Minutes October 18, 1988269
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
October 18, 1988
The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the
Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council received a presentation regarding the
Industrial Pretreatment Program
Howard Martin, Environmental Services Administrator, presented
the program objectives which were to prevent POTW interference,
prevent POTW pass through, improve recycling capabilities of
wastewater effluent and sludges, enforce categorical standards,
and reduce health and environmental risks. He listed those
industrial users who were monitored. He stated that the EPA
had audited the program in June and had determined required
program modifications and recommended program changes. The
required modifications included developing technically based
local limits by 1991, developing an enforceable contract for
extrajurisdictional wastewater contributors to the Denton
system, beginning routine monitoring of cyanide and total toxic
organics, and initiating inspections and monitoring of
University of North Texas, Texas Woman's University, and area
hospitals. The recommended program changes included issuing
permits to Denton State School, University of NOrth Texas, and
Texas Woman's University, modifying and expanding the permit
format to remove any ambiguity, developing a standardized
industrial user inspection forms, developing a written
enforcement/response guidance document and reassess current
staffing to ensure program effectiveness. Martin provided
information on how levels of metals had been reduced over the
last four years. He stated that there was good rapport with
industries in the area and that they worked closely with them
to help them get into EPA compliance. The audit confirmed the
need for additional staff in the program.
2. The Council convened into Executive Session in the
City Manager's Conference Room to discuss legal matters
(discussed and considered retaining counsel to represent the
City in the Flow bankruptcy litigation), real estate
(considered selection of a site for a new fire station), and
personnel and board appointments.
27O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 2
The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT:
Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting of September 6, 1988, the special call meeting
of September 13, 1988, the regular meeting of September 20,
1988.
Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the minutes as
presented. Motion carried unanimously.
e
The Council received an update from the '91 Committee.
Jack Miller, Chairman of the '91 Committee, stated that the
Committee's purpose was to review the spending of funds for
previous bond programs and the '91 CIP. The highlights of the
programs included: (1) Oak-Hickory Streets - the project was
proceeding with a lot of input from residents and staff, (2)
Teasley Lane - the project was moving rapidly ahead, (3) Bonnie
Brae - the project would be out for bid near the end of the
year, (4) Woodrow Lane/Burning Tree Drainage/Bridges - the
project was over budget due to buying of right-of-way which was
not anticipated and the Committee was recommending using funds
from the Highway Department, (5) Martin Luther King, Jr.
Recreation Center - construction was progressing well, (6)
Senior Center - also progressing well, (7) Traffic Controllers
on Carroll and University - the controllers were up and the
computers were in with the software being completed.
3. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the
City of Denton, Texas, providing for the abolishment of the
Lakeview Road Utility District. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 3
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-164
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING
FOR THE ABOLISHMENT OF THE LAKEVIEW ROAD UTILITY
DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, state that this was a proposed
ordinance for the abolishment of the Road Utility District that
was created by the 70th Legislature which was entitled the
"Lakeview Road Utility District" and would have allowed for the
construction of the arterial street and other accessory streets
for the project from I35 to U.S. Highway 380. In accordance
with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
in their consideration of Z-008-013 (Lakeview) and Z-1861
(Southview), it was recommended to abolish the road utility
district. In accordance with State procedures, there had to be
a vote of 2/3's of the entire membership of the City Council in
order to abolish the Road Utility District.
Ayer motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of ordinance approving a planned development and
concept plan on property currently zoned planned development
(PD-126) and agricultural (A). Applicant was RMB, Inc. The
request included approximately 867.8 acres of property located
south of U.S. Highway 380 along Trinity Road and Lake
Lewisville and extended approximately 2,400 feet south of FM
426 (East McKinney Street). The property was more fully
described as a part of the Moreau Forrest Survey, Abstract 417,
and the William D. Durham Survey, Abstract 330. If approved,
the following land uses would be permitted:
Single Family - 10 - 171.0 acres with a
density of 3.2 units per acre
Single Family - 7 - 226.8 acres with a
density of 4.3 units per acre
Single Family Attached - 64.4 acres with a
density of 10 units per acre
Cluster Homes - 88.1 acres with a density of
8 units per acre
271
272
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 4
Multi-Family - 59.8 acres with a density of
25 units per acre
Office - 18.2 acres
Neighborhood Service - 12.0 acres
General Retail - 49.7 acres
Light Industrial - 35.8 acres
Community Facility - 10.0 acres
School/Park - 30.2 acres
Park - 34.3 acres
Right-of-way - 67.5 acres
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.) Z-88-013.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Alexander Bascom, Robert Bass and RMB Realty, spoke in favor.
He introduced members of his team who had accompanied him to
the meeting.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF MINUTES IS VERBATIM FROM THE
TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING.
Bascom: I believe in the last four months, we have made more
progress on this controversial case, than in the previous four
years. This progress has come directly as a result of more
reasonable expectations on our part, continued hard work by
your staff, and a willingness on the part of the Planning and
Zoning commissioners as well as yourselves, the Council people,
to meet with me in order to try and build a more reasonable
consensus on this case. Our application this evening
represents our attempts to be more responsive to the interests
and nature of Denton as well as the ideas and issues you have
shared. I truly hope this proposal indicates our commitment to
creating and nurturing an effective partnership with the City
of Denton. This partnership can serve as a foundation upon
which to create a planned development you will be proud of now
and in the future. As preface to my comments to Lakeview, I
would like to focus your attention on a critical aspect of this
evenings material not previously discussed. That is looking at
both projects combined rather than as two separate projects.
An idea which has merit and seems reasonable given the fact
that there is a six lane road that serves as spine connecting
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 5
273
both projects. Obviously, density and intensity are an
important considerations unto themselves and as they reflect
the nature of the proposed development. During your
deliberations this evening, as they relate to each case
individually and collectively, please keep in mind two facts.
Intensity, overall for both projects combined calculated on a
gross basis, is 5% under the Guide standards. Density, overall
for both projects combined calculated on a gross basis, is 4.2
dwelling units per acre. Also, I would direct your attention
to the overall reductions and deletions that have taken place
over the course of the last four months for both projects. We
have deleted 600,000 square feet of retail, 2.1 million square
feet of office, 955 apartment units, 466 single family units
and we have increased our community facilities acreage by 9
acres. As an overview of our Lakeview plan, the node at Mills
Road has been deleted completly, we have decreased the number
of apartments in the north by 205 acres or 950 some odd
dwelling units, we have removed in excess of 460 residential
units, we have increased the parks by 4 acres and we conform
with all separation policies. Resulting from this proposal are
the following accomplishments, intensity for the entire
Lakeview has been reduced from 108% over to 5% under the
standards established in your Guide, calculated on a gross
basis. Density has been dramatically reduced from 16 units per
acre to 4.7 units per acre calculated on a gross acreage
basis. Our park land dedication exceeds the City requirement
by some 47% and we have recently agreed to pay for an
additional reclamation of 6 acres. People per acre has been
decreased from 25 to 13.9 people per acre and finally the node
at McKinney is 0% over the Guide requirements, that is that it
meets the standards as set out by the Guide. As with the other
portion of our project, to be reviewed later, we are committed
to dedicating right-of-way for and incrementally building a six
lane road. The ordinance passed this evening reflects our
commitment to work with you to abolish the RUD. In addition,
the language in the ordinance prohibiting the future use of the
RUD was suggested by us and is completly acceptable. Let me
close by saying why I chose to be an owner in this property.
The City of Denton is most unusual in its size and nature as
well as its presence of respected universities. The conversion
of Lake Lewisville will provide a remarkable entity blending it
with water and recreation with planned neighborhoods. The
topography and trees of our property offer a tremendous
opportunity to integrate housing into a system or spine of
parks. These assets and attributes creatively blended with
attention to sound planning and quality will afford the City of
Denton a wonderful and controlled growth opportunity to support
future job formation. Thank you for your time and
consideration.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 6
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. Bascom. Any Council Member have
a question for Mr. Bascom. Thank you sir. Is there anyone
else who would like to speak in favor of this proposal. Please
come forward.
Jack Miller, 1006 Burning Tree Parkway, Denton: I'm wearing a
different hat than I was a few minutes ago. I come before you
as a member of the Denton Chamber of Commerce and as Chairman
of the Board of the Denton Chamber of Commerce. We don't
normally come in and talk about individual requests for changes
in planning and zoning but after thinking about this when we
felt that we should speak about it. In speaking about it, we
need to speak for it. You've got a tough job and you've done a
great job over the years in terms of helping Denton to grow and
to grow sensibly. The Planning and Zoning Commission has a
difficult job. This project has had a difficult time up to
this point. But I think what we see here is a cooperation and
a coordination and a compromise of all parties to where we are
going to be able to see that land develop in a sensible way.
Now, not everybody is going to agree with that. But land in
Denton is going to develop and we want it to develop in a
reasonable way. Whether it be land for offices, parks,
schools, industries, whatever. And the way that this has
worked out between the City staff and with the developer, we
think it makes a lot of sense. We recommend that you do
approve it. We feel that the vote here is not just a vote on
an individual project. There are other developers from Dallas
and Fort Worth and other locations that also think like we do
that Denton is a great place to be. And there are people who
want to come in and I am convinced that they do it on a
responsible way, they want it to be a better community as
well. But if we just say no tO all projects, we're going to
issue a message to developers outside of Denton that we don't
want any development. And I don't think that as a City we can
afford to do that. So I think that this is in keeping with the
guidelines that were spelled out. The changes that were made,
make a lot of sense, we think. And we really believe that it
is to the best interest of the community and that the vote you
make here will not only be a vote for this project but will
issue a signals for other people who are trying to also develop
in the City of Denton.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. Miller. Any questions Council
might have for Mr. Miller? Thank you sir. Is there anyone
else in the audience who would like to speak in favor of this
proposed ordinance? Anyone else to speak, please come forward.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 7
Kay Wilkinson, Route 2, Box 617A, Denton: Route 2, Box 617 A
in the City of Denton which is the corner of Highway 380 and
Trinity Road on the southwest corner. Which is included in the
15 acre triangle outside of the RMB zoning request. There has
been a concern on my part and I have discussed with the City
and before the Zoning Commission my concerns. Overall, I am in
favor of the RMB proposal. It is very beneficial to the City.
But I have reservations in accordance with my residential
property because we are currently zoned agricultural, it is my
home, it is a residence. And with the intensity levels, there
has been some concern with the 15 acres being included or not
being included. That at the time that anyone in that 15 acres
would desire rezoning due to the fact to maintain the value of
their property, that they may not be able to do so if they are
not included in the intensity levels and RMB would take up all
those intensity levels. I have been assured through
conversations over and over again, that this 15 acres will be
considered in some way so that if we do desire to rezone, to
maintain our market value on that property, to afford us the
capability of moving somewhere place else, because we will have
to move. Our property will abutt the light industrial and so
we are really going to be locked out as a residential piece of
property where we would want to continue to live and we need to
be afforded the capability of rezoning our property at a future
date and be included in those intensity levels.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mrs. Wilkinson. Any Council Member
have a question for Mrs. Wilkinson?
Council Member McAdams: No. But I would like to say something
in response to what she is saying because I think too often
we've had people, when a zoning case was taking place, make the
assumption that I will support this, because it's going to
enable me to do something else with my property later on. Now
she says she's been talking with staff and she has assurances.
You know, I think she needs to understand, there is no
assurance whatsoever that that land would ever zoned for
anything higher than single family and perhaps large tracts.
That any time you start to look at an area, the whole area may
be looked at and the intensity in the entire area will
generally be considered. So, I don't want you to go away from
here tonight thinking that somehow you have a promise, that is
not worth the air is was breathed into, that you are going to
be able to do something with your property. You may, but that
is strictly chance and depending on whomever sits here, and you
don't have any assurance that staff recommendation is going to
be in favor of that either. And I just want to make that very
clear.
275
276
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 8
Mayor Stephens: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
audience who would like to speak in favor.
Ben Pinnell, Route 13, Box 135, Denton: I am here to
compliment and pat on the back RMB Corporation. When I moved
to Denton some six year ago after analyzing properties and
places to buy, one of the areas I did not consider buying was
the southeast quadrant of Denton due to the mishmash of
utilities; mishmash of roadways through there; the difficulties
of mixed patterns of housing, especially out towards the lake,
some of the lower priced stuff that had been built out there.
And for a company to come in and to assemble as much land as
they have to solve the problems of people from Aubrey
eventually getting to Dallas, through their six lane divided
roadway and solving a lot of the City of Denton's problems.
The City needs to take a hard look at granting them even more
than they ask because of the immense risk they are taking and
they have already taken and the moves that they have made to
increase the values of properties of everybody in that area and
to bring an area that had been somewhat, maybe a step-child
neighborhood, into one that will blend into Oakmont, its great
development and pull its fine residential development on
through the lake.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. Pinnell. Any questions for Mr.
Pinnell? Thank you sir. Is there anyone else in the audience
who would like to speak in favor of this proposal? Anyone else
in favor of Z-008-0137 Any one else in favor? Then is there
anyone in the audience who would like to speak in opposition to
this proposal for this planned development?
Mitchell Turner, 2118 Stonegate: I appreciate the relationship
that Mr. Bascom is trying to develop with the City of Denton
and with some of its people in the last four months,
particularly. And I also realize that some fairly significant
changes have been made in the PD you are considering tonight
but I still submit it does not meet some of the quality of life
standards that the people of Denton have become accustomed to.
Specifically, there are too many residential units, the people
density is too high, the moderate node at 380 is too big.
Attachment 10 tells the story on residential units. In the low
intensity area, there are 5.3 units to the acre versus 4.7 in
the Guide which you will find on page 21 of the Guide. Some
may think this is not much but it is a variance of 315 units
and this is enough to house some 1,000 people. Reducing 1,000
people out of this development would be a great benefit.
Secondly, the people density per developed acre, as Mr. Bascom
has indicated, is 14 versus 6.5 in the Guide, you will find
that on page 8. The housing mix is part of this problem. The
Guide strongly encourages housing diversity which you will find
on page 24 of the Guide and there is a good diversity from
SF-10 down. But there is nothing above. What's happened to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 9
SF-13 and SF-16? I guess people would have to go Oakmont.
There is a simple solution to this overage of residential units
and also this would be beneficial to lowering the people
density at the same time. That would be to upgrade some of the
SF-attached to SF-7, to upgrade some of the SF-7 to SF-10 and
to upgrade some of the Sf-10 to Sf-13. And this is an area
which could be negotiated. The size of the moderat, e node at
380 and Lakeview is also a major problem. This is 101.6 acres,
all on the south side of 380. RMB does not own all of the land
on the south side of 380 and it leaves no room for enlarging on
the north side of 380 to expand this moderate node. Also, the
intensity standard in this moderate node is exceeded by 25%.
It's 125% of the standard for this node. There are 73.8 acres
out of this 101.6 that are light industrial, general retail and
office and with this preponderance in commercial, the size of
this node should be closer to 30 acres including multi-family
and community facility according to the Guide, page 17. The
solution for this would be to convert some of this 101.6 acres
to residential other than multi-family. Also, I fear that we
are going to be creating a traffic conjestion on East
McKinney. In addition to this large node at 380, there also is
another one, 98 acres, at East McKinney and Lakeview Blvd. and
all the people will not be going from Aubrey to Dallas. All of
them are not going to be going southeast. Many of the people
are going to be coming into Denton and they will be on East
McKinney and East McKinney will be overloaded. Ten years ago
my wife and I chose to move to Denton. We found neighborhoods
that were not crowded. We found that there were few traffic
problems and during the ten years, we have experienced a
quality of life which we never experienced in large cities.
And I just hope that your decision on Lakeview will make it
possible for people ten to twenty years from now, to choose to
live in Denton for the same reasons that motivated us. Thank
you.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. Turner. Any questions that the
Council might have of Mr. Turner? Thank you, sir. Is there
anyone else in the audience who would like to speak in
opposition to this proposed planned development concept plan,
Z-88-0137 If not, I call upon the petitioner if he desires to
have a rebuttal to answer questions raised by the opposition
and not to present new information, please.
Alexander Bascom: I just wanted to address a couple of
comments. The first is what we are passing along here. One of
the key items, I think, of this whole case, as it relates both
density and it relates to intensity is how do you undertake the
calculation. I think as we all fortunately and reasonably
agreed, we are being judged within the context and language of
277
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 10
the Guide. The Guide does use the words, as you see on the top
sheet there, over all gross. What we tried to do was to
establish some third party creditable definition as to what
gross is. The second sheet refers to the Urban Land Institute
definition of gross which in effect is everything within the
confines or boundaries of an individual's property. The
numbers that Mr. Turner mathematically and accurately has
represented are net as it relates to such things as parks,
schools, and right-of-way. What we have included relates to
the use of the word over all gross and as it is defined, not
just in the Urban Land Institute, but in other documents as to
how you define that definition. With the calculations based on
gross, we are at 4.7. When I took over this case in June, it
became imperative to me to be within the confines of the Guide
whenever it was possible, recognizing that the Guide, as you
all describe it, in the Guide itself, is a benchmark that is
not specifically or literally to be adhered to but something
that referenced as a benchmark for purposes of discussion. The
second thing that I would like to address is to follow-up a
little bit on what Mr. Pinnell said and that is that we believe
that our plan because of its cohesiveness, will add quality,
will add a sense of neighborhood to an area that does not have
much planning right not and is not much of an asset for which
the City of Denton can be proud and can look to to attract
people as it relates to its relationship to parks and to the
lake system. Finally, I guess I would like to say that
relative to this project, as well as Southview, we as
developers are spending in excess of $50 million on Capital
Improvements inclusive of land, schools, parks, right-of-way,
etc. That is a substantial amount of money for us to commit
to. In order for us to get a sufficient return on that money,
it's imperative for us to do a project which inheritently is
qualitative oriented. We think that the combination of the
location of this property, in proximity to the lake, is why
this assemblage transpired in the first place. It is not
something that would be there if the lake were not being a
recreational lake. We feel that the opportunity for the City
to plan 1200 acres, close to 1300 acres in one fell swoop, with
a developer that has the capacity, in excess of ~50 million
that the City will not have to pay nor pay interest on for the
number of years that will require for the market to absorb
through the production of jobs and people moving to Denton. We
feel a combination of this economic package plus the manner in
which it will combine and support the job growth program here
in the City, we feel aught to be a tremendous asset which when
coupled with the lake, produces something of an amenity as well
as a quality of life that we think is not matched or paralleled
in the Metroplex. If anybody has any questions, I would be
happy to try and answer them.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 11
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. Bascom. Any questions Council
might have of Mr. Bascom. Thank you, sir. At this time I will
close the public hearing and call upon the City Manager to
direct the presentation of his staff.
City Manager Harrell: Yes, let me call on Miss Carson please,
of our Planning Staff for staff presentation and then following
that, I have a few brief comments to make myself. Miss Carson.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner: Mayor and Members of the
Council, as most of you are aware, this property has had a very
long and lengthy history as far as processing is concerned
through Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
Beginning in 1984, property was being considered in the area
for mobile homes and other types of development, and the City
began annexing the property. After that was accomplished, we
had a petition for additional property to be annexed and a
proposal for a planned development that was submitted in 1985
for public hearing. The City staff, at that time, began
working with the developer but realized very quickly that they
were interested in proceeding with the development as they had
originally presented it and not willing, in many regards, to
compromise in changes as far as Development Guide policies were
concerned. That proposal that was submitted, continued through
the process before the Planning and Zoning Commission and
received a 3-2 vote in favor and then was forwarded on to the
City Council. Again following lengthy discussions and public
hearings, the City Council recommended that an ordinance be
prepared and the property was zoned Planned Development 126.
As further background, we have provided the Council with a
chart that shows the existing PD, original zoning, which is in
the first column of development and a general comparison with
what is being proposed this evening. There are no areas in
which the development has not improved. The total acreage of
the original planned development was approximately 690 acres
and was 108% over the intensity standard based on the Denton
Development Guide. It also included two unsanctioned nodes,
nodes approved at Mills and Blagg Road which were not
identified in the Denton Development Guide at that time or
proposed as nodes during the processing of the Denton
Development Guide. There was a large percentage of the
development in multi-family uses, approximately 39% of the
project, was multi-family, that meaning 12 units or more to the
acre. There was park land dedication proposed of 8.4 acres and
school sites of 22.6 acres. This was far lower than what our
standards that we currently use of 1 acre per 100 dwelling
units or 3 persons per 1,000 population. The requirement for
9,571 dwelling units which were proposed in the original
development would have resulted in approximately 96 acres of
park land and the population estimate of well over 21,000 would
279
280
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 12
have required 63 acres of park land. There were concentration
and separation violations both in multi-family ~ and
non-residential land uses and there was ultimately no
separation between multi-family and residential and retail land
uses throughout the development. There were moderate nodes of
80.84 acres at Blagg Road and 160.88 acres at McKinney Street.
As this project has continued to evolve, there have been
subsequent amendments that have been submitted in order to
reduce the intensity and density that have gone both to the
staff for review and stopped and also to the Planning and
Zoning Commission. There were subsequent proposals that were
submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and unanimously
recommended for denial at the June 8, 1988 meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. At that particular time, there
had been significant reductions but in the opinion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, they were not significant
enough. The intensity was reduced to being 61% over the
standard of intensity, the park land met our proposed
dedication, it still had a violation of multi-family
concentrations with 957 units in parcel 25 alone. It did
conform with concentration and separation policies in general
and also showed diversity and requested expansion of moderate
nodes at U.S. 380 and at McKinney Street both of which were
sanctioned nodes by the Denton Development Guide through
approval of the City Council in 1986 and 1987. The proposal
that you have before you was another attempt to come within the
guidelines of the Denton Development Guide and an effort to
show an even more substantial reduction from PD126. As was
stated by Mr. Bascom, the intensity overall for the project now
stands at 5% under the intensity standard for both the low and
moderate areas. That's an overall figure. The moderate node
at McKinney Street does show a 27% over the proportionate share
standard, which means that they are asking for more than their
proportionate share in this particular area. The Planning and
Zoning Commission, however, in reviewing the criteria that the
City Council has set out in the Denton Development Guide,
stating that a disapportionate share may be allocated if four
specific criteria are met. The Planning and Zoning Commission
felt that these four criteria were met. One of those being
compatibility of adjacent land uses which the proposal does
comply with. Including the fact that screening, etc. will be
provided between residential land uses in this particular
area. It also provides that topography should be reviewed for
disapportionate share to be allocated. In this particular
area, there is a large concentrations of trees, there are flood
plain areas, etc. that must be considered. This particular
area it appears, through the use of a planned development,
would be the most appropriate location for the moderate node to
be located and the planned development would provide for more
security as the process continues through the detailed plan
stage. The Planning and Zoning Commission also looked at the
allocation in regard to other intensity policies and stated
that the intensity policies were met and the one area in which
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 13
281
there was a question of separation policies, at the corner of
Blagg and Lakeview Blvd., was acceptable at this location. The
other two areas, both in the low intensity area and the
moderate intensity area at McKinney Street are both under the
intensity standard for those two particular areas. The
development has also been revised to be substantially single
family residential. It does range from SF-10 to SF-7, cluster
housing and single family attached and there are copies of
proposed lay-outs that were included in your back-up and those
are also incorporated in the ordinance. The proposal conforms
with concentration and separation policies as well as land use
diversity policies according to the recommendation of the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The one exception, as I stated
earlier, in tract 15 which is located fairly close to the
moderate node, the Planning and Zoning Commission stated that
this was a more acceptable location for a neighborhood service
tract, at the intersection of two major arterials, rather than
moving it further into the development where single family
residences appear to be a more logical land use. In the area
of park land, the proposal again does met the requirements of
those particular areas. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of this proposal by a vote of 4-3 at their
July 27, 1988 meeting. As a point of clarification in
concerning a couple of the recommendations that were included,
originally the Planning and Zoning Commission had included a
recommendation concerning electric service being provided from
the City of Denton. That condition has not been included, as
with the Southview proposal, the Planning and Zoning Commission
struck that from their recommendation identifying that it would
be ultimately impossible for them to require City of Denton
electric service in a dual service area. The developers have
stated that they are committed to using the City of Denton
electric service but we do not have a legal mechanism by which
we could require that. This provides a general overview of the
proposal as well as a history of the project in comparison to
the existing zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission, as I
stated, with a 4-3 vote did recommend approval. Their main
concerns being placed at U.S Highway 380 but the majority of
the Commissioners feeling that the project had been a
substantial improvement and recommended approval. We mailed 28
reply forms to property owners within 200' and we received one
in favor and 0 in opposition. And if you have any questions,
I'll be glad to try and respond.
Mayor Stephens: Any questions the Council might have for the
Urban Planner?
Council Member McAdams: When you speak of the amount of park
land dedicated, does that include the school site or does it
not?
282
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 14
Carson: The proposal that you see before you has a breakdown
of the two. The joint school park site has approximately 10
acres for schools and the remaining property is for parks, so
it is included in the calculations because it will be joint
school-park sites.
McAdams: In terms of when we look at a master plan for parks
and we talk about what is necessary, there is various kinds of
parks or park uses that we are said to need. Part of the land
that is in here is usable as green space, essentially. How
much actual usable park land do we have for the kind of uses
that we say we need?
City Manager Harrell: With Council's permission, I think Mr.
Brinkman is in the audience and probably can best speak to the
park issues, if that is acceptable to the Council.
Mayor Stephens: Yes.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation: Thank you
Mayor Stephens and Members of Council. We have within the
Lakeview development, two neighborhood parks and a potential
for a third and the potential for a third is the access into
the Corps property which is site, tract number 32. We also
have a larger park which is a school park site of approximately
30.2 acres. All of the neighborhood parks will have at least a
3 acre minimum of land that would be out of the flood plain
that could be developed very much like we're developing our
Avondale Park right now. Avondale we're concentrating all of
the development in about a 3 acre area which is out of the
flood plain, the rest of the park is pretty much natural and
open for picnicking and nature and that sort of thing. So even
if the land is in the flood plain here, it does have a purpose
as far as a park purpose. We wanted to make sure that within
each of these areas there was suitable land, at least 3 acres
at each site, that could be used for developing those things
that need to be up out of that park area.
Council Member McAdams: OK, I guess what I am getting at is
that we certainly have far more than that standard of existing
park land in the City of Denton at this time and yet when we
look at a master plan, we say we still need some more parks of
specific types and my question simply is, if we take out the
kind of land that does not lend itself, do we have what's left
in this project, do we have what will meet the same kinds of
standards that you come before us when you are trying to
persuade us that we need to put money into the park develoPment
budget to buy that land? Because we clearly, clearly have far
in excess of that number of acres in existence right now in the
City.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 15
283
Brinkman: I think the acreage that you see in the tracts, are
suitable as far as us being able to use each of these for
neighborhood park development. The larger site would be used
by not only the City but the school district for locating a
junior high and a potential elementary school at that site.
Again, those developments would be compatible, any facilities
that would be developed by the school district at that junior
high school, would be used by the City as well and the City
facilities as we develop those could be used by the schools.
So, the amount of acreage that you see here certainly is
compatible with the park uses that are assigned to each of
those different park types. It's just when there is a
significant amount of flood plain in a particular park, we want
to make sure there is at least suitable a three acre minimum as
far as the development.
Council Member McAdams: I guess if I put this in very simple
terms, if we held up the same kind of guideline and criteria to
this development that we hold up to Denton when you come before
me to ask for something else, does it meet it and does that
then mean that you don't need anything else in the City of
Denton?
Brinkman: No, this would meet or exceed what our neighborhood
parks standards are now of one acre per 100 dwelling units.
Certainly there are other needs in the community as well but
this would meet the needs as far as that particular development
goes, as far as providing the potential of three neighborhood
park sites, a larger park site where the school park site and
then a linear park area that would provide 14 acres that would
be a start of a green belt going into the Cooper Creek area.
So, the acreage that we got here would meet our standards as it
is now.
City Manager Harrell: Let me clarify further, Steve, and make
sure that I state this correctly. As I understand the
dedication that has been offered to the City as part of this
zoning request, it is consistent with the voluntary park
dedication standard which is now being considered by the Parks
and Recreation Board and refined by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. So I think we can state to the Council that the
policy that is working its way through the system and will soon
be at the Council level, which will tell the staff and give us
instructions to voluntarily go out and try to get donations
from developers as they come in developing land within the
City. What is being proposed by the Lakeview folks will exceed
the standards that are being proposed as now before the Parks
and Recreation Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
think that kind of response to the question as far a~ the
standards we going to try to hold everyone else to as they come
in and develop within the City. Not to say that we don't have
still remaining parks and recreation and open space needs in
the community because we do.
284
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 16
Council Member McAdams: Well, I think part of what I was
trying to get at and be clear in my own mind as we start this,
is that when that discussion about that proposed donation came
up, there was considerable concern that a developer not be
allowed just to develop what we considered kind of green space
that would be not usable for facilities. Nobody seems to be
able to give a very direct answer as to when you start to talk
about ball diamonds and things in place, whether or not, in
fact, there is enough of that kind of acreage in this
development to coincide with what we have in the City.
Because, clearly we are being told, I do distinctly remember
that master plan where we were told that we were short in any
number of areas within this City, and yet, the number of acres
that we have far exceeds that the standard we are talking about
here. So clearly, when we look at the City, we are discounting
part of the park land. I'm simply trying to ascertain is there
some in this development that also should be eliminated in
terms of its use with whatever it is we usually proposed in
terms of park needs.
Brinkman: Yes, the larger park site, the 30 acre park site,
where the junior high will be, will have significant athletic
field development at that area. We are also hoping, with the
access to the Corps property, to in the future be able to
access about a 50 acre community park site that would be Corps
property that additional athletic fields could be built on
too. So, with the potential of both those, it would provide
even more park land for those types, athletic fields and those
types of things, than we would have in the community as a
whole. Because it would potentially give us 80 acres of
community park area with 50 acres that the Corps has out at
that site.
Mayor Stephens: Would that acreage that you are talking about~,
the Corps property, will that be above the water level when the
lake is raised the 7 feet?
Brinkman: Yes, Mayor, the 50 acres that I am talking about is
this large area in here and most of that is located out of the
flood plain. The area in the Cooper Creek area is strictly
flood plain but could be matched up with one large park.
Mayor Stephens: Have you approached the Corps of Engineers?
Brinkman: No, we wouldn't until we found out whether this
process was approved or not.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 17
285
Council Member Boyd: I think perhaps the question's been
answered but I think what Linnie was driving at was that we
have a need not only for neighborhood parks but also for
community parks, there are several grades of parks. And I
think the question she was asking was, maybe you've got enough
neighborhood parks, but do we also have .for the rather
considerable development we've got here, enough acreage that we
will also not be asking three days after this thing is
approved, to go buy another 100 acres so we can have community
parks as well.
Brinkman: Yes, the 30 acres at the junior high site is what we
would consider the size park for a community park so that would
be sufficient enough for that particular development. The
additional option of the Corps property makes that even more
attractive because that would take some of the development
burden off of that community park that would be where the
junior high is located. If we could get the Corps property, we
would not have to develop that site around the junior high as
intensely as we would without that.
Mayor Stephens: Any other questions concerning parks? Any
questions anybody might have for Ms. Carson? Would you explain
to us again about the intensity for the area.
Carson: At this particular time there is a 15 acre area that
Mrs. Wilkinson describes that abutts this property and abutts
Highway 380. As part of the interpretation of the moderate
node, information in the Denton Development Guide, 15 acres has
also been included in the node which is north of U.S. Highway
380. The Planning and Zoning Commission did make a statement
to Mrs. Wilkinson as well as other property owners, we have had
a subsequent zoning case in this particular area, that they
would be considering putting that 15 acres that is south of 380
within the moderate node rather than having it on the north
side where there are existing residential houses at this
particular time. That 15 acres is agricultural. There are
residences on the property as well as vacant land, some of the
residences are used as businesses so they are legal
non-conforming land uses at this time and can continue to be
used for office/commercial types uses, if they were annexed
with those particular uses in place. The intensity in this
area, at this point, if this case was approved, would be over
the standard based on the Denton Development Guide. Under
those policies, we would have looked at the least intense most
logical land use as far as staff in concerned and would have
made a recommendation on that which typically would have meant
to place something that was similar to what was zoned around it
in that particular area as far as our recommendation was
concerned. And that is consistent with what the Planning and
Zoning Commission is recommended and City Council has approved
in those particular areas.
286
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 20, 1988
Page 18
Mayor Stephens: What about the intensity around McKinney
Street?
Carson: At McKinney Street, they have a moderate node at all
four corners. At that particular area, since they have all
four corners, have used all the intensity that is allocated at
the area.
Mayor Stephens: How wide an area is this and would it prevent
other owners from this type of development as well?
Carson: It would basically conform if you had drawn a 30 acre
node at that particular intersection. The width of it would be
approximately what's shown as RMB property. The mobile home
park, Vacation Village, abutts the property on one side so
future development, at this point at least, is not anticipated
on that side. There is a small existing business on the other
side of the property but with what's being placed along that
area as retail, office and single family attached, there could
be a good transition into low intensity areas on the boundary.
Mayor Stephens: Providing no one wants to have the same level
of intensity on their property.
Carson: That would be correct. Under the low intensity
policy, some office, commercial, retail could be located within
a half a mile of this particular intersection. So within close
proximity they could place a small concentration of retail
office non-residential land use or multi-family as well.
Council Member McAdams: But is that not already over that
area, right now, if this is approved. Did I not understand
that that node is over the intensity level?
Carson: No, the node at McKinney Street, they have requested
that all of the intensity be allocated because they have all
four corners, so it does not exceed the standard.
Council Member McAdams: But anything additionally would,
nobody else can do anything then without exceeding.
Carson: This would be creating the moderate node since it is
all four corners, that is the moderate node and any other
requests .....
Council Member McAdams: But they vary in acreage, Ms. Carson.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 19
287
Carson: That's correct. Any other requests would have to be
added to the moderate node if they requested. The Council
would have to consider expanding the moderate node if they
wanted to do anything further.
Council McAdams: So the effective answer is, if anybody else
wanted to do anything, it would go over.
Mayor Stephens: Ok, thank you. Any other questions for Ms.
Carson? I believe the Manager said he had something.
City Manager Harrell: Yes, just very briefly, Mr. Mayor.
guess just a couple of points that I wanted to add also for the
record. First of all, to express appreciation, I think, on
behalf of the staff to the developer in this particular case
for what I think has been due diligence in working with the
staff to take, really a zoning that is in place now on the
books that does grossly exceed the standards that are mentioned
in the Denton Development Guide and working with the staff and
with the Planning and Zoning Commission over a number of
months, to whittle that down to a point that, as far as staff
is concerned and I think the members of the Planning and Zoning
Commission are concerned, come up with a proposal that in
total, looking at the entire project, does meet the standards
as set forth in the Denton Development Guide. Secondly, I
guess, once again just to point out from a staff standpoint
that, it is very unusual for the staff to be confronted with an
opportunity to deal with a tract of land, some 1300
acres-almost 1300 acres, owned by an individual property
owner. Usually when you encounter this type of thing, you are
working with 30-40 different property owners, trying to piece
everything together rather than one large property owner. The
advantage is that I think the City walks away from a
development like this with benefits that if you were working
with the typical development of 30-40 people, you would not
have the possibility of getting the major bridge construction
obligated to as you have in this particular instance because
with that large tract it can be afforded by a single
developer. And normally, that would be a City expense that
would be very substantial in putting a type of project like
this together. The roadway, I think, has been the subject of
much discussion, the ability to eventually get the six lane
roadway through that part of our community really with no local
expense to the City. We mentioned the park land. As the
Council is aware, currently the City of Denton does not have a
mandatory park land dedication policy so the only way that we
are able to get park land, is to persuade developers as they
come into the development process, the advisability of making
that kind of donation. In this case, that has been done and
the standards have been exceeded as has been mentioned over and
288
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 20
above that which we would normally go out, if we were dealing
with one out of 30, and try to get that person to donate. So
overall, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say from the staff's
standpoint really progress has been made. I think we feel that
this is an asset not only because of the conformance with the
Guide but also really some benefits that a City can only
receive when you deal with fairly large land owners and the
ability to package improvement projects. Thank you.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you, sir. Any further information the
Council might need before final consideration of this issue?
Council Member Boyd: Mr. Mayor, I'd move approval.
Council Member Alexander: Second.
Mayor Stephens: Motion and a second to approve the proposal
Z-88-013. A motion and second, any further discussion?
Council Member McAdams: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Having sat here
for four years now and six years before that on Planning and
Zoning Commission, I think I can safely say this is one of the
more difficult cases that we've had to deal with and there are
several reasons for that. And first I want to thank the people
who are here now and who are working with this proposal. I
would certainly credit them with doing an outstanding job in
trying to make some corrections, trying to do things that would
make this more palatable. What very much concerns me and what
distresses me a great deal, as I look at this project and look
back over the years at what we have done with it, is how we
came to be here. We need not have been here. We not need have
been in the position of having to deal with a developer of this
size over a project that was absolutely intolerable to start
with. I can appreciate the fact that staff is excited about
having a large tract of land that they can deal with from a
planning point of view that's a good thing. It may not
necessarily be a good thing in terms of the City where we
live. Clearly when that first proposal came and it had many
things wrong with it, among those we had the same staff stand
before us that tells us now that the parks dedication meets the
requirements, stood here when we were talking about 9 acres and
said that was more than adequate. And praised them for that
kind of donation. It seems to me that the thing that staff
does best is maintain some kind of basic trust. When the
community believes that it can depend upon what you say. I
find that the most difficult thing about this project now is,
wondering when somebody is telling the truth because so much
was said the first time around and now the figures are
different, but the kinds of statements are the same. We lost a
great deal on this one project in terms of one's ability to
believe that when staff comes before us, that they are telling
us to the very best of their knowledge and intent, the basic
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 21
information unbiased. I can appreciate that you might be very
much in favor of something. But the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Council needs to have simple direct
information on which we can base an answer. And I am sorely
disappointed in what I have seen all the way through this
project. It's unfair to Mr. Bascom and company to sit here and
look at them now and wonder what part of this is the truth.
Are we now going to see what they have come in and negotiated.
They weren't here before. They didn't do this but our staff
supported that. So I sit here and I am terribly uneasy because
I think I hope these people are the kind of people they have
appeared to be in the negotiations that they have been doing.
On the other hand, what if they're not. What if what we're
faced with is what we had the first time. Grab as much as you
can. We were told over and over again that this project simply
could not work unless we permitted the kind of density that was
there. And that was with them getting a RUD to pay for the
road. Now we asked to believe that it can fly with much less
density and with them putting in the road. Now that's clearly
a wide gap and then one wonders, what of this can I believe? I
truly hope that this is the very last time as a citizen of this
city that I am going to have to see and hear the kind of thing
that has gone on with this particular zoning case. I think with
proper approach we could have had a reasonable project to start
with. One that would have been good, that we could all felt
good about and would not have had to take two years and a lot
of back and forth and questioning about the honesty. One man
spoke of the message that we are sending to other developers,
and I am certainly concerned about that because I want quality
people to come and do a quality job for us but I don't want
them to think that they can run the shell game on us. That
they can come in and tell us a sob story and put pressure on
and that our staff will come to us and recommend something that
is outrageous and then they will be in a position of backing
down a little bit to get to where they want to go. That
principle of asking for a million when you need a half million
because you think if you ask for a half you won't get it. I
don't want developers to think that's the way we operate in the
City of Denton and clearly that's what this looks like we do
and that saddens me a great deal. So I hope that when we do
things in the future we will do then in a somewhat more
straight forward direct manner and that we will lean more
heavily on simply what the basic facts are of the case and then
let us decide it on its merits. I think that these people have
come a long way in trying to make this palatable. I think it
has some problems in it and two of those being those two
moderate nodes. I think they are too much. I think, however,
that given that they had a certain amount of zoning on the
ground, that they could have build, that they have bent over
backwards. I think they have made major concessions Chat they
clearly didn't have to make on that particular project and that
I must say I deeply appreciate because I recognize it. That
doesn't take away the fact that I
289
29O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 22
think just simply those two things are too much. I, of course,
always believed that a four lane built road was sufficient
which would have cut that cost and allowed us to have less
density and then later on if we felt we needed the other two
lanes we could have d~ne that, so I can understand why putting
in six lanes, you may need some excess. But it's all an
unfortunate situation that I deeply regret.
Mayor Stephens: Any further discussion?
Council Member Ayer: I certainly agree that this is a tough
decision. I doubt if anyone was more upset than I was with the
original approval of this project and I'm not totally satisfied
with the way it stands right now. But I suspect that in a
project of this size, we're not likely to ever be able to get
it exactly the way we would like to have it. I was very upset
about the RUD, that has been taken care of. I hearty wish that
the road could be constructed in the beginning. I recognize
the economic problems involved in that. On balance, I have
decided that the pluses of this proposal outweigh the minuses
and therefore, I plan to support it.
Mayor Stephens: Any further discussion?
Council Member Boyd: I happily wasn't on the Council when the
earlier zoning was had on this, so I am in the happy position
of being able to criticize it with impunity. But I do realize
that it was a difficult decision then as it is now. The
situation, though, that we have here, this zoning proposal it
seems to me, has shown us both types of presentations that we
get for development here. We'll often see developers come in
and present to us a development and the idea is to get as much
out of the development as can possibly be done. Whatever
impact on the City and whatever impact on the neighborhood,
whatever impact on police, fire, utilities. Their bottom line
is their bottom line and no interest in th~ community other
than that. Don't live here, don't plan to and it's just a way
to make money. Other developers come to us with an idea that
they would like to see something that would improve our
community and they do intend to make some money, they intend to
do this project as well as others but they also intend to have
something that they can be proud of and that the City can as
well. This development, it seems to me, has gone through
perhaps not black and white, but it's gone from at least one
extreme to the other, at least part of the way from one extreme
to part of the way to the other. I think the development is
greatly improved. I do think that the proposal before us meets
the criteria we originally set out. There are differences.
It's impossible, I think, to draw out a scheme that will fit
every situation. But the trade-offs are there and on toto, the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 23
land fits within the guidelines that we set up as a community
as to how we want our development to take place in that area.
You can look at specific examples where the argument can be
made that it does not meet the criteria. However, I'm not
convinced, even in those circumstances, that that is the best
argument. For example, one of the things that has come up, is
that we evidentially never had a definition of what "gross land
use" meant. Does that include roads and parks and things like
that or does it not? And, we have to sort of, lots of times
zoning issues are decided that way, you decide them on why.
So, the argument can be made by those, for example, that the
density is too high here because we are going to define gross
that way. The argument can also be made by others that the
density is not too high because we are going to define gross
another way. If we can't agree on the definition of terms,
it's awfully hard to decide whether or not it fits the
guidelines. It appears to me it does fit the guidelines. It
appears to me that the developer and the City staff and the
parties who own land nearby, have all gotten together and come
up with a proposal that not only can the City live with but
also the developer can make a profit and can develop the
property and actually see it happen. There is another problem
with these developments that we don't talk about so much but it
is possible to draw out all of these plans and sell people
houses, have buildings built and then not be able to complete
the project. You know that has happened in a number of cities
around here and for that matter, there have been developments
in the City of Denton that haven't developed quite as they
thought it would. So I think it is important that the
developer have in his plan the opportunity to make a profit and
to see the development to completion. One of the principle
aspects of this and one of the most interesting aspects from
the City's standpoint is the six lane road with all the bridges
and whatnot attached. If this development isn't completed, we
may be like some of the cities we visited from time to time
where expressways stop in mid-air and that's not something we
want. A six lane road that stops 50' above concrete will not
benefit anybody and will cost a lot of money. So the
completion of this project over the next decades is also
important. I think this proposal will allow the City to have
the benefit of that as well. One of the things that occurred
to me as I have been studying this that I don't think I know
where the boundaries of Denton will be except on the east.
This project will be the eastern boundary of Denton. That lake
there is going to stop us, probably, from developing the City
any further. Somewhere between here and Minneapolis will be
the northern boundary but I can't tell you where exactly. But
we have some idea here of what in 50 years, the eastern
boundary of Denton will look like and I'm rather impressed by
it.
291
292
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 24
Mayor Stephens: Anyone else?
Council Member Alexander: I think most everything that needs
to be said has probably already been said and I find myself
agreeing a great deal particularly with Councilman Ayer and
Councilman Boyd. This has been a long project and fortunately
I was also one of those members of the Council who was not here
when the first Lakeview project was voted on. And I do think
that was not, in retrospect, a particularly good arrangement
and I have said so and I continue to believe that on the sum
total of the total picture, it was not something that was
particularly in the best interest of Denton but it was done.
And that is what we now have. And I would stress that I think
that it's been a, in my opinion, a rather remarkable
accomplishment on the part of our present management and on the
part of those who are associated with this project and the
staff and otherwise, who I think have set down with some
direction from this Council over the past two and a half years
or so and have worked to achieve a reasonable compromise and a
working plan that genuinely benefits all parties concerned.
This is not a perfect plan, it's not necessarily the way I
would have designed it, but I'm not a planner. It's a good
plan I'm convinced of that. I think it's within the Guide, I
think the developer has made a genuine effort to bring it
within the Guide and I think as we look at it and reflect,
clearly it's in the best interest of Denton to vote in favor of
this particular proposal and I intend to do so.
Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins: Well, most of the things have been said
and could only be repeated that we certainly appreciate the
developer and the staff and the Council's direction, I think,
in bringing about what was not a good plan and entirely too
much density on something that I was also not a member of this
Council when it was passed but came on board shortly
thereafter. But I want to say I view this, as I studied it, as
a most positive development. That rarely does any city
anywhere have the opportunity to do what we as a City staff,
developer and Council have this opportunity to do. To stretch
a development, that's already get an eastern border, to stretch
it and be able to plan, have the parks, have the housing, have
the shops, have this all sketched in at one time. We are, I
think, much luckier to be doing it this way, than if we began
to expand eastward and certainly at least the school district
long before the Bass Development Group came in, were already
committed to land out that way for the High School, they saw
this coming. So we are moving eastward. I think about the
Development Plan people who told us they didn't want to see us
continue the move southward. I view this as a positive
eastward venture, from southeast Denton out, I think,
economically for many years to come, it will provide jobs. I
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 25
think because of the size of a number of lots, there will be
more affordable housing for many of these people in the area.
So I think there are many pluses to go along with some of the
minuses that we have to take. So I do feel that we have a rare
opportunity as far as planning to be able to approve a project
like this. I would be like some other Council Members have
expresses the concern over when you have a developer come in
that you don't know much about or you are into all different
projects and they don't have the staying power or real
financial resources to fall back on to finish the development.
And, that can happen again, we all know that. But certainly we
have someone here who if anyone should be able to stay and
finish it, they should be able to. And I just want to say I
appreciate the attitude of Mr. Bascom and his group in
recognizing the unworkable plan and unreasonable density of the
earlier Lakeview and in making the significant changes that
were required to get broader support from the citizens, from
the staff and from us.
Council Member Gorton: Just let the record show that I, too,
was not a member of the Council that passed the previous
Lakeview and I will let my vote express my feelings henceforth.
Mayor Stephens: Well, I was a member of the group a few years
ago and I have been able to see considerable progress and
congratulations to Mr. Bascom and the team you have working
with you on the tremendous progress that you've made because
you had a long ways to go in trying to get it right and it's
not quite there yet. Of course, everything is relative as
someone has said. That it's, what have I heard, it's close
enough. Of course, as Ms. McAdams said, we've heard that
before too, by some of the same people who are now giving the
words of assurance that this time it's really right. Before it
was right, but this time it's really right. Speaking of the
intensity issue, it seems that on the south part of Teasley a
few years ago, we had so much intensity taken up in such a
small area that I thought we revised the thinking along that
line to spread the intensity allotment out in an area. So it's
troubling a little bit to see that we're not only used it up
but apparently over the standard at 380 at proposed Lakeview
Street which could be eased back somewhat to permit folks like
Ms. Wilkinson or someone else who would want to own property
near there, so that one developer would'nt take it all or hog
it all but spread it around a little bit which I thought was
our intent when we looked at that south Teasley situation a few
years ago. That is, to apply that principle all over the
City. I'm also bothered a little bit by so much single family
attached housing. We've had expressions before, whenever this
came up before, that that could be a real problem, not too far
in the future slum area, depending on how it's handled, of
course, because the developer would not necessarily be the
owner. The land will be turned to other people who will do the
293
294
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 26
actual construction, I presume. At least that's what my
understanding is. So those are the things that troubled me
then, the intensity problem in some of those nodes and then so
much of the crowed in housing. Does anyone else have anything
to add before we vote? If not we have a motion and a second to
approve this proposal, Z-88-013, so with the Council
concurrence at this time,'we shall vote.
NOTE: THIS ENDS THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF THE MINUTES.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-165
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REPEALING
THE CONCEPT PLAN AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE 690
ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 87-008 (LAKEVIEW,
PD-126); PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 176.97 ACRES OF
LAND, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN~ AND
PROVIDING THAT SUCH LAND SHALL BE INCLUDED WITHIN AND
BE A PART OF PD-126; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF A
NEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE 867 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and
"nay." Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Hopkins "aye,"
Mayor Stephens
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving a planned development and
concept plan on property currently zoned planned development
(PD-88 and PD-89) and agricultural (A). Applicant was RMB,
Inc. The request included approximately 414.9 acres of
property located approximately 1,200 feet north of 1-35E and
extending to Pecan Creek and more fully shown in the Gideon
Walker Survey, Abstract 1330, and the William Durham Survey,
Abstract 330. If approved, the following land uses would be
permitted:
Single Family - 10 - 93.4 acres with a
density of 3.2 units per acre
Single Family - 7 - 209.4 acres with a
density of 4.3 units per acre
Cluster Homes - 10.6 acres with a density of
8 units per acre
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 27
Multi-Family - 16.0 acres with a density of
25 units per acre
Neighborhood Service - 6.0 acres
Community Facility - 3.0 acres
General Retail - 12.0 acres
School/Park - 10.0 acres
Park - 18.0 acres
Right-of-way - 36.5 acres
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.) Z-1861.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF MINUTES IS VERBATIM FROM THE
TAPE RECORDING OF THE MEETING.
Alexander Bascom: Mayor Stephens, Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins,
Members of the Denton City Council, my name is Alexander
Bascom, pleasantly Alexander Bascom and I am a partner with
Robert Bass and RMB Realty, 201 Main Street, Fort Worth,
Texas. Somewhat in the spirit of the recent debates, I'd like
not to do what I am suppose to do at this point and I'd just
like to take the opportunity to begin thanking each one of you
for your assistance and your support, cooperation that you have
shown in working with us. We feel a tremendous victory for us
in terms of being able to build such a consensus over the last
four or five months. We certainly would not have done it
without starting with the staff, working with the Planning and
Zoning Commissioners and coming to work with-each one of you.
So we thank you for that. Including the one none vote.
Mayor Stephens: Beg your pardon?
Bascom: I said including the one opposition vote. I didn't
want to leave you out, Mayor. As an overview of the plan, we
have been revising for the last four months, which was
favorable passed by Planning and Zoning 6-0, let me offer the
following comments. Our park land required is substantially
over that which is required by the City. Our moderate activity
node, which was at Colorado, has been deleted and replaced by a
grocery store site of 12 acres. Separation problems have been
~limina~ed. Multi-family ~c~s~ over the Guide have also
been eliminated. I would like to point out our neighborhood
295
296
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 28
efforts which arose during the first Planning and Zoning
hearing and led to further negotiations with the surrounding
neighbors. Specifically, at Swisher and Pockrus, moved a
neighborhood service tract that was on the northeast corner
down to the southwest corner of tract 16 in order to further
remove it from the proximity to the front yards of the
neighbors on the west side of Swisher. The multi-family tract,
in tract 11, has been moved from directly across the street
from these neighbors further up northeast such that it is now
separated by single family housing. We have further committed
to not ingress/egress on Swisher. We've provided greater than
required setbacks and agreed to provide a landscape buffer zone
through the negotiations with the City. Further south on
Swisher, across from Chapparel Estates, although these citizens
are not part of the City of Denton, we agreed to meet and
negotiate with them in order to try and satisfy their needs.
We've made the following changes. We converted SF-10 to SF-10
on tract 18 in order to make for a more compatible transition.
We committed to greater than required setbacks and back yards
and to provide a landscape buffer similar to the one further
north on Swisher. I have also committed to both citizens
groups that I will come back to them during the detailed
development plan stage, to show them specifics on the buffer
zone before we get to the Planning and Zoning session. We
don't want any surprises. Finally, in response to the
discomfort with the SF-6, that was registered by some of the
Commissioners on tract 1, we converted that to SF-7 without
being formally requested to do so. The accomplishments derived
from working closely with the Commissioners and staff are as
follows: intensity has been changed from 61% over the Guide to
6% under the Guide based on gross calculations, density has
been reduced from 7.1 units per acre to 4.1 units per acre
calculated on a gross basis and people per acre has been
decreased from 20 to 13.6. As with the other portion of our
project reviewed earlier, we are committed to dedicating
right-of-way for and incrementally building the six lane road.
As preface to my comments, I shared some of the following
information with you. Density and intensity are critical
considerations. From the standpoint of view of intensity as
relates to both projects, we're 5% under the Guide. With
regard to density on both projects, we're 4.2 dwelling units
per acre, both are calculated on a gross basis. I thank you
for your considerations of this case and be happy to answer any
questions.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Bascom.
Council Member Boyd: On tract 18 you indicated you changed it
from SF-10 to SF-10. I think you ..... -
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 29
Bascom: I'm sorry. That's from SF-7 which is what the tract
was initially proposed and what the remainder of the tract
remains, we changed that from SF-7 to SF-10 so that the lots
directly across from Chapparel Estates would be more compatible
with the size and pricing quality of housing that is on the
east side of Swisher at that point.
Mayor Stephens: Is there anyone else who would like to speak
in favor of this petition, Z-18617 Any one else in favor?
Don McQuinney, 135 Chapparel Estates: We reside within the
city limits of Shady Shores and we're outside, of course, the
city limits of Denton. We are the area Mr. Bascom referred to
as Chapparel Estates. We've had the privilege of meeting with
Mr. Bascom and his staff on a couple of occasions. Mr. Bascom
has met with me individually and and he and his staff met with
several members of our neighborhood that expressed interest and
concern about the development which was immediately adjacent
and across the road west of Swisher from Chapparel Estates.
we've been very pleased with their sensitivity, with their
courtesy, with their interest in our desires and willingness to
compromise, a willingness to listen, a willingness to not make
broad hand-waving promises but a willingness to be realistic
and to meet with us again, as it is appropriate to deliberate
over the kinds of buffer and flores and burms that would
protect Chapparel Estates from the development immediately
adjacent to and across the road from Swisher, west of Chapparel
Estates. So I'm here tonight to represent our neighborhood and
just simply say we support the motion as we understand it.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you Mr. McQuinney. Any questions for
Mr. McQuinney? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the
audience who would like to speak in favor of this proposal?
Eileen Powell: Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council, I'm
Eileen Powell. I've resided in this area for 35 years and I
think this development will be great for our area. I think it
will be an asset to the City of Denton and I'm for it.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you. Any questions the Council might
have for Ms. Powell? Is there anyone else who would like to
speak in favor of this proposal?
Carold Nunez: Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the Council,
my name is Carold Nunez and I reside at Box 108E, that is on
Swisher Road and I would like to speak to the fact that I had
lodged a letter of protest with the Planning and Zoning
Commission because of the neighborhood services which were
would be located directly across from my home. We bought and
moved in 1972 to this area and our home sits on an acre and a
half and the homes adjacent to us at least a half acre to an
acre and a half. And when this plan was presented, we were
297
298
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 30
quite alarmed. I was really upset so I lodged this letter.
But it's been changed. But I would like to back up for just a
minute to attest to the way this group has worked with us.
When this came up before, a developer purchased that land, I
can't tell what is is now, bought that land and succeeded to
get it zoned for manufactured housing. And promptly sold it
after the zoning for a nice profit, I'm sure. But my problem
with that was that there was no consideration for the
homeowners in the area and we were here. There were quite a
number of us who were here and protested that the man was not
really trying to help the neighborhood. This developer came in
and talked with us and when we voiced our concern about the
planned neighborhood services located across from our homes,
that was changed. And the next Planning and Zoning Commission,
I removed my letter of protest and voiced my support because I
really appreciate the way they handled this. And I so say so
tonight and I thank you.
Mayor Stephens: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. Any questions the
Council might have for Mr. Nunezo Is there anyone else who
would like to speak in favor of this proposal? Anyone else to
speak in favor, anyone else in favor? Is there anyone in the
audience who would like to speak in opposition to this
proposal? Z-1861. Anyone in opposition, anyone in
opposition? Hearing none, I'll declare the public hearing to
be closed and call upon the City Manager to direct the
presentation by his staff.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner: Mayor and Members of the
Council, as Mr. Nunez stated, in 1984, the City Council
considered planned developments at Swisher and Pockrus Road in
this particular area. The Council originally considered a
planned development for manufactured housing on the entire 66
plus acres. However, that proposal was denied by the City
Council and a subsequent proposal was submitted and there is
two existing planned developments on this property. One for
17.1 acres of SF-7 and estate lots along the frontage of
Pockrus and Swisher Roads and another planned development for
49.4 acres for a manufactured housing subdivision. The
proposal that is before the Council this evening would
eliminate both of those planned developments and establish
planned development zoning on approximately 414 acres. That
proposal would be 6% under the intensity standards based on
Denton Development Guide standards. As is indicated in the
back-up, at the same time at the Lakeview proposal was
submitted on June 8, 1988, a proposal was submitted to the
Planning and Zoning Commission for Southview, as well.
However, following the denial of that proposal for Lakeview by
the Planning and Zoning Commission, the petitioner withdrew the
request for Southview. At that point in time, it included a
moderate node at the intersection of proposed Colorado Blvd.
and Lakeview Blvd. and was 61% over the standard. After that
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 31
evening, the developer began working to not only eliminate the
node but again to comply with Development Guide standards.
Overall that proposal does conform with the Guide policies of
separation and concentration with the exception of tract 8
which is 12 acres of retail land use, as Mr. Bascom stated. In
that particular area, the intersection of Colorado Blvd. and
Lakeview Blvd., would be an opportunity for the City to provide
some shopping and retail land uses within the city limits of
the City of Denton. The intersection of I35 and proposed
Lakeview Blvd. is in the City of Cornith and there is property
in that particular area that would allow commercial and retail
land uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this
and felt that an exception to the concentration policy was
appropriate in order for there to be a tax base created with
retail land uses at that particular intersection. The proposal
included 18 acres of park land and 10 acres for a joint park
school site. This would be approximately 5 acres for an
elementary school and 5 acres for a park site. The proposal
was recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning
Commission at their meeting of September 14, 1988. That was
after the item was tabled on July 13, 1988 in order to
accommodate the concerns that had been expressed by some of the
neighbors. Those items have been worked into the plan and the
buffer zone and other information is addressed in the ordinance
and further details would be applicable during the detailed
plan state if the proposal is approved. They had 15 reply
forms mailed to property owners within 200 feet. We received 3
in favor and 0 in opposition and if you have any questions,
I'll be glad to respond.
Mayor Stephens:
Urban Planner?
Manager?
Any questions the Council might have of the
Thank you. Did you have anything further Mr.
City Manager Harrell: No sir.
Mayor Stephens: What is the pleasure of the Council?
NOTE: THIS ENDS THE VERBATIM PORTION OF THE MINUTES
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-166
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REPEALING
THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE 17.1
ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 84-180 (PD-88); REPEALING
THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE 49.41
ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 84-181 (PD-89); PROVIDING
299
300
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 32
FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION FOR 348 ACRES OF LAND AS MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN; PROVIDING THAT THE LAND
INCLUDED IN PD-88 and PD-89 AND THE LAND HEREIN
REZONED BE INCLUDED IN AND BE A PART OF ONE NEW
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-132); PROVIDING FOR
THE APPROVAL OF A NEW CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE 414.9 ACRES
OF LAND INCLUDED WITHIN THE NEW DISTRICT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving an amendment to a detailed
plan. Applicant was Hashmet Wali, representing Psychiatric
Institutes of America. The property was currently zoned
planned development (PD-1). If approved, the Twin Lakes
Hospital at 2026 West University may be expanded to provide
additional rooms. Z-88-018. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval.)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Hashmet Wali spoke in favor. He stated that this would be an
addition to the existing hospital. It would add 28 more beds
and 14 rooms with classrooms and therapy space. The project
would take about 7 months to complete. It would provide
additional services to the community.
Betsy Guthrie, Administrator, stated that for the most part the
hospital was between 95%-100% occupied. They were not able,
based on the number of beds and the demahd, to provide a
children's program to the community. The additional beds would
help the hospital provide those services.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, stated that this was part of an
original area zoned in 1964 as local business with conditions
for setbacks for the development of University Drive. That
proposal was carried forward as planned development #1 in the
1969 zoning ordinance. Approximately 2 years ago, the City
Council approved the use at this particular site which had
formally been the osteopathic hospital. An amendment was done
in 1987 to allow for additional office space as the project
began to develop and additional office space was determined to
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 33
be necessary. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered
this item at their August 31 meeting and unanimously
recommended approval of the proposal to add additional beds to
the hospital. The proposal did fall within all of the
guidelines of the Denton Development Guide and did conform to
Article 11 of Appendix B, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Denton. There were 9 reply forms that were mailed to property
owners within 200 feet. One returned in favor and one in
opposition.
Council Member Gorton asked if parking would be adequate with
the additional beds.
Carson replied that it would exceed the parking requirements.
NO. 88-167
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING
FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED DETAILED PLAN FOR THE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE
NO. 69-1, CONTAINING 4.8 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2026
WEST UNIVERSITY, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT
OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council held a public hearing and considered
adoption of an ordinance approving a detailed plan and
establishment of a planned development zoning district.
Applicant was Dale Irwin. The property was currently zoned
planned development (PD-108) and two-family (2-F) zoning
district. The property was located on the east side of Carroll
Boulevard between Prairie Street and Highland Street. If
approved, the property may be utilized for office use.
Z-88-010. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Dale Irwin, co-owner of the tract and representative of the
other owners, requested approval of the request. He stated
their objective was to combine the three pieces of land
currently zoned duplex into one planned development for the
construction of three small office buildinga. The land joined
land on the south which was zoned planned development for
office use approximately 2 years ago. By combining all of the
tracts into one, an attractive development of small office
buildings could be designed without the necessity of a Carroll
301
3O2
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 34
Blvd. curb cut. The land was now vacant with the possible land
uses of multi-family, duplex, fourplex, retail or office. The
current zoning of duplex would permit at least three or more
-duplexes facing Carroll Blvd. It would add more rental
property to a predominately rental area with access to at least
two of the properties being from curb cuts on Carroll Blvd.
One curb cut was existing on one of the tracts of land and
would be closed with the proposed development. Property owners
in the area did not want apartments or more of that type of
property in that area. The development would allow for an
attractive setting and he felt that it would be the best use of
the property.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planer, stated that the Carroll Blvd.
policy stated that the proposal should be reviewed in relation
to adjacent residential land uses which in that case there
would be a solid screening device provided between the existing
residences and this site, preferable done with landscaping,
existing vegetation that is is place and supplemented with
evergreens. It also looks at the circulation situation and
there would be no curb cuts on Carroll Blvd.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-168
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, REPEALING
THE SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE 0.426
ACRES OF LAND WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 86-61 (PD-108); PROVIDING
FOR A CHANGE FROM TWO-FAMILY "2-F" TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT "PD" ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.927 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF CARROLL BOULEVARD, BETWEEN PRAIRIE AND
HIGHLAND STREETS, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING THAT SUCH LAND SHALL BE A PART
OF PD-108; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF A NEW
DETAILED PLAN FOR THE 1.353 ACRES OF LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 35
Consent Agenda
McAdams motioned, Hopkins seconded to approve the Consent
Agenda as presented. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid #9904 - Turn Lane - Colorado Blvd.
PR ~104555 - P & P Construction Co. - repair
burned out rent house located at landfill.
B. Tax Refunds
Consider approval of a tax refund for Earl
Jackson, Jr.
Consider approval of a tax refund for Gary
L. Juren.
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-169
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements. (Sunmount
Corporation-Woodrow Lane and Burning Tree Bridge, Paving and
Utilities)
303
304
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 36
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-170
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING
FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the bids for the
project had been very competitive. Two alternates were bid -
asphalt and concrete. The bids were very close for the two
alternates due to the fact that the bids were similar - 8" of
asphalt to 6" of concrete. There had been a lot of discussion
among staff regarding the bids and staff had been contacted by
each of the low bidders for the different paving types. There
were characteristics of both types of materials which were good
and staff was comfortable with either bid.
Council held a discussion regarding the pros and cons of both
types of materials dealing' with visibility, skid resistance and
durability.
Boyd motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
designating and establishing speed zones for north and south
bound traffic on Sherman Drive from its intersection with Bell
Avenue to the north city limits. (The Citizens Traffic Safety
Support Commission recommended approval).
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-171
AN ORDINANCE. DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING SPEED ZONES
FOR NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND TRAFFIC ON SHERMAN DRIVE
FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH BELL AVENUE TO THE NORTH
CITY LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO
EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 37
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
designating and establishing speed zones for east and west
bound traffic on Wilson Street from its intersection with Lakey
Street to its intersection with Bradshaw Street; for north and
south bound traffic on Lakey Street from its intersection with
Wilson Street and continuing north for a total distance of 380
feet; for north and south bound traffic on Bradshaw Street from
its intersection with Wilson Street to its intersection with
Prairie Street. (The Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission
recommended approval).
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-172
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING SPEED ZONES
FOR EAST AND WEST BOUND TRAFFIC ON WILSON STREET FROM
ITS INTERSECTION WITH LAKEY STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION
WITH BRADSHAW STREET; FOR NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND
TRAFFIC ON LAKEY STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH
WILSON STREET AND CONTINUING NORTH FOR A TOTAL
DISTANCE OF 380 FEET; FOR NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND
TRAFFIC ON BRADSHAW STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH
WILSON STREET TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH PRAIRIE STREET;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
David Ellison, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this
was the first direct outgrowth of the East Denton Neighborhood
project. This was one of forty-nine specific issues, problems,
suggestions that this neighborhood group recommended to staff.
Staff had been meeting with then on a regular basis since the
Council had first identified as one of its goals increased
neighborhood identity throughout the community. There had been
a major problem with the Alexander Street drainage area. There
was now great satisfaction with the temporary solution and
great anticipation of a permanent solution. The Police
Department had a proposal for a neighborhood policing project
which the neighborhood heartily approved and which the Police
Department would be presenting to Council at a meeting in the
near future. The area residents had identified 12 areas of
emphasis ranging from law enforcement to code enforcement to
housing needs, planning and community development,
beautification, education, leadership development and training,
etc. The residents were appointing committees, sub-committees
and spokespersons around each of these areas of emphasis.
These spokespersons would be meeting with staff to develop
~p~i£i~ goal~ and objectives.
305
306
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 38
Boyd motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing classified positions in the Fire Department of the
City of Denton, Texas; providing for the number of persons
authorized for each classified position; and repealing all
ordinances and resolutions in conflict herewith.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-173
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CLASSIFIED POSITIONS IN THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS;
PROVIDING FOR THE NUMBER OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED FOR
EACH CLASSIFIED POSITION; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer 'aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing assignment pay for Fire Department employees in the
classification Driver who are also assigned to perform the
duties of Maintenance/Logistics Officer.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-174
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR FIRE
DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFICATION DRIVER WHO
ARE ALSO ASSIGNED TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF
MAINTENANCE/LOGISTICS OFFICER; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Soyd motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 39
G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
and service plan annexing 20.8309 acres being part of the J.
Dickson Survey, Abstract No. 3421, and the A. Cannon Survey,
Abstract No. 232, and located at FM 2181 and Old Alton Road.
(A-56) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-175
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND
ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT
LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 20.8309 ACRES OF LAND LYING AND BEING
SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND
BEING PART OF THE J. DICKSON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 342
AND A. CANNON SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 232, DENTON COUNTY,
TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THE SAME AS AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, stated that this was proposed
final action on the annexation of property along Hwy. 2181.
There had been no further contact from Mr. Martin concerning a
continuation of his plat procedures or continuation of
expansion of the mobile home park at this site. The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the request in an
effort to control development and to ensure that zoning would
be in effect and all applicable ordinances would apply to the
property.
McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
H. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
approving the 1988 appraisal rolls as approved by the Appraisal
Review Board of the Denton Central Appraisal District.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-176
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING
THE 1988 TAX ROLLS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
307
3O8
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 40
John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that State
law required the City Council to not only approve the Appraisal
District roll as it came in but once the tax rate was passed it
had to be submitted on the City's rolls.
McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
I. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
designating and establishing the anniversary of the birth date
of Martin Luther King, Jr. as an official City holiday.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 88-177
AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AND ESTABLISHING THE
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTHDATE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING,
JR. AS AN OFFICIAL CITY HOLIDAY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
7. The Council considered the appointment of three
representatives to the 2499 Board.
Boyd motioned, Hopkins seconded to appoint Jerry Cott, Bill
Utter, and Ann Houston as representatives to the 2499 Board.
Council Member Alexander suggested an in-house committee to
make formal contact with the proposed representatives to
determine that they would be willing to serve as
representatives.
Mayor Stephens suggested Council Member Alexander chair such a
committee.
Council Member Gorton stated he would be glad to assist Council
Member Alexander in contacting the proposed representatives.
McAdams motioned, Ayer seconded to postpone action on the
matter until the next Council meeting in order to give the
committee a chance to contact the proposed representatives. On
roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 18, 1988
Page 41
Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
A. Harrell noted the September budget recap in the
agenda back-up.
9. The Council took the following formal action from
Executive Session discussions:
A. Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney, recommended that
the firm of Henderson, Bryant and Wolfe be retained by the City
to represent the City's interest in the bankruptcy litigation
filed by Flow Regional Center, Inc.
McAdams motioned, Hopkins seconded to retain the recommended
firm. On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins
"aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
10.
New Business
There were no new items of New Business suggested by Council
Members for future agendas.
11. The Council did not meet in Executive
following the Regular Session.
Session
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:18
p.m.
CITY O~DENTON, TEXAS
309
SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
2999C