Loading...
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