Minutes January 08, 1991CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
JANUARY 8, 1991
The City Council convened into the Work Session at 5:15 p.m. in
the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council convened into the Executive Session to
discuss legal matters (considered action in County vs. City),
real estate, and personnel/board appointments.
2. The Council held a discussion regarding the Denton
Youth Sports Association's request to sell advertising signs to
be mounted on outfield fences at various ballfields and gave
staff direction.
Wayne Allen, representing the Denton Youth Sports Associations,
stated that the Associations which consisted of soccer,
baseball, girl's softball, and footbalL were in dire need of
funds. With the budget cuts experienced, an idea was necessary
to help offset that reduction. This was a way to allow the
City to help the Youth Sports Associations make ends meet.
Their proposal was to put advertising signs on the outfield
fences at the City parks. The Association would have control
over the scoreboards in the parks.
Council Member Gorton stated that this issue had been addressed
several years ago and issues had emerged on how the signs would
be mounted, on-going maintenance, etc. Those issues were still
of concern to him. Gorton asked if the Association was all
inclusive - was there any one not in the Association.
Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that
everyone who was co-sponsored by the City was in the
Association. That excluded the YMCA who was an ex-officio
member of the Association.
Allen state that he had designed a way to fasten the signs to
the fences that would be better than not having signs. The
Youth Sports Association would be responsible for the signs in
the area of vandalism and maintenance. Each particular sport
would be assigned a certain fence for advertising and would be
responsible to maintain the signs.
Council Member Trent asked how much income would be realized
from the signs.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 2
Allen stated that the Association felt the amount for the signs
would be between $150-$200 per sign. If the amount were set
at $200 per sign, the Association would realize $90 the first
year in profit after deducting the amount for the materials for
the sign and the second year would realize $200 per sign.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if there was a conflict with the
current sign ordinance.
LLoyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the interpretation was
that the proposal would not violate the current provisions of
the sign ordinance. There was somewhat of a "gray" area and
during the revisions of the sign ordinance, it would be spelled
out in detail.
Council Member Alexander asked what was different with this
proposal as opposed to the proposal of several years ago which
was denied by the Park Board.
Dalton Gregory, Park and Recreation Board, stated that the
previous proposal had only been from one organization and the
question was how to deal with the other organizations. Now,
all of the organizations were working together.
3. The Council was to hold a briefing and discussion
regarding the status of various highway projects.
This item was held for discussion at the regular session.
The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Boyd; Council
Members Alexander, Ayer, Gorton, Hopkins and
Trent.
ABSENT: None
Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance. _
2. The Council considered approval of minutes of the Work
Session of November 27, 1990, and the Regular Sessions of
December 11, 1990, and December 18, 1990.
Council Member Ayer noted two corrections to the minutes
December 11, 1990 and December 18, 1990.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 3
Alexander motioned, Trent seconded to approve the minutes with
noted corrections. Motion carried unanimously.
3. The Council was to have received a citizen report from
Rey Trejo regarding a sewer backup problem.
Mr. Trejo withdrew his request to address the Council at this
time.
4. The Council held a public hearing to consider a
petition by Golden Triangle Joint Venture to approve a detailed
plan and development standards and a petition recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission amending PD6, providing for
approval of a detailed plan, development standards, and
conditions for 1,727 acres of land located on the 1-35 service
road and adjacent to Wolfe's Nursery. Z-90-009
Considered approval of a petition by Golden
Triangle Joint Venture to approve a detailed
plan and development standards. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
denial of the Golden Triangle Joint Venture
petition.)
Considered approval of a petition amending
PD6, providing for approval of a detailed
plan, development standards, and conditions
for 1.727 acres of land located on the 1-35
service road and adjacent to Wolfe's
Nursery. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the
City's petition.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, presented the
history of the pro~ect. From September 1988 to January 1989 a
number of detailed plans were submitted. None were acted on by
Council due to postponements and amendments by the
petitioners. In May of 1989, the Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed a new detailed plan which was substantially
different from the first denied plan. The major difference was
that the bays were rotated to face the Interstate. That plan
was scheduled for a July 1989 Council meeting but was postponed
due to a lack of majority present on the Council. Before the
Council's public hearing in July, protests from landowners who
owned more than 20% of the land within 200' of the site had
protested so as to require a "super" majority vote of the
Council to approve the proposal. Council did review the July
plan in September and subsequently denied the plan. The
applicant requested that the Council reconsider the plan which
the Council did not reconsider. In September 1989, the
applicant made a building permit application which was denied
partly because the detailed plan for the site had never been
approved. The applicant then
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 4
filed suit against the City of Denton. The same site plan
reviewed in September 1989 was brought back to the Planning and
Zoning Commission in November 1990 at which time the applicants
made amendments to the plan. Again there were 20% of the
landowners within 200' which protested the zoning application.
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered both a Joint
Venture petition and a City petition at that meeting. The
major difference between the two petitions was that the City
petition included a number of other retail/office uses.
Tonight, staff had received a withdrawal of opposition from a
landowner whose land totalled over 45,000 square feet of area.
The 20% rule thus was not in effect. At this point in time,
there was no opposition from 20% of the landowners within 200'
of the site. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
denial of the Joint Venture petition as it was amended. State
law required six affirmative votes to pass that petition. The
City petition did not require six affirmative votes to pass
that petition. Robbins presented a comparison of the two
petitions for Council review. (Exhibit A) Robbins continued
with alternatives to consider. (Exhibit B)
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
George Weatherall, Cencor Realty Services, spoke on behalf of
the Golden Triangle Joint Venture. He felt that there were two
issues being dealt with. One was the merit of the site plan
and the other was the message coming from the community. He
stated that the site plan did meet the requirements of the
development standards and even exceeded it in several cases.
The property was zoned under PD-6 which allowed
retail/commercial use which the proposed use met. The site
plan changes included turning the bays, building an 8' wall
behind the property, planting along the wall. Three noise
studies had been done in association with the property which
concluded that noise was not going to be a problem and could
remain within the 68dB level. As a result of the noise
studies, the petitioner was asking that the restrictions
regarding the closing of the bay doors and use of power
equipment be removed. He stated that Pep Boys wanted to be a
good neighbor. The continuation of the wall to back behind
Mervyn's was something they were prepared to do in addition to
the wall behind the site. Since the State changed the
intersection on Dallas Drive near the site, accidents were down
50%. Pep Boys had done just what had been asked of them.
Other users might not do as much as Pep Boys had agreed to.
The message coming from the community needed to be positive.
The economy in Denton was hurting. Pep Boys would bring 30
jobs to Denton and would bring dollars to Denton.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8. 1991
Page 5
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if Weatherall was in favor of the City
proposal with the changes regarding the bay doors and use of
power equipment.
Weatherall replied he was speaking in favor of both petitions
with the City proposal changed regarding the bay doors and use
of power equipment.
Council Member Alexander asked if Weatherall was stating that
the fence would continue past Mervyn's no matter which petition
was approved.
Weatherall replied yes.
City Attorney Drayovitch asked Weatherall if he owned the
property.
Weatherall replied that they no longer owned the property and
would have to either get permission from the homeowners to
build the wall on their property or get approval from the
shopping center owner.
Council Member Trent asked about the facade.
Weatherall replied that the facade would be considered at the
meeting. The color of the building would be changed from one
with a red strip around it to one which would be beige to blend
in more with the neighborhood.
Trent asked if there was anything in the City's petition
referencing the hours of operation that Pep Boys disagreed with.
Weatherall replied that those were the two conditions that be
removed from the motion.
Council Member Trent stated that the two conditions were the
bay door closing and the power equipment operation.
Weatherall replied that the hours of operation were fine.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked if they had asked either the
homeowners or Mervyn's if they could build on their property.
Weatherall replied that Mervyn's did not own the property but
he was in the process of seeking permission from the shopping
center owner. He stated that he would be surprised if they
would not let them build the fence.
313
314
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 6
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he was asking these questions as
it had been his experience that unless items were tied down,
they very often did not happen. He stated that what Weatherall
was saying was that he really did not know if he could build
the wall but thought he could.
Weatherall replied that they were willing to do the approval
subject to their building plan. It was a question of building
either on the homeowner's property or on the shopping center's
property. They were willing to make the deal subject to
getting the wall built.
An unidentified woman in the audience stated that the
homeowner's property stopped before MervyD's.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that Weatherall stated he was
speaking in favor of both petitions. Was there any intent to
withdraw the Joint Venture petition and join in with the City's
petition.
Weatherall replied that as he understood, there were two
motions before the Council and he would like to have both
addressed. He asked if the first petition, the Joint Venture
petition, was the one which required a six vote approval and
the second petition would require a four vote approval.
City Attorney Drayovitch replied yes.
Weatherall stated that if that was the case, they would like to
withdraw the first petition, the Joint Venture petition.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that the Council had the option
to determine if they want to accept the withdrawal.
Fred Pole, Chair-Denton Chamber of Commerce, presented the
Council with a letter of support for the Pep Boys proposal with
a petition of support attached. (Exhibit C)
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked which of the two petitions the Chamber
was supporting.
Pole replied as the first petition had been withdrawn, the
Chamber would be supporting the second petition.
Roy Appleton, Jr., Chair-Economic Development Advisory Board,
stated that the Chamber was working with lots of developers
looking for development sites. He was in favor of the second
petition and asked the Council to delete the restrictions on
the bay doors and power equipment. He felt any legitimate
business which wanted to locate in Denton which had the
reputation of being honest and good business people, should be
encouraged to come to Denton. The proposed site was not usable
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 7
315
for single family or multifamily homes or industrial purposes.
The uses left would be retail/office which the proposal met the
qualifications for retail. As a businessman, he did not
believe that the government, the City, the State or the Nation,
should not be able to tell what hours to open/close and operate
as long as it was legitimate within the building. The proposal
should be approved with the deletion of the requirement for
hours of operation and tool restrictions.
Bob Powell speaking as a homeowner and taxpayer, stated that
the last time this issue was before Council, the Council voted
it down and at the same time, raised taxes. Pep Boys was
offering to come to Denton to pay taxes and the Council denied
them the opportunity, since that time, the taxes had been
raised again and also the school taxes had been increased.
There was a limit to what the taxpayer could pay without help.
He stated that once a property was zoned, it was zoned. It was
not zoned and then when less than one-half of one percent of
the people in the City did not like it, the zoning was
changed. If the property was zoned commercial, then the City
should listen to the other 99.5% of the people who were not
saying "don't let them come".
Council Member Ayer asked Powell the source of his figures
regarding the 99.5%
Powell replied that he took the number of people who had been
in the newspaper against the proposal and took the number of
people who were suppose to be in the City and did simple math.
David Dunning, Golden Triangle Joint Venture, stated that this
was not a single lot development. There. were many businesses
in Denton that they were involved with. He felt that they had
worked with the homeowners in trying to solve their objections
such as the change in the rear entry for service. In these
tough economic times, with taxes up and the economy down, a new
business would be good for the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd asked where truck deliveries would be made.
Dunning replied the deliveries would be made on the side of the
building. There was no service drive in the rear of the
building.
A1 Meloro, National Director for Site Development for Pep Boys,
reviewed the history of site development. He felt that Pep
Boys had tried to work with the people in the neighborhood. It
would be difficult to operate with the limitation of hours when
other businesses did not have such restrictions. There were
not many retailers who would do what Pep Boys had done for this
project.
316
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8. 1991
Page 8
Jim Johnson conducted the third noise study for Cencor Realty.
Cencor had asked him to determine if there would be a noise
problem putting a Pep Boys on the proposed site and if so, what
steps would be necessary to take care of the problem. Johnson
reviewed the standards used to conduct the study and determined
that the 68dB standard was very easily accessible for Pep
Boys. His tests determined that an individual would not be
able to detect shop noise from the proposed Pep Boys.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that there was a certain amount of
noise at the intersection now due to the Interstate. Would the
building block some of the road noise and what would be the
effect of the trees and wall on noise reduction.
Johnson replied that the trees would be strictly cosmetic. The
wall would help with traffic noise near the wall but not much
with the Interstate noise.
Slick Smith stated that he had owned a Gulf Station which was
next to a motel. With all the noise associated with the
station, he never had a complaint from the motel regarding the
noise. He felt that the homeowners would not be able to hear
any noise from the Pep Boys on the other side of the wall.
Sid Rogers stated that he was concerned about the number of
commercial business in Denton. He was appalled at what the Pep
Boys representatives had been put through in trying to locate
in Denton. He was concerned that there might be another
national chain considering locating in Denton and might not
after hearing all that Pep Boys had to go through.
Dean Cochran stated that he was in favor of the second
petition. He was in favor of the company coming to Denton and
to encourage capital investment. He did not feel that the
proposal would take sales away from others who did the same or
related business.
Hal Williamson, President of the Hopkins Hills/Township
Homeowner's Association, stated that Pep Boys had been working
with the homeowner's for two years. He felt that there must be
something wrong with the proposal if it took two years for a
business to locate on an already "authorized" office/retail
spot. The problem was that it was not that clear cut. The
previous Council had voted the proposal down on the
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
proposal had been resubmitted and the petitioners had worked
with the homeowners. They had been informed shortly before the
meeting that the owner of four of the homes that adjoined the
site, had mysteriously withdrawn his objection one hour before
the meeting. It seemed funny to him that after two years,
there was no longer a super majority needed. He stated that
people had located in Denton for the quality of life. In order
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8. 1991
Page 9
to keep that quality of life, the Council was going to have to
choose between allowing a questionable service garage to locate
next to an adjoining neighborhood. The Association was not
antibusiness but was for protecting the quality of life in
their neighborhood and the rest of the City's neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that the property was zoned for
Planned Development. It was likely that some retail
development would occur on the property. If not Pep Boys, a
McDonald's, a miniature golf course or any number of businesses
could locate on the site. Was the Associations opposition to
any type of development or just to the Pep Boys proposal.
Williamson stated that there had been no other offer other than
Pep Boys for two years and he did not understand why. The
Association had had numerous meetings regarding possible
development of the area and had a list of businesses as
office/retail which included florist shops, physician offices,
etc.
Council Member Trent asked what made Williamson feel that Pep
Boys would not be a good neighbor.
Williamson replied that he knew the kind of noise generated
from an automobile repair shop and the fact that the store
operated late at night and seven days a week. They were not
saying that a fast food establishment would be any better.
They were concerned what was going to be developed in the area.
Joe Dodd felt that there would be no new jobs generated by the
addition of a Pep Boys. It simply would move it from one
business to another. Property values would not go up, it would
further erode the inner City. He felt that the message being
sent was that Denton favored national chains located along I35
no matter what the homeowners said about it. He felt that lip
service was paid to the downtown area and the inner city. He
felt that the same kind of service was not offered to the small
business already trying to survive in Denton.
Gerald Riggs stated that his objection was not to Pep Boys but
to the traffic situation. He felt that there would be an
increase in accidents in the area due to an increase in
traffic. He suggested not allowing development in that area
until the service road was fixed or the traffic flow adjusted
somehow.
317
318
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 10
Don Leander stated that he was pro-business but had a concern
regarding traffic in the area. Pep Boys would not be a miracle
cure for Denton. He presented a letter from Sunbelt Nursery
detailing a concern regarding the parking area in Wolfe's
Nursery. (Exhibit D) The proposed development would not affect
his home but he was concerned with the traffic in the area.
The letter indicated that Sunbelt Nursery felt it controlled
access to the parking area. If they decided to restrict drive
through, it would possible damage the Pep Boyd business.
Having to rely on that access for the mall, was extremely
dangerous. Trucks off-loading in the area would create an
additional problem.
Frank Massey stated that he was concerned with the traffic in
the area. He felt the Council would make the right decision if
it knew the traffic study for what was going on now and what
would happen in the future. If the Council had studied it and
felt comfortable with it, then the Council should proceed with
the development.
Billie Harkins stated that there was a vacant lot in the area
and wondered how the fence would be built on that property. As
there was no loading in the back of the proposal, she did not
see how trucks could unload on the curve and accommodate
traffic.
Mark Fleege stated that his home was within the 200' zone to be
affected by the proposed development. He stated that all of
his neighbors were in favor of economic growth for Denton and
did not feel that the main issue was one of economic growth.
The main issue was the threat to the quality of life and the
devaluation of the property. When he purchased his property,
he knew the property would be developed and thought it would be
a continuation of retail. He asked the City Council to think
of protecting the neighborhood from a negative impact and favor
alternative %4 which would reject the Pep Boys proposal and
come up with a solution. He would like to see the issue of the
wall in writing. 15' of his property was easement. Did the
wall have to be built on his property or on City easement. He
did not see how the noise would not be a problem.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he understood that the wall
would be built on one side or the other of the easement
depending on whether the homeowners allowed ~he wall to be
built on their property or the shopping center allowed them to
built the wall on their property.
Fledge stated that if it were built on the shopping center, side
it would not do any good because the street was the only two
way north-south access to Pep Boys. If the wall were built on
his property, it would be right on the corner of his swimming
pool.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 11
Brian Scott stated that the major problem was the traffic.
There were many accidents on that corner. He felt the traffic
problem should be fixed first.
Dana Kingdom stated that she live directly behind the proposed
site. They were currently renting the house and the outcome of
the hearing would determine if they bought the house. She felt
that there would be noise to those who lived close. She did
not know for sure but felt that the landowner who withdrew his
objection owned her house. He was not involved in the
neighborhood and lived in Dallas.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that
zoning was designed to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the public. The planned development situation would
enable the City to both protect the neighborhood and still
allow the development. Robbins reviewed the various conditions
that could be placed on the petitioner and the various
alternatives available to Council regarding
approval/disapproval of the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that there was another undeveloped
tract between the proposed site and the shopping center. It
had been stated that the proposed development would not affect
traffic in the area so much that it had to be turned down for
that reason. Would a future proposal be significantly limited
as a result of action at this meeting.
Robbins replied that he did not think so because much of what
had already been done had eliminated most. of the problems. In
his opinion, continued development of the area would not create
a safety problem for which further development needed to be
denied.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd felt that the 68dB limit and the closing of
the bay doors and limited use of power equipment was
redundant. He felt that a reasonable dB level could be
established and then allow the petitioners to decide how to
keep under that level.
Council Member Ayer asked how an individual would get to the
Pep Boys store if he did not take the Loop 288 exit and proceed
on the service road.
Robbins replied he would have to turn right at Wolfe's
Nursery. He also stated that it was staff's understanding that
Wolfe's did not have the authority to close the entrance/exit
off the service road.
320
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 12
Council Member Alexander asked why the wall separating the Pep
Boys property and the neighborhood and particularly the
extension of the wall past Mervyn's was not included in the
list of requirements.
Robbins replied that it would be difficult to enforce a
standard which was outside the zoning district under
consideration.
Council Member Alexander asked the Attorney to comment on that
issue.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that if Council wanted to try
and include such a provision in an ordinance, she would
recommend Council to direct staff to research the issue as to
whether it could be enforced.
Council Member Alexander stated that the property owners who
owned the property on which Mervyn's was built, were a few
years ago, the same property owners that owned the property on
which the Pep Boys was being proposed. In that process, there
needed to be an understanding that there was a joint
responsibility between the neighborhood to try to work
peacefully and comfortably with that property owner in that
area and a responsibility on the part of the property owners of
the area to talk about and deal with as effectively as they
could, how they could help buffer that residential neighborhood
from what was in fact, a rather commercial area. He felt it
was very important that Council, regardless of the outcome,
make absolutely sure that Council did everything possible to
make sure the wall was built before Council approved or even
considered approving either of the plans. Relating to the
hours of operation, he felt it was important to set a
reasonable maximum noise level. He was concerned that there be
a way to enforce that. He also felt it was important that the
Council did not set up a business and make it operate at a
disadvantage relative to other businesses. He was interested
in looking at building into the ordinance a maximum noise level
but not necessarily making unreasonable restrictions on the
hours of operation of that business. He felt it was important
to address both of those issues before voting in favor or
against the proposal as amended.
Council Member Trent felt that the Council was very much aware
and very much sensitive to the fact that there was a certain
segment of the City which was feeling threatened as a result of
the proposal. He stated that the Engineering Department had
gone on record stating, "even with Pep Boys, the intersection
will still function at a level that can handle that amount of
traffic" He asked if Pep Boys was aware of the problem at
that intersection.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 13
Robbins stated that he felt they understood the nature of the~
intersection.
Council Member Trent asked if there was a time frame for
finding a solution for that intersection.
City Manager Harrell replied that it was not on any long range
letting schedule. The City had only conversed with the State
about how to make the intersection work properly.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he had observed various auto
parts store and had seen traffic at those businesses but the
traffic was not a mass movement. There were not huge crowds
going and coming or at an auto parts store. It was more of an
in and out movement.
Boyd motioned, Alexander seconded to accept the withdrawal of
the Joint Venture Petition. On roll vote, Trent "aye,"
Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "nay," Ayer "aye," Boyd
"aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried with a 6-1
vote.
Trent motioned to approve the City petition deleting the bay
door closing requirement and to delete the power equipment
operation limitation with no limitations on the operating hours.
City Attorney Drayovitch asked for a point of clarification.
Was the motion to adopt the City petition with the conditions
listed on pages 8 and 9 of the staff report with the exception
of 4.b.5. and 4.b.6. (Exhibit D)
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd noted the lack of a second to the motion.
Mayor Castleberry asked for a second. Hearing none, Mayor
Castleberry seconded Trent's motion.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that he had a problem with the
motion. It did not have any requirement that the wall be built
off of the subject property. He felt that was important to the
neighborhood and was essential to the program. The Planning
and Zoning Commission and Pep Boys had agreed to certain hours
of operation and had stated that those requirements were no
problem. He felt deleting that was unnecessary and a breach of
faith with the citizens.
Mayor Castleberry asked if Mayor Pro Tem Boyd would like to
amend the motion.
321
~-~ Mayor Pro Tem Boy4 replie4 no.
322
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 14
Council Member Ayer stated he appreciated the flexibility of
Pep Boys. He felt it was not an economic issue but rather a
land use issue. He did not accept the argument that the City's
image would be ruined by what was done on this matter. The
primary consideration was the use of the land and what was best
for the City of Denton. His major concerns centered on (1)
traffic; (2) esthetics - the City was concerned about the
entrances to the City and this was a major entrance. The
architecture of the building had changed, in an attempt to meet
some of the objections of the neighborhood, so that the bay
doors were in full view of northerly bound traffic on I35 and
Dallas Drive. The garbage collection had also been moved from
the rear to the front along with the loading bays; (3)
restrictions on operating procedures - it was not appropriate
to include those types of restrictions in this kind of an
ordinance. He felt it was unfair to Pep Boys to ask them to
operate the store in a manner which was different from any of
their other stores. It was not good to try and "tape up" the
proposal up so that it would be acceptable to both parties. He
felt if the proposal was to be approved, it should be done
without the restrictions on it. If the business was not
appropriate for that location and operate at its normal manner,
then the proposal should not be approved.
Alexander motioned, Hopkins seconded to amend the main motion
to include a requirement that the wall be extended down past
Mervyn's to Piney Creek.
City Attorney Drayovitch clarified the amendment stating a
masonry wall was to be constructed extending past the property,
past Mervyn's to Piney and that that wall would be constructed
prior to issuance of a building permit.or a certificate of
occupancy or something of that nature. The wall was to be of
the same construction as was proposed on the site plan behind
the proposed Pep Boys site.
City Attorney Drayovitch asked Council Member Trent if his
motion included the items listed on page 10 B. 1-5 of the staff
report.
Council Member Trent stated that his motion did not include
those items.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd pointed out that the other differences
between the City proposal and the Joint Venture proposal were
(1) no display or sale of used merchandise, (2) engine,
transmission, and auto body work restrictions, (3) building
fascade and colors agreed on, and (4) landscaping 325' more of
the property. He felt all of those items were important and
had been presented as being in the proposal. Yet the motion
before the Council, did not require those items. He felt the
proponents were actually expecting to do those items. He felt
it was best to get all requirements listed in order to be able
to enforce those requirements if necessary. He felt it was
important to include those four requirements along with the
wall requirement.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 15
Mayor Castleberry asked Council Member Alexander if it would be
acceptable to include those items in his amended motion.
Council Member Alexander agreed to include those items in his
amended motion if Council Member Hopkins agreed to modify her
second.
Council Member Hopkins agreed to the modification to her second.
A point of clarification was to include the items listed on
page 10, 2.b. 1-5 to the amended motion. (Exhibit E)
Council Member Ayer asked if Pep Boys did engine, transmission
and auto boyd work in their other stores.
Meloro replied yes they did that type of work in their other
stores.
Council Member Ayer stated that he had a problem with the
amendment. He did not have a problem with the extension of the
wall but was opposed to putting in the ordinance their plan to
do an additional 325' of landscaping. It would be great if
they did that, but he was reluctant to put something in an
ordinance that was more demanding than the landscape ordinance
which applied to everyone. He was also opposed to including
the restrictions on engine, transmission and auto body work.
If there was going to be a Pep Boys in Denton, then it should
be the same kind that was everywhere else.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd stated that rather than take the map the
City had prepared of the landscaping, the Council take the map
that Joint Venture had prepared for the landscaping and put in
the 325' of additional landscaping.
council Member Gorton called the question on the amendment to
the main motion.
On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "nay," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Council Member Gorton felt that this was not an economic
development issue. He felt it was a land use/zoning issue. He
appreciated the input from the neighbors. He felt it was
confusing to have two petitions and appreciated Joint Venture
withdrawing their petition to simplify the process.
Council Member Ayer stated that it had been suggested that the
opposition from the neighbors was a new item. The neighborhood
opposition was not a new item and went back to 1969 against the
original planned development.
3 2'3:
324
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 16
Council Member Hopkins stated that this was a zoning issue
only. The proposal met the zoning conditions. She could not
vote against a proposal when it would not stand up legally.
Council Member Ayer stated that the motion as amended did not
have the 20% rule attached to it. It took only a simple
majority of the Council to approve the petition as amended.
Mayor Castleberry replied yes.
Council Member Gorton stated that this was not the final
ordinance.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that this was approval of the
petition and clarified Council Member Trent's original motion
that he desired staff to prepare an ordinance in conjunction
with the petition.
Council Member Trent stated that was correct.
The Council voted on the main motion as amended. On roll vote,
Trent "aye," Alexander "nay," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer
"nay," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye." Motion carried
with a 5-2 vote.
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered
an ordinance approving the rezoning and concept plan of a
14.198 acre tract of land from Agricultural District to Planned
Development District for the purpose of a mixed use development
on property located at the southwest corner of U. S. Highway 77
and Riney Road. Z-90-010 (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval.)
Frank Robbinso Executive Director for Planning, stated that
this property was located in a low intensity area. The Denton
Development Plan, in it's policy with respect to low density
areas, suggested that small scattered sites of apartments and
nonresidentail uses were encouraged subject to limitations.
Those limitations included (1) strict site plan control - a
planned development was proposed which offered strict site plan
control; (2) traffic - the Development Plan stated that traffic
needed to be designed to ensure that multifamily and
nonresidentail uses nad access to collector or larger streets.
In this proposal, access was to the realigned Riney Road; (3)
Overall density/intensity - there was not a problem with the
density of the proposal. The proposal did request more
intensity than what was allocated to the property. A
disproportionate share analysis needed to be made which needed
four criteria met in order to prove that disproportionate share
of intensity. The criteria included (1) the location and use
relative to existing and planned development - the location was
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 17
convenient for the extension of water and sewer lines in the
future. Significant drainage work needed to be done but that
would have to be done before the property was developed; (2)
topography and the environment - there was no unusual
topography or ma~or environmental features in the area that
would contrast in the development of the site; (3)
compatibility with existing and future land uses - the
surrounding land uses included some scattered single-family
dwellings with most of the surrounding area being vacant; (4)
other policies - the requirements of the Sign and Landscaping
Ordinance would apply. The development also conformed to the
Denton Development Plan Policy for entranceways as it had
strict compliance with the sign ordinance, provided attractive
landscaped frontage and required minimal curb cuts with
emphasis on the internal circulation of traffic on site.
Mayor Pro Tem Boyd understood the property had more intensity
than what was allocated to a low intensity area. That would
include property off of Highway. 77. The intensity area looked
at was not a narrow band along Highway 77.
Robbins replied that was correct.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
T. Kirk May, owner/petitioner, felt that the proposal was the
best alternative for the area which met all of the Development
Guide outlines. The closest homeowner in the area, Sam Marino,
was in favor of the plan but was not able to stay for the
meeting.
Joyce Poole expressed concern with the pr,oposed cut-off of the
road and the alignment with Highway 77. She was concerned
about how much traffic would be pulled off Bonnie Brae and how
the-people in the apartments would be able to interface with
the flow of traffic.
Curt Stogsdill was concerned with the traffic in the area.
There were poor road conditions and the proposed commercial
areas of the development would create more traffic.
Charles Scott also expressed a concern regarding the traffic in
the area. The proposal had been before Planning and Zoning and
had been told that the Commission would prefer single family
housing in the area.
T. Kirk May was allowed a five minute rebuttal. He stated that
this proposal was a new proposal and had not been denied by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated the city was ve:y
intent on having the alignment with Texas Instruments. One oZ
the most dangerous intersections now was where Riney Road
intersected with Highway 77. The new alignment was one of the
conditions to development.
326
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8. 1991
Page 18
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-001
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING
FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT (PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND
USE DESIGNATION FOR 14.198 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF U.S. HIGHWAY 77 AND RINEY
ROAD; PROVIDING FOR APPROVAL OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE
DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance with
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations. On roll
vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
Consent Agenda
Hopkins motioned, Trent seconded to approve the Consent Agenda
as presented. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye,"
Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor
Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Bids and Purchase orders:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Bid #1161 - Transformer Repair
Bid ~1182 - 500 KVA Transformer
Bid #1184 - Capacitor Banks
Bid #1192 - Loader/Backhoe & Tractor
Bid #1195 - Tires
Bid #1196 - Batteries
P.C. #10949 - Prector Turbine Service
~.C. ~%550 - J & S Equipmen~
P.C. #11569 - A & P Water & Sewer Supply
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 19
6. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services. (5.A.1. - Bid #1161, 5.A.2. - Bid 91182, 5.A.3. - Bid
~1184, 5.A.4. - Bid 91192, 5.A.5. - Bid %1195, 5.A.6. - Bid
~1196)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-002
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases
of materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance
with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from
requirements of competitive bids. (5.A.7. - PC 910949, 5.A.8. -
PC ~11550, 5.A.9. - PC 911569)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-003
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM
REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Gorton motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote. Trent "aye." Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye." Gorton
'"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castlebe£ry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
327
/
328
NOTE:
Page 328 has been left blank and pages 329 & 330 are omitted
by intention.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 20
C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the execution of Change Order No. 2 to a contract
between the City of Denton and Martin K. Eby Construction Co.,
Inc.; and providing for an increase in the contract price.
(The Public Utilities Board recommended approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-004
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CHANGE ORDER
NO. 2 TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
MARTIN. K. EBY CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: PROVIDING FOR
AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE: AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Trent motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment %2 to the agreement
of February 16, 1988 between the City of Denton and Freese and
Nichols Inc. relating to professional engineering services for
design of the Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant. (The
Public Utilities Board recommended approval.)
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this
amendment included work which would make the water treatment
plant operate more efficiently.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-005
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 16, 1988
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND FREESE AND NICHOLS,
INC. RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
THE DESIGN OF THE LAKE RAY ROBERTS WATER TREATMENT
PLANT: AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Alexander motioned, Trent seconded to adopt the ordinance. On
roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton
"aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry "aye."
Motion carried unanimously.
3:3 1
332
City of Denton City Council
January 8, 1991
Page 21
E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
establishing fees to be charged by the Denton Municipal
Laboratory for coliform bacteriological analyses. (The Public
Utilities Board recommended approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 91-006
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE
DENTON MUNICIPAL LABORATORY FOR COLIFORM
BACTERIOLOGICAL ANALYSES; PROVIDING A REPEALING
CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Trent asked why the proposed fee was $12 when
the State Department of Health charged only $8.00
Howard Martin, Director of Environmental Operations, replied
that the $12 was for the cost of labor and materials for the
operation. The State received supplemental funds to do the
tests and thus could charge less.
On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye,"
Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Castleberry
"aye." Motion carried unanimously.
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
recommending a location for the State Department of Highways
and Public Transportation Landscape Grant Award.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the previous evening's
Denton Record-Chronicle had done a story concerning this item
with the implication that this matter came before Council with
no consideration on recommendations made by the Beautification
Commission and was being pushed forward despite views they
might have had. Unfortunately that story was never asked to be
clarified on the part of City staff members so that an
explanation could be provided before the story was written.
Harrell presented the background on the recommendation. In a
recent study session, the Beautification Commission presented
Council with a report regarding major beautification which had
gone on over the last year ending in the receipt of the
Governor Award. The Award was to be used for landscaping along
a state highway. During that presentation to the Council by
the Beautification Commission, there were three sites suggested
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 22
3.33
for inclusion in a report to be given to the State. Those
three sites were the intersection where the two I35's merged,
the intersection of Lillian Miller and Loop 288, and an
extension of the Dallas Drive project which would pick up the
City work that the City was already funding and carry that
further to the north. A preferred recommendation from the
Beautification Commission, at that time, of those three sites
to be submitted to the State, was the Lillian Miller/Loop 288
site. After that report had been submitted to the Council,
several things transpired. The first was that information was
received that three sites were not necessary to specify to the
State but it was sufficient to specify only one site for
consideration of the award. Secondly, because of funding
problems the State had been encountering, they were no longer
able to guarantee that they would be able to maintain the
landscaping projects along interstate highways for a three year
period of time. That maintenance guarantee was one of the
prime reasons that the Beautification Commission offered for
selection the Lillian Miller/Loop 288 alternative. The third
item was the fact that several of the Council indicated to him
that for an impact to the City for people entering the
community and making an impression about the community, that
impact would be maximized by the Dallas Drive location. After
receiving that new information and that kind of feedback, he
went back to staff involved with the Beautification Commission
and asked them to get in touch with the Commission to see if
the members wanted to alter their recommendation to Council
based on the new information. That was done and was only done
because of the fine effort the Beautification Commission had
done. The worse insult on the part of the Council or on the
part of others would be to reject the recommendation and go
with another recommendation. The Chairman of the
Beautification Commission was contacted and was not inclined to
call a special meeting of the Commission to reconsider that
item. But did indicate that she had no problem with the Dallas
Drive location and would not be opposed to that. She also
suggested staff poll all of the Commission members to see if a
majority of the Commission members would go along with that
recommendation. That was done and the majority of the
Commissioners expressed to the staff concurrence that Dallas
Drive was acceptable to them for recommendation to the City
Council. On that basis the resolution was prepared for the
Council which specifically sited the Beautification Commission
as the recommending body. Harrell apologized to any of the
Beautification Commission members for in any way implying that
their views were not considered and that their efforts were not
appreciated.
334
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 23
Jesus Nava, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the
Beautification Commission expressed an interest to work with
the Council to see whether Dallas Drive could be completed down
to Teasley Lane in the near future.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. RPl-001
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING A LOCATION FOR THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
LANDSCAPE GRANT AWARD: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Hopkins motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the
resolution. On roll vote, Trent "aye," Alexander "aye,"
Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor
Castleberry "aye." Motion carried unanimously.
Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
A. Item ~3 from the Work Session was considered.
The Council held a briefing and discussion regarding the status
of various highway projects.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, updated the Council on the
existing projects in the City's bond projects and that were on
the Highway Department's letting schedule. There was a ten
year letting schedule with only enough money projected in that
ten years to build half of the schedule.
Teasley Lane - had the best priority and chance of
being funded and built anywhere near the. State's projections.
The plans for the project would be done in June of 1991.
Utility and easement documents would be done in February or
March of 1991. It was hopeful that it would be let sometime in
late summer or fall.
U.S. 77 - the public hearing for the environmental
impact statement would be held this spring. After that
hearing, the environmental impact statement would be done.
Clearance was expected for the fall. Six months from then, the
right-of-way drawings would be given to the City which would
allow the City to acquire the right-of-way sometime in the late
spring or early summer of 1992. The project would be let in
1993, assuming money was available.
U.S. 380 - the environmental impact statement and
schematics were being developed. The State was getting ready
to advertise for a public hearing in February or March.
Clearance would take four to eight months and six months for
right-of-way maps. This meant it would be sometime in 1993
before the City was given the right-of-way maps and about a
year later before the project was let, dependent on money.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 24
U.S. 377 - was being done by a consultant and the
schematic was now in Austin. The public hearing would probably
be in spring for the environmental impact statement. Six
months later would be the right-of-way drawings which would
allow the City to ~cquire the right-of-way and move the
utilities. Approximately a year after receiving the
right-of-way drawings, the project would be let.
There were to be three public hearings this year. About a year
from then, the City would receive the right-of-way drawings and
a year from that receipt, the projects would be ready to be
let, assuming there was money for the projects.
Loop 288 - work had not started on this project and
probably would not be built until 1995.
Improvements to I35 - some of the improvements are on
the State's list as candidates for expansion. It was important
to make sure the City's projects were on some letting schedules
and planning documents.
Highway 2499 - a draft of the environmental impact
study had been received from the consultant. The final product
would be taken to the Highway Department sometime in March for
approval. That would be level one funding and the Task Force
would be asking for level two funding and start to acquire the
right-of-way. This was out of sequence but as Highland Village
had a large majority of the right-of-way already donated, it
was felt that this would help move the project along from
Highway 407 to Highway 2181. At that same meeting with the
Highway Department, it was suggested that the City of Denton
and the City of Cornith jointly ask the Highway Commission to
allow them to do the level one feasibility study for the last
section of Highway 2499 which would come up from Teasley Lane
to Loop 288 and proceed on to I35E.
9. There was no official action on Executive Session
items during the Work Session.
10. There were no items of New Business suggested by
Council Members for future agendas.
335::
336
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 8, 1991
Page 25
11. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during
the Regular Session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50
p.m.
CIT~ SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
CITy OF DENTON, TEX7
3335C
EXHIBIT A
Attachment 10
PLANNING AND ZONING AND JOINT VENTURE COMPARISON
337
Item
Building footprint
walls, parking, site
layout.
Uses
Number of auto
service bays.
Noise mitigation.
Building facade..
Other conditions.
Signage.
Planning and Zoning Joint Venture
Same. Same.
I
I
a. Many retail/service uses,
including auto parts and
service and offices.
b. No or seat cover work.
c. Engine, transmission and
auto body work
restriction.
d. No used merchandise sales.
Nine (9).
a. 8' concrete wall.
b. Row of shumard oaks.
c. Bays face 1-35.
d. No power wheel/tire
equipment operation on
weekends and before
9 am and after 7 pm.
e. Service bay door closing
7 pm and 9 am, daily.
f. Peak noise not'to exceed
68 decibels.
No recommendations.
a. No out of building
auto service work.
b. Construct wall before
building permit for
building.
15' tall, 150 square foot
pole sign.
Auto parts store and auto
service, only. No
muffler or seat cover
work.
Nine (9).
a. 8' concrete wall.
b. Row of shumard oaks.
c. Bays face 1-35.
Note: Objects to
d. and e. Does not
object to f. but f.
is not part of their
petition.
Addendum 2 to the Joint
Venture's Development
standards shows a build-
ing elevation and its
colors.
a. No out of building
work.
b. Does not object to
building the wall
first, but not part
of petition.
c. Proposes to extend
the wall to behind
Mervyn's.
More detail as shown in
Sign Lighting Addendum.
15' tall, 150 square
foot pole sign.
338
Attachment 10
Planning and Zoning and
Joint Venture Comparison
Page 2
Item
Landscaping.
Sidewalks.
Planning and Zoning
5 feet wide next to
retaining wall which
is taller than 2 feet.
Joint Venture
Same as P & Z, except
additional landscaping
has been added along the
east side of the build-
ing for an additional
325 square feet more
landscaping.
All sidewalks are 5 feet
wide.
Summary of Differences
1. Planning and Zoning's has more retail uses and adds offices.
2. Planning and Zoning has two conditions which the Joint Venture objects to:
the bay closing times and the power equipment restrictions.
3. The Joint Venture detailed plan shows more landscaping.
4. The Joint Venture proposes adoption of a building elevation and
illumination standards.
5. The Joint Venture proposes to build an extension of the wall on
residential side to the creek behind Mervyn's.
6. The Joint Venture has restrictions on engine, transmission,
and prohibits sales of used merchandise.
sign
the
auto body work
1892e
tCase Z-~O-OOg) EXHIBIT B 339
Page Ten
ALTERNATIVES
1.
Approve the Joint Venture's petition.
Staff Notes:
a) If Council would approve this, staff strongly recommends
that the list of other retail and office uses and parking
for them be added to the ordinance adopting this petition.
b) The Joint Venture indicated during the P~Z public hearing
and since then that they do not disagree to the following
conditions which are not part of their petition:
1) A peak noise standard of 68 decibels.
2) Building the wall behind the building on the 1.727 acre
tract before a building permit is issued.
These conditions could be added to the ordinance adopting -
the Joint Venture's petition.
Approve the City (P&Z) petition:
Staff Notes:
a) If this is approved, two conditions which the Joint Venture
objects to would be adopted. Those conditions are:
1) Bay door closing requirement.
2) Power equipment operation, limitation.
b) The Joint Venture's petition is more detailed as follows:
1) The Joint Venture's Detailed Plan includes a note to
extend the wall to behind Meryvn's.
2) The Joint Venture's Detailed Plan has 325 square feet
more landscaping.
3) The Joint Venture's Development Standards includes a
building fascade or elevation {not yet received) at this
writing) and sign lighting standards.
4) Engine, transmission, and auto body work restrictions.
5) No display or sale of used merchandise.
Page 10
3 4 0 (Case 7.-90-009)
Page Eleven
ALTERNATIVES
3.
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance adopting the Joint
Venture's petition and including the following:
a) Other uses as listed by P~Z.
b)
Add a condition about peak noise levels not to exceed 68
decibels.
c)
Add a condition about building the wall behind the building
(but not behind Mervyn's) before the building permit would
be issued.
Staff notes: This would delete the conditions the Joint Venture
objectives to about bay doors and power equipment and adds their
more restrictive proposals about wall extension, landscaping,
fascae or building elevations, and sign lighting.
Direct staff to prepare an ordinance which would adopt a
detailed plan and development standards, but not permit auto
services uses, and would permit all other retail and office uses
listed by the City (P&Z).
Deny both petitions and give no direction to preparing any
ordinance on this site.
Staff note: Staff respectfully suggests that this is not an
particularly good alternative.
Direct P~Z to hold further public hearings and make another
report.
7. Postpone or table consideration or giving direction.
Page 11
January 8, 1991
Dear Mayor Castleberry and
Members of the City Council:
By design, the Denton Chamber of Commerce rarely
becomes directly involved in, or takes a formal position
on specific zoning issues. Because of the diversity of
our membership, we cannot appear to favor one business
over another.
Based on the circumstances and events leading up to
the petition that has been requested by Pep Boys; however,
our Board of Directors has subsequently determined that in
this particular case an exceptlon is clearly justified.
In reviewing this issue, we understand and appreciate
the efforts of the Planning & Zoning Commission, city
staff and especially the applicants themselves, to
identify and consider possible compromlses which would be
acceptable to the various local interests. We submit,
however, that the American Free Enterprise System is a
basic principle of democracy, originally founded on the
belief that there are limits as to what extent government,
at any level, can and should impose rules and regulations
on one's right to do business. While we respect and fully
support your authority to interpret these limitations, we
ask that you please consider these key points:
The applicant is a highly reputable and legitimate
business, which can provide a critically needed
boost to the local tax base and labor force;
The applicant has already demonstrated a
willingness to compromise its normally, accepted
operating standards in order to help satisfy local
interests;
The intended use of the applicant legally meets the
zoning classification of the site in question. The
market and surrounding development hamper the
optimum economical utilization of this site.
414 PARKWAY
DENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P, O. DRAWER P
DENTON, TEXAS 76202-1719
TELEPHONE 817-382-9693
ACCREDITED
342
Mayor Castleberry and
Members of the City Countil
January 8, 1991
Page 2
In our opinion, a~y one of th~se points is sufficient
to approve the applicant's petition. The issue goes
beyond this, however, thus we offer the following:
Because this applicant is a nation-wide firm, its
location in Denton can send a positive message to
other businesses - of all ty~es - across the United
States. We feel that our city's reputation in the
highly competitive, overall marketplace is at
stake.
We feel that the proposed compromises, which
include substantial and expensive architectural and
landscape adjustments on the part of the applicant,
border on excessive, and we are especially
concerned when any business is limited to hours of
operation that are obviously below what is commonly
acknowledged as reasonable and practical.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Denton
Chamber of Commerce, we encourage you to give favorable
consideration to any legitimate and legal business that is
considering a site that is already appropriately zoned.
Although our Board is duly authorized to act and speak
on behalf of all 800-plus members of the Chamber, we have
also made petitions available to any individual who
personally supports our position on this issue. Thank you
for your consideration.
Respect fully,
Chairman of the Board
Charles W. Carpenter
President
34:3:
TO: The HonOrable Mayor and
Denton City Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the si_~e cannot be reasonably used
for ~ny other purpose.
,.
/
/?
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Denton City Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the site cannot be reasonably used
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Denton City Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the site cannot be reasonably used
for any other purpose.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Denton City Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the site cannot be reasonably used
for a~ otherDurDose.
TO: The Honorable Mayor and
Denton city Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of ~he Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a m~nimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the site cannot be reasonably used
23.
24.
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and
Denton City Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council.to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal business, if the site cannot be reasonably used
for any other pur~~~,~~~3. ~
15.
16.
¢ ,
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and
Denton City Council
/ -.
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum of restrictions - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a legal bus~B~ss, if the site cannot be reasonably used
for a.D~ other ~urpo~. ) ~ ~
2. 14
15 .. ~ -~, ~--
11. ~ 23.
~'~ 9_4.
350
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and
Denton city Council
We, the undersigned, endorse and support the formal position
taken by the Board of Directors of the Denton Chamber of Commerce
during its Regular December 17, 1990 Meeting, which respectfully
urges the Denton City Council to approve any zoning petition -
with a minimum~D~ restricti, ons - of any legitimate business,
engaged in a leg~/I bu~siness, if the
fo~r ~rpo~ site cannot be reasonably used
EXHIBIT D
(Case Z-90-009)
Page Eight
RECOMMENDATION (continUed)
4. Add the following conditions:
Onsite parking shall not exceed 74 spaces· Building and
land use square footage shall not exceed an area whereby
more than 74 parking spaces shall be required. The
number of parking spaces and building and land use area
shall be determined by using Article 1S, Appendix B,
Code of Ordinances.
b. For auto parts sales and auto repair uses, add the
following conditions:
1) the building shall not exceed 20,573 square feet in
size;
2) shall have no more than nine auto repair bays; ~
3) shall not install, repair or replace mufflers o~
seat covers;
4) peak noise levels created 0y activity within this
development shall not exceed 68 decibels as measured
from any property line whic~ abut a residential use;
S) all automobile service bay doors shall be closed
between 7 p.m. and 9 a.m., except for those periods
of time which are necessary to convey motor vehicles
to and from the enclosed service area;
6) No use of power driven tire or wheel repair,
replacement, or removal equipment shall be allowed
except Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and
7 p.m.; and
7) No out of building automobile repair testing,
analyzing, or parts placement shall be allowed.
The precast concrete screening wall shall be constructed
and determined by staff to be in compliance with the
approved Detailed Plan and the City Code prior to
issuance of a building permit for construction of a
building on the subject site.
de
The Development Standards shall be consistent with the
approved Detailed Plan.
The retaining wall height detail shall be added to the
Detailed Plan.
If automotive repair bays are not used £or a permitted
use, they shall not be required to be constructed.
Page 8
3 5 2 (Case Z-90-009
Page Nine
RECOMMENDATION (continued)
A building may be constructed within, but not outside, th~
building area shown on the approved Detailed Plan.
The number of parking spaces may be decreased below 74, if
parking is provided in accordance with Article 15,
Appendix B, Code of Ordinances.
Sidewalks next to a retaining wall that is taller than two
feet shall be five feet wide.
Page 9
tCase Z-90-0o9~ EXHIBIT E 3 5 3
Page Ten
ALTERNATIVES
1.
Approve the Joint Venture's petition.
Staff Notes:
a) If Council would approve this, staff ~trongly recommends
that the list of other retail and office uses and parking
for them be added to the ordinance adopting this petition.
b) The Joint Venture indicated during the P~Z public hearing
and since then that they do not disagree to the following
conditions which are not part of their petition:
1) A peak noise standard of 68 decibels.
2) Building the wall behind the building on the 1.727 'acre
tract before a building permit is issued.
These conditions could be added to the ordinance adopting
the Joint Venture's petition.
Approve the City (P~Z) petition:
Staff Notes:
a) If this is approved, two conditions which the Joint Venture
objects to would be adopted. Those conditions are:
1) Bay door closing requirement.
Z) Power equipment operation' limitation.
b) The Joint Venture's petition is more detailed as follows:
1) The Joint Venture's Detailed Plan includes a note to
extend the wall to behind Meryvn's.
2) The Joint Venture's Detailed Plan has 325 square feet
more landscaping.
3) The Joint Venture's Development Standards includes a
building fascade or elevation (not yet received) at this
writingJ and sign lighting standards.
4) Engine, transmission, and auto body work restrictions.
S) No display or sale of used merchandise.
Page 10