The URL can be used to link to this page

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to be finding and in the process, I've come to be very firm in my belief that the extended hours ordinance should be repealed by the City Council.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