Minutes January 4, 199447O
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 4, 1994
The Council convened into the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January
4, 1994 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Smith; Council Members
Brock, Chew, Cott, Perry, and Miller.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
2. Presentation of the Keep America Beautiful, Inc. National
Awards.
Bill Watson, Keep Denton Beautiful Board, presented the Mayor with
a Certificate of Excellence awarded to the City by Keep America
Beautiful. He also presented the City with a Distinguished Service
Citation for the month of March. The National Second Place award
was also presented to the City on behalf of Keep America Beautiful.
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance adopting a Planned Development Concept Plan, of
5.25 acres, a change in zoning from a Planned Development district
(PD124) to single-family districts (SF-10 and SF-7) on 38.28 acres,
and a change in zoning from an agricultural district (A) to single-
family districts (SF-10 and SF-7). The 38.28 acre site was located
east of Loop 288, north of Kings Row, and generally west of Farris
Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, 7-
0.) Z-93-026
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning and Development,
stated that there were several actions associated with this
proposal. The area to be considered for the zoning action was now
in a planned development district. The 5.25 acres would remain
planned development for general retail uses and a concept plan
level approved for that use. A detailed plan development would
have to be submitted and approved before any development could
occur. There were three separate areas which would be rezoned from
Planned Development-124 to SF7. One area would be an SF10
development. Planned Development-124 would be amended by adopting
a concept plan for the retail uses and changing from planned
development to SF7 and SF10 for the rest of Planned Development-
124. Item #A4 on the agenda was a request for a variance and Item
~B1 wa~ the preliminary plat for the ~ame tra~t of land. The
variance recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission was for
a cul-de-sac length. At the time Planned Development 124 was
471
city of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 2
approved, there was a 1.5 acre tract of land shown as a future park
which was adjacent to Hodge Elementary School. Staff's comments to
the developer at that time, indicated that it was not anticipated
that the area would be a city park but might be used by school.
There was also the indication of that site being used by the school
in a report to the Planning and Zoning Commission. That area of
open space would not be present if the Council approved the
straight SF7 zoning. The DISD had expressed a concern regarding
the elimination of that park area. Staff had prepared another
ordinance which might be an option for Council approval. The
second ordinance approved all which had been recommended by the
Planning and zoning Commission except for Section Three which
included the open space area. That area Would remain Planned
Development 124 which could be built but would still include the
park.
Council Member Cott asked if the petitioner would like the second
ordinance.
Robbins indicated that the original proposal was what the
petitioner would like to have approved and what was recommended by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Council Member Chew questioned why there was a second ordinance.
Robbins replied that it was prepared as an alternative if the
Council wanted to approve part of the process which would allow the
developer to proceed with two phases of the development and keep
the development process moving but did not include the phase which
contained the park if the Council wanted to maintain the open
space. If Council did not want to maintain the open space, the
original ordinance in the backup should be considered.
Council Member Perry asked why the park was not included in the
original ordinance.
Robbins stated that the proposal which was made by the applicant
did not include that land as part of a park. When the application
was made to the City, the developer was in negotiations for a piece
of land which the school could use. Those negotiations did not
work out. The school at this time used part of the land off their
property as part of a playground. The school had an interest in
keeping the park area. Those issues were not discussed in great
detail at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
City Manager Harrell stated that when staff became aware, in last
few days, that the DISD had concerns regarding the rezoning
request, staff tried to get with the attorney's office to formulate
472
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 3
an alternative so that if Council were sympathetic to their
objection and did not want to proceed with the rezoning for that
tract of property which contained the future park site, the Council
had an option to not deny the entire zoning request.
Council Member Brock asked if the park was originally intended to
be a private park.
Robbins replied that the records from the Development Review
Committee indicated that the Parks Department felt that the tract
should not be given to city but be used for schools purposes. The
labeling on the planned development stated that it would be a
future public park. The current zoning or anything approved later
did not define who would be responsible for the maintenance of the
property. It only defined the use of the land. The issue of who
owned or maintained the property was not part of the zoning case.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if Council opted for the alternate
ordinance, would this section in question have to go back through
the Planning and Zoning Commission when a decision was necessary on
whether to have a park.
Robbins replied yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if the same developer was involved at
this point as was with the original plat.
Robbins replied no that it was a different developer.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked how many lots the developer would be
gaining by not having a park.
Robbins replied that the proposed configuration had 35 fewer lots
because they were larger and had 2.5 acres less commercial area
than the current planned development.
Council Member Cott asked if this would fall under the park
dedication policy.
Robbins replied that that policy was entirely voluntary and the
preliminary plat showed no park land to be dedicated.
Council Member Cott felt that this appeared to be heavy handed on
the City's part in terms of changing the set of rules. The second
ordinance had not been public information and the Council could not
act on that ordinance.
473
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 4
Council Member Brock asked the City Attorney about Council Member
Cott's statement that the Council could not consider the second
ordinance.
City Attorney Drayovitch stated that so long as the ordinance was
presented to the Council in written form and Council had an
opportunity to review it, there was no problem with the
presentation of it at this point. The applicant had requested
rezoning of three separate tracts and the second ordinance approved
the rezoning of two of those three requested rezonings.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Brian Burke stated that originally approximately 12.5 acres of the
property was sold to the DISD for the Hodge Elementary School. The
developers, Teasley Road Associates, zoned and platted the
remainder of the property for Planned Development 124 zoning.
Approximately 5 acres were sold for a church which had not been
developed at this time. The property was lost by the original
developers. Most of the infrastructure in the area was developed
seven years ago and the proposal would be using the current
infrastructure. The developer became aware of the second ordinance
shortly before the Council meeting. He asked staff if park use in
an SF7 zoning district was mutual exclusive.
Mayor Castleberry asked when the developer learned of the second
ordinance.
Burke replied that they were made aware of the second ordinance
after they had arrived for the meeting. When they had discussed
the park area with the City park staff, the area was originally
considered a public park. This was a less intense use of the
property than Planned Development 124. The land plan in phase
three was not identical to the prior use with larger lot sizes.
Robbins stated that parks were a use authorized by right in SF7.
The preliminary plat before Council showed the area which was a
park in the existing planned development as houses.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that the 1.5 acres for park was not in
the new proposal.
Burke replied correct.
Edmond Bright stated that they knew of the proposed park when they
purchased the property in June. They went to th~ Park Board
regarding the area and the Board indicated that they did not have
the money for the park or the money to maintain the area and did
474
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 5
not want the land. He met with Gilbert Bernstein of the DISD
regarding the property. He asked if the DISD would be interested
in buying the property as the DISD was already using the property
for a playground. The DISD indicated an interest in purchasing the
property. In July a proposal was made to the DISD regarding the
property for $15,000 per acre. The DISD attorney indicated that
a legal description of the property was needed which Bright
supplied. After a sixty day wait for the DISD to complete the
deal, it was learned that the DISD would pay $18,000 for the
property and not the $45,000 which was the original price. This
issue had not come up until this evening. He felt that he had been
fair with this issue. He went to the City and to the School and
did everything right in the planning. He offered to lease the
property to the school but never received an acknowledgement. The
issue was not about a park, it was about a school playground. He
asked the Council to approve the project as submitted.
Tom Pickett stated that if Council could not approve the proposal
as submitted to at least approve Phase I and II.
Richard Hayes, representing the DISD, stated that Hodge Elementary
School was to the north of Phase III of the proposal. Planned
Development 124 included a 1.5 acre tract as open space. The
concept plan and the preliminary plat showed a specific location of
a park area next to the school. After building the school, the
DISD had been using the area indicated as park on the original plat
as soccer fields. Mr. Bright did contact the school in July but
indicated that he was not in a hurry on this phase as it was the
last to develop. When the DISD was first approached with this,
their question was why would the District have to purchase property
or lose the use of a park which was already in an approved planned
development especially when they had been using it for such a long
time. The original planned development included open space to be
used as a park. The DISD wanted to continue to have the use of
that plus the lower intensity in the area immediately adjacent to
the southern boundary line. There would be fewer properties in the
area and they wanted to keep the current configuration of the
property. The DISD felt that the existing zoning was better and
that it was good public policy that once open space was included in
a planned development that that should continue. The DISD had no
objections to Phase I and Phase II and requested that Phase III
remain the same. The day after the Planning and Zoning Commission
met regarding this issue, the principal of Hodge Elementary School
noticed the signs indicating a proposed change in zoning.
Council Member Brock asked how much acreage the school owned at the
site.
475
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 6
Hayes replied that the school'had 12.5 acres.
Council Member Miller asked if the area the school was now using
was the 1.5 acres or additional land in the area.
Hayes replied that essentially it was the same land, just not as
far south as the original proposal.
Council Member Miller stated that the property dedicated in the
original planned development was not the same land which the DISD
needed to continue use of the athletic fields. The DISD usage
would change the configuration of the property.
Hayes replied that the original planned development was a multi-
step process. A preliminary concept plan was submitted and before
any building permits would be issued, a detailed plan would be
submitted. At that time, the actual platting and actual layout
would be submitted. The general concept for the area had been laid
out but no details on the metes and bounds.
Council Member Miller stated that it appeared that in the original
proposal there would have been lots adjacent to the school
property. The original proposal would not have assisted the
school. The petitioners felt that they had covered all areas with
the City and with the School District. There had been a written
proposal made regarding 3 acres of land at a certain price. Was
there reason to believe that negotiations took place and then fell
apart regarding the property.
Hayes replied that when Mr. Bright contacted DISD, he had two
concepts. One was for 1.5 acres, the other for 3 acres. The DISD
was using only approximately 1.4 acres and that was where the
interest was for the property. After Mr. Bright had been in the
process for some time and developing the street layout, etc., he
indicated that it would be best to sell the entire 3 acres to the
DISD. The DISD did not really want all three acres but were
willing to negotiate. The DISD had a question as to why did they
have to buy that property for park usage when it was supposed to
have been there for public use. The appraised value was under what
the owner had asked for the acreage. At that point, after phone
calls and written communication, the negotiations fell through. It
was not until after the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that
the school principal learned of the zoning request.
Mayor Pro Tem smith asked that even if the original planned
d~v~lopm~nt w~re approved, the ~hool would ~till not hav~ the
soccer field.
476
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 7
Hayes replied that the school would need to rotate the field.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that the soccer fields were not in the
original park area.
Hayes replied correct. Their understanding was that there was an
initial concept plan and when the developer returned for the
building permit, there would be a final plat showing the exact
location and use of the property. The use of the property by the
DISD began with the permission of the former property owner at a
different configuration than what was on the concept plan.
Council Member Miller stated that when Council saw a planned
development in which a park was dedicated and streets laid out,
generally the plan would come back in that manner.
Robbins replied that technically it could go either way. Normally
it could be expected to see a layout come back as the detailed plan
the same way the concept plan was laid out. A different
configuration would amend the concept plan.
Council Member Miller did not know of any communications which
would have altered the original concept of the planned development.
Hayes replied that apparently there was some discussion between the
developer and the DISD on the configuration of the park area. The
DISD had permission from the former developer to use the property
in the current configuration.
Council Member Brock asked if the DISD,
owner, received notice of the Planning
meeting.
as adjoining property
and Zoning Commission
Robbins replied yes as far as he knew the DISD had received
notification.
Hayes stated that as far as he knew, the DISD did not receive the
notice.
Council Member Brock stated that the only park dedication policy
the City had was a voluntary program and that was part of the
problem with this issue.
City Manager Harrell stated that many cities had a park dedication
ordinance which required a developer in any residential zoning to
dedicate a certain amount of park land or make fee in lieu of land
dedication. Denton had voluntary standards only with no mandatory
ordinance. All residential developers were made aware of the
477
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 8
standards and requested to make a voluntary donation. The program
had not been very successful. This case was different in that it
was a planned development. In a planned development if the
developer specified that a certain property would be set aside as
open space, that developer was required to follow that plan.
Council Member Brock stated that there had been a reference to the
thoroughfare plan in which Deerfield Parkway would go through to
the north to Hartlee Field Road. The backup plans did not indicate
that road going north to Hartlee Field Road.
Robbins stated that the preliminary plat showed a dedication on the
property for the extension of that collector street which would be
extended to the north to Hartlee Field Road. The preliminary plat
indicated that dedication of that extension which was in accordance
with the Master Plan.
Council Member Perry stated that the property had changed owners
since the detail plan. How binding was the original plan.
Robbins replied that the zoning required that the property be used
as a park or open space. It did not indicate what kind of park,
what uses would be made of it or, who owned the property. That was
the allowed use of the land.
Council Member Cott asked if the land was required to be a park or
open space, was that not in conflict with the park dedication
policy.
Robbins stated that the zoning only defined the use of the land.
The park dedication policy required the dedication of the land to
the City. This was not a dedication.
Albert Thomas, Superintendent of Schools, stated that he had a
concern regarding the impact of the original placement of houses so
close to the school. The DISD property was very heavily used. As
the DISD worked through its rezoning district, he encouraged the
City and the DISD to formalize more what was agreed to with
developers or between themselves with park and land use. The
school would be a good neighbor to the development.
The petitioner was allowed a 5 minute rebuttal.
Ed Bright stated that he had a letter from the DISD indicating that
they were interested in 3 acres of the property. The previous
developer had 300 acres in this area, sold 12 acres to the DISD for
the school and set aside 3 acres for a playground. When the
concept plan was described to him, he was told that the concept
478
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 9
plan was good only for 2 years. The area was only a playground,
not a park.
Robbins replied that there two kinds of proposals for the original
development. One was a zoning case which was still in place. The
issue concerning the time frame of two years dealt with the
preliminary plat which was good for two years. The zoning did not
change.
Bright stated that they had made an offer to the school which was
fair. The playground took up 7 1/2 lots. The DISD indicated that
they did not need the property. He asked for support of his
proposal.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that it was disturbing to him that the
developers learned just prior to the meeting of the proposed
alternate ordinance which was not fair. He asked when it was
determined that there was a problem with the open land.
Robbins replied that the issue was clear to the staff when the
application came in. The alternate ordinance was provided so that
if Council agreed with the DISD and wanted to preserve the open
space, it would not stop the entire development.
Mayor Castleberry asked why this was not part of the backup
materials.
Robbins replied that the ordinance was prepared during the day.
City Manager Harrell stated that staff was trying to maximize the
flexibility of Council in dealing with the issue. When it became
apparent that there would be some controversy concerning this
matter, staff looked for a way that if Council was sympathetic to
the DISD standpoint, the applicant would not have to go back
through the entire process before starting any type of development.
This was another option for Council.
council Member Miller asked when it became apparent that this was
a controversy.
Robbins replied that it was known before the Planning and Zoning
meeting that negotiations between the applicant and the DISD were
not going well.
City Manager Harrell stated that staff had started intensive
discussion regarding the issue and learned that the DISD would
479
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 10
appear at the meeting after the packet had been sent to the
Council.
Mayor Castleberry asked that if Council decided to zone the
property as requested, it would not preclude negotiations on the
property.
Robbins replied correct with respect to the zoning. The
preliminary plat would have to be modified.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 94-001
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
CONCEPT PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) NO. 124 BY REDUCING
IT TO 5.25 ACRES FOR GENERAL RETAIL USES; BY CHANGING 7.76
ACRES OF PD NO. 124 TO SINGLE FAMILY-10 (SF-10); BY CHANGING
24.73 ACRES OF PD NO. 124 TO SINGLE FAMILY-7 (SF-7); AND BY
AMENDING .56 ACRES OF AN AGRICULTURAL (A) DISTRICT BY CHANGING
.388 ACRES OF SUCH DISTRICT TO SF-10 AND .174 ACRES OF SUCH
DISTRICT TO SF-7, SUCH 38.38 ACRES BEING LOCATED EAST OF LOOP
288, NORTH OF KINGS ROW AND GENERALLY WEST OF FARRIS ROAD;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance as recommended
by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the three requested
actions within the original ordinance.
Council Member Miller stated that he would vote for the motion but
felt that the process had not worked very well. He hoped that
these types of issues would be anticipated in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that she would like to see the City
follow more closely with the DISD when planning a building for
parks and coordinate in that area. The property belonged to Mr.
Bright and the DISD had the use of the property for many years free
of charge. She was in favor of the motion and felt that in the
future a better job could be done but this time the needs of the
developers needed to be met.
On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye!', and Mayor Castleberry "Bye". Motion
carried unanimously.
480
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 11
B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance approving a concept plan, detailed plan and
variances to the Subdivision Regulations for Planned Development
District 118. The 163.93 acre site was located on U. S. Highway
377 at Brush Creek Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, 6-1.) Z-93-027
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
was as request for a substantial amendment to a planned
development. The proposal included a detailed plan of 142.39
acres, a general concept plan of 21.54 acres and the requested
variance to the Subdivision and Land Regulations. The detailed
plan included 186 single family detached residential lots and 4
parcels for the extension of the existing Denton Country Club golf
course. The variances requested included the length of the cul-de-
sac and the angle of a street intersection. The zoning ordinance
anticipated the option of approving variances to the Subdivision
Regulations. If Council approved the proposal, the concept plan,
detailed plan and variances would also be approved. There was also
a deviation to the sign ordinance proposed. The deviation involved
the number of ground signs allowed per premise and the height of
the sign allowed. The detailed plan had signs on entrance walls to
be located on both sides of the intersection of U.S. Highway 377
and Glenbrook Drive. The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the signs as all criteria had been met for
the deviations. This development was located in two intensity
areas. One was a moderate intensity area located along Highway 77.
This zoning did not propose moderate activity uses. It proposed
low density and open spaces. If approved, there would be a
decrease of approximately 15,000 intensity trips above what the
Denton Development Plan allocated due to the fact that moderate
activity uses were not proposed in the area.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
Sharon Cox stated that she was concerned about flooding along Brush
Creek and was concerned about the drainage with the development.
There were two low lying areas in the development and she was
concerned that the development of the area might contribute more to
the flooding in the area. Most of the neighborhood was in lower
areas than the proposed development and the neighbors were
concerned about drainage. She requested an assurance from the
developers or the city that the development would not increase
water drainage in the area.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
481
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 12
Council Member Cott asked what would be done in the design of the
proposal to address the issue of drainage.
Robbins replied that when the subdivision was approved, there was
a drainage easement in the 100 year flood plain. A more detailed
study would take into account the constrictions downstream from the
property. The City's regulations would not allow the developer to
increase the heights of flooding. Before the final plat was
approved, a drainage easement and a study to confirm that there
would be no increase of heights to cause flooding would have to be
completed.
Council Member Brock asked for an explanation of single family
attached units.
Robbins replied that they were essentially a duplex except on
separate lots.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 94-002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE
CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE 86-145 BY REPEALING THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN AND
USES PROVIDED THEREUNDER AND ADOPTING A GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN
OF 21.54 ACRES AND A DETAILED PLAN OF 142.39 ACRES FOR
RESIDENTIAL, GOLF COURSE AND OPEN SPACE USES FOR APPROXIMATELY
164 ACRES OF LAND BEING LOCATED GENERALLY ADJACENT TO U.S.
HIGHWAY 377 AT BRUSH CREEK ROAD; GRANTING SIGN VARIANCES;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE
MAXIMUMAMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance.
City Attorney Drayovitch recommended that included in the motion,
there be a provision that page 6 of the Planning and Zoning
Commission report be included in the minutes for this meeting.
Page 6 set forth the reasons why the variances to the Subdivision
Rules and Regulations were appropriate in this case.
Council Member Perry agreed to include that recommendation in his
motion and Mayor Pro Tem Smith included the recommendation in her
second. (Attachment A)
482
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 13
On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance rezoning 23.2520 acres from SF-16 to Planned
Development District and consider approving the detailed plan. The
tract was located north of and abutting Ryan Road on Forrestridge
Drive. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval,
7-0.) Z-93-028
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that the
planned development enabled the same kind of development as had
occurred on the property to its north. It enabled a lesser setback
than the zoning ordinance would require. It would also allow
fences in the front yards which were adjacent to Ryan Road and
Forrestridge Drive and allow for lots which were less than 100 feet
at the building setback line but which had an average width of
100' The zoning ordinance defined a front yard as one wherever
there was a street. With a corner lot, there would essentially be
two front yards. No access would be allowed on Ryan Road and no
driveways would be allowed on Ryan Road. The planned development
established some protection for the development along Ryan Road by
having a tree protection provision and adding a requirement to
plant trees along Ryan Road on the eastern end of the development.
The developers had agreed to those provisions in the planned
development.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Cott asked how it would be assured that the
developer would comply with the requirements in relation to the
storm water run off west on Ryan Road.
Robbins replied that the plan required the developer to improve the
drainage ditch on the east. The west side would be the
responsibility of Denton County for which the City was engineering
the drainage.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that staff was working
with the County on the issue and plans had been submitted to the
County since June/July. The County had made comments on those
483
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 14
plans and staff had made several revisions. Staff would be again
discussing the plans with the County during the next week. The
latest plans piped all of the water out of Forrestridge from the
southwest corner running west and then south across Ryan Road.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 94-003
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY - 16 (SF-16) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR
APPROXIMATELY 23.25 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED NORTH OF AND
ABUTTING RYAN ROAD ON FORRESTRIDGE DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
4. The Council considered approval of a variance of the
Subdivision and Land Development Regulations for the Deerwood
Addition regarding cul-de-sac length. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval, 7-0.)
Frank Robbins, Executive Director for Planning, stated that this
request was for a variance to the cul-de-sac associated with the
preliminary plat listed on the Consent Agenda. If the variance
were not approved, the preliminary plat should be pulled. The
zoning ordinance required a cul-de-sac length of 1000' and the
proposed cul-de-sac would be 1140' in length. According to the
Planning and Zoning Commission the request met all the criteria for
a variance request. Those criteria stated that the variance would
not violate a master plan, there were special and particular
conditions upon which the request was based which related to
topography, shape or other unique physical features of the
property, and the special or peculiar conditions upon which the
request was based did not result from or was not created by the
owner's or any prior owner's omission.
Council Member Perry asked if emergency vehicles would have
adequate access into the'lots and on the cul-de-sac.
Robbins replied that that would not be a problem.
484
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 15
Brock motioned, Chew seconded to approve the variance request. On
roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
5. Consent Agenda
Perry motioned, Chew seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye",
Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
ao
Be
Bids and Purchase Orders:
Bid #1560 - Pole Inspection
P.O. #26052A - Gracon Construction
Plats and Replats
Preliminary plat of Lots 1-30, Block A, and Lot 1,
Block B, in Phase One; Lots 1-31, Block A, in Phase
Two; plus Lots 1-14, Block A, and Lots 1-22, Block
B, in Phase Three; of the Deerwood Subdivision.
This 38.28 acre tract was located east of Loop 288,
north of Kings Row, and generally west of Farris
Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval, 7-0).
Preliminary plat of Denton Country Club Estates,
Block 1, Lots 1-87 and Parcel G-3; Block 2, Lots 1-
52 and Parcel G-i; Block 3, Lots 1-47; Parcel G-2.
The 142.39 acre site was located on U. S Highway
377 at Brush Creek Road. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval, 6-1.)
C. Contracts
6e
1. Contract with the City of Hickory Creek for
ambulance services.
Ordinances/Resolutions - Consent Agenda
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for
public works or improvements. (5.A.1. - Bid #1560)
The following ordinance was considered:
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 16
485
NO. 94-004
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING
FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Smith motioned, Perry seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the execution of a change order to a contract between
the City of Denton and Gracon Construction; and providing for an
increase in the contract price. (5.A.2. - P.O. #26052A)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 94-005
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CHANGE ORDER TO A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND GRACON CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY; PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Chew motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
an interlocal ambulance agreement between the City of Denton and
the City of Hickory Creek for ambulance services. (5.A.3)
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R94-002
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF HICKORY CREEK FOR
AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Smith motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the resolution. On roll
vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew
"aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
486
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 17
7. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the Mayor to execute a release relative to the estate
of Ruth I. Anderson.
This item was pulled from consideration.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing submission for certification to regulate certain cable
rates and services; authorizing the City Manager to sign documents
necessary to obtain certification, and to determine and implement
such rates and regulations.
City Manager Harrell stated that there had been a detailed
presentation regarding this item at the last Council meeting.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R94-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION FOR CERTIFICATION TO REGULATE CERTAIN
CABLE RATES AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN CERTIFICATION, AND TO DETERMINE
AND IMPLEMENT SUCH RATES AND REGULATIONS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Perry motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution.
Council Member Cott believed that the City should not do this as
this was something which the free enterprise system should control.
The best way to make any money in the cable business was to tell
the cable company what the City was looking for in terms of money
and give them time to earn it and if they did not earn that amount
of money, remove them. The control of private enterprise was
something which he did not believe in.
Council Member Brock stated that the Dublic air waves belonged to
the public and the City had a responsibility to the subscribers in
the community.
Council Member Miller felt that this was not an issue of free
enterprise as this was a regulated monopoly. If the City did not
take the responsibility, then the citizens could- be put in a
situation where they would be paying rates over which no one had
any control. This was not a typical competitive situation as it
was a franchise situation.
487
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 18
On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott, "nay", Miller "aye", Smith "aye",
Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
8. The Council considered a request from the Greater Denton Arts
Council to redesignate Laylor funds designated for historical
restoration and adaptation of the old steam plant at the corner of
Hickory Street and Bell Avenue for use on the Campus Theater and
gave staff direction.
City Manager Harrell stated that Council had received a written
request from the Greater Denton Arts Council regarding their desire
for the use of funds which had been set aside for an historic
restoration project. If after discussion of issue, the Council
wanted to accommodate that request, the appropriate action would be
to refer the issue to the legal staff to find the legal mechanism
necessary to implement the request.
Roni Beasley thanked the City for its for support of the arts in
Denton and asked for support of their request. Several months ago
they had asked for historic designation of the Campus Theater as
Laylor funds could be used for historical renovation and for the
arts. The Council did grant that historical designation for the
Campus Theater. There was a need in Denton for a performing arts
facility for arts groups. It was hoped that the renovation of the
steam plant would provide that facility. However, the train noise
was excessive in the old steam plant and at the Visual Arts Center
and it was determined that that location would not be suitable for
a performing center. The Arts Council was asking the Council to
redesignate those funds which were generated for the steam plant to
the Campus Theater. Plans were to hold the steam plant until a
future need was seen for the building and then proceed on those
plans. At this moment it was felt that the best place to use the
funds would be on the Campus Theater.
Council Member Brock stated that the letter the Council received
indicated that the Arts Council was at the $1.1 million mark for
the fund which included the Laylor funds.
Beasley replied correct and that as of this evening the total was
now at $1.160 million.
Council Member Perry stated that the Arts Council and the City
Council had had good negotiations over the past years. On the
strength of what the Council had done as well as the Greater Denton
Arts Council, many people had devoted many hours of volunteer
effort. He wanted to keep the faith with those people regarding
the use of the funds. There was a need in the City for a fine
488
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 19
performing arts center as well as a place for the theater. He
wanted to see the money stay where it was in order to serve as seed
money for another effort to modify the steam plant. He wanted to
keep the faith with that particular agreement with the Greater
Denton Arts Council and leave the money set aside for the
renovation of the steam plant.
Council Member Miller stated that 10 years ago he felt the same way
about the project at the steam plant. In those 10 years many
things happened including the availability of the Campus Theater
and the fact that no one realized the impact of the railroad on the
performing arts facility. The steam plant could still be included
in the arts district. To not use the funds for the Campus Theater
would make it difficult to raise the $1.5 million needed for the
renovation. In keeping the faith, the primary objective was for a
first class performing arts facility in the community. All the
contributors to the facility were consulted and the overwhelming
majority agreed to have the original contribution to be used for
the Campus Theater. He supported the request which showed a
commitment of the Council to the community.
Council Member Brock felt that it was appropriate to contribute to
the renovation of the Campus Theater in this manner. Ten years ago
no one realized that the Campus Theater would be available and how
appropriate it would be for such a use. The location was very
important and would contribute to the renovation of the downtown
area. The Campus Theater had been a cultural aspect of the
community and she felt it was appropriate to transfer the funds.
Mayor Castleberry felt it would be a good use of the funds.
Miller motioned, Smith seconded to give staff direction to prepare
the legal documents necessary to transfer the funds from the steam
plant to the Campus Theater. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott,
"aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "nay", Perry "nay", and
Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
9. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, presented the following items:
A. A reminder to prepare for the Solid Waste Advisory
Committee appointments which would be included on the next agenda.
B. Council Member Cott had sent a memo to the Council
regarding the preliminary audit figures for the 1992-93 fiscal
year. That preliminary report indicated that the City would have
to take approximately $400,000 from the fund balance for the 1992-
489
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 4, 1994
Page 20
93 budget. Actually the City was going to be in the position of
increasing the general fund balance by $1 million. Council Member
Cott indicated that he wanted to explore various methods by which
those dollars could be returned to the taxpayers. When a budget
was adopted by the Council and in this case the general fund
budget, all of the money stayed in that fund. When the City was at
the end of fiscal year 1992-93 and not all of the budgeted funds
had been used, and in this case there were also additional
revenues, that $1 million balance would be added to the general
fund. Next year when the budget was set for 1994-95, the first
item discussed was how much fund balance to retain. At that point,
Council, over the last few years, felt that 10% was the appropriate
balance. Anything above that would be available for budget
allocations. At that point it would then be appropriate to discuss
whether to fund new programs, tax rates, what would be done with
the fund balance which was available to help balance the 1994-95
budget. That was really the only point in time at which a
determination was made on how much the Council was going to ask the
citizens to spend to support city government. Today in order to
use those funds, it would have to be in the form of unanticipated
programs not anticipated when the budget was set. Lacking that,
the funds stayed in the general fund until the Council set the
budget for the following year.
10. There was no official action taken on Executive Session items
discussed during the Work Session Executive Session.
11. New Business
There were no items of New Business suggested by Council Members
for future agendas.
12. There was no Executive Session held during the regular
session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Y ~CRETARY
Y OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC00185
CITY OF DENTON, TEX~S ~
/
490
ATTACHMENT A
(Case Z-93-027)
Page Six
(1)
The modified proposal' has no effect on any of the
City's master plans.
(2)
Granting these modifications will not cause adverse
effects for adjoining properties development
potential. The proposed location and geometry for
Eagle Point Drive will actually enhance development
potential for the property to the south.
(3)
This development is being designed with a golf course
weaving through the center. It would not be in the
developers interest or the City's to require a street
across the end or the middle of a fairway to meet the
1,000 feet cul-de-sac limit. In addition, the
modifications for the cul-de-sac are only 150 and 200
feet respectively. Concerning the intersection angle,
this is a function of the shape of the property on the
south end and again, the required geometry for a
regulation golf course.
(4)
This development would be much more difficult to do in
a standard zoning scenario as the required geometry of
the golf course does not lend itself to developing
standard shaped lots or street layouts.
(5)
Allowing the golf course to be constructed as a
regulation course and weaving it throughout the
subdivision will be an asset to the development and
the city. Aesthetic and drainage characteristics of
this subdivision will be better than what would be
provided in a standard subdivision. The degree of
modification to the normal standards is relatively
small and will have a negligible affect on the overall
function of the subdivision.
As stated previously, this subdivision is located in Intensity
Areas 94 and 95, designated low and moderate, respectively. The
following chart outlines the effect this development will have on
the Denton Development Plan.
Study Area 94 - Low Intensity
Allocation according to study area at 60 intensity trips/acre:
60 x 138.85 = 8331