEST OF MCNAIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; CLASSIFYING THE
ANNEXED PROPERTY AS PLANNED DEVFLOPMENT (PD-169) ZONING
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 114.76
acre tract as described in Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on January 5. 1999, and
January 19, 1999, to allow, all interested persons to state their views and present evidence bearing
upon this annexation; and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings Acre instituted for the property described herein by
the introduction of this ordinance at a meeting of the City Council on February 9,1999; and
1VHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in the official newspaper
of the City of Denton after annexation proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City
Council taking final action, as required by City Charter; and
WHEREAS, aflcr a public hearing the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission ,
recommended the annexation and also recommended that the coning be designated Planned
De•: aopment (PD-169) district classification a-id use designation, shown in the detailed plan
attached hereto as Exhibit C; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the designation of zoning will be In compliance
with the 1988 Denton Development Plan, the 1998 Denton Plan Policies, and the 1999 Growth
Management Strategies; NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DcNTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
5CTION 1: 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 3, and Incorporated by reference,
which provides for the extension of municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as
part ofthis ordinance.
SECTION III: Tha; the amr:xcd property, being the I t4.76 acre property described in the
legal description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A is classitled as Planned
Page I of 3
74.
L
Development 169 (PD 169) zoning district use designations under the comprehensive zoning
ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, by approving the detailed plan which is attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, subject to the foLowing condition:
1. Tracts 1B and 1C are to be designated for minimum 10,000 square foot lots,
2, A new tract, called I D, be created to incorporate those lots (currently labeled blocks J
and K) backing the flood plain. Tract ID is to be designated for minimum 10,000 square
foot lots.
3. Minimum d AvIling floor areas ly, established based on lot sizes as follows:
s 6,000 square foot lots to have a minimum 1,400 square foot dwelling size.
a 7,000 square fool lots to have a minimum 1,700 square foot dwelling size,
a 10,000 square fool lots to have a minimum 2,000 square foot dwelling size.
SECT ION IV: That the City's official zoning map is amenJed to show the Plamied
Developmer.[ (PD-169) 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 property described in
Exhibit A regardless of whether any other part of the described properly is hereby erfcctively
annexed to the City. If any part of the real property annexed is already included within the city
limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any other city, towr. or village, or is net within
the City of Denton's jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the territory
annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly described in this ordinance.
SECTION VI: That any petson violating any provision of this ordinance relating to the
Planned Development (PD-169) zoning district classification and use designation shall, upon
conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day thata provision of this ordinance
is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION VII: That this ordinance shall become effeclive 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 of the city of Denton, Texas, within ten (10)
days of the date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1999.
i
r
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Page 2 of 3
75.
0
i
1
I
I
I
I
~j
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: x'~/ 0 hr~«~
v
I
~Page 3 of 3
76. I
a~rrrr
C'
EXHIBIT A
a
114.760 acres
P29LD MOTIS to all certain tract of lend situated in the M. Britton Survey
Abstsrct Number $1, City of Denton, Denton County, Texoe.fnd,being all ~of-the
called 116.7 acre tract described in the dead from Charles N. Ryan at ux
recorded in Volume 1530, Page 30 of the Real Property Records of Denton County,
Taxes, the subject tract being more particularly described as follawsi
820THRINO for the Southwest corner of the tract being described herein, at an
Iran rod found at the Southeast corner of the called 3 acre tract described in
the deed from 1. D. Calvert at ux to fl. Thomas Calvert at ux vecorded in Volume
303, Page 411 of the Dead Records of Denton County, Texas in Hickory Crook load
on the South line of said sus-eyi
TRUCI North 00 Degrees Of Minutes 51 Seconds last generally along a wire
fence with the Nest line of the 116.7 acre treat a distance of 1513.61 feet to
a 1/2 inch rod set at a fence corner post at the Northeast corner of Calvert
tractr
TRUCS South /1 Degrees 51 Minutes 20 Seconds Nest along a fence a
distance of 41.41 foot to a 1.1/1 inch iron pipe found at the soot Southerly
Southeast corner of a called 65.404 Acre Tract One described in the deed from
Shelton Ryan and Phoebe liggenbothas to Wayne S, Ryan recorded in Volume IS22,
Page 501 of the said Real Property Record)
TKLVCS North 00 Degrees 14 Minutes 30 Seconds West along a fence with the
test line of the said 65.504 Acre Tract One and with the Pest line of the
116.7 acre treat a distance of 660.43 feet to a 1/2 inch iron rod found near a
fence corner post]
TNXVCS North 11 Degrees 15 Minutes 22 Seconds seat along a fence with a South
line of the 65.404 Agra Tract One a distance of 1310.64 test to a 1/2 inch iron
rod found near a fence corner on the Northeast bank of a branch at the
Southerly Southeest corner thereof on the West line of Lake forest Good
Samaritan village as shown by the Plat thereof recorded in Cabinet F, Page 36
of the Plat Records of Denton County, Texasr
THINCS South 01 Degrees 40 Minutes 17 Seconds last with the last line of the
116.7 sere tract and with the Mist line of Lake forest Good Samaritan Village a
distance of 642.63 foot to a 1/1 inch Iron rod found at the Southwest corner
thereof$
THUCI North 11 Degrees 17 Minutes 11 Seconds last with the South line the
Lake forest Good Samaritan Village a distance of 141,71 teat to a 1/2 inch iron
rod sat for the Northwest corner of the called 10 acre tract described in the
dead from JuatLn tnduct:ies, ono. to Acme Brick Co, recorded in Volur, 1127,
Page, 020 of the said sail Property Records from which a S inch woo-1 fence
corner post bears North 01 Degrees 31 Minutes 57 SecoadA Mast a distance of
10.0 feet avJ a 4 inch stool post boors Jorth 11 Degree 41 Minutes 11 fiends
gait 3 distance of 15.1 fsatr
176
r
Page 2
114.7do Acre
fritton survey
TNNNCI South 00 Degrees 49 Minutes It Seconds east along a lance with the Rest
lino of the 10 acre tract a distance of 1271,07 Lest to a 1/2 inch iron rod
fou.id at the southwest corner thereof and the Maxthwast career of the reaaiader
of the called 10 acre treat described in the dead of trust from Richard R.
Compton at ux to B.S. ILY, Trustee recorded in Volum4 2417, Page 01 of the said
Real Property lecordo
779NCl South 00 Degrees So minutes 39'Saeonde last along a foods with the Rest
line of the said 00 acre ■ly tract passing at 661.03 feet the Northwest corner
of Oaks of Montecito these 1 as shown by the Plat thereof gecarded in Cabinet
N, Page 34 of the Plat Records of Canton Caaaty, Texas and continuing with the
Nest line thereof passing at 12#0.17 fast an iron rod found at the southwest
corner of slack A in the dedicated North right-of-way of Hickory Crook load and
continuing, in a11, a total distance of 1310.17 feet to the southwest corner of
the SLY tract an the South line of the fritton Survey]
TNPNCS South 19 Degrees 17 Minutes 11 leconds Neat with the south line of the
fritton Survey in Hickory Creek Road a distance of 160.7# fast to the PLACA OF
flOINNING and enclosing 114.760 acres of land.
kdm
Id61-b/11117 Y
f
i
' r
i
V
EXHIBIT B
ANNERA I WA bmt VICE PLAN j
BER: A-78
114.76 Peres
FAO~:
On the rorth ai
de of Hickory Creek Road, northwest of McNair Elementary School In
Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETI).
Municipal services to the site described sbove shall be furttlshed by or on beUlf of the City of Denton, Texas, at the
following levels and in accordance with the following schedule
A. Streets end Roads
Access is available from liickory Creek Rd. and a planned collector street that joins with another planned
collector street, leading to Ryan Rd. A bridge will be requited over Fletcher Branch Creek at the expense of
the developer.
6. Water/Waatewater Services
Water is currently available along the eastern boundmy ofthe proposed development. Wastewater service
Is currently available along the eastern boundary of tLe proposed development. The extension of a 12"
water line will be required along Hickory Creek rd, to support this development.
1
C. Electric Distribution
Electric service is currently available in this area.
i
D. Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
The city can serve this property. Service may require Ziional equipment, personnel and operating
resources. One rear Inader, a Net person crew, and in additional residential route it needed to serve each
additional I, 10ho,;e.holds in the city.
E, Police Senfees
The department estimates that service can be provided within average response times for the city as a
a he le. The city's priority response time is 8.06 minutes, while Its average response time is I1 minutes
Three additional personnel and additional vehicles will be required to serve this area.
F. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
The city currently serve adjacent property. Fire Sttion r6 is approximately I miles from the subject
property.
O. Parks and Rterealion Services
a No parks or fachities currently serve this area. A 25 acre park is pending in the River Oaks Subdivision,
half a mile south of this of the subject property. All avrage and facility requirements are based on ultimate
build-out. Cost or improvements and maintenance will be phased in, u population Incteases,
H. Llbrar- Services
The Library anticipates that increased demand resulting from development in die city cannot be met ustrg r
existing materials, facilities and personnel. Future needs of G,e library are to be detettnlned wkh the alter k, -
fanuary 20, 1999, the antic ipatcd date of the library msster plan study. ' r I r
1. Code Enforcement, Building Inspections and Consumer Health Servlcn
The city currently serves adjacent property
,
79.
i
i
i
,
g
i
Ptmnntag and Developmmat Services
The city currently serves this property.
K Ca,AtellmprovemenIsProgram (CIP)
Tae CIP of the city Is prioritized according to the following guidelines:
(1) Provision of Capital Uoprovemmets as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of
Iopgmphy, had utili Ation, population density, magnitude of probl, ms as related to comparable areas,
established technical st mduds and profetslond studies.
(2) The overall cost effectivenessof providing a specific facility or.- Improvement
i
The annexed area will be considered for public Improvements In tat upcoming CIP, This property will be
consider-d according to the estatbhed guidelines.
i
k
~k
i
I
`s
I! 0 .
it
f
Y
u'
a
wrw
.
i 1>0 Ap *d Wrrrr
wYW
I ~ y rrrrr
wrr '•~jw
PiiS.Y
•P- wi °'r M •r
' rrr ~r
1~• .onM'• -
1L... rrr
M~~. r+ ~ i• rr
R1C1/ ~1 r,rr
I I _--i rrrr
rmri ' • '
Y. ' ' 1 r
;u auk ' i r , i
r
do"
• 77.E r~
~ r ~ • r • • y rr• _ _
r .
w. 1 1 A II r T- r w• w •rrwwr r•~r••. rrw.
• • . • • . . •rrWrrr
:~,r.:ar>L,tl~'e•• i, ! ! r a C t ~aatlir~s~~sr~a+'rarr
'iSPif/15I•~" ~ ~ • & _ ~rttN
•r.rr •r •r •r
COME
Q7-
00
a'
_ I
I M
N M
Ll. l H
J4 1(r} 1:M~llyp. r)11 x,111
goo" . A,,.irk
qmmwmw
F'
W
w wpm
p, , r
w rrw
a wrirrw
.1 - ~ I ® ` ~ rwrr
y rr
` ~ w + v rrr err '
J rrr
7 / 111 w _~iT • w ~r,.r..w rrarnr.r• r. mm
..!l31,TRITl9.,.rrr• ; r' r" L1 ~KYS k7WYA~U.. ; .rr::
"~u • ref,,.•
r r 96,
1'
R r ar rw~
CUMWNGS ATTACHMENT 5
~rls7un I NC
PL+'I►l l.p NVe 6neinecHns a PJonnlnf a SWX* W
January 19, 1999
Mr, Jerry Clark, P.I3
Director
Paytneeriog and Tramperruion Dept.
City Hall West
211 N. Elm
Denton, TX 76201
RE Review of Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Ryan Tract Residential Development
Dear Mr. Clark
At the City's request the &M of Cunvuf W & Petvitt, Inc. (C&P) has reviewed the trafttc Impact
analysis MA) wbmitled by Innovative Transportation Solutions, Inn. (ITS) for the proposed Ryan
Tract residential development. This transmittal Puomarieee our review comments With reWd to the
study report prepared for that TtA.
DESCRIPTION OF 9ITZ
The proposed deva; opmant Is to be oomposed of single A unity homes located on the north We of
IGckory Creek Road.pp and mately 12 Wee wrott of?eadey CM 2181) Lane. Then willbe a tots l
of 294 homes develop td within tNs I 15 acre site.
STUDY AREA
The study area considered In this TIA was estabbihed by the City and included the fotlowiag six
locations.
the Intersection of Teasley Lane and Hickory Creek Road;
the Intersection of Mckory Creek Road and the the's residential street;
the intersection of Hickory Creek Road sad tM site's nortlNsouth collector strset;
the she's northhouth collector street;
Hickory Creek Road wail of Teasley Lane, and
Teuley Lane north of t nekory Creek Road. r
lI tl lMehardaon drive 0 !taro lie r XcAmrdeoa, rums rteie.flfe
(Itt)# "*Al0 ram 0r1/NOIIrl
83.
{
METHODOLOGY
ITS used the Highway Capacity Manuel (HC:NO ab its choice for conducting the capacity analyses
necessary for this TIA The HCM and its associated software are the traditional choice by traffic
eogineera fos these types of a.aalyses The typical output from the HCM process is a measure of
average delay reeosded in seconds per vehicle which In turn Is converted to a qualitative level of
senice (LOS) value ranging from " A" (very good) to " l (very. bad).
At the City's request ITS also Included in Its study the Impact of eight other subdivisions that are
curremly prt posed or under constructlon in this immediate area Those subdivisions Include the study
are listed below
River Oaks;
Oaks of Mont,.dto;
Mckory Creek Ranch;
Weatherford Tract;
Freeman Tract;
Summit Oaks;
Sundown Ranch; and
Wind River Estates
We comxu with the methodology used by ITS In this TIA.
i
TRIP GENERATION
ITS developed its trip generation ln1'ortnation through the use of the Trip Generation Manual
put uhed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Through the data collected and compiled In
the vianual ITS estimated that 7,994 trips per day would be generated by the Ryan Triot
develo,5ment and 24,092 trips per day would be generated by the eight other subdivisions this
would rmit in a total of 26,M trips per day (tom all dotelopments included In this study.
We concur with the trip generation methodology -,wd by 17S in this TIA
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
In general we concurred with ITS's trip distribution pattern and traffic assignments. For five of the
sites included in their study the assumption was made that 304A of the Nrffic to and Dom tbose skea
traveled along IMckory Creek Pot three others the amount was asa imed to be 2Ss/., It Is out belief
that these values may ultimately be approximately 10% fees.
We do not believe that a revision In the study to lessen the distribution along Hokory Creek Road
would result in a significant change in the Anal results and mcommendadons from this TIA. r r
Page 1
e4.
i
t• III
II
u Iii
i
PROACTED TRAMC VOLUMES
The oompleta build out of the site wu asaumise to occur by the year 2001. To obtain the projected
traffic volumes at the study locations for thm period In tints, ITS applied a 3. 54A aruraal growth factor
to the existing traffic voiames and then added the new trips projected io occur from the nine
developmonto Included in this a Vdy.
We concur with the ITS approach to detentdning the prcj:cted tru to volumes.
OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS
ITS performed capacity analyses for the study locations using the Highway Capacity Maoual (HCM)
software, Two tie volume soensaios were mWymd. the odidng conditions and the projected year
2001 build out conditions.
The analysis results for the existiag conditions Indicated two location of operational eom".
lfickoy Creek Road and Teasley La^e During the AM peak hour, the vehicular
traffic tum;ng from Hickory Gook onto Teasley was operating at a poor aervlce level j
(LOS S).
Tmalty We north of Kckory Creek Road The vehicular traffic on Toulty Lane
was operaing at a borderline condition between tolerable and undesirable
The analysis results for the projected condl does molested the followhtg %%esdom of operational
concern.
Hickory Creek Road and Teasley Line , During the both the AM and PM peak
hours, the vehicular traffic turning 6om Hickory Crook onto Talley was opewting
at a very poor service level (LOS F)
Ifickory Creek Lane sod the atoitNsouth collector street During the AM
hour, the vehicular traffic taming from the collector onto Hickory Creek wd
was
operating st a very poor service level (LOS F),
Teasley Lane north of Hickurr Creak Rod The vehicular traffic on Teasley Lane
was operating at a poor rerAce level (LOS R).
Hickory Creek Road west of Tally Lane The vehkeiilar traffic oa Hickory Creek
Road was operating at a very poor service level (I OS F).
We concur with the revel of service rWts obtained by ITS,
Page 3
85.
t~
II
TU CONCLUSIONfi rRECOMMENDATiONS
ITS concluded that certain geometric and trslAe control improvements were needed to address the
capacity deficiencies Identified In their study that will reauit from the development of the Ryan Tract
site and the eight other residential tracts. The following is a Ilstimg of those Improvements
Hickory Crack Road and Teasley Lane Construct cum lanm on all three
approaches nordi*ind loft-pan lane; southbound right-tum lane; and two eastbound
lanes. Install tmae signal controls at that poW In dm when warranting conditions
are Walla
Hickory Creek Road and the nomWocuth collector meet Construct two
southbound lanes.
Teasley Lane north of Hickory Creek Road . . Construct turn lane at critical
intersections,
Hickory Creek Road west of Teasley Lane Construct turn lanes at critical
ictersections if Arture developments that will impavl Hickory Creek Road me
approved.
In germ we concur with ITS's conehrsloos and recommendations However, we also believe that
a basis exists for the inclusion of additional spocitc 1.;% rovament measures u part of this study.
CAP OBSERVATIONS
Artbough traffic safety was not algniAcandy addressed In the ITS report, we bctieve that traffic
volume increases fiom the Ryan Tract site as well as the eight additional sites will also result is a
sina7u imtxesse In the mo ber of vehicular collisioru In the arm. 11Js safety coneam will be a partial
basis for our ovetell recommendations.
As a result, v+e recommend that speafic left-turn lanes, right-tum Ianes, and traffic control measures
be included as part of the Anal approved plan for the Ryan Tract site,
We would suggest that the cost of any off site geometric or traffic control improvement tbtd the
developer Is required to baclude as put of the development be valued based on the propottional
entotmt of tra%e geoerated by the Ryan Tract eke with respect to the Arturo total t afo anticipated
tc 5cour In this area.
C&P RECOMMLNDATIONS
i
Based on the results of the ITS study, our review of the ITS study, and our review of previous TWo
conducted for this era, we propose the following lAorovenwd measures and monetary partkipadon
requirements, i
~ c.
cage 4
86, 1
.
n
u
M
The value in ywatheset is the propoRiorw amount in Meow that we have estimated that the Rym
Tract she wbl contribute to the overall study area
Hickory Creel. P ead and Teeaiey Lane:
N'orthbow d left-turn lase (10%)
Southbound dgM-turn Ww (10'/x)
Additional embound lane (10%)
Traffic frigates! buWation (loth)
Hickory Creek Road and the nortWeouth collector etteet:
Two wuthbntutd Imet (I OM)
Westbound riltht-tum We (100%) ~
CLOSING
We have revitwnd the ITS tri fic hopac: aealyds and have found it to be a very good report that
utiiuae sound ertgbteedttg principles, mabodologtes, and Judgement in tooornpW..4 the study. We
love ideaiaed several gtanswia and t<stlSo oontrol6ttptover+ertt s that we believe should be included
as part of the approved final pica for this developwad.
Hyou ahould have any questions regarding this truwrdttal please do not heskete to contact me,
Sir►terely,
CUMIVM40S A PEWITT. INC.
Ile As. R. Cununinge, P.E
PAn.,pal Engineer
i i
Ttgs S f
87.
i
r.
ATTACHMENT 6 C E U 1W E
JAN. 1 1999 D
SERVICE ANALYSIS
D.11S.D. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
L If annexed, can anticipated service demands be met using existing materials,
facilities, and personnel?
The District has measured capacity at each facility on the basis of "functional
capacity." This value represents the number of students that may be served by the
permanent structures located at each campus. The use of portables or other
temporary structures is not included In the "functional capacity" calculation.
The district estimates that elementary schools will be at 100%oftheir functional
capacity once renovation at the Rayzor and Wilson campuses are complete.
These renovations should be completed by the 1999.2000 school year. Midile
and hig;, schools are estimated to be at 101% and 85% capacity respectively. A
fourth middle school is scheduled to open for the 2002 o pool year, adding an
additional 1,000 student capacity.
For planning purposes, the district assumes that 0.40 elementary students, 0A7
7
middle school students, and 0.18 high school students are generated by each
single family unit. The district estimates that this development will add 119
elementary, 51 middle school, and 54 high school students.
Considering functional capacity and planned middle school construction, middle
and high school students may be served while additional elementary facilities will
be required. It is important to consider the rate at which this development will
build out, which will directly impact the rate at which students will be added and
accommodated by the district.
2. If not, bow many additional employees and what type of facilities and materials
will he needed to provide services?
fhe state mandates a maximum student to teacher ratio of 22 to L for elementary
classes, Considering this ratio, an additional 5.4 classrooms and an additional 5.4
teachers will be required.
Classroom capacity may be provided through any one or a combination of the
following:
a. temporary classroomslportables,
b. student population transfers or absorption of students at other A
campuses, or
* r
c. new elementary school construction.
88.
C
l'
V
3. Estimated additional funding needed strictly based on proposed annexation and
development.
The average cost of educating one child In the D.I.S.D. Is $4,321 per year,
exclusive of state or federal assistance. This cost includes the district's existing
bond indebtedness.
4. Will projected school taxes from this development provide that additional
funding?
The district £s subject to a statutory limit of its ad-valorem tax rate. State law
prohibits a tax rate greater than $1.50 per $100 of valuation. D.I.S.D, adopted a
property tax rate of 51.48 per $100 valuation for the 1998.1999 fiscal year.
A combination of residential and non-residential development that yields funds
equaling $4,321 per year (1998 value) will provide the necessary funding for one
student.
5. Please comment on the cumulative Impact of annexation and development.
Annexation has relatively limited impact on the D.I.S.D. The development site is
located within the district boundaries, regardless of annexation,
6. At what population level would other school facilities be required Vr the City of
Denton?
Specifications for new elementary, middle, and high school facilities have been
developed to serve student enrollments of 681, 1,000, and 2,000 respectively, '
7, Is there an acceptable employee to population ratio that can be used for
planning purposes?
i
DJ.S,D. policy and state regulations have established the following
student to teacher ratios that may be used for planning purposes:
Elemeniaryt 22 Students teacher 1
Middle: 28 Studentsaeacher j
Iligh: 28 Students/Teacher
r~
i
1
Todd Parton January 19,1999
Person to Contact with Questions
89.
I
r
a
ANNEXATION REQUEST
SERVICE AREA ANALYSIS
(A•78)
The Planning and Development Department has received a request for annexation of:
114.76 acres
Location. Located on Hickory Creek Rd., approximately 600' west of
Montecito Drive (northwest of McNair Elementary School) In
Denton's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) southwest of 1-35E.
Proposed use, Clustered residential development at 3.2 dwelling units per
acre.
Pro posed z nlna. Planned Deve opment
The purpose of the service area analysis is to determine how the city would provide ser*es to
the area should it be annexed Into the city. A service area analysis form is attached, Please
provide the requested Information and any other pertinent information. To determine the city's
ability to provide services to the proposed area it Is necessary to document:
a each department's existing capacity to provide an adequate level of service to the
proposed area;
additional personnel and capital equipment/facilities necessary to provide an adequate
level of s4?rvice to the proposed area; and
• cost of pfLViding additional service.
Existing Conditions:
Pruximity to existing arterial and collector roads: Located on Hickory Creek Rd, with a
proposed collector (shown on the mobility plan) traversing the property.
Existing land use: Undeveloped
Prominent natural features: Large portion In floodplaln.
Proximity to other service providers: Immediately west of the Oaks of Montecho Subdivision
and Acme Brick.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please submit any other information that you
believe Is pertinent to evaluate the provision of services to this area to Trdna McElreath in the ,
Planning and Development Department by December 28, 1998, and call 349-8504 Nthere are
any questions,
a
Annexation Service Area Anslysis.doc 90.
i
l
Q
1.
i
1
i
SERVICE ANALYSIS
A•19
POLICE
1. Estlmaterl average response time for this area based on current department conditions:
Priority minutes
Non-priority minutes
Average minutes
2. Appropriate ave,vge response time In the city based on current department conditions:
Priorly minutes
Non-priority minutes
Average _ minutes
3. If annexed and developed as proposed will additional personnel be needed as a specific
result of this proposal? A/o If yes, how many? What type?
4. Will additional equipment and funding be needed to serve this area? 4& If yes,
what type?
b. Will a police substation or other facility be needed to serve this area as a result of
annexation and development? Al, If yes, when should the new facilitles
be operstlonat?
6. Pleaea+se comment on the cumulative Impact of eiinexation and development
.L !ic'!u. %Atc~laat~.ld ia.e.q.~rrc vsi 4// ~th.a~ta
At what population level would another police facility be required?
Is there an acceptod facility/equipment to population ratio that can be used for planning
purposes? ,Nd
Is there an accepted officer to population ratio that can be used for planning purposes?
n
Additional Comments:
. cam tti... 1-,15 - If
t c
Person to contact if there are questions Date
Annexation Service Area Analysls.doo
91,
i
c
t
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
I
f
ATTACHMENT 7
~I
Proposed Annexation Schedule
A-78
Ryan Tract
i
December 3, 1998 Neighborhood Meeting at City Hall West, 5:00 p.m,
December 8, 1998 City Council receives a preliminary assessment, gives
direction to staff and considers approval of a schedule for
public hearings regarding the proposed annexation.
December 23, 1998 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first
public hearing
> annexation Study prepared and available for public
review
> Senvlre Plan prepared and available for public review
January 5, 1999 City Council conducts first public hearing
> Public notice must be no less than 10 days and no
more than 20 days before public hearing.
January 3, 1999 Notice published in Denton Rea)rd Chronicle for P & Z
public hearing.
January 13, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission holds a public hearing
and considers making a recommendation to the City
Council regarding the proposed annexation and the
proposed zoning.
> Public notice must be no less than 10 days before
public hearing
January G, 1999 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second
public hearing
January 19,1999 City Council conducts second public hearing
> Pobltc notice must be no less than 10 days and no
more than 20 days before public hearlog.
1'cbruary 9,1999 City Council (SWIal CallAfeeNnr during work sesslon)
by a four-fifths vote Institutes annexation proceedings.
First reading of annexation ordinance.
> Action must be more than 20 days after the second i
public hearing but lees than 40 days from the first
public hearing.
February 19, 1999 Publication of annexation ordinance in the Denton Record
Chronicle.
March 23, 1999 City Council by s four-fifths vote takes final action.
Second reading and adoption of the annexation ordinance.
City Council considers approval of the zoning request.
> Council action most be more than 30 days after
publication of ordinance and less than 90 days after A
council institutes annexation proceedings, t 1 /~ti c
}
P.
92.
M
HICKORY CREEK ROAD
ELE►IENTARY ADOMON
e
zoo PHASE 4
A ~Rlu~ \ FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
89;0 7¢.7hr , -roe - i ;ulw~ B L 0 I 06'59'31' W
IAA 0•-~' ,g 59.ta
= ,e $ x ea
Nov X \A ?T c 179 0
y`-~.,•`~b.bt , ~ bL~,., ! e i',_+y yr, . ~iM'r t i,'I!
• •!l.DO- - 1 Ste: !'S.-• j ! T -B_ L 0
u., 0 Neo VISTA VERDE I`
as _
2-01% o RuLt? NcT ~s~D r~'6sr7_ - L tl!,p 0000
1N E~ecT l)1 y iS,';'+, y.li:" 11 1'•rV~ 1'.Ll' ° ~G~' tT
•~y~ q ~ t lI_7_ j r-r,r., ~.1 ,1~gn~yji
SUrr Ol,l -~-L (V12►10.3 ~ 1~ 1 1 f ` ~ ~4~.~ ~ ~ ,
! ~ ~ y! ' N Do
! 1= I~~.1 .e vos~r i ~a~..l aais s a I r;
prof h c ' : rl iadw
Oaks
I L+O~Sr C
;11 ;1 ,e ,'Ia , " I
CV7 rfC~
u tiro ~6 ,6,-r
41 w6.
Vill
a r ~ .A J _ . ___.►_E(pNil! 1. S7'.ie S er^a'n• L +
Q.39~' post}forl # s ' i` s• BUENA VISTA I,iac .
Z
dus rvA meet ` 1a.; 4 soon _ Will- ~t=1' +d- ~ •el'/L. • _ ' y ~ I~~ r
13 O \ L: p; 1 \'i ? 810 h' 1 :;t,•::
,,.4 20l1o ru4e. • 3u'M? ti..
v, f
L~0 C K A
. ~1 t .~~t~ I~B L 0; C K
i v
--z - --I-'=- -'ALL-. ~-e~'dl,..
n ' I E S R 3 C T CID 0 U I +T D 1 N 0 17 0 N E .r;rir e~ ~ "p'~'i~+' 1
t-
1
ATTACHMENT 9
r,
January 23, 1999
Councilwoman Sandy Kristoferson
City of Denton
City Hall
215 E. McKinr,ey
Denton, TX 76201
Dear Councilwoman Kristoferson,
Concerned homeowners in the Oaks of Montecito met on Friday. January 22, ISM to
discuss the proposed "Ryan Tract" development We reached agreement on several
issues that are outlined below. In the spirit of cooperation, we will schedule a meeting
with the developer during the week of January 25. The elected representatives for our
negotiations are Christine Rowell, Steve Rowell, Frank Harboid and Brenda f Milips.
Please see the attached list of signatures authorizing these individuals to rvgotiateen our
behalf
We reached agreement on the following points!
• We are currently amenable to annexation in combination with zoning, but contingent
upon our zoning requests outlir~-d below.
• We enthusiastically endorse the park dedication which will benefit the city, enhance
property values, preserve Texas natural history and heritsge, and promote quality of
lire in Denton, with the specific inclusion of the floodway and floodpiain (please we
the negotiation point belowon tract le).
We will engage in a good faith negotiation over the following points, which arc intended
to promote compatibility with adjacent, custom-home communities in the Oaks of
Mort" ito and Forrestridge:
• To maintain compatibit'ti, with adjacent, custom-ho, .e communities, homeowners
ask that the current zoning designation be amended from SF7 to SF 10 and ttmt lot
size be compatible with our averaged lot size of 9700 square feet In addition, we
ask that the treed areas, curremly toW at SF10, be changed to SF13 in order to
maintain out wooded community as well as to preserve trees,
a We ask that the proposed developer follow the deed restrictions in the Oaks of
Montecito eovenam and will provide a copy to the developer (a copy is attached to
this letter).
• To further prevrve this unique portion of Demon County, we ask that the city
carefully examine and approve a planned development that respects the natural r
topography of the tract, and thei would minimally impact the area's drainage,
floodwsy, and floodplain.
• To provide the city with a tmique, relatively untouched native woodland, we ask that
proposed tract le be included In the park designation. This will servo as an additional
94.
C
r~
lloodplain buffer for homeowners on the eastern boundary of tte proposed
development and might serve as a science eduction center for DISD.
We believe that our concerns represent a larger picture, specifically Dentonite's concerns
with the overall quality of life in Denton. As evidence, we cite the Growth Management
Survey for the Denton Plan when 61'x. of respondents indicated that the city should
manage growth by controlling quality, for exceeding peroemtaged support for quantity,
rate, and Ioca'ion. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
~l
Brenda Phillips
1101 Buena Vista
Denton, TX 76105
565-0373 ,
. I
a
i
i
r
i
95.
1
c
i
January 22, 1999
Oaks of Montecito Subdivision
City of Denton, Denton County, Texas
RE Designation of Representatives
Annexation & Zoning
114 Acres, Ryan Tract, Denton County, Texas
The following named individuals have given their percussion for Steve Rowell, Christine Rowell,
Frank Rabold and Benda Phillips to represent their opinlorts as it pertains to the annexation and
zoning of the referenced tract. This letter is intended for Information Purposes only ,e and for the
not
intended to legally bind or obligate the homeowners} other than t vole ofcefin
s e
referenced individual(s) as it pertainhs to annexation and zoning for the referenced tract for a
meeting dated January 28, 1999 wit Jntermandec~ Development Co.
NXU A9dit
slaj a-/ZWJ-. 7va-ft MW
7t day 'lacy ,e Idol nrr,~✓aeer
42 cam Wecr f /~l~ ? .Z'aa4.,,
/tit, ~+a4 GGt.yle /-ss.-~g
~60 v
l3co 1/~ ~ ~ Z -2'9f
6.lJ C Aak Sol•
i~.,r%u~,4e / llol ~Mee►N;tl. ~_ZL.~r~
ss~i~ //AZ~t4•MS.i1Ltr YA"
Q~ 7kckef 1~~s. ~t~,vu.U rMJ71
'
r~
~L tCaS.~'ts a.¢h'~ 99
~id~rA' G4F ~ t f 0 ( ~Wuttllth~l~., r , ' ! J `
10&40
~R7 C~,ItiouN Icot lJ~~ u~~. I~~Y199
96 ~
c
2 0~
4
January 22, 1999
Oaks of &fontecito Subdivision
City of Denton, Denton County, Texas
R6Designation of Representatives
Annexation & Zoning
114 Acres, Ryan Tract, Denton County, Texas
The following named Individuals have given their e
Frank Rabold and Benda Phillips to represent 1heir Opinions as for Stye Rowell, Christine Row►11,
zoning of of the the referenced tract. This I fetter is Intended for annexation purposes intended to legally bind or obligate the homente s pertains to the
and
referenced individual(s) as i er() oth thsn a vo a oonfid and not
meeting dated January 28, It t Pertains a annexation and zoning f ece for the
999
or the referenced tract for a
with Intermandeco Development Co.
DAU
r t le++i~3so~ f al3 VISTA VEZI , l aY
9
~;si-
J V rd~ t a¢ /q 9
~~'~tw~ld ~~al (J~tf,e v/i1*a Z4
! ,
g
ober t,1J~ (lee 1~(
firaN<her l
,M., 12oy sueNaL v,sta l/z
Try
, v199
M6 le Fra~,cner 4 Bue Iva V.
S20
1 Ok,rs .s ~ std I/2+1/cCJ
c v. !Pf , i~ U s
/ /~rPsdc(l~,fy Ild
1701 tkrea V~t1u r1Ry~ i
s)ev
Q.or~~y iiva,~✓.ol/.s~.e i-.041•!9
97.
ci
44-A-G' fo#-L-
~(~A'1 .....lCL.1..l~il~....~!~-~e~..._.._.. ~'.t."(►~~ III
~Ludkc illyl
lie C e lkoc V,s4, Vd-vo~ i fr~}~y
• V
I
1 r
98.
COVE=^NT:S AVID 13E5TRI4--TIONB
THE VAVfS OF M02ITECITO. PHASE I
THE STATE OF TEXAS X
X KNOW ALL HEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF DENTON X
That, Fred N. Gossett and Kent Key (Vista Verde 1, Limited
Partnership) owner and developer of The Oaks of Y.ontecito, an
Addition to the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, according
to the plat recorded in Cabinet , Page of the Plat Records
of Denton County, Texas desiring to create and carry out a
uniform plan for the development, improvement and sale of all
lots in said addition, said plan being effected in part by these
Covenants and Restrictions, as herein set forth s%il l apply
uniformly to all the lots situated in The Oaks of Hontecito,
Phase I, and these Covenants and Restrictions shall run with the
land and be binding upon all owners or purchasers of lots in said -
Addition, their heirs, successors, executors, Administrator& and
assigns, to-wit:
1. All lots shall be used for one (1) detached single-
family residences exclusively, designed for the occupancy of a
single family and reasonable and customary accessory structures
not designed or used for living quarters except by domestic
servants living on the premises. In addition to the dwelling
structure, upon the approval of the Architectural Control
Committee, there may be erected, placed, or permitted to remain
on any lot one small one story accessory building which shall be
used only for guest suite, a detached private garage or servants
quarters, provided, such structure may not have a kitchen or,
cooking equipment and each suite or quarters may not be ronted or
leased except as part of the entire promises, including the main
dwelling.
2. The enclosed dwelling area on each lot shall contain a
minimum of 2,000 square feet of heated and/or air conditioned
living space. The term "enclosed dwelling area" does not include
garages, open porches, patios, terraces, breezeways, and like
areas. Structures of more than one story shall have a ground
floor enclosed dwelling area of not less than 1,300 square feet
and sufficient enclosed dwelling area above the ground floor to
total a minimum of 2,000 square feet on all floors, Ceiling
levels on the ground floor must be a minimum of a nine (9) foot
base plate in all living areas, except as approved by the
Architectural Control Committee. !1'N
3. No structure of a temporary character (including, but
not limited to trailers, mobile homes, tents, shacks, garages,
barns, metal building or other out-buildings) shall be used on
99.
if
F. I
~fttial lot at any time as residence, whether temporarily
n•ntly.
4. Construction of new building only shall be permitted on
lot; the moving of any existing building, house, clbin or
t~rrer atruc
o h ture onto a lot is prohibited.
51 No
any point nearerltontherfront, sidesorlrear propertyolineythan at
the set-back distance ("minimum building line") designated on the
recorded plat. when not specified on the recorded plat, no
building shall be erected nearer than seven (7) feet to any side '
property line or twenty (20) feet to any back lot line, except in
the case of two or more adjoining lots being owned and used as a
single building site, in which case those Covenants and
Restrictions shall apply to such adjoining lots as though they
were one single lot for all purposes. No garage may open facing
the street, unless hidden at the beck of the property and
approved by the Architectural Control Committee) nor may any
garage be erected extending closer to the front lot line than the
main dwelling, except that the garage may extend closer to the
front lot line than the main dialling provided the Qarage is side -
entry from the nearest side property line, seven (7) feet, and if
approved the by Architectural Control Committee, No carports
shall be permitted.
A. Garage may be entered from the farthest side of the
property line if the lot is less than 80 feet in width.
6. The exterior of any dwelling erected on any residential
lot shall be of brick veneer, stone, stone veneer, or other
approved materials provided that prior written consent and
approval of such other material is given by the Architectural
Control Committee. Wood siding may be used on the sides and rear
of the second story of dwelling, on servant houses, and above
garages or other out-building or secondary buildings if approved
in writing by the Architectural Control Committee. All chimneys
that are visible from the street, must be constructed of
materials matching the exterior wall of the main structure,
unless approved in writing by the Architectural Control
committee,
7. l roofs constructed an dwli aor other
structuresxconstructed# erected, ornlocatedeuponganydLot shill be
constructed with a minimum pitch of "8 by 12" and shall be
constructed of wood shingles, slats, the or composition roofing
shingles in "earth-tone" colors having a minimum weight of 240
pounds per square, unless a variance from this restriction is
specifically approved in writing by the Architectural Control
Committee. A
8. No signs will be permitted without written approval of
committee; advertisingctha ion propoartygfor
sale or rent or signs used by any builder to advertise the
100.
l c
I
property dur!ng the construction and sale per The design,
construction, and placement of any fence, wall or hedge
shall be subject to Architectural Control Committee control.
Chain length fences are not acceptable.
9. All finished houses must be landscaped with grass,
shrubs, and provide an irrigation system for the front yard.
Retaining walls may be constructed of stone, masonry, or 11
pressure treated landscape timbers. Any exceptions must be
approved by the Architectural Committee.
10. No residential lot shall be used or maintained as for
dumping of rubbish, trash or garbage. All garbage shall be kept
in sanitary containers. Each lot owner shall be responsible for
cowtrolling weeds, grass or other unsightly growth on his
respective lot. If, at any time an owner shall fail to control
weeds, grass a:d/or other unsightly growth, the developer herein
or its assigns, shall have the right to go Into said lot for the
purpose of mowing and cleaning said lot and shall have the
authority to assess and collect from said owner of said lot the
actual cost so incurred.
11. Campers, motor homes, trailers, or truck with tonnage -
in excess of one-half (1/2) ton shall not be permitted to park on
the streets, driveways, or lots for extended periods of time;
except that any camper, motor home, mobile home, boat or trailer
may be parked on a lot if concealed from view by solid screening.
Further, no vehicle of any site which normally transports
inflammatory or explosive cargo may be kept in the subdivision at
any time, nor may any vehicle be stored or kept for purposes of
foraar minon any lot. imum amount Contractor of time only trailers until allowed on
erectediae8
model home,
12. No animals shall be raised, bred, at kept upon any lot I
except that dogs and cats or other common household pets may be
kept, provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any
commercial reasons or purposes,
13. No noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be
carried on upon any residential lot nor shall anything be done
thereon which is or may become an annoyance or nuisance to the
neighborhood.
14. Each lot owner shall provide and maintain covered
receptacles for garbage and keep the some covered, either in a
screened area not visible from the road or underground, in
accordance with reasonable standards established by the
Architectural Control Committee.
15. No exploration, drilling or mining of oil, water
gravel, or other earth or mineral substance shall be permitted on
any lot.
++r
a
16. Ito lot shall be re-plated or divided to make an
di
rad
tional lot or a portion of an additional lot excapt with the
itten consent of the Architectural Control Committee,
I
17. All dwellings constructed on any lot shall be connected
to the City of Denton utility services. If electrical and
telephone services are installed underground, connections from
primary cables to the residence will be made by each individual
lot owner at the pedestal or designated by the utility company.
1B. Ito building shall be erected, placed or altered on any
residential lot until the building plans, specifications
(including but not limited to nature, kind, shape, height,
materials and locations) and plat plans have been a.)proved in
writing by the Architectural Control Committee as to: (i)
conformity and harmony of external design with existing
structures in the subdivision and (it) location of the building
with respect to topegraphy,and finished grade elevation. This
includes out-buildings, such as for storage.
The Architectural Control Committee shall consist of
three (3) individuals selected and appointed by the developer
herein. In the event of death or resignation of any member of
the committee, the remaining members shall have the authority and 1
power to designate a successor. Each member of the Architectural
Control Committee shall neither be entitled to receive any
compensation, nor be liable for claims, caused of action or
damages arising out of the service performed pursuant to this f
covenant.
The original Architectural Control Committee, as
appointed by the developers herein, shall consist of Fred
Gossett, Kent Key, and Harry Key. Any two (2) members shall have
the authority to act on any submission to the committee, and
their decision shall be binding on all members thereof.
In the event the Architectural Control Committee fails
to approve or disapprove the building plans specifications and
plat plan within twenty (20) days after the submission of such
building plans, specifications and plat plan, such Architectural
Control Committee, approval will not be required and compliance
with this covenant will be deemed to have occurred; provided
that written notification by Certified Letter is given the
members of the Architectural Control Committee allowing ten (10)
additional days from the date of receipt of the Certified Letter
to approve or disapprove the building plans, specifications and
plat plan.
19. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions shall
be by a proceeding or proceedings at law or in equitys initiated
by a person or persons ownii;g any residential lot or by any
member of the Architectural Control Committee, against any person
or persons violating or attempting to violate any covenant or
restriction herein contained, either to restrain violation or to
102.
1
l
recover damages for the violation, or both. The Architectural
Control Committee, and each of its Od 30 an election and right, but not an obligation ormouty, lasenEorce
these covenants and restrictions by proceeding of proceedings at
law or in equity,
20. Violation or failure to comply with these covenants and
restrictions shall not affect the validity of any mortgage,
bonafide lien or other similar security instrument which may be
e$
then existing on any residential lot. Invalidation of h
these covenants and restrictions, or any portion thereoE,ybyna of
judgement or court order shall not affect any of the other
provisions or covenants herein contained, which shall remain in
full force and effect. Any dead or legal instrument (except
deeds of trust, mortgages or other similar security agreements)
Purporting to convey, transfer or asaign any interest in any land
in The Oaks of Montecito, phase I shall contain %ppropristo
language to subject the land within such conveyance, transfer or
assignment to all the covenants and restrictions set forth
herein,
21. All of the above and foregoing covenants are to run
claiming underathemhfor aeperiodnofothi lrt parties and al: parsons
dale hereof, unless an instrument signed b (ii3hty pe from the
of the then owners of the lots has been exa:uted anderecorded80'1),
agreeing to change, amend, modify or extinguish said covenants
and restrictions in whole or in part,
22. Any restriction contained'herein relating to
construction of irprovements may be waived or variance therefrom
may be granted by the Architectural Control Committee in an
impairdthe harmonupon iousadeshowing velopmentthat ofsuch
saidvAdditionwould the omarket
value of existing buildings.
4
i
rr~ .
103.
•
C
l£
fil
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the undersigned has caused this
instrument to be executed in its ame and o is behalf by its
duly authorized office this the-!?::day of
v
Vista Verde 1, Limited Partnership
8y ~Gr.~i~
Ken Rey
i
STATE OF TEXAS X
' E
COUNTY OF DENTON X I
P,PJW appeared 8 'Patalgned, on this day personally
be the
person and o" icer who a me !s subscribed toothetfor
egoing
thnsetsaidrumenVIt and VERDE Mio me that
same was the Let a Corporation, of
that he executed the some as the act of such corporation for the
purposes and consideration therein expressed, and In the capacity
therein stated.
r
GIVEN UND NY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the
day of
Notar4fu ein 4anor the State of Texas
Hy commission expires ' ~i~r
I r
e•narta~eD
vlefkr dow 101.
~~ti
r
c:
A.
instrumentltoHbeNexecutedOin.its name and non its behalf byiif.a
July authorised office this thq_f~_day of~,
Vista Verde 1, Limited Partnership
By
Fred Gossett
STATE OF TEXAS X _
COUNTY OF DENTON X 1
earedSEFARE M
,AW undeVigned, on this day persona
app lly
~'~~"'L=~ , known to be the
person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing
instrument and acknowledged to me that the same was the act of
the said VISTA VERDE I, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Corporation, and
that he executed the some as the act of such corporation for the
purposes and consideration therein expressed, and in the capacity
therein stated.
GIVEN DER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the
day of
tart' Public
c~in and for the State'of Texas
My commission expires-- O . p
A,
oawws>r~r {
~~.arer
ha.rr,a~a"41
105.
r
c~
I
I
HANGOUT TO COUNCIL 210100
4
Executive Re-Cap
( Lone Star Gas Company
Executive Summary of Consultants Report
Denton Distribution System
February 21 1999
Lone Stec Gas Comparry's last rate increase for Denton occurred In January 1982. The October 23,
1998 request for a 6 24°/. revenue increase 6 remna bit in light of the fact that the Consumer Price
Index was up 95% for the same time period. Few Wsinessee or government entWes, if any, have
operated as efficiently over this same period of time.
DUCT recommended a level of operating and maintenance expenses per customer similar to the level
Lone Star Gas actually experienced In 1980.
The Railroad Commission realized In Docket 8664 Ast it was not prudent to adjust operating
expenses due to the changing nature of the organization. In fact they recommended a speckle time
be established to review actual operating expenses to Insure smy savings are passed to the customers.
The proposed Cod of Service Adjustment (COSA) would serve that purpose for the City of Denton
without having to file expensive rate cases to measure Increases or decreases In operating expenses.
C The Gas Wity Regulatory Act (GURA) gives regulators the authority to determine rates based on
what is reawaable.
This Lone Star rate case is patterned after it's 1996 Railroad Commission ruling in Docket 8664 and ,
supported by other past distribution cases.
i
i
ti
I
I
A
~ t
6S I
1
f
i
Fxecutive Summary
Lone Star Gas Company
Denton Distribution System
{ Comments on Consultant's Report
These comments respond to the above referenced review by Diversified Utility Consultants Inc. (DUCT).
In general, the differences between Lone Star's request and the cr+ssultant's recommendation are
recognized within the Texas Utilities Code which allows for a meeting of the minds as to what is
reasonable.
Given the fact that Lone Star's last rate increase for Denton occurred In January 1982, and that this filing
has been patterned after our last Railroad Commission Docket 8664, the 6 24% increase request Is
reasonable and modest.
L DUCI Uses a 10 54,10 Return ou Equity, Resulting in a Reduction to Lone Star's 11%
Request of Approximately (page 80, chart 81) $28,0)0
LSO Response • The RAItroad Commission granad Southern Union an 1125% return on
equity in Gas Utilities Docket No. 8378, Consolidated (Appeal or Southern Union from the
Anion of the City of El Paso. Final Order, dated November 17, 1998). Lone Star's method Is
reamnrble.
1. DUCI Reduces Invested Capital by Eliminating Construction Work In Progress (CW1P)
Resulting in a Reduction from Lane Star's Request of App: uximately (page 82) $13,000
LSO Response - DUCI rcmmcd s IUI.192 or CWIP from rate base, All of this amount at
Dcuember 31. 1997, gwmnts non-m enue producing AI P that is now in scm1ce and would
be allmcd by the $aitraad t nmmiiuiua based on action taken In Docks W4. Lone Star's
method Is reasonable.
3 DUCI Lowers Invested Capital by Using Negative Cash Working Capital of $218,846
Resulting in a Reduction from Lone Star's Request of Approximately (page 83) $28,000
LSO Response - The 8ailmadKitiatabda sL,ted in Docket No. 8664 that Lone Star's cash
working capital balance of rcro is reasoasble
4, DUCI Lowers the Company's Proposed Depreciation Expense by Approximately
,page 84) $97,00
ISO Response • DUCI rcanmmendcd the Ai crate Lifc Group (ALG) mobodologv, Equal life
Group tELG) mcibodolop used by Lone Star was approved by the RAHmasLKitsissisigalm in
Lone Star's City Gate Rule Case. Docket 8664. The BailmdSamWiaalm Order stated,
°necause it provides a more accurate estimate of k actual consumption of property,
the U0 depreclauon proccdura rcqucstod by .one Star Is reasonable,"
i
DUCI also recommcndod changing net sokage calculations. The AMOnA in '
Docket 8664 approved Lane Star's salvage calculations Including IN way It used
reimbursements In its salvage calculations. The A&tMLCmjali+aku Order dated.
"The service h%cs and salvage values proposed by Lone Star are reasonable"
fib
i
II
i
c
r.
r S. DUCT Incorrectly Determines the Level of Test Year Customers and Volumes Which
\ Increases the Margin from Present Rates by (page 85) $59,988
ISO Response • DUCI appammly Ws nlerpreted the t yne Star adjustments because the actual
numbers prmed the Iost year alcuirtions correct. The $a11mdSignalaola has acceplod
Lone Stars customer adjustment methodology in plot appals, es have numerous
municipaiitA and other consultam. Lone Star's method Is reasonable,
6. DUC I's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of (page 87) 539,251
LSO Response • The oaslomer allocation used by Lone Star for the Lid 2S yeah has been
accepted by the 1iWhWLlsaWW / In pad Lone Sur appeals and by the cities slut lone Star
sencs, Lone We method Is reasonable,
7. DUC I's Adjustment to Operating and Maintenance Expenses of (page 88) $19,596
LSO Response • DUCT has incorrectly swatted that the Compr..ty is proposing a phantom
adjustment.
I
The overage number of residential and commercial customers rot the twelve months ended June
30, 1998 are 16,141 and 2,106 mWolvely. These mrmben ore lower than what the Company
had proposed for December 31, 1997, which shows that the Company': adjustmenl is
consenative and reamable (pa;es/charu 90.91).
8 DUC I Reduced Labor )expenses for a Reduction in Employees by (page 92) $113,424
l LSO Respo. • These empl" reductlona did rot take ptoce all atom. they took plea over
moral months o 1997. Some employed were called beckon a temporary basis while odwn
taut bmi replaced lane Star's treatment of this tabor expenss is a "timary business practice
it a reorganizing company and Is reasonable.
9, DUC I's Adjustments to Operation and Maintenance Expenses of (page 93) $106,061
LSO Response • DUCI sucru that 9 accounts have been o*mod by using a )year average r
(1993.1997) of these accounts due to higher level costa in 1997, It Is not possible to determine
If this Ausiment has merit no detail was prmtdtd by the couwlum. lone Star's O&M
eapcrues are ream able,
10. Other (including Other Taxes and LUG) $27,000
Total DUC( Adjustments $531,320
{
67
,
t.
Non Revenue Items
( Weather Normalization Adjustment (WNA) 94
• The City nrcmly' apprmod the ANA m it wJq pmpuxd. In duing so, :he City joined 297 other cities Ben ed
by Lone Star w ho lure approved a WNA a ithm t amend rent. DUCT does not oppose Allowing the WNA
to continue. because the City has already, oppwn cd a WNA whlch is designed to be m enue neutral.
• DUCI recommends this the residential and commercial margins be specifically stated In the, '.uae. Lone
Sar is not opposed to specifically listing the mar ?ins. The 297 ciUcs (see page 93) serval try lane Star who
tuiw apprmed WNAs have not required the margin to be specifically stated Lone Star's proposed WNA
Is reasonable
Proposed Cost of Service Adjustment (COSA) 96
• Lone Star has proposed the approval of a Cost of Service Adjustment clause to address annual changes in
the emt of senior. Approval of this clause will allniate any concerns the City may hit regarding future
merger sa,ings being passed on to customers in a timely manner.
• The MA Is mat automatic in that the City can miew and adjust it anytime, particulary, when the annual
statement Is filed with the City each April,
• More than 130 or Lone Sloi s Cities have COSA in erred. (ace page 97)
• The COSA ncrea a M Uds rSfptli W mom. COSA IOU Cities the time slid effort or dealing with fail-
blown rate crass by making minor adjustments to the rate Lone Star will present any information that the
City dcsires And will make any presentation to the City It requests.
` • COSA opemtes In both diroctions - doeneases m well as Ineroom - and is limited to the amount of Inflation,
Adjustments are made In May. when gas bills destine to their lowest lcvets, with the Adjustment typlcaly
ranging around A 239 per month. Lore Star's proposed COSA is reasonablt. (pages 101.106)
Proposed Plant Investment Cost Adjustment (PICA) . , 98
• The PICA is not automatic in that the City can renew and o4* It sn)time, particularly when the annual
sutemenl is riled with the City each April
• PICA Usti Cities the time and effort of dealing with N11- 1
blown rate cases by making minor adjustments to rates
• PICA allows Lane Star to request rate Increases teas often
• PICA operates in both dimUoro - danmu s well as Increases -in growing Areas. will tikey be Increases.
PICA adjustments are made In May. wit.. a annual adjusimcnl tinging from a minus It per month too
plus We per month. (sac page 99)
• PICA is limited to the oWo%at rote or return (whkh lacks In the cos( of . spiral at historical low Inch).
• PICA Is currently authorised in g Lone Star Cttks (Balch Springs. Coleman. Granbuty, Grand Prairie,
Mesquite, Muensict. Seagmillt and Sunn)iak) and this proposed s0istment is reuauble.
68
r
Lone Star's Denton Commitment
0
0
• Service Since 1912
• Community Redevelopment 0
0
• Economic Development Partnership Z
0
- Airport Expansion
- City Partnership w/ Chamber
Campus Theater, Arts Council, Jazz Fest
• Support of UNT & TWU and DISD
• Responsive to Customers and City `
219199 1
h
a
C t ' I
I
I
I
i
I
"Rate making 'i's more of an art
than a science."
Former Abilene City Attorney
r:
2/9199 2
7- 1 yn I
f
C
u
'C`i rrxr »e ~;a y,tiK~tr;•f.v.: .b u':~ <,p- .
c
State Law gives you the right and
discretion to determine rates
based on what is reasonable.
219199 3
it
i
C'
i
+II
I
i
Dual Role as a Regulator
I
• Protect the custo,aners interest, health,
safety, and general welfare. '
• Protect the interests of Lone Star Gas by
providing a reasonable opportunity to
recover reasonable expenses and earn a
reasonable return on its' investment
2/9/99 4
f
'1 {
I
A
History - Gas Rates
• Last rate adjustment was 17 years ago 1982
- 1980 Test Year (12 month snap shot)
- New Chevrolet - $6500 (Now $20,000)
- Minimum Wage - $2.90 (Now $5.15)
- Dow Jones Avg. - 800 points (Now 9000)
• Consultant unreasonably recommends
O&M cost/customer be at 1980 level.
• What business/govt. entities have operated
at this level?
I
2/9/99 3
r
f6
Reasonable Request
• 6.24% increase in annual revenues
• Average Residential Increase $2,53/month
• January 1982 last request
• Consumer Price Index up 95%
• Customer has realized benefits of declining
i
gas costs through monthly GCA,
2!9'99 6
i
Reasonable Request
• Lone Star patterned this request after the
1996 Railroad Commission Docket 8664,
by Cate Rate and supported by other past
distribution cases.
• Lone Star has consistently maintained one
of the lowest operating costs per customer
of any major gas distribution company in
Texas.
2/9199 7
r
ti
Basic Business Formula for
Setting Rates
Distribution Gas Cost Return
~ Operating 1 ; ~
Revenue = At + Expenses + Taxes + on
Requirement City Gate Investment
RCT Sets
Cities consider these items in
determining distribution rates.
V
219'99 8
c
u
t
Rate Making
• Revenue Requirement Rate Design
Cost of Gas - City Gate - Residential Class
Rate set by RCT - Commercial Class
0 & M Expenses - Service Charges
- State, Local & Fed Tax
- Return on Investment
2/9/99 9
t
,
c
I
I
I`
j
COMPARISON OF AN AVERAGE BILL
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
USING 5.2 MCF USING 30, MCF
Denton Present Rate $24.17 $120.77
Proposed Rate $26.70 $119.32
Grand Prairie $26.80 $136.91
Lewisville $28.08 $137.81
Carrollton $24.92 $129.57 )
Mesquite $28.02 $130.42
t
10
I
f'
1 i
Q] tF3:lb tv. eA:n rA*f ICI'
HAlVae7UT TO COUNCIL 2/0/06
META
DEbcr+otour
3
February S. 1999
Mr. David Hili
Ms• Trina McElreath,
Plauming and Development
City of Denton
City 1W West
221 N. Elm
Denton, TX 76201
Re: Ryan Tract Zoning
Dear David and Trine:
We would tike to formally requed dw ow Ryan Tract Annexation and Zoning Cam ba aPIh into
separate cams for voting pwposcs for the City Cour4r7 meetitg on Tuesday, February 0. The
reason for this request is that we are in the process of reducing the density of the project and is is
my understanding dint tb* cuff would like to review the PD d.ul plats In fu cbmkpd
configuration at DRC before the City Council Zoning vote.
For the record, the overall lot tma wbeo we oryia0y submitted was 341, including the h"
eastern tract. Ibis was educed to 321 at PAZ, and Aw conversation whb due nelgbbohmod
will be ultimately reduced to about 234 lots in our Mal submkuL 7bls brings the overall density
to 2.49 units pcr acre.
Therefore, it would be our rcquen to continue our current tract with the anba><ation cam and ask
' ~I
the C>'h' Council to vote on this item at February 9" but postpooa the 2AOing Herring1Vore until
February le, Wa approciate your patience in this "tter.
Sincerely,
MESA DESIGN O~•P~OUP
Tary eerbum
Sr. Principal
tke
cc. Cary Cobb, Intermandeeo
issam Ku=ou% Intermandeco
Mike Neitsel, NeWti
~'AlEif J1T01WFS~ IAQA!rfS1k PlOWEtTSAflJI.Ida Trecrprne~ TaJnf'Ce^+Pe"J'"n'~.ke
ll~rruW laclw'lt..M1+ra
stay MdOrrW Seed I W%W U ISt f DAMU. ton "I
t11pr14Stt rrrt7[nrl•tSar
e
us MOT
V. C65 W3
MESA
"VGN dour r3
February 3. 1999
Ms. Trina Finney
Mr. David Fill
Planning and Development
City of Deaton
City Hall wen
221 N. EM
Denton. TX 76201
Re: RyaaTract Zonlag
Neighberhood Cornmllmeats
Dar Trina and Dave:
WetheOak wansf toed to Mo ounttlinito:
eeeour response and wtnmipnent to the comments from the neighborhood of
1.
I
At the request of the neighborhood sad coarracnb we received 9om same of the City
Ceuncilmerti we are going to eliminate 6000 s.f. lots from the projeete MVM this land
area to 7000 s.f. minimums and leave the remaining areas of 7000 if and 10.000 s,f
minimums in place, Out average lot size will be betweea 1300 and !C- 'O s,f, J
Pads hand Drd_S4 l
We continue no stand by our commitment of dedicating approumately 30 acres of L,.rod
ptsin to the City as public park This cxcft& the 3 aefe park equ
substantially. to addition, we are making available to the Crry as addmt'oaal k l0 ijerse of
,ton-tloodplain land for purchase at raw land coWrrAA """a for a period of four years.
lithe City purchases this pnoparty ie wili become park land is
not purchase the roPermy u. use lithe City a doft
C
property R would revert to resldeatial single family with 10,000 sE
lot minimums and we will ask for that as the but zoning,
3• T~£p~at~on
i
11 is our intent to follow the sukdivisioa regulations in regatds to tree preservation. We
intend to preserve AU off she floodplain 11 , is and b m.ay of the fto In the lots as
possible. Tree removals will occur is the rigIA of ways and in the building pad arils
which is about 50/. of the lot area, The neighbodooodkommunity is welcome to do a
tree rescue program on the property after streets am laid out provided it is coordinated /
with she civil cngioccr, + e ,
1Wr6i1 A701wfZtPRAIEY'fl10rPRnr[C7S19l/J~./tavvefnn-0eneetwiyKa»{oena4~n4rU+P~ 1
uyr «emer..e,e.
Lrlvc pe kUJncnrh
atoa secK mots ?beef/Su► /00 ll 1S2 I Dollar, hus JS20t
211A1I-0l61 Fn 71110/1.1517
I t•
c;
a=. os. ~ ta: o^ l a. eES 1700.
4. Deed Restri 'ons
It is the iateot of Grccrmsndoco to have deed sestrietiou u drey bave on all pt4eats
whicb encourage goad quality home 4oastruction. We will try to follow the s*is of die
Oaks of Mootecito deed recvietiom u a whole. We will commit to thr following iterne
requested by the neighborhood u follows:
a. The minimum square footage of residences on 7000 s.f. krts will be 1700 sad an
10,000 s.t. lots - 2000 s,L miolmum living arm
b. The exterior surfaa material of the residemes will be 1S% mnsoory net of windows
and doorc
c, Roof pitches will be "S in 12" oe r ppropristc pitches u detemdaed by the market.
d. Side and rear cosy gataM will be encog by all buitden. however. some 9om
entry garages win be allowed.
e. All oshv deed restrictions in the Oaks of Montalto we M are hkly suaWd to
good gvauft subdivisions and out inters would be b provide simile dad
restrictions for the R4u Tract subdivision.
Sincerely,
MESA DESIGN GROUP ll'fft?RMANDECO
q7y rn Cary Cobb
Principal
dct
cc: Brenda Phillips, Oaks of Montecito Neighborhood Assoc.
Issam Karanouh, latcmundeeo
Kke Ncitul, Neitztl Real Estau
Warren Corwin, Corwin Engineering
rwesi,rvtvr,vtst rRCVECmse pRarr~crswlsr.~y.e r.«..eow~t.+gke~q~iwrsUaaa~«se.x.~a
t
I
1-IANOOU7 TO COUMCItL. 2/9/90
/ t
Post arming and Zoning' Lose the SF6, we want higher SF Agreed to SF7 and SH 0
a 102 bomes in SF6 Boning designations, SF I3
I 156 homes In SF7 overlay.
I 63 homes in SFIO ' ' -
a SF 10 oveda - _
2.97 units per acre Less density 2,49 units per acre
341 times re-W decisis,n Fewer tames 284 57 fewer homes
Possible building on the eastern Don't touch the eastern trans Agreed, 4 year time limit to sell
tracts (20+ homes) of the 31,47 to city (Parks Dissector agrees,
park dedication (required to give City stafr4grees, City Council
3+ acres by city) amenable), Combination of OaR-
of Momecito, Ryan Tract, anJ
Riveroaks - 69+ acre park and
greenbelt, will tie to Southlakes
and Forrestridge to the north and
eventually extend to Ponder and t
Lake Lewisville (though Corps
of Engineer land). Park
smenities: soccer field, paWiotR
undeibridge crossing, picnic C1
tables, "soft" trail for hikia
SF tit avKage • 7? 9700 requested, with 8200 being Average lot site will be between
lowest lot size 7500-8000
"Quality bones"; post P&Z SF 6 Follow Oaks of hfontecito deed Agreed to `spirit" ofdeed
trade would start with 1400 SF restrictiuns; city requests no a SF 1700 min in SF7 a
homes (102 homes), some homes homes in Roodplarn a SF 2000 min in SF 10
In Floodplain a Roofpitches s In 12/mkt.
Side and rest entry, some
front
a No hon.ss in hood lain
Follow landscape ordinance Preserve trees, natural Save all trees in I)oodplain, cut
topography, tuned stints AND trees on building pad, roads, .
landscape ordinance rights of way (exceeds landscape
ordinance)
Tree rescue
Some curved drects were in plan
. ltJc, ,Qtic~ tf-~~~ ~,GYt•(-l. 7111~a~'J c~ ; ~a~
is-
Nr ,
Idol
1 ~1 o t disr~ `d~,►lec~, he~/r,~ a ~5f y~ sot- ,
f~ ~r r 4
11~ (fJ)~ rOJ~(~]+C-.f/[l [lV7~Iyr~S~~1 es r~ ley
1~17'.rJ YV r
Vol
ICU
i
• 11 ' :lr~ a n'Y .,'zee wt, i t
07.
i
Gcf
rgc1 Vj$kVe - {
/ao~J aor
/.Too, St~• s V1 1 9W .4,4 ae
11.1{ wtw, el ~o pit.
C~'~ 1 to q Uis
V~f
~,s , . u VlD~0. Ijj d.
c
.47
i
f / S~ l ~<779 1/s. per.
Jul O l 4201
//o
5 . ~CAj k STS.
A ! //D.3iiilo T/~i>tc
f rod,
Ouk
ti
i
t, I
END OF
FILE
f