Loading...
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