Minutes January 07, 1997CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
January 7, 1997
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday,
1997 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council
Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young.
ABSENT: None
January 7,
Members
The Council considered the following in a Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments -- Under TEX. GOV'T CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, January 7,
1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Miller; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members
Beasley, Biles, Cott, and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of October 15,
October 22 and October 23, 1996.
Young motioned, Biles seconded to approve the minutes as presented.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye",
Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Miller presented the Yard of the Month Awards to:
Residential Awards - Keith and Tammy Jeffries
Mrs. Pearl Wooton
Business Awards E.V. Scott
Downtown Award - Dale and Charlotte Irwin
NOTE: Council Member Cott requested that Item #3 be transcribed
verbatim.
3. citizen Reports
Mayor Miller - the first citizen report is a report from Mickey
George regarding a neighborhood concern.
A. The Council received a report from Mickey George
regarding a neighborhood concern.
255
256
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 2
Mr. George - I would like to thank the Council for the opportunity
to be here tonight - City Manager, City Secretary. I'm going to be
speaking tonight on a concern that has to do with the extended
hours ordinance. It's an ordinance that was passed last January
and my report has to do with research and my discussions with many
people in the bureaucracy, city citizens, neighbors, the University
of North Texas that I have had the opportunity to deal with in the
past year. And whenever I started out on this guest, I was pretty
vague about what I was going to be finding and in the process, I've
come to be very firm in my belief that the extended hours ordinance
should be repealed by the City Council. My guestion that I have is
how do you guide the growth of a city. This is a guestion that I
have that each Council person and bureaucrat in the City who's
responsible for directing the growth and direction of a city should
consider. I know that this is something'that,s on your minds
because I have spoken with many of you in the past year and I know
you are very sincere individuals. Now if you have paid attention
to your correspondence over the past year, maybe you will realize
that I do not speak alone on this issue. There are many people
that share my concern about this. But back to how do you guide the
growth of a city and it's a very difficult guestion and you have to
know your city. You have to get out and you have to ask the
people. You can't make decisions on your own and you can't really
express your own opinions in these things unless you get out and
discover what does community mean. And that is people that live
together. And whenever you decide this, you will find that they
are, that the Denton City City Council, they have experimented this
past year with an ordinance and that experiment is now over. It's
been a year and when you look at the results of the experiment, you
will see Chief Jez actually has the evidence is there that you will
see that there has been a shift and the times that there have been
arrests and disturbances in the neighborhoods and that shift has
been moved from 12 to 2 o'clock. Exactly the hours of extended bars
where people can consume alcohol. Those have been extended so the
disturbances in the neighborhood have been progressively moved
until 2 o'clock. That is intolerable in the community, in my
neighborhood. That is intolerable because we are tax paying
citizens and we don't want to be disturbed in our homes at that
hour. Now that is an objective. You know, that is a scientific,
if you want to look at this extended ordinance as an experiment,
which I do, then that is something you can truly look at and that
is very clear. That now also with you will have problems. I do
expect the Council to repeal this ordinance and what you will have
when you do that is you will still have the problem that those
hours that peak at 12 o'clock will still be there and I do expect,
you know, the Council to look at that because this experiment to
where the hours have been extended that has spotlighted some
problems within the community. The community of individuals that
live together. Not just exist together and that community that I
speak for right now is the University of North Texas and the
students there. That are represented by the administration at
North Texas, the neighbors in the area of the Fry Street area.
city of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997 .' -
Page 3
257
That's the area that I know the best. You know that's an area that
ere is a concern about the .development o~ bars in that
;~;~'have cJmpassion for those citizens that live in those
consider our plea. This is the second time this has come up. In
1979 this issue came up and the.citizens had to defend themselves
in that case. In 1981 the Council responded and they repealed the
ordinance. And I stand before you right now with that same request
I have well I can promise you t~is, that if, and th%~.isn't
~eat or ;nything, but we have organized and we have petl=lons ana
just to save the taxpayers money and the effort of going to the
polls, I would really recommend you consider your conscience.
Consider what I've said and also all the input that you've gotten
from the pastors, from neighborhood associations, business people,
and please save us the effort of going to the polls. Lewisville
had this same issue come up right down the street. The city
Council at least had the foresight to throw this issue onto the
polls, at least. They did not begin to make the decision on their
own and in the polls, as you know, the city, the citizens of
Lewisville very adequately spoke their mind in the polls and the
ordinance never had the chance to begin to become an experiment.
Thank you very much for your time and I appreciate it.
Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. George. The next citizen report is
from Larry Bailey regarding the late hour alcohol sales.
B. Report from Larry Bailey regarding late hour alcohol
sales.
Mr. Bailey - I am Larry Bailey. Live at 3819 West University.
Lived in this city, wonderful city, for approximately about 23
years. I chose this city. I am glad I'm here. I never apologize
for it. At this time, I would like to address the Council
regarding two, some of my reasons for the repeal of ordinance 96-
014. I picked up a copy of it. I have not been able to find any
good grandmother who is proud that their grandchildren hanging out
in a bar or saloon after 12 midnight. Daytime employers want
employees well rested, sober and good attitudes ready to work.
Individuals and families lose their finances hanging around bars,
clubs and saloons. I've yet to see a person increase their
possibilities of going to heaven or have great success on this
earth, drinking alcoholic beverages after midnight. The liquor
industry has become rich by enticing our citizens to consume their
addicting poison. It advertises in very fancy and appealing ways.
They are great salesmen. Like the mafia and underworld they have
ways of getting what they want. My elected city leaders are like
dogs on leashes to the liquor industry. With little discussion,
operating in the dark of night, no city-wide vote, they vote to
give the liquor industry whatever it wants. In return the liquor
industry gives campaign contribution , free drinks, parties at
their facility, kegs of plenty and money for their elected leaders
as needed. It has happened in this group here. The liquor
258
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 4
industry also promotes taxes because they never pay taxes. The
poor suckers who drink the poison pay the taxes and they just pass
it on. Thus my city elected leaders have gotten, have wanted, and
gotten ordinances passed in the dark of the night, opening bars and
saloons until 2 a.m. because it's good for business. The policemen
get off duty work trying to maintain some decent order so that the
real problems of anger, fight, drunkenness and all that follow that
of the produce consumption does not look too bad on the liquor
industry. The Dram Shop laws of liability are in effect. The
tobacco industry has found out that they have developed their own
financial cancer of lawsuits, misery and no fun now. Elected city
leaders are to aid and assist the people to have a better life with
less misery. I can see the time when lawsuits are filed and
possibly won because city leaders encouraged alcoholic consumption
after midnight so that they could please the liquor industry and
evaded having a full vote of the City voters as to opening up the
City of Denton to legal liquor drinking in bars and saloons after
midnight. You are aiding and abiding alcoholic misery so that you
can get your 30 pieces of silver from the liquor industry. I beg
of you to repeal Ordinance 96-014. It has no good redeeming value.
Your grandmothers would not be proud of you if they were here
tonight or any other time seeing you promoting misery on your
fellow citizens. Please help us to defend, please help us who
depend upon your good judgement. Do not hurt us. Do what is right
and best for the citizens. Repeal Ordinance 96-014. Help decrease
legal alcohol drinking after midnight. I'll take any questions if
you have any.
Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Bailey. The next citizen report is
from Anita Bruno regarding late hour alcohol sales.
C. Report from Anita Bruno regarding late hour alcohol
sales.
Ms. Bruno - My name is Anita Bruno. I live at 1004 Stuart, Denton,
Texas. Since the late hours ordinance was passed for the City of
Denton on January 17, 1996, club, restaurant owners and suppliers
have done and will continue to do everything in our power to
promote responsible entertainment for our city and our city's
visitors. We understand that the success of the ordinance is to be
reviewed at this time. I believe that it has been a success and
that the success has resulted in jobs for our community, prosperity
for our city and a positive business climate in the City of Denton.
No longer are the citizens of Denton going to Dallas or Fort Worth
for their entertainment. They are staying in Denton. The success
of the ordinance has resulted not only in safer highways between
Dallas, Fort Worth and Denton, but also in the city itself.
According to Denton Police Chief Jez's statistics for the city of
Denton in the last 12 months, alcohol-related citations have
dropped 27.2%, burglaries have gone down 15.3%, party music and
other disturbances are down 11.2%. DWI arrests are down 5.9%. In
addition, no alcohol-related deaths have been reported between
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 5
259
either Denton and Dallas, or Denton and Fort Worth for this past
year. As cooperative Denton merchants and suppliers, we have come
together to urge responsible beverage alcohol consumption. Some of
the steps we have taken include more effective signage to encourage
our customers to drink responsibly and use designated drivers in
every on-premise account. Free cab service to our customers
whenever available or provide transportation personally to ensure
our customer's safety. My particular locations spend quite a bit
of money. We provide cab service Thursday through Saturday night
that's free to anyone in Fry Street area. They're there from ll to
2 o'clock every Thursday through Saturday night and that has been
our policy since January of 1996. It began right after the 2 a.m.
ordinance was passed. In addition, we worked with the Denton Police
Department and the University of North Texas Police to open and
operate a police store front at 106 Fry Street on September 13,
1996 to enhance police presence and encourage responsible drinking.
And I for one am a huge proponent of that and whether 2 a.m. stays
or goes, we definitely want the police down there. We support the
store front 100%. Also all of our employee's at my three locations
are all TABC certified and it's my understanding that that's pretty
much universal throughout the City of Denton. Almost every on-
premise location that I'm familiar with all their employees are
TABC certified which means they take a State course that certifies
them in alcohol beverage training. I am a Denton resident as well
as a club operator. I am also the treasurer of the Fry Street
Development Corporation. I believe that we have taken positive
steps towards responsible alcohol consumption. Responsible
consumption is a constant and continuing effort on everyone's part.
It is apparent that everyone is trying to sell and consume alcohol
at a more responsible manner each day. You have our pledge and our
promise that we will always be cooperative in urging moderation.
We will always support stringent enforcement of DWI and underage
drinking laws. We greatly appreciate your consideration and we
want you to feel free to please call on us if you have any
questions. And thank you for your time.
Mayor Miller - Thank you Ms. Bruno.
Council Member Cott - Mayor. With the City Secretary's approval,
would you see whether we may, in this section only, have a literal
translation of the, of what is being said versus .....
Mayor Miler - Fine.
Council Member Cott - Thank you.
Larry Bailey - I have a printed copy of my remarks.
Council Member Cott - Good. Thank you sir.
Mayor Miller - The next citizen report is from Mike Reid regarding
Fry Street.
260
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 6
D. Report from Mike Reid regarding Fry Street.
Mr. Reid - Appreciate the Council's time on this issue. My name is
Mike Reid. I live at 1035 West Oak Street. That's about a block
east of Fry Street so I am pretty familiar with what goes on down
there. Fry Street is a lot of things to a lot of people. You
know, it's a music venue for live acts which is great. Denton has
a lot of musical talent. It ought to be exploited or used and
enjoyed by the people in Denton. Fry Street's eclectic to say the
least. It's folksy, quaint little place that a lot of people in
this town remember from 20 years ago when it really was quaint. I'm
living a block away now and it's anything but quaint. I'm awakened
at least once a week by people screaming obscenities at the top of
their lungs at 3 o'clock in the morning. Having fun, having been
to these bars. And you know, all the calls to the Police Department
for a non-emergency call, there's no response. The people are gone.
I call them. They say "OK, we'll send a squad car out". The
people are gone by that time and I'm awakened and I can't go back
to sleep now. Fry Street is people mistaking my driveway for a
public restroom which I have seen more than once. Fry Street is me
having to go out on Thursday or Friday or Saturday morning, picking
up all of the broken beer bottles in my yard and then sweeping them
up out of the street because the City doesn't come by to do it for
me. I'm not against drinking by any means but I don't think we
need to be doing it at 2 o'clock in the morning. In a neighborhood
where I have to get permission from the City to paint my house. I
have to get permission from the City to put a roof on my house. I
have to get permission from the City to replace a rotted window in
my house because I'm in a historical district. People who care
that much about their city don't seem to care what goes on a block
away. And I just want to express my opinion that the 2 a.m.
drinking thing is not necessary. The idea that people are going to
Dallas to drink and not here, well fine, let them go. Let them
spend the night in Lew Sterrett, courtesy of Dallas because I don't
see anyone getting arrested for these actions up here. So, in my
opinion, the 2 a.m. drinking thing is not a good thing. Like I
said, if someone wants to drink until 2 a.m., let them go to
Dallas. I don't think it's something we need here. Thank you.
Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Reid. The next citizen report is
listed for Pat Ragsdale but I understand that Jim Martino will be
making a report at her request.
E. Report from Pat Ragsdale regarding late hour alcohol
sales.
Mr. Martino - Mayor Miller and members of the city Council, I
appreciate the opportunity to address you for just a moment. I am
Jim Martino. I do not live within the City of Denton but I do
represent, and I come representing, two institutions within this
City. I come as President of Russell-Newman and I also come as
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints here
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 7
261
in Denton. I was born in Denton. I was raised here in Denton. I
have lived all of my life here except for a short four year period
of my life. I appreciate what each of you have done to strive to
help to give your time and to build this city. I have sent a
letter that explains some of my feelings to each one of you but I
would like to go over a couple of those issues. No one has
addressed at this point yet. I personally have not seen at the time
the contact was made, Police Chief Jez did not have a report that
was completed when I started mine. But I do have a letter here from
Eric Jackson who is the Chief of Police at the University of North
Texas. And if I may quote one paragraph from that letter and this
is a memo that was copied but it was sent directly to Fred Pole as
Vice-President of the University of North Texas. "While I am not
advocating that the University support any particular position
concerning this matter, I do believe the ordinance had a negative
impact on our environment and the safety of our students. Also we
do not have the luxury of selected enforcement as the City has.
The City has no obligation to individual citizens. This is clear
under case law. The University, on the other hand, does have a
responsibility to the people we allow on campus. If the late hours
ordinance remains in effect, we will continue to experience a drain
on our resources that has not been there before January of 1996".
I was not in attendance a year ago, when the ordinance was first
presented, but I have spent the time to listen on video tape to the
entire proceedings. It amazed me as I sat here and listened to, and
as was presented tonight, owners of those establishments that are
selling the alcoholic beverages and talking about all of the things
they're doing to be sure that all of the laws are lived by. And
then a couple of months ago, I read in the Denton Record-Chronicle,
where undercover, they go by to each of these establishments and
take an underage individual in there and only on one occasion in
all of the establishments that they went into, was that individual
even carded to see if they were underage or not. I have great
difficulties to understand how they can stand and say they are
going to abide by all of the laws when on that one particular case
which to me is one of the most important laws pertaining to
alcoholic consumption that there is, that the Record-Chronicle
proved that there is nothing being done in that area. I have a
tremendous concern for that and for the safety for all of the
citizens of Denton when that is going on. I believe that that is
one of the great concerns of the University of North Texas. If the
CitY of Denton is striving to police that as well, my understanding
and I could be in error, is that when an establishment has received
three citations, that their license is suppose to be revoked. My
question that I would ask the City Council is who keeps a record of
those citations? I have had difficulty finding that anyone keeps a
record of those. If there were three, would anyone even know about
it when those establishment should have their license revoked. One
of the other things that was presented a year ago was that this was
necessary to be competitive with the towns that surround Denton.
Arlington was mentioned, Dallas was mentioned and Fort Worth. I
would ask, is it necessary to be competitive with all of the things
262
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 8
that those cities offer for our convention and entertainment
business? A couple of years from now will someone come and say to
be competitive with those cities, we need to offer the sex-oriented
industry that each of those cities have as well. I don't believe
that we need to offer some of these things to be competitive.
Denton is special because of the beautiful park that is here. The
quality of life that we enjoy. I would hope that we recognize the
importance of keeping the quality of life in Denton. I don't
believe in prohibition. I believe in everyone has their own right
to alcoholic consumption if they so demand. But I don't believe
that it needs to be at hours, the extended hours that this
ordinance provided. We appreciate your thinking about this and I
hope that your will take it serious in all of your considerations.
Thank you.
Mayor Miller - Thank you Mr. Martino. For the benefit of the
citizens here, this is a work session item for the Council next
week. We did, as part of the ordinance that was approved a year
ago, that we would receive a report from the staff concerning the
impact, the effect of the change in the procedures. We do
appreciate the input from the citizens. We've had input from
others and any communication you or others would care to give to
the Council or the staff between now and next week, we would
greatly appreciate it. We will be looking at this next week in a
work session.
NOTE: This ends the verbatim transcription of the meeting.
PUBLIC
4. The Council considered an ordinance rezoning 15.831 acres from
Planned Development No. 2 (PD-2) to the Single Family 7 (SF-7)
zoning district. The site was located directly east of Bell Avenue
at Coronado Drive, extending north past Cordova Drive. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.)
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that there were 120
notices mailed to property owners either within the District or
within 200 feet of the District. Eight replies were returned in
favor and none in opposition. This was a rezoning of the property.
Planned Development No. 2 had residential development but the
meaning of "residential" was very vague. Several months ago the
staff was approached byneighbors concerned that they had built SF-
7 type zoning in the Planned Development. Staff reviewed the area
and found that each of the lots in the affected area were built on
the requirements of SF-7 zoning. A neighborhood meeting was held
with the neighbors indicating that they were in favor of the
zoning. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposal
at their last meeting and recommended approval.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the affected area was already built
out with no vacant property for further development.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 9
263
Svehla replied correct.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 97-001
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NUMBER 2 (PD-2) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE SINGLE
FAMILY 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR 15.831 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED DIRECTLY EAST OF
BELL AVENUE AT CORONADO DRIVE, EXTENDING NORTH PAST CORDOVA
DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF
$2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance
rezoning 136 acres from the Single Family 16 (SF-16) zoning
district to the following zoning districts; Office Conditioned
(O[c]), Single Family 10 Conditioned (SF-10[c]), Single Family 7
Conditioned (SF-7[c]), Planned Development (PD), and approving a
detailed plan for that Planned Development. The subject property
was located on the east side of the Teasley/Lillian Miller
intersection. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval 5-2.)
Council Member Cott excused himself from deliberation as he owned
property near the proposal and felt there might be a conflict of
interest.
Mayor Miller stated that Council Member Cott had signed an
affidavit to that effect which was on file. That meant that five
members would be deliberating the proposal and would require four
out of five votes for approval.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that thirty notices were
mailed twice to surround property owners. The notices were mailed
twice because part of the request was postponed during one of the
Planning and Zoning Commission sessions. Of the notices received,
264
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 10
one was in favor, fourteen opposed andone had comments opposed to
the development but the opposition area on the form was not
circled. Duplicates were not counted but rather each of the
responses were looked at. That was prior to this meeting. Today
a fax was received from Beazer Homes withdrawing opposition to the
proposal. That withdrawal reduces the amount of opposition to 13%
which did not require a super majority.
Mayor Miller stated that in order for any business of the Council
to be approved, a minimum of four affirmative votes was required.
Svehla continued that the applicant proposed a total zoning of the
area and as such the staff had to review it based on the
application. Staff reviewed the proposal with all of the uses in
place and calculated intensity/density requirements. The Planning
and Zoning Commission reviewed all of those issues as well as other
issues such as traffic. After that review, the Planning and Zoning
Commission found that the circumstances and conditions in the
zoning application were sufficient to remedy the deficiencies and
recommended the proposal to Council by a vote of 5-2.
Mayor Miller asked for a summary of the phases of the zoning
request.
Svehla stated that the applicant was proposing office with
conditions for the property fronting Lillian Miller. The
conditions only permitted professional and administrative offices,
total floor area of all of the buildings constructed on the 4.4
acres would not exceed 5,200 square feet, no loading docks would be
permitted, the exterior walls of all buildings would be constructed
of not less than 70% brick or masonry vernier with 100% brick on
the front of each building, no direct off-site lighting would be
permitted, no off-premise signs would be allowed, a bufferyard
measuring 15' wide would be constructed with specific types of
trees along the property line of the 4.4 acres abutting the
residential lots, maximum building height would not exceed 35', no
individual buildings would exceed 7500 square feet, all buildings
must have pitched roofs and no roof surface would have a slope of
less than 30%. In addition to any street yard landscaping
required, an additional tree per every 50' of frontage along
Lillian Miller Parkway would be planted and no parking would be
allowed in the front yard setback of any building along Lillian
Miller Parkway.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock asked if there was any condition about where
the access to the street would be. Was the access in this area
directly on Lillian Miller or on a collector street.
Svehla replied that no condition was made regarding access. There
were requirements addressed in the Subdivision Regulations
regarding Lillian Miller due to the class of street.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 11
265
Council Member Young asked if the plans complied with the Denton
Development Plan.
Svehla relied that this hearing deaIt with the land use issues and
zoning. Zoning was acquired first and then work began on the
platting phase. More regulations governing the uses like driveways
would be considered then.
Council Member Biles stated that there was no provision limiting
curb cuts on Lillian Miller.
Svehla replied correct that there were none in the office
conditions.
Council Member Biles asked if that was going to be an issue of the
zoning or an issue of the platting.
Svehla replied that that generally was looked at during the
platting. There would be requirements which would have to be met
due to the class of road. The curb cuts would be taken up at a
later date. He continued with the conditions for residential
zoning which were included in the agenda back-up materials.
Council Member Biles stated that the plan showed access to the east
which currently was a dead end road.
Svehla replied correct.
council Member Biles stated that the property to the east of that
property line was not developed.
Svehla replied correct.
Council Member Biles asked if there was anything in the works for
that property.
Svehla replied that there had been some discussion regarding that
property.
Council Member Biles asked to what degree did staff believe that
there was a potential of development of a thoroughfare that would
access further to the east to create a release for traffic to the
Interstate.
Svehla replied that staff and the owner of property were aware of
that road being on the thoroughfare plan. Staff had had a
discussion or two with Dr. Baety but there was no time table at
this point in time.
Council Member Biles stated that that potential street would be a
residential street or a larger street.
266
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 12
Svehla replied that it would be classified as a collector street so
that it would be at least 40' wide.
Council Member Beasley stated that the traffic study only looked at
the single family homes but not the office.
Svehla felt that it looked at the office also.
Council Member Beasley stated that there was no mention of office.
Svehla replied correct that two peaks were looked at in the morning
and evening. She was correct that the office was not included.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Jake Hersman stated that this had been a long process with this
project. The process began with Development Review Committee
meetings in the s,,mmer, to a neighborhood meeting on October 8th,
to a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 23rd where
a number of concerns were discussed regarding the proposal.
Another neighborhood meeting was held on October 21st which
outlined the many substantial changes which had been made since the
beginning of the project. The proposal was approved by the
Planning and Zoning Commission on December 4th. He felt that the
system was working in this zoning case. It was felt that the
conditioned office zoning along Lillian Miller would be very
attractive with large brick home-like office buildings, landscaped
bufferyards, low pedestal lighting, strict signage control and rear
or side parking. A unique mix of lot sizes was designed each with
separate entrance off of a landscaped 41' collector road. The road
would go all through the property and would have screening walls
along each side of it with landscaping. The SF-7 and SF-10 lots
averaged 9,349 square feet. The planned development section,
located in the middle of the subdivision, would be completely
surrounded with screening walls. The attached residential
conditions ensured that the homes would meet or exceed what
presently was in Southridge Estates. Another unique feature would
be the development of a linear park system which included 5.876
acres of lakes and 10 acres of open green space. The lakes would
have a rock border with sidewalks. There were be many open areas
with the green spaces. There was also the possibility that Unicorn
Lake, a large 30 acre lake to the southeast, would become a part of
the park system. His contribution to traffic relief was an
$800,000 collector road which would ultimately collect to I35.
Whenever the PD-20 property was developed, they would be forced to
put in the collector road through. He would also contribute to the
construction of traffic lights at Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane.
Wind River Estates would be developed in four phases over a 6-8
year period of time allowing infrastructure, schools, etc. to
slowly expand to accommodate growth. The average selling price of
homes in Denton last year was $86,000. The average selling price
of homes for Wind River Estates would be $150,000.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 13
267
Council Member Young asked for a discussion regarding the parks
proposal, the detention ponds and the proposed collector road.
Hersman stated that the collector road would go through the middle
of the property for 4,300 feet. It was estimated that it would
cost $800,000 for the screening walls, road and curbs. It would be
a major relief point for traffic in the area. He was not sure when
PD-20 would be developed but when done, it would complete the road
and connect to I35.
Council Member Young asked if sidewalks would be built.
Hersman replied yes on each side of the road with landscaping on
the inside of the screening walls which would consist of masonry
pillars with a wood fence. There would be almost six acres of
waterway with a masonry edge around it with sidewalks. The ten
acres below the collector road would have a 36 inch drainage pipe
which would go underneath it and would take care of almost all of
the drainage for minimal rainfall. A 100 year flood would go over
the top of the landscape green space. The City of Denton Parks
Department had agreed to accept the land into the park system but
would not spend any money until ready. The developer would be
spending the dollars for the infrastructure. The city would not
have any maintenance until it was ready to accept it into the
system. Funding, through a homeowners association, would maintain
the green space until the City was ready to accept it. This type
of density was the only type of density which would allow for the
dollars to spend on this type of park system. The park system
would not stay in place at the present SF-16 zoning as it was not
economical for that zoning.
Council Me~kber Beasley asked about the access to the office
buildings. Would there be curb cuts along Lillian Miller.
Hersman stated that as Wind Rivers Lane came in, there was a curb
cut on Lillian Miller as the main entrance to the subdivision.
There would be only one curb cut on Lillian Miller. All parking
would be at the side or rear of the office development.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that Unicorn Lake was not on this
property.
Hersman replied
was not on his
park system.
that it was part of the whole water shed issue. It
property but would most likely become part of the
Council Member Biles stated that the~ offices on Lillian Miller
would be similar to what Dale Irwin had done along Carroll Blvd.
The offices would not have driveways or parking between the
building strucutre and Lillian Miller.
268
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 14
Hersman replied correct that it would be all yard on Lillian
Miller.
Council Member Biles stated that the entire area could be developed
as $F-16 but if done, the additional infrastructure items could not
be included.
Hersman replied correct. He felt that as a land plan it would be
boring to have all SF-16. It was too big a piece of land to put in
only one product. The SF-7 and SF-10 lots would be larger than
Southridge Estates. The planned development would similar to
Ellison Park.
Council Member Biles stated that the lots were larger than other
lots in the area.
Hersman stated that the Southridge Estates lot sizes were 9,000
square feet. The minimum deed restriction for Southridge Estates
was 1600 feet. His deed restrictions were 1600 for the SF-7 and
1800 for the SF-10. The average lot size, although SF-7 and SF-10,
would be 9,349 feet. If the planned development were included in
that formula, the average lot size was 8,500 square feet. He felt
the planned development was an important part of the project as it
provided an Ellison Park type atmosphere in the center of the
development totally surrounded by screening walls for those
individuals who did not want to mow yards.
Council Member Biles stated that with the exception of the planned
development, the balance of the development was similar to
surrounding areas.
Hersman stated that one only had to look in many directions to see
what the development going to look like.
Council Member Biles asked about the time frame for the
development.
Hersman stated that it would be a six to eight year project. It
was not the case that many homes would be added in a short time
frame. In the first two years only 100 homes would be added. That
would not impact the traffic. The office zoning was several years
down the road. office buildings were not needed there in the next
year or so. But over the long term land plan, it was a good land
plan.
Council Member Biles stated that the offices would not be built for
a year or two.
Hersman stated that they would be built as the market dictated.
Right now there was no need to complete the office space.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 15
269
Council Member Biles stated that by the time development was
encroaching on the traffic burden, it was anticipated that the
street would be built to I35 to provide the pressure relief.
Council Member Beasley stated that if the zoning remained as SF-16,
some drainage improvements would be needed.
Hersman replied correct but there would not be a park system. It
would be concrete drainage ditch.
Fred Gossett stated that he was in support of the zoning request.
He was aware of the emotional aspect of the proposal but felt that
Dr. Hersman had gone above and beyond on this proposal. Previously
it was indicated that this would impact the schools but that was
not a school issue, it was a zoning issue. If the proposed zoning
request did not significantly violate the Denton Development Plan,
adhered to code and city ordinances, was recommended by staff and
the Planning and Zoning Commission, it seemed to him that it was a
proper and legitimate use of the property. The request for
conditioned office zoning along Lillian Miller would serve as a
suitable buffer between Lillian Miller and the proposed housing
community. Since it would be screened appropriately from the
residential neighborhood, he felt it would protect the neighborhood
rather than housing abutting a four lane boulevard. Some feared
that the proposed project would cheapen the neighborhood. He had
heard those same comments when Trend Maker was proposed but now
everyone liked it. The average value of homes in Denton was
$70,000 and this project would bring up the overall values. He
found it difficult to imagine that the housing in the proposed
community would be anything but enhance the diversity of housing in
Denton. As a property owner of residential and business property in
the immediate area, he supported the proposal and asked the Council
to vote in favor of the proposal with the conditions already agreed
to.
Carol Evans felt that as a real estate agent not everyone liked
what she liked. The world today was becoming more diversified.
There was a need in Denton for homes with a diverse amount of
square footage. She asked the Council to vote for this proposal
and support Denton.
Mike Beaver stated that he was a business person and part of the
premise of life he based his decisions on was to make the best
business decision that he could, that he never let policy overrule
common sense and he never backed down from the hard decisions and
he tried to do what made sense. He tried to remove the emotional
issue from his remarks. He was immediately adjacent to the
proposal. This property was going to be developed. It might not
happen this year or the next, but it was going to happen. When the
proposal was first began, he was concerned with the project. He
spoke with Dr. Hersman regarding those concerns which Dr. Hersman
immediately addressed. Dr. Hersman had made many concessions in
270
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 16
order to develop this land. He was also aware that Corporate
Beazer was opposed to the development. He wrote a letter to
Corporate Beazer about the situation and how Dr. Hersman had met
with him to address those concerns. He considered himself
fortunate to have a developer who would work with the neighbors.
He liked the park system which was proposed and felt that it would
benefit the Southridge residents. The proposal would appreciate
the land value in the area.
Wade Harris stated that he had a business in Denton. He owned two
of the immediate lots within 200 feet of the office proposal. He
felt there had been many concessions done with the proposal. He
felt a stop light was needed in the area of the park. The
developer had addressed all of the issues requested of him except
for the collector street. He felt that there would be no
deterioration of property values due to the development of the
proposal.
Terry Garland stated that his property was adjacent to the
proposal. He had been to 5-6 meetings with the developer. Any
builder could built smaller homes among larger, more expensive
homes and still sell them. Any builder who built in a flood plain
had to put in drainage. There might be a connecting road but when
would it be built. It was stated that the homes would be
compatible to property in the surrounding area. That was not true.
Southridge Estates was a planned development with all the homes
being different. The smallest home there was larger than the
largest home in the proposal. This was not a planned development.
The builder was in the business of selling lots and nothing more.
The property was zoned for smaller homes and there was no reason
not to build smaller homes. He was worried about devaluation of
his home with the development. There were already traffic problems
in the area without the development of this proposal. He hoped the
Council would be responsible for protecting the neighborhood.
Alan Wasserman presented an analogy with American Airlines
cancelling flights after seeking the advise of their flight
attendants and pilots. They forfeited their short-term financial
success for the greater good of their passengers and employees. He
represented the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. There were
many members of the subdivision who could not attend this meeting
and every homeowner had signed a petition against the proposal.
They had the following expectations of the Council that they
should follow Section 10.06 of the City Charter. The Council were
their elected leaders. They voted for them and respect their
opinions and expected them to be responsible to them. The Denton
Development Plan was the guide for land development in Denton and
served as the contract in zoning matters. He was opposed to office
buildings where two story offices would be built. He felt resale
values would be reduced with this proposal, citizens depended on
local government to protect them from zoning erosion which would
seriously jeopardize investment and diminish quality of life.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 17
271
Brennan Gourdie stated that three years Dr. Hersman successfully
rezoned this property to the current SF-16 zoning. At that time
Dr. Hersman must have felt that type of zoning made sense for the
area. It was an uncontested change as it fit in with the
surrounding community and the low intensity plan set aside for the
area. Now Dr. Hersman was wanting to change the zoning again for
larger returns. More homes meant more profits for developers, more
homes meant more expenses for those who lived there in the form of
more traffic congestion, more noise and more crowded schools. Those
who lived in the area did not have the option of avoiding the
congestion or hoping that it would get better. More was not always
better. There were four significant inconsistencies against the
Denton Development Plan which were not addressed at the Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting. He was opposed to the rezoning and
to the Sundown Ranch rezoning. He urged the Council to look to the
future and vote against the proposal.
Elizabeth Gourdie stated that with all the development which had
occurred so quickly within the south end of Denton on Loop 288,
Lillian Miller and 1-35, major traffic problems had developed.
Lillian Miller was the only economical route for the residents in
the neighborhood to get to I35 and to shopping areas. Each new
development created more hazards on the road which was designed for
residential traffic only. The Hersman proposal would be one more
problem in the area with more acres yet to be zoned. If this
development were approved, it would not be good for Denton.
Lynn Thompson stated that she lived in Southridge and owned a lot
in Hunters Ridge. She investigated all appropriate zoning when she
purchased the property. She felt there were was no infrastructure
plan for southwest Denton. It had come to her attention that Dr.
Hersman, his partner or both had been in negotiation with Pulty
Homes since the beginning. She had called the Pulty Home main
office and was told by their marketing analyst that they were doing
a feasibility study on his property and providing that the zoning
was changed by the City Council, they would entertain thoughts of
developing it as soon as summer of 1997. This upset her as she
felt she was put at risk for a devaluation of her property
especially the SF-7 and commercial zoning. The proposal would
cause traffic problems. The supporters of the proposal, including
Dr. Hersman, did not live in Denton and some did not even work in
Denton. This proposal was not affecting them and should not be
considered. The city and Council could be held liable for
destroying surrounding property when there was a rezoning. She
urged the Council to take their concerns into consideration before
they voted.
Richard Bragg stated that his lot was SF-13 and not SF-9. Most of
the homes built in his area were larger than SF-9. Density would
be a problem for the residents in the 1,500 and 7,000 square foot
lot areas. They would not have the quality of life that Denton was
noted for. Comparing this density with Southridge Estates was not
272
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 18
equal. To make a fair comparison, the 4.42 acres of office and the
14 acres of lakes would have to be taken out of the formula. This
gave a density of 3.77 or more with 16 acres. All 7,000 square
foot lots would be odd sizes as would be the 5,000 square foot
lots. Dr. Hersman would be developing a park system with a
retention pond. There was a safety factor associated with the
development of the retention pond. He was not opposed to
development but felt that the density of the proposal was too
great.
Sal Avila stated that his home was across from the proposal. The
proposed green belt was actually a grass waterway to help control
flooding. There were approximately 30-40 acres of land in the 100
year flood plain in the development. During the first neighborhood
meeting, Dr. Hersman was asked why he had not dedicated any park
land. At that time, he showed no interest in doing so. It was not
until after the presentation to the Planning and.Zoning Commission
that Dr. Hersman compromised. In fact, this was not a land
dedication for park development. There was really nothing else
that could be done with the 14 acres and pass flood plain
requirements. Responsibility of maintenance of the grass waterways
was not clear at this time. He requested that the petition be
denied.
Bill Claiborne stated that he lived approximately 200-300 yards
from the proposal. There were several positives to the proposal
but also many negatives. Four were in contrast to the Denton
Development Plan. One was the separation from existing zoning.
This proposal, with the office zoning, was less than % mile away
from existing high intensity land uses. A second conflict was
continued commercial development along major arterials. The zoning
request seemed to challenge many of the values set forth by the
Denton Development Plan. Those were the maintenance of
neighborhood integrity and stability and tended to overlook some
approved and adopted standards of development. The current
intensity allocation was 155% over standard intensity. This
development would add 5%. The proposed office and the planned
development were two areas which would merit Council voting against
this proposal. He also contrasted the current proposal to the 1993
zoning case to SF-16 plus office development. The office
development in this proposal would more than double the proposed
office development submitted in 1993. For that reason he asked
that the Council vote against the proposal.
Mitchell Turner stated that he objected to the proposal because of
eight policy violations of the Denton Development Plan. Four were
very significant. Three of the more significant policy violations
were related to the office proposal. Neighborhood service centers
were permitted in low intensity areas provided they were at least
% mile apart from other non-residential development. There was an
office development next to the proposal with no separation. That
was a violation of the separation policy. If it did not violate
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 19
273
the separation policy, a 3 acre service center would be permitted
on a street such as Lillian Miller, not a 4.42 acre center.
Another violation was the strip commercial on Lillian Miller which
should be avoided according to the Denton Development Plan. If the
proposal were approved, there would be a two story 35' foot tall
office building all the way from the intersection of Teasley and
Lillian Miller to Southridge Estates. He felt that city government
had a responsibility to protect the policies of the Denton
Development Plan and to protect neighborhoods from undesirable
developments. He had three other reasons for not approving the
office proposal. First, there was enough office zoning already on
Lillian Miller. Second, more office space was not needed in the
foreseeable future. Third, a 4.42 acre office proposal would add
to the traffic problem. He asked Council to deny the proposal.
Roland Vela stated that he was not opposed to progress or growth of
the City. He was opposed to the effect the proposal would have on
their homes. This was a high density development when the number
of lots was increased on an area of land. This was a special city
and community due to the maintenance of the City. They had
maintained the integrity of the community and felt the proposal was
a threat to their quality of life and value of the property to
those who lived in the area. The area was for SF-16 homes.
Reducing the size of the 10ts would be only for a greater profit
for the developer if it was rezoned as proposed. He felt that
mixing this type of development in an SF-16 area would decrease the
value of the current SF-16 development. He asked the Council to
make a decision which would be best for the quality of life in
Denton.
Nancy Peters stated that she had lived in Denton for approximately
15 months. They had a choice to move to the Dallas area but chose
to remain in Denton. With the proposed 945 homes and estimating 3
members for each home, there would be an increase of 2800 people in
that area. Even though the school district was a separate entity,
this was a quality of life issue.
Marvin Jeffries stated that the 136 acres in question should remain
single family only. When the land was rezoned to SF-16 in 1993,
the neighborhood felt it was a good deal and that was what should
go there. The issue was whether to allow office buildings across
the street from homes. That was not much of a buffer to those kinds
of homes. He understood the asking price for the homes in Hunters
Ridge Terrace had already dropped. The bottom line was about
money. He was not opposed to making all the money possible but not
at the expense of the quality of life of the residents in the area.
The rezoning was merely a way to makemore dollars.
David Morales stated that he was disappointed that his
representative would not be present due to a potential conflict of
interest. Traffic was already bad in the area and more homes would
only add to that. The increased traffic, reduction in quality of
274
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 20
life and the fact that children would have to cross the street to
the school would not be good.
Council Member Beasley indicated to Mr. Morales that he did have
other Council Members who represented that area. Two members and
the Mayor were elected at-large to represent the whole city.
Tim Christian stated that at the neighborhood meeting and at the
Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, it was discussed that this
would be a precedent setting event. If the Council decided 'to
approve the proposal, then the land surrounding would probably be
approved for rezoning. As a resident in the area, he knew that
there were severe traffic problems in the area now and this
proposal would not help.
Gary Francis stated that they were completing a move and thought
Hunters Ridge might be an area to build on. Based on what he had
heard at this meeting, he would not consider Hunters Ridge if this
proposal was approved.
Mary Woodruff stated that when she purchased her home, the lot
across from her was in a flood plain and could not be built on.
Now there were lots all across there. If this proposal was
approved, none of the neighborhoods would have protection. She
questioned a system where zoning could be changed in such a manner
from people who were not living here. She hoped Council would
seriously consider voting against the proposal.
Mayor Miller read speaker cards from individuals who were in
opposition but who did not wish to address the Council:
Janell Trachta
Mary Benjamin
William Benjamin
Marian Hutsell
David Pearce
Pamela Storaci
Ralph Chenault
Sandy Kristoferson
Windy Harris
Rick Harris
Mr. and Mrs. Larry B. Hall
John and Betty Horton
Peter Richardson
Robert Byroad
Oliver Chyan
Dan Brock
Wanda Samek
Walter C. Wells, Jr.
Blanche Herweck
Mike Nantz
Karen Connor
Royce Levino
Roger Lewis
Robert Kay
Betty Kay
JoanAnn Byroad
Kay and Gery Francis
R. Ponder
Earl Ponder
Pat Langa
Betty Garland
Patricia Cukor-Avila
Tim and Deb Christian
Jim and Ketha Voight
Michael Skryak
Gayla Tenell
Joe e. Samek
H. D Herweck
Randall Whipple
Deborah Neves
Mary Woodruff
Ron Wang
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 21
275
Jennifer and David Morales
Claire O'Hearn
Margaret Carleton
Leslee McMorrough
Russ Sutton
Lynn Thompson
Roland Vela stated that everyone who spoke against the present
proposal were also opposed to Items #9 and #10.
The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal.
Dr. Hersman stated that he would like to speak with those who
questioned his financial motives. He would be involved with the
development from start to finish. From a business perspective,
there was the need to look at what was the market area. This
subdivision was planned exactly as those around it due to the
success of those developments.
Council Member Beasley stated that Dr. Hersman indicated to her
that he had met with the neighbors and felt that he worked out most
of the problems concerning the proposal. This evening that did not
appear to be the case. She wondered if the proposal were postponed
if there would be a way to work out the differences'between the
neighbors and the developer.
Hersman replied that they would consider anything. They had had
several meetings with the neighbors. The proposal had changed
substantially since the beginning concept. This was a zoning
request and not a plat request. He had made several concessions
based on what was heard at the Planning and Zoning Commission
meetings and neighborhood meetings.
Council Member Beasley believed that if the developer and neighbors
worked together there would be a win-win situation. She did not
hear that happening here at this meeting.
Hersman asked if he made a concession at this meeting would it
warrant a postponement or could the Council act on the proposal
with a particular concession.
City Attorney Prouty stated that if a concession was made, it would
be a floor amendment to approve the ordinance with additional
conditions.
Hersman stated that he was committed to the commercial portion of
the proposal but could concede on the planned development and go to
SF-7 which would be an easier part of the plan to amend. If the
planned development were taken out, it would be well over Beazer
and surrounding areas. He was willing to amend the proposal to
take out the planned development and change it to SF-7 in that
section.
City Attorney Prouty stated that Council could act on this
amendment as it would be more restrictive.
276
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 22
Council Member Biles asked if the planned development were
converted to SF-7, what would be the impact on Hersman's financial
capacity for the green belt, etc.
Hersman stated that it would continue as shown.
Council Member Biles asked if the street layout would be changed.
Hersman replied no.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Young motioned to approve the proposal with the amendment to change
the planned development to SF-7. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that diversity was good and was one of
the attractive things about Denton. However, she felt there were
serious problems with the proposal. The City did consider the
impact on schools with everything done in Denton. She was concerned
about the impact of two large developments on the school system in
the area. Another major issue was traffic. The intersection of
Lillian Miller was already stressed with traffic and the present
zoning was 155% over the allocated intensity. This proposal would
add another 5,000 plus vehicle trips. She was also concerned about
violations of Denton Development Plan.
Brock motioned, Beasley seconded to deny the proposal.
Council Member Biles addressed the concerns about the water and
detention ponds. The area could have a green belt with parks and
a landscaped quality development or an alternative of concrete
ditches. The developer voluntarily wanted to develop the land to
give it to the community and yet people did not want that. A
second concern was the office along Lillian Miller and the reason
for a wall around the planned development. The developer indicated
that with the wall people would not be looking in the backyards of
those homes. He felt that he would rather look at a landscaped
yard than a six foot fence. He agreed with the diversity in this
particular plan as not everything needed to be SF-16 down to Flower
Mound. Traffic congestion was a large problem throughout the city
and the City was trying to address traffic congestion in this area.
He wanted the developer to know he felt it was admirable to move
forward with a green belt area. He was still concerned about the
planned development and needed more information about the third
outlet to relieve congestion in the area. At this point in time,
he could not support the plan as proposed.
Council Member Beasley stated that she like to see more of a
consensus between the developer and the neighborhood. She felt
that the neighbors had concerns about the office zoning and for the
number of SF-7 lots. She felt there was a need to transition down
from SF-16 as not all developments would be able to have SF-16.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 23
277
But she did feel that there were too many SF-7 lots in the proposal
and that it violated the Denton Development Plan. She indicated
that she would not support the development.
Council Member Young indicated that he would support the proposal
due to the diversity it would bring to that area. He also agreed
with the greenbelt area. He felt the development would enhance the
area.
Mayor Miller stated that there was a problem with schools as Denton
was a growing community. However, the School District was much
larger than the community of Denton. There was a lot of
development between Denton and the Town of Flower Mound which was
in the DISD. Traffic was also an issue in the area as the city was
growing in that area. The developer could put in SF-16 homes in
the proposal but he felt that probably something between SF-16 and
what was proposed would be appropriate. He would be voting against
the motion. It might be possible to postpone consideration, review
the proposal and work out issues with the neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock stated that the motion was to deny the petition
which would require four votes to carry the motion.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "nay", Biles "nay"
and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 3-2 vote.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone consideration until a
date established with the Deputy city Manager working with the
Planning Department and the developer. On roll vote, Beasley
"aye", Brock "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
9. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance
rezoning 4.004 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to
an office Conditioned (O[c]) zoning district. The subject property
was located on the east side of Teasley, approximately 500 feet
south of the Teasley/Lillian Miller intersection. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.)
Young motioned, Brock seconded to change the agenda order to
consider Items #9 and #10. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock
"aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the 20% rule was not
in effect with this proposal. There was a separate office zoning
case associated with this proposal. The proposal was recommended
with conditions by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
278
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 24
Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess, stated that the office portion of
the proposal would be off Teasley Lane. The proposal was trying to
create an atmosphere where individuals could live in the
neighborhood and walk to work. An important part of the proposal
was the open feeling with the office construction.
Bob Shelton stated this was a transitional area to have office in
front of the proposal. There were other offices located around the
proposal so that it would not be a strip zoning for office.
Council Member Beasley asked if the offices would be fronting
Lillian Miller or would there be a road into that area.
Shelton indicated that there would be no entrance onto Lillian
Miller.
Mayor Miller asked if the front of the offices would be on Teasley
Lane.
Shelton stated that the offices would be clustered in different
directions with some possibly facing Teasley.
Council Member Young asked if there would be curb cuts on Teasley
Lane.
Shelton stated that there was no site plan at this point in time.
Parking would be more behind the buildings than in front. There
would be no curb cuts on Teasley.
Rob Raynor stated that this was a zoning creation which was not
here on the original Denton Development Plan done in 1984.
Conditions for the proposal included a total floor area not to
exceed 4500 square feet; one prohibited use was a restaurant while
an art gallery, office administration, animal clinic or hospital
with no outside runs would be allowed. A traffic study was done
with both office and residential considerations. There had been a
neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposal. The Planning and
Zoning Commission felt that the proposal made sense for the office
as there were offices already in the area. There would be a good
diversity in the area with single family homes, offices, mobile
homes, etc.
Bill Claiborne stated that his objection was the continued growth
of commercial property on Lillian Miller and Teasley Lane. There
was too much commercial zoning along this area and this proposal
only added to that. He had to speak in opposition to the proposal.
Marvin Jeffries stated that he was in opposition due to the
continued office development along the entire Lillian Miller/
Teasley Lane way. The proposal violated the Denton Development
Plan with regards to the separation requirements. He asked the
Council to oppose the proposal.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 25
279
Alan Wasserman stated that if these two proposals did not have
commercial zoning associated with it, there would be no opposition
from the Hunters Ridge Homeowners Association. There were problems
with notices regarding this proposal. Staff report from the
Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that the proposal was over
intensity and density and could not recommend approval.
Roger Lewis stated that he was concerned about a lack of
notification regarding meetings. He had not seen the plans for the
office zoning but felt it was similar to Woodhill Square. He had
not seen anything which would indicate a quality office
development.
Mayor Miller indicated that he had received the following speaker
cards from individuals who were in opposition to the proposal but
who did not wish to speak:
David Morales
Richard Bragg
Brennan Gourdie
David Pierce
Sal Avila
PamArthur
Pam Storaci
Roland Vela
Patricia Cukor-Avila
Brennan and Elizabeth Gourdie
Th~~- t~ r'~?~r ed;, fiv :~m te rebu ta~-"~"'' '~:
Rob Raynor stated that one of the reasons for the problem with the
meeting time for the neighborhood was because of the mailing the
staff had. Some individuals not get a letter as they were not
within the 200 foot radius. Conditional zoning was a good idea as
it allowed a developer to determine what was going to be built and
the size of the building. He requested that the Council vote in
favor of the proposal with the conditions.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the proposal.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock indicated that she was not going to vote in
favor due to the many policy violations. In particular was the
large size which exceeded the intensity allocation and the issue of
strip commercial.
Council Member Beasley agreedthat there were many inconsistencies
with the Denton Development ~Plan.· There were ~some mitigating
circumstances with this proposal such as the fact that it was
directly across from other office type buildings. It would be a
good buffer against the residential zoning.
Council Member Biles stated that this proposal was substantially
different from the previous proposal as only 25% of the acreage
would be developed with much open space. There were
inconsistencies in the plan but attention had been give with
'city of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 26
regards to the entryway and facilitation of the offices. He
encouraged the developers to have nothing but landscaping between
the buildings and Lillian Miller with the parking in the rear.
Council Member Young stated that he was in favor as it was a buffer
with the residential and office across the street. The Planning
and Zoning Commission was in favor of the proposal with a vote of
6-0.
Mayor Miller stated that he was against the proposal for a variety
of reasons. There was not as much communication with the neighbors
as there could have been. He felt the project could return with an
alternate proposal. He felt it could come back the same as the
prior proposal.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "nay", Young "aye", Biles "aye"
and Mayor Miller "nay". Motion failed with a 3-2 vote as four
affirmative votes were needed.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone consideration of the
proposal and to have the developer meet with the neighborhood and
Planning Department and return to the Council at a date to be
determined. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye",
Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
10. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance
rezoning 169.391 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to
the Single Family 7 (SF-7) and Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning
districts. The subject property was located on the east side of
Teasley, approximately 1,000 feet south of the Teasley/Lillian
Miller intersection. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval 6-0.)
Rick Svehla, Deputy city Manager, stated that 25 notices were
mailed concerning this proposal. Three were returned in favor and
two were returned in opposition. The 25% rule was not in effect
for this proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered
~this at their December llth meeting and recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Phil Philips stated that he represented the owners of the property.
When the property was first purchased, none of it was in the city
limits. Now all of the property was in the city limits. This
proposal consisted of approximately 169 acres of SF-7 and SF-10.
There would be two lakes in the proposal, a green belt, and a 1,500
square foot indoor arena. The proposal would not de-evaluate any
of the existing properties.
Council Member Young asked about the water.
NOTE: THERE ARE NO PAGES 281-282
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 27
283
Brad Meyer, Carter and Burgess, stated that the development was
proposing a divided entry off Teasley Lane. There would be a lot of
open space which would be connected by trails throughout the
project.
Council Member Young asked how large was Unicorn Lake.
Meyer replied that Unicorn Lake was approximately 20 acres. They
were still working on the green belt details. There would be two
accesses along Teasley Lane.
Council Member Young asked about the lot sizes and size of homes.
Meyer stated that the lot sizes would be 10,000 and 7,000 square
foot lots. He was not sure of house size at this point in time.
Bob Shelton stated that the house size depended on the price of the
lot. The approximate cost of a home was not sure at this point in
time because of the exact price for the lots. This would be a
quality development. A homeowners association would maintain the
green belt area.
Rob Raynor stated that the land was currently zoned agricultural
and this proposal was not in contradiction with that land use.
Denton was experiencing a lot of growth and he asked the Council to
approve the zoning for the area.
Arthur Johnson stated that he owned the property south of Sundown
Ranch. Denton was a bedroom community for people working in Dallas
and there was a need to have homes in the area. Regarding the
discussion on roads, no one had mentioned Loop 288 and Highway 2499
which came into this area. These roads should help with the
congestion in the area. He attended a neighborhood meeting
regarding the proposal and asked the Council to approve the
proposal.
John Johnson stated that he was in support of the project. He felt
it would be better to have this area developed than to have vacant
ground. It was far better economically to have the area developed.
Lamar Ball stated that the requested zoning was compatible with the
surrounding zoning and the proposed zoning for this property was a
correct zoning. He felt the sale of the property was contingent on
the office zoning and felt that the proposal should be approved.
Alan Wasserman stated that this proposal would not impact Lillian
Miller and his only concern was to find a way to donate the green
belts and waterways to the City. He was in favor of this proposal.
George Kolb stated that he was not so much concerned about the plan
and the zoning but rather where it was going to be. He felt more
information was needed before he could determine whether he was in
284
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 28
favor or not. He felt there needed to be a meeting with the
community for more information on the proposal. He suggested
postponing consideration of the proposal until the community had a
discussion on the proposal. He would like to see SF-10 along the
back side of his property.
Elizabeth Gourdie stated that she objected to the two developments
proposed back to back. If this proposal was accepted, she
suggested putting the other proposal aside for five years.
Mayor Miller stated that he had received the following speaker
cards from individuals who did not wish to address the Council:
Brannon Gourdie Richard Bragg
Pam Storaci David Pierce
Patricia Cukor-Avila
The petitioner was allowed a five minute rebuttal.
Rob Raynor stated that the traffic study done included both the
residential and commercial tract. It indicated that there would be
less traffic with the proposal than would be allowed in the area.
The lots would be larger than the SF-7 lots but were not laid out
at this point in time.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance~was considered:
NO. 97-004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY 7 (SF-
7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR
111.28 ACRES OF LAND, AND TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY 10 (SF-10)
ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 58.11
ACRES, BOTH SUCH PARCELS BEING LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
TEASLEY LANE, APPROXIMATELY 1000 FEET SOUTH OF THE
INTERSECTION OF TEASLEY LANE AND LILLIAN MILLER PARKWAY;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and
Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
Council Member Cott returned to the meeting.
6. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance for
a specific use permit to allow for a child day care center (day
nursery or kindergarten) on a 6.2178 acre tract located in the
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 29
285
agricultural (A) zoning district.
south side of McKinney Street,
Boulevard. (The Planning and
approval 7-0.)
The property was located on the
directly south of Bellaire
Zoning Commission recommended
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that thirteen notices were
mailed with two received in favor. This was a child day care
center located at an existing church on McKinney Street. The
church was not running the day care but rather this was a private
business which rented space from the church. Staff felt that all
requirements were met and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Joseph Sainah stated that he was available to answer any questions.
Council Member Young asked about the number of children allowed at
the center.
Sainah stated that 51 children were allowed and to date the center
had 50 children.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 97-002
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A
SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DAY NURSERY OR KINDERGARTEN FOR A
6.2178 ACRE TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MCKINNEY STREET
AT BELLAIRE BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED
AGRICULTURAL (A); PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM
AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance with
conditions. On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye",
Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
7. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance
rezoning 0.23 acres from the General Retail (GR) zoning district to
the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district. The subject property
was located on the north side of Scripture, between Lovell and
Bryan. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-
1.)
Mayor Miller indicated that the petitioner had asked to postpone
consideration of this item.
286
city of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 30
Biles motioned, Young seconded to postpone this item until the
February 4, 1997 City Council meeting. On roll vote, Beasley
"aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor
Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
8. The Council held a public hearing to consider an ordinance
rezoning Lot 3, Block A, of the Replat of Lot 3, Block A, of the
Teasley Mall Subdivision from the Neighborhood Service (NS) zoning
district to a General Retail Conditioned (GR[c]) zoning district.
The subject property was located on the south side of Londonderry
Lane, approximately 200 feet west of Teasley Lane. (The Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval 7-0.)
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Roy Metzler stated that he wanted to develop a small restaurant on
the site with limited seating. The business would mostly do
catering at the location.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The following ordinance was considered:
No. 97-003
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A
CHANGE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE (NS) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE GENERAL RETAIL
CONDITIONED (GR[c]) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE
DESIGNATION FOR LOT 3, BLOCK A, OF THE REPLAT OF LOT 3, BLOCK
A, OF THE TEASLEYMALL SUBDIVISION, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF LONDONDERRY, APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF TEASLEY LANE;
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUMAMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
V~qRI~NCEB
11. The Council considered exaction variances to Section 34-
114(17) concerning sidewalks; Section 34-114(11) concerning cul de
sac lengths; and Section 34-124(e) concerning drainage design
criteria. This 304.97 acre tract was located northeast of Brush
Creek Road and Highway 377. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval 7-0.)
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 31
287
Brock motioned, Young seconded to approve the variances. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
CO~SBNT AGENDA
Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda and
corresponding ordinances and resolutions. On roll vote, Beasley
"aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor
Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
12. NO. 97-005
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FORANEFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #1961-Street Maintenance
Equipment Rental)
13.
NO. 97-006
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #1965-Transit Vans)
14.
NO. 97-007
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #1974-Annual Bottled
Gas & Cylinder Rental)
15.
NO. 97-008
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE
OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid
#1983-Family Health Care, Inc.)
16.
NO. 97-009
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE
AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE
OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid
~1972-Spread Spectrum MicrowaveLink & Radios)
288
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 32
17. NO. 97-010
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR
SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid #1975-Bore Crossing)
18.
NO. 97-011
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXTEND AN
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE
PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS DENTON COUNTY CONTRACTS FOR THE
PURCHASE OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (Bid
#1968-Police Sedans)
19. NO. R97-001
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF LAKE DALLAS FOR
AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
20. NO. R97-002
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AMBULANCE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE CITY OF CORINTH FOR
AMBULANCE SERVICES; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
ITF~ FOR INDIVIDUAL CONBIDE~ATION
21. The Council considered an ordinance annexing and establishing
temporary agriculture "A" zoning district classification on a 11.24
acre tract located south of Robinson road and east of Nowlin Road.
(A-74) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-
0.)
Harry Persuad, Senior Planner, stated that this was the first
reading of this annexation ordinance and a three-fourths vote from
Council was needed for approval.
The following ordinance was considered:
(First Reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 11.24 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF ROBINSON ROAD AND
EAST OF NOWLIN ROAD; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED
PROPERTY AS "A", AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS
THEREOF; AND DECLARING AM EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton city Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 33
289
Beasley motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
22. The Council considered an ordinance prohibiting parking on the
south side of Oak Street from its intersection with the west
curbline of Williams Street and continuing west for 100 feet. (The
Traffic Safety Commission recommended approval.)
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 97-012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OAK STREET FROM ITS INTERSECTION WITH THE
WEST CURBLINE OF WILLIAMS STREET AND CONTINUING WEST FOR 100
FEET; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS;
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Beasley seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
23. The Council considered an appointment of a Council Member to
the Audit Committee.
Council Member Biles nominated Council Member Beasley.
On roll vote, Beasley "aye", Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Young "aye",
Biles "aye" and Mayor Miller "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
24. The Council considered nominations/appointments to Boards and
Commissions.
Mayor Pro Tem Brock nominated Hank Dickinson to the Cable
Television Advisory Board.
25. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
City Manager Benavides did not have any items for the Council.
26. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting Items.
27. New Business
The following items of New Business was suggested by Council
Members for future agendas:
A. Council Member Young asked for a report on the condition
of the Phoenix Apartments.
29O
City of Denton City Council Minutes
January 7, 1997
Page 34
B. Council Member Young indicated that there was a traffic
safety problem at the corner of Lakey and Wilson Street and asked
for a traffic light or 4-way stop sign at that location.
C. Council Member Young asked that the proposal for the
extension of Scott Street be placed on an agenda for a Council
vote.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
~XAS
C~T/~ SEC]~ETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC00359