Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-1989 s t r AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL February 7, 1989 Work Session of the City of Uonton City Council on Tuesday. the Denton Civil Room February 1989, at 5:30 p.m, City hall, 215 E. McKinney, following items w).11 be considered: Work may the Note: also item be considered thasA9part ofr the Agendas fern the Regular meeting. 5:30 p.m. i i 1. Consideration of the Human Resources Committee furling criteria. 2. Consideration of the Community Development Ulock Grant committee funding criteria. 3. Consideration of plans for expansion of the Senior Center. j 4. Consideration of the Park Donation Policy. 5. Consideration of proposed regulations governing street closings. 6. Consideration of a report on the 1989•-1994 capital Improvements Program. 7. Executive session: A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. 1. Discussion of Flow Memorial IiCapital Bankruptcy. B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V.A.orIS. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(q), Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S. 1 Regular Meeting of the City mt Denton City Council on Tuesday. February 7, 1989, at Denton, Texas at which the following Hall. 215 E, . McKinney, , items will be considered: 7:00 p.m. h 1. Consider approval of the minutes of the work seasi.ons of January 3 and 5, and the regular meetings of January 10 and 17, 1989. { i i I 1 1 I L City of Denton City Council Agenda February 7, 1989 Page 2 2. Receive a citizen's report from Mr, Bob Woodin 1 regarding the concept for a Farmer's Market in Denton. 1 3. Receive a report from the 191 Committee and take any appropriate action. J 4. Public }learings + i A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Article 17 of Appendix B, i Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances relating to signs. (Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval). H. Hold a public hearing on the proposed annexation i by the City of Denton, Texas of certain property located along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. , l (A-58). r I 5. Consent Agenda Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and j approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to Implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. ` Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved (or payment under the Ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back-up information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items 6.A, 6.B). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss any iter, pt.or to approval of the ordinance. A bids and Purchase Orders: 1. Hid #9926 - Refuse Trucks I 2. Hid 09927 - Track Loader/Motor 3. bid #9929 - Water Meters 4. Hid # 9931 - Fiberglass Streetlight Poles 5. Bid 09932 - Fite Uepartm_nt Uniforms 6. Bid 09934 - Line Pulaer Tensioner 7. Hid #9935 - bunker Pants and Coats J R 7 I t City of Denton City Council Agenda Fobruary 7, 1989 Page 3 8. Bid #9938 - Concroto Mixer Truck 9. Bid 09939 - Streetlights 10. Hid #9921 - Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project 11. Hid #9922 Vertical Turbine Pump and Motor 12. P.O, 088793 - J 6 S Equipment Service, Inc. - $12,746.89 r 13. P.O. #88387 - J R S Equipment Service, inc. $12,?.69.30 H. Tax Refunds i 1. Consider approval of a tax rotund for Title USA/First Union Mtg. Corp. - $929.00 2. Consider approval of a tax rotund for Paul W. Noreen/Ticor Realty Tax Services - $893.61 6. ordinances A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitivo bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or dervices. H. Consider adoption of an ordinenco providing for the expenditure of funds for emergency purchases of materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. C. Consider adoption of an ordinance apprmving an agreement between the City of Denton and the State of Texas for installation of a traffic signal controller at the intersection of Loop 288 r and Morse Street. (The Citizens Traffic Safety Support Commission recommends approval). D. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, amending Section 21-9 of the Code of Ordinances relating to the placement or painting of signs on public property. i J t r 3 4 City of Denton City Council Agenda February 7, 1989 Page 4 7. Hosolutions A. Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the Mayor of the City of Denton, Texas to execute an dgKoament between the City of Denton and Sammons Communications, Inc. granting a license for the use of certain electrical duct around ttie proposed Loop 288 and Stuart Road. (The Public Utilities Board recommends approval). / 9. Miscellaneoue matters from Chu City Manager. 9. Official Action on Executive Session Items: ~I A. Legal Matters B. Real Estate C. Personnel D. Board Appointments i 10. New Business: 4his Item provides A section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. 11. Executive Session; i A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. B. Heal Estate - Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S. N1- C E R T I F i C A T E I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City )fall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 1989 at o'clock (a.m.) CITY SECRETARY 3039C P ti t i , f E I i I I I r i p r `s A' ~J Li,AIL: CIT, VUN!IL liEPi?IiT WYAT Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUD,r; Discussion of Human Resources Committee funding criteria, REC.QMM~NDATIOrI: the Human Resources CumwI ttee recomiranos matting the changes indicated iii the attached "Policies and Procedures" document. :staff requests that the document be placed on the Council's February 21st agenda for consideration, by motion, i OA.Ch(' OOD: 4 The Human Resources Committee had been functioning ulr_er the charge described in the City's "Comprehen- sive Plan for Human Cervices'. This document states that 'the general purpose of Uenton's Comprehensive Plan for Human Cervices is to present guidelines that will alirw social agencies to better meet the needs of their clients,' Council indicated that they wanted HRC to develop some written criteria upon which to base funding decisions. The attached document is the I result of a combined effort between HRC and Council to update the HPC process. U MMAR ;r : I The sections which h,.ive been revised are highlighted in the attached document. Only the revised pages are inciuded in the packet. All changes are confined to Section II and Cection vII. PROGRAMS &EPA{TMENTS OR GROUPS AfrECTED: Adoption of new furding criteria will affect yi;C processes and future service agency funding. I I I I I I I 4 G q 1 i r e s 'h r FISCAL IMPACT the cl~rrent general fund budget for service agency is 2156,800.00. ruture ge'eral fund expenditures will be affected if criteria adopted jr, a significant change from current HRC practices. I Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell ft City Manager i Prgpared by: _,l.w t 1 . Barbara Ross Community Development Coordinator A~oved: I i 's Fra~ Robhins AICP j Executive Direr.tor for Planning 8 Development ~ I Il 1 l F i i i 'R i S 1 ~ I F JF ff is ia? tStnuta_ Hu ran Resources Co1'711tt(? ,!anuary PREBC.NT : Barbara Atkins, Hugh ,"..ar .liet Dc .:ial, "Dorothy Dan, 100, DICK E116s, ~)cI"I liarper, Ire''.e Price, Rudy RUdrigi4eZ and Cary Tru) tt. A85Et17 • Linda Ashm)rr, An1ta Cameo and reginaId l,ngan. I STA* f- PREH1,11 Bart)ara P(;es, Ccrr-v1m)ity Devell~pment C.ootdinator and Penny Black, 5eretar•y. Crlairperson, Dorothy Damico called the frceting to order at d:12 pm 1 1. Ms. Damico suggested the minutes be approved at the f closing of the m-•etmg. The r:orrmittee agreed. II. Ms. Damico brief l; discussed the process of the l decision- making criteria. She asked Ms. Ross and Mr. Ayer to summarize the activities at the City Council work session. Ms. Ross said the City Council wants to see what services United Way supports and how the Human Resources Committee can coordinate with United way and any agencies in Denton. Ms,. Ross apotie briefly on the changes of wording in Section III t VII, :ihe said she did not believe the revisions digressed a 101, from the original criteria except in f,e,,tion V31. Ms. Damico astied is this re,ision arltually the council's final instructi,n for agencies being reviewed for funding? Ms. Ross said the r~ ised funding criteria is to be used as a basis for discussion only. Ms. Damico said cJ:e feels th4_!re arr, tremendous Oianges incorporat?d intri the criteria and expressed her concerns for possibly having to •-Accept the changes or to continue using them as a basis fcr discussion. 1 Mr. Ayer said he believed the revisions are roughly j what, couli:ii warts along with the committee's discussion and any a#pianatlon, Etc. for the joint meetinj s:,heduled January 17, 19ag. j I i ~I i i i rl A I f Prila~I Ile SGllr Ceti C'iirri i t t etl Minutes Page 2 hts. floss s~.>id it rr~y seam ss though the cot+lmittee was being tied d>wn to specific, types of agencies to fund although they were not. Ms. Ross said for e.,ample in the area of PU'Jllc. Safety there's room for same interpretation, c.oli.5iderirng Oenton County Friends of the ramily's service:, are categariv-'d e; n Public safety service. r ~ Mr. ©ezdek asked what categoory did the library fit into. Ms. Rcss possibly we need to add a category for the library. Mr. Harper 5poF,e briefly about the educational aspect, { of the matter referring to the CSI. and Educational Assirtancc royram. He al'sc, added that the library project vns actually requesting information for their informeit.ion and referral system. ~ i ' Ms, Ross said that Environrn&~ntal Services was one c caregc,rv that shE added daring the council meeting because of tke city's present addition of some 1 functiors of the county health department. There wa3 gereral disc.us5lon ,.orcern'ny the health is3Ue. Mr. Truitt asked gnat nt,-~.A the agencies presently I funded, where do they fall. i Ms. Ross Eaid daycare may tieconsidered aPublic , Safety also, sfi'e added that this flexible type cat_ojori for fending. Mr. Truitt expressed his concerns for the homeless and the time span it may take for them to be Considered a public safety category agency, Mr. Ayer said tine council merlbers are very open minded and wanting to hear the commi tee's views. Ms. Damico asi td each member to loot, orer ',he revisions mainly in Section VII and gi;e their separate o;)inion of items needing discussion at the joint meeting, J t i 1 i !t human Resources G:rmitte Minutes Page 3 J I Mr. "arper expressed his concoro; for the flexibility of the Public Safot.y category. Ho also sa j Ie felt constrained in regard to the 3 year funding cuts of new agencies in Section VII. i~ Mr. Rodriguez s"ggested Lhere to some leeway in wording concerning new agencies and the 3 year funding cuts. Ms, foss noted that the word normally was inserted into that specific sentence in the event a new agency is successful and the committee would want to continue , funding them after 3 years. li Mr. K drigue: spoke briefly on the submission of quarterly reports in the programmatic section suggesting every agent, receiving funds should submit a report of this nature. Mr. ©ezdek expressed his :oncern about duplication of city/county/education type services. Ms. Price also e-pressed her concern about, duplication of services conoernrng education, etc, Frs. Atkins suggested that United way could possibly pick up a new agency after 3 years if we could find out what their criteria involved in the event that a new ager . was successful and needed further funding. Mr, Truitt said it takes one year ,admittance for United Way funds and two years into business for anv agency to amply for their funds. The procedure would definitely need to be further researched, Mr. Enos said he believed the committee's name should f be changed to City of Venton Social Services Advisory Cummittee. He believed the name Human Resources to be associated more with large businesses, etc. Mr. Enos spoke briefly about transportation, the handicapped homeless individuals, etc. Mr. Truitt said he would feel more comfortable if the entire second paragraph in C,ection VII wa=_ totally deleted. He questioned if City Council was anticipating that United Wray You1,1 fond the agencies the City drops a`te' ' fear; of receirng their funds. i 0 1 I It WMi I Rsao jr-es e Minute; Page •i h1s. Ross said she believed the Council was ccnf_"table with the agerir_ies pr6scrrjtIy baing funded, whereas the sentence sere is tnrgettd malnly for new ak3encles. Mr. Truitt er,pressed hi_, c.onceriis for new agencies receiving fun(iing for use seed rnc,riey, he <lue.,tianed if the Council was against that possibillty. i Ms. Floss said this item was not requested ty' CGwrlcil it was one of the prior tv tatemants 1rcluded by in Anton 1o. She Le Iievea the intent was t11at the City nhould not fund a-i agency entirely. V- Ross mentioned that the City presently funded 10ndi-Hop entiroly and this woulo alrersdy pose a problem although she oelieved liandi-liop to b,a considered separately. Possibly the , rouricil would ccnnider changing this statement during the join#. meeting after' dis,usO on. I Mr, Truitt e>pre:sed his con-Erns with the limited scope that the revisions present. J Ms. Da❑ico e.rpressed her concerns for the ex,.lusi-) of health care and said social iel fare should be o,,e I of acceptable service areas. uhe believed the intent f the study was to help the r:ity move into addressing social welfare, Ms, {,arnico jgreed with Mr'. Truitt and Mr. Enos that any targeted group Fhould b? included in consiveratien for funding by both the Council And IIRC. Ms. Pamico as6ed if staff + ccNuld crate a presentation from the item9 mentioned in the discussion for city cc;uncil or if she needed to do this, Fir. Ayer suggested the chair she.jid do the presentation. Ms. Rosa BAid rigain that the revisions discussed were not a ronsensus of .he city council but independent statements from all the cauncii members. + Ms. Ross asked for a count of members that would j definitely be attending the joint meeting with the City Ccuncil on January 17, 1989, There were six individuals criunted to attend ai!,d three merr')ers that were absent, I s r Num,in Resources Committee Minutes Page 5 III. Ms. Damico called for a notion to approve the August 25, September 22, Cctober 27 and November 10, 1988 meeting minutes. Mr. Enos noted a correction on pp. 3, paragraph 6. Ms. Black corrected the noted item. Mr. 6ezdek made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. Price seconded the motion. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. E IV. There was general discussion concerning the survey for the key informants. Mr. Enos said he was pleased with the tester response and noted that there was nothing structurally wrong with the questionnaire. 4 Ms, Damico asked if staff could process the remainder of the surveys envelopes with labels and code the questionnaires. E i Staff agreed. Mr. Enos believeu the cover letter should have Ms, Damico's and the Mayor's signatures. Ms. Damico agreed. V. There was general discussion on the dates and times for the scheduling of the spring funding hearings. The following is a schedule of the committee's decisions. March 23, 1989 Service Center at 4 p.m March 28, 190 Service Center at 4 p.m. March 30, 1983 Service Center at 4 p.m April 20, 1939 Service Center at 4 p.m. April 27, 1983 Service Center at 4 p.m. wore was an extra dat> of April 27, 19G9 if needed for making the final recommendation to the council. VI. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p,m I i I loll 14141-41-43 4 1 EEIT= EIEIMJ~ ' t rTT= i TT-FTUI I 1 , J 4 1 DATE: 2/07/89 1 Q-TT_Y__Q'DVrJc:IG_HEPt~F~.T_ FQit1~AT TO: Mayor and members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJ: CDBG Funding Criteria R[CQMMCNDAT1QN: written criteria The CDDr a Committc~ has deg loped and a project Proar,,•, questionnaire to utilized by all individuals/groups requesting recommends adoption of these criteria as a basis for future funding decisions. i EiAGF:G_RQUN.4: In June 198A Council requested that the CDDG , 1 Committee develop Eo'.e criteria upon which to base future funding decisions. i lj;IAR.Y: CD9G has held discussions concerning existing needs j within the community. Rank-ordered project priorities ; are the result of these discussions. Committee consen- sus is that housing, demolition, and public improvements 4 should remain CD©G priorities. f Program and fiscal criteria are not rank ordered. Analy- sis of funding requests will be based on satisfaction of criteria. I' ~ r 1 Th PR4G8AMS,.eARTMe .E CD94 Coommimmiteewa_PaterE ocess The will alter its dectision-making process to incorporate use of the criteria and questionnaires, These will be reviewed and hearings held for those proposals which best fulfill the criteria. All City de- sunecessary paperrwork,will be expected to complete the 1 I M s FI~CA.~. _~ILPA~~ Actions will affect future CDBr, allocations. Respectfully submitted: Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: Barbara Ross Community Development Coordinator APR vAd Frank AIC P Executive Director for Planning 6 Development I ~ I i I 4 I I J I i i i I I f i T-1 T-r-r i CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT S TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT; Review Plans for Senior Center Expansion RECOMMENDATION; Review plans and approve proceeding with construction drawings. SUM_ M, ARy_ The architect has developed expansion plans for the Senior Center. If approved, we will develop construction drawinqs and bid this in the spring of 1989. Construction should be completed in late 1989 or Project out BACKGROUND- early 1990. I PROGRAMS DEPARIMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDr { FISCAL IMPACT: Expansion is funded by CIP funds. r l RESPE ULLLLY SUBMITTED= I~ v j Llo V. Harre 1 City Manager Prepared byr Name Steve Brinkman ma Title Director of Parks and Recreation _.AF roved; ' Name Title ry f 1 f 1 I s , I 1 0§CcVeatt9 CITY el DENT Oils TEXAS Civic Center/ 321 E. AtcKlnnsy/ Denton, TX 70201 M c M o R A M D U M i T0: Betty Mcxean, Executive Director for Municipal services and economic Development PROM: Steve Brinkman, Director of Parks and Recreation r-~ DATE: January 250 1989 ! SUBJECT: Senior Center Expansion Attached is the schematic design for the expansion at the Senior Center. This I Involves adding 10,854 sq,ft, to the existing building, adding 26 additional i parking spaces, and renovating the old section where modifications are necessary, i We also plan to have s fire sprinkler system installed in both the old and new sections of the building. The estimated cost for the project is =700,000, and construction should be completed by December, 1989, or January, 1990, ' The plan has been approved by the Senior Citizen Advisory Board, the Parka and i, Recreation Board, and other users of the facility. The only group that has indicated a concern about the expansion are members of the Domino club who will be given a section of the building for their operation. At this time, our plan ` provides them with an area for 15 tables, storage, and a kitchenette, Their current operation at the county building uses only 12 tables, The Pack Board has reviewed the concern but has recommended that we go with the original expansion design rather than redesign the building to give the Domino Club + more space. if they are provided additional space, the seniors would lose access 1 to their conference/activity room and would also be faced with a reduction in their 1 game room area of 25 percent. Also, because of additional renovation costs k necessary if we expand the Domino Ball area, the cost of the expansion will increase the total project coat by approximately $13,500. I C f ~ Steve Brinkman Attachment ADM00003 JVa&nal bald Vt6A1 C)V4Va1td wbm" 1 Denton Parks and Recreation / Denton, Texas / (S17)809-8270 : I ^T I I ii l I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE ` j Oslo WOW is 9-98_6 Projtcl Nurnbor;. Std ■Npnnr~~ll~~'~~,~ reT,e f ENTER ADDITION ats$ tfuStf ►tn2er 7124e I E~~ Df1f1.T0 it I Pr*~W Nam. ll~fl t50 Owner Cb 01 OWAM Texas ` I PnnoWl Ardrtrd Het+'iekf Project ArChilocl: lf Momh &of NN G. A4 tp' Wrt J/K *1aY AM% J MY Dale f f 1 ti 6 G 3 1 I rt a +t rt Y b •1 I T I Matter PlannrrWProgrammrnq Z Schematic Despn Phase , I 3 Owner Ateew and ooro a I ea 1 f n 0evelo0mtm Phase S OU1►M SpftdKatronf . . -1 -i I_,~ r JI 6^ CostEstrnults I T Contrad Dmvmtnr Phu. Slnxtu}al £ngmeennq i Mecharwcal Enq ntennq IM E P► I ID ProledManual ISwIlrCabont ) ..M - _ C rW~ S e Na is CWrstrW-on S dd,nq Por*d o . V I t 96a ~ 4 t t Recerre COnstrucian Bn,l i t 1 t 1 N"oi-aio and Award Consir Conte 1 Cons,nul'On of Ise Proles - .1 -1 Y ti F i G r Slp•s1 1•tu+y. P..••• R1R* /w.llM tt• 1• . w _ - _ u---t . - ---rte'---r----~ Mu1L-►vpea RO/IT I I-N Csfarrics Craft% 40 16 t KRnlt1 %for. V to •'•:a' a Lotm~/1-- f iMt i e ,b:.t1•■i.a~•% 1K areP • ports . } • ■ wared y"_ F • } IaC 1' pal _ ttwfn MM 1i t• • p• _ - S•rv _ Jan y it laar• } f 1 _a.J_ 1 a7a~ mock alla ll/ 0'•9 p 1. /1 ~~1 ~ ZY`i.~-~ -1•'.4. .p Service r I It x. - Doffanct 1 p f I r 1 t -t $to 10 KM Serra. _f ~,`,,r' 1••11•• slat. MS/pR6n tt' ~ P .r lvw T 11aY+fnb1 -SF~ U•t1 LOW* Man ' *00 "'A LOO 77- a i~ Via, _1 •I C.•., }.fir _ __,r x IFT LIM= I i i i i I I I i JLLI= Q4FR i I i J~ rA ti CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT Mayor and Members of the City Council T0: FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of the Proposed Park Donation Policy RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the Park Donation Policv. .SUMMARY: The policy provides for the donation of park land and park development { funds by residential developers. I BACKGROUND: Denton is currently deficient in neighborhood park land by over 100 acres. Staff has worked with a committee of developers to draft the proposed policy which will assist the City with acquiring I park land as future growth occurs. PROGRAMS, DEPFRTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Developers of residential projects will be asked to donate land or fees. ' f Projects will be reviewed through the Development Review Committee Process. FISCAL IM-PACT: The fiscal impact on the City will amcunt to $500 to $1,000 per acre per year for undeveloped property to $1,500 to $2,000 per acre per year for developed park areas. Development costs are budgeted in the City's Capital improvements Program. RES TF/UULLLY SU MITTED v i two - L y V. Harre 1 City Manager Prepared by: II I Name Steve Brinkman Title Director of Parks 6 Recreation 4 App ed: I ; Nam Title I CURRENT DRAFT CITY OF DE")N Promised Park Donation Policy Using a standard of three (3) acres per 1,000 population, or one 11) acre per 100 dwelling units, the Proposed Park Donation policy will include the followinj: 1. if a new subdivision plat, at its completion, would generate a need of a park of five (5) acres or more (500 dwelling units or more), then the City of Denton could request that the land be donated. The City could, at its option, accept a donation of a smaller parcel of land. 2. If the development has donated the land needed for a neighborhood park, then any single-family or multi-family dwellings would be exempt from a Park Pee imposed by the City of Denton Park Policy. Land should be { donated between the time of final plat approval and the time in which 50 rJ_~l percent of the development has been built upon, 3. If a development, upon completion, would have a need of less than /e999 acres of land for a park area, then the city will request that a park Pee in accordance with the City Park Foe Policy be paid. 1. The Park Pee requested at the time of issuing a building permit vill be one-quarter (1/4) of one petctrt (11) of the construction value of the single-family or multi-family dwelling as identified on the building permit. This tee will be requested from all developers who are not asked to provide a donation of land and will be credited to the park tone in which the development is located, 5e The use of the Park Pee would be restricted to the purchase of land for parks within the park planning area of those single-family ar ~ multi-family dwellings charged the Park lea. Should the City not be able to complete a purchase of suitable park land within a timely manner as determined by the City Council, then the Park Pea shall be refunded to that person or entity that originally paid the Park lee, 6. The land to be donated to the City for a neig'nbothood park should have the configuration to accommodate the following usess two 12) tennis courts, twelve (12) perking spaces, picnic building, basketball court, playground area, driveways, or other facilities specified in the Park Master plan for that area, all of which must be located outside the 100-year floodplain. Recreational fields for soccer and baseball can located within the 100-year floodplain when the terrain is conducive 0 the use as a recreational field, Should the terrain in the 100-year floodplain not be conducive for recreational fields, then the City may request that the donation be made with the fields located outside the 9 100-year floodplain, in otder to help the Park Department to determine if the land has the suitable configuration, the developer must show a site plan of all pork uses requested. I I ~ r j ~ I i 6 1 e' Y 7. Park sites should be selected to obtain natural pack-like, rustic settings where avaLlsble, and shall be designed in aLze to accommodate minimum maintenance requirements, Park planning should be coordinated with the neighborhood school planning and, whenever possible, parks should be located adjacent to and contiguous with school sites to make maximum use of common facilities, Careful consideration shall be given to the need for development of Linear Parks around natural drainage and wooded areas which provide multiple uses. A. The developer donating a park site should bear the cost of platting, providing public roadways to the site, water and sewer services to the site, and any storm sewer required from the development of the 1 subdivision plat. 1,he developer should provide the above infrastructures when the development is contiguous to the park land. The City shall bear the cost of all improvements, including streets, water, lower, and storm drainage through the park site. The City would also be responsible for the cost of landscaping and other improvements i within the park. i ' 99 Park improvements should be installed in a timely manner along with the development of surrounding property in accordance with applicable budgetary requirements of the City, if fees are not used or the donated land is not developed after a ten (10) year period, the developer who made the payment or donation may appeal to the City Council for a refund of either the property or the fees. if the City council decides at that time to develop the property, the City would have another 21 months to make the improvements. I l DOCU0977 Rev. 10/26/08 ~ I t~ I I i I J JI V i . 1 . t n ED) . V of DENTON, TEXAS Civic Center/ 921 E. McKinney/ Denton, TX 782:: I CITY OF DENTON PARKS AND RECREATIO14 BOARD MEETING MONDAY, MAY 231 1988 5:30 P.M. SENIOR CENTER ! MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Kirchoff, Chairman Carl Anderson, Vice Chairman Catherine Bell Rita Pilkey Dalton Gregory j STAFF PRESENTS Steve Brinkman, Director, Parks and Recreation Bob Tickner, Superintendent of Parks Chris Smith, Administrative Assistant Joy Hesch, Senior Secretary GUESTS PRESENT: Virgil Strange , Mikel Reynolds I Dave Boston F 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Gary Kirchoff, Chairman. it, APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING On a motion by Carl Anderson, second of Catherine Bell, the minutes of the meeting of April 25, 1988, were approved, III. OLD BUSINESS 1. Park Land Donation Pollcy: I Mikel Reynolds, a member of the Developers Committee, reviewed the proposed park donation policy for the board members. The developers recommended that Item 7 be ` re-written so that it will be more easily understood. i i ~ Julia-uul ~Ool~l ~fle~lal ~ru~za~l ~~iyinez ~ t' : ~ re l7) dee•e~70 ' ~ ' Denton Perks and Recreation / Denton, Taxi's J A 1 N i Parks and Recreation Bo3r,9 Meeting May 2!, 1988 Page - 2 After approval by the park Board, the policy will go to the Planning and Zoning commission, then a public hearing will be held, and finally to the city Council. Hopefully, this will be accomplished this summer. Dalton Gregory moved, Rita Pilkey seconded$ that the proposed park land donation policy be referred to Planning and Zoning. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Discuss Park Tour: The park tour was tentatively planned for Saturday, June 25. 1 3. Youth Athletics: Cary presented a letter that he had received from the no longer requesting roposed the League Association said League Denton budget. Little from the City. IV, LIEW BUSINESS Bob Tickner showed plans for the renovation of Denia Park E athletic fields. He Said the city should be able to get more for the money than had been originally planned with the new concept, He also showed the proposed plans for renovation at Evers Park and said the department hopes to submit a proposal to Texas Parke and Wildlife for a matching funds grant. V, OTHER BUSINESS Catherine Bell reported on the plans for the Juneteenth Celebration, co-sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Department, and extended an invitation to the members. Steve gave oals, proposed eprojebts sfor the next CIP, on the department's major ~I g update. I VI4 NDJOURN On a motion by Rita Pilkey, second of Carl Anderson, the meeting was adjourned. 1 1 i wy 4 fi Y Pat Minutes November 9, 1961 ~'I EJl Page 3 S. IAe special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the owner's or any prior owner's action or omission. the situation is not a result of any action by the owner or any previous owner. IN FAVOR: None, OPPOSED: some, AECOMMENDAtION: Ms. Evans stated that staff recommended approve o •47, DECISION: Mr. Glasscock moved to recommend approval of P=fr-Seconded by Mr. Holt and unanimously carried (7.0), ll. Considerations 1 A. Consider making a recommendation on preliminary replat of Lot 2A of the Adkisson Addition. STAFF REPORT: Mr, Yost stated that this is a 2.1950 acre rat ocaed nn Woodrow Lane south of Mcklnner Street I being a portion of Lot 2 as recorded, and in the J.Brock Survey, bstract No. $l, i Mr. Yost aid the property is lofted Ll ht Industrial and develo rent Of city services, an addlt~on to the Animal Control Center, Is anticipated. He continued that city services and facilltIS$ are available and the plat conforms to the minimum requirements. f DECISION: Mr. Glasscock moved to recommend approval of t e pre lminsry rapist of Lot IA of the Adkisson Addi- tion. Seconded by Mr. Engelbrecht and unanimously carried (1.0). ° ~'i M U114111181104 OR like'proposed perk` I • • ty. STAFF REPURTt Mr. Irlnkman Itated that he wanted to an the ommissioners, of well so the others that were lnyclved In the development of the park policy. Am said that the pparks department hoped to acquire land for parks throughout the city, Mr. Killion stated that in regards to 19 In the proposed policy, the developer would most likely charge the owner of the property for the tee, He asked who would receive the fee after the ten year period Is completed, Mr. Brinkman stated that the tee would be returned to the developer, Park Policy 9. Park improvements should be installed in a timely manner along with the development of surroundlag property in accordance with applicable budgetary requireaeAtm of the City, It !eta are not used or the donated land is not developed after a ten (10) year period, the developper who made the payment or donation mar appeal to the Citr Council for a refund of either the property or the fees. It the City Council decides at that time to develop the property, the City would have another 24 month$ to aekl the improvements. Mr, Holt stated that the Citr would have no way to tell it the developer had originally charged the owner the fee, Oil, Brock asked if the tee and/or donation were sit voluntary, Mr. Brinkman said yes. i k ~ Vl+ Ps1 Minutes November V, 1988 ?lie t 8 al LL fJllll(~l Carl Anderson stated that the city is short on parkland and Increased parkland would improve the looks of the city greatly. DECISION; Mr, ksmman stated that he was not happy with t e t ought of the developer making an extra profit from f the fee. 1I, Mr. Morris staled that once property or money is given to the City, It Is considered a gift. He sold the City could decide whether or not to keep It. Mr, Holt stated that at the end of pareeraph l9, the City has 11 months to develop the property or make improve. mints. !I Ms. Morgan asked it the City had plans of reviewing the status of donations of money or land. Mr. Brintesn stated that the City will be reviewing it every year at City Council and will change the policy, IF necessary, + Ms, Brock moved to recommend a proval of the Park Dona- tion Polley. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and unanimously 1 carried (7.0). C, Consider me king a recammendatlon on Article l7, signs, of Appendix B, 1onInI, of the Cade of Ordinances, SIAPf REPORi1 Ms. Carson st`ated that this Item WIN Rolation~oCoemitteetm•tit until thatrstateOhas alsot I get with the Clty Caunetl In m work session and the Beautiticatton Task Force regarding the Ordinance. Ms. Carson said that some items were discussed by the City Council, The City Council requested additional Information on two artast l) a bonus for a directory st n with rote than one 0411:14 er gigs and 2) PO 1 1Cal signs in residentidistricts, i I Me. Carson said that In regard to 01, the current pro- cast allows ono sign for each 700 toot of frontage. This would limit most properties to one ground sign, She said that staff reviewed the possibility of two adjacent businesses going to`other to create one 611n, however, it would be extreme y difficult to adminis~or two future ms uis of the late,t decided On# business o, but Ray have a largertsign, g''thare would be nothing to require that one portion be covered up and Couldn t be used until another business went in next door. Ms. Carson added that this would also become a very complfsited process in filer do to the legalities o/ regulating the usage. Ms. Casson continued that under the Ordinance, well signs would be permitted. Every business dose here the oppor- tunity to have a wall sign to advertise thole business, She said In addition, that a 110 s uare toot sign, on a 70 toot pole, could be used for a directory of all the businesses, 1 ,b, Carson continued that a second question that wit t asked was concerning political signs, She said a qua tion w as ratted about limiting the number of pol- ltlcal signs In residential noiih0orhoods and reviewing the square fooeele that Is parstted, She slid that I lntrlnynyemeet anmfreedomsolnipeoeh~d TAeecurrdnetpropoidl { would be stake signs with a maximum square foots a of 12 square teat. this If also the maximum that is allowed in { the current sign ordinance, 1 tA ti f*44441114111141 ii Will 1111111 , .1 1 i I i I I 1 a r' a Ili; j.. .'J 'r 11,•r r r..i 1~I'ii?1: f i, Ir y t l C ry A I" I t 0, 0"t ..i } r lE'I11"Ilftr Wil t. or , !Wi rtr'.t i t.Ilrr.:l i1111hi1ri?ji;kt-,t 1r;i t, ir;c± t1~rnle,c' 11 t)elIwcle•t I! LC it it 11ui Mulbert"y and tho Alrorlt rn iAnLor SWWILY'r Ifnlllle'.t lu c'Inyt, 0 Put "tIon Uf flit I"i'."4. V!"t h('Lt=,~~ JL"Wre 110VIR br'i!-1';h! t" 1 qh t. 0 nllrtOW U1 r1Cln`.i S: I Grl'ii and pr wif +c,",rr jaw o;th the rity to wit viii: rwinq proL, no, Among j then arv: thr pr 'ovinion of (±,i1;guato rantruinn 4ar;il1'LiP , Ally tho I r?Ilectinn of signoturwS, and thE, nt?vad fc- lil.fnuitn Thr ;kraut rIn5ul form hnn bev" mrtrliftt?d, a'Id t•. WE''I fret rit:t.ac:hnd. Tt is proposed lhAt t'hr+ two forms upplyst Lhe vor'r'e"t' form. rwo forms, are hrinq quiq l'Pytind bpcialld•E t_ho infur'm Nit lun nvedind for 1 Wrent rl ar"re Q a r rri ie't iAl orvta I% cl l f fe=r eta"1t A um what tlFdecl in ,a 11nn- r-05 il'r'{It: iU I aroa rvlt l[; lr'!?i 11.11` I I h. 1 411 rePt. C'.1Us1.1'19% ar'e 4 A i r I y 41mpIrt while` n(w rP ilti,ll r,tr4'i'r n1oni"1rl I_t"d to hP mc,rty cull and Involv"d. f "1 „r_I •t, r,I h.h la Ilitfnrloncrt in flit twcl t11ino cif Oro& Clir_tnyr•,, ti will :'n 01.01t with traP,ar.itlltly In fht,c rPpOrt. they wi I i both fall War Wit •t-.emu or dinal'Lp. The American Concur M tely rAn into some prc''b1Pms in His requett to clony Qlf t 11ortion of that (r11i~t horillgQ skme of the pvtaple wIN.Te si9naturns Wove nevdirI were int. of luHn. Min is not. a 1.1niuue situation, whe?r'Ivyvv patitioE'1ern roonu in '1.U rocJlll?"it a %ir"eet closure that is i "p within thrr ni cent to tam wcarri'n MY have bevii-Ply 11WRIid I.he'Ir tI.m61 ,.rW alrl the Ill't`tJVd `.41'7n ALnrd,. Ihvy hive „iloo limited utofl'% tim" Ir1 *d§-11r,1,Y-ly pr'epirre ftrr the Arout closing. It l):MId Ilv_' E',trn"gly onquPoturi that ratihinrirr , ntltify tho City Hecl wt ,rof their 11, rtl l . I ~ t i f! :..:love P ' 1 t r'!7 t , rtrld klrgrri }III"' fJ el i t 1i'ln Oro; P'l of Want_ ;III da K In t'MIix"t.. r,r 01 tho invorit:. 1111, r71.11 dllCllN '.trill aduyuMp tiff+t to r'rr,leir'w for Min roht c'lr' ing inn mum nrdt r 1 y .anrl t 111' r.W Ih 4Q l l i r.11 . I At-110-- in rlrW r' 1 Wit` 1 11,111 rt-1 t'`•h.r;i' frl ;+r t'lvltir', thol,. fpl l Mndrrr Ihu Iylalr°~tl l'i 4 t t r i • I,,, !r t, 11:. I.Ii 'r'.r ri 1 V' y 1 oil i 1}. 1 I',•r'. f'I ~ 1.. r Y I 1'. l i i' ' ~ t I , .1 , f r'. r I ~ i 1. . ~ VJ 1 I r i Ir i~ 1r l' t~ I"l ( I .11 r: r f,_1;1r; r d1flC 'l r1r i'';'Ir~ It ,11~ ~'I)l 11~ t' i it ~ ~ I. q~' . l'_I : I-111.. I _rrr t 'v I - ilk^.1 Sl ! I.r 1 .I. lG'fl 1 w. h ,,11.1rr ti I.r.. I p1~, t Y.r r . 7 i l.C 1.',r I' 1 L' 4111 1 °3tf,11 I'rl rlr rt i~a,,1 , l ~ i ,r. ~ 1' YI I l 1 1• f, r~f,ide-Mal ;,l o l p it if 11 ~ a or t'1_I Of : WIL t'fP regkll for . 1 It r'.i; ,V 1 1 I . 1' I lh _ the 1 r :t f f t f fI Z I I r[l1; tl l I •t'IC''' 1.1 I'll IIJr u ' 1 ' i-!k^ - ~ i~~trr-icavl, bl,t l y t t, Ill1o 1 1 lit ( 1 n 000i -,i : r .grla 11 r r k, nvr4ia to P PDrp in .rr,-+.I,,i t.11:. 4 rrl ro% from thp!t Rpll v,lllrl,li It, Ill 11'P lr li"r'Ir. rr'l wf. t1'1 bf 1ilt. rt i 7 clot Cai 101,i by thin co"i at 1: P so" 11 L hn en I of 4 h" h: r in-, n id"y c I rinvoit. k u t ho P3a/f.,I t . ld he rk'l ~,I'll'rv ,hIv f r Ill 1 I',•..I al ':k iI lrlr;l PA The contort a rho 1n '"1.tiv1 i wlal. barr^ir.'[.ir` „ tcal ar,nlf1 bo ti ton fr'im 1 "OLA Ji, 1-rnaterl h,' the' c:ontrtrt per'Gt:n car, fill Fir r, h_ LIU` 1110a,rrnnlu ';tk;r 'Ile, l lhi r:ort of pr ngelnrzrrl; wi11 wl rf well r with rI+ ,tl7ntlil strpCBt. Cl On Lngs bVL.OUSF_' they tlilll: 01 1Y 00 lot I', r nurh of 'n Oft f., Ull 1 { traffic. 1 tlhvioulol it r'e'+lll`'ntldl i)1f.1r'f.. ior'tlrP~'A do W ..'r?Cl trJ f•.lr'✓lr{' tic"illl rlr'elry rWrown fnt iI it Le,.. ` for v the MA lo •ity of tho lia lrr sttf:ltrliltrd the 1 „7t CI(:,I' '.1 nr^t~ Wfll Wlttll'?r' Us r'p.,Adv"IS' of tl1F' "IQLC U. r,'v r.1L1E"It: at promiP:Ien,v, 1.t1[y w I I I hour it Ir'coM of the rl1 IIC I . Null-t_e'~•LClknt },al I ! ait ratwt Cl;l'9inon in "On rF,'.,1 lit 01. 1 W ar"(?oy, d•9 'r3w hll shot l:nl n"Inr'1'', ore moCh more ri"3P1.116r-' •o'A invnlved thin r.lr'opt rll'Ivirg' irl J own rosirJf.'rlti:tl IrP u,. 5 0 4 1 0 N n I idaI nlrr;pit r lc,' In. A f :I.t,'il l y rPpIs et aIPd by rI1^,71Ib'rl1 td t' q troP11 bring rlr:li'l l.~thi this in not the rasp with xProy rrr:,+l..r.w..'~tc.lc'r1t:l.t1 4 1V,Wf. rIon lrly01 f'-Ah Ihu f11Ba))r irail Roncer Nocif+t,y prod Pi I'. Iwo llll'1,1 h1 r+rP r'4,••nlrytlr'J iF-I'f'rlit C'.1umbi,13'i n"I W1 ).f: ; U('i:'ll wli3rh 111r, II l'1 x1,1 rlr riwr1y r ` i':1111 w"a [-;h ..r rl I I brl:llght llCb(l P tit flo, rlr'P'l 1rW % thot wviv noith;r the or i,rlr,r - aw1'Il nClr^ th" invillyd 111'. : of 1ho Ilr,T r.l., -shorn. Win I'. 11CAl of Oft ;of r. I I.r hren": ! n r r it -r it r: low" I 11, 1 oV'r ; SO Pat l-lr,,iIis I .n Ilr,,rr .Idl:'ntt,tt a"ppc alrr I,I'yaatl}/ rr.tll,r,r•tNlj flu' wvl'`olq thol. or 'v H.'h;w; I'nd to draw r' At o rllll'1l'yr of pr(Lll,lly rn i_i1B or an. We ovool P huYllo l V'v.•1 :"rr'ka t.'r'II I 1 .0 I :,1 d 111 "r'l1I 11 3 111 1 1 1 F':Idc LI11' or '1':) .rr-.1 c• c rlY r,rf it !l rule' r ory it of I It ho' i"r '.a:r. In !hr C l I", I. Pt4"7t an ' t51 "I" Wy y tr,r r,. ,hot i11,Prf" rrr„1 l I,'r 51I';,,,r Irllaa. ,Ilff 11111' I'r 1.Vol, ttl.in I I lr r'1~1 t tr r:rr1 1. ''1 ,1 r, l 1 II• t I1U 1:1 Ig1h1 0 .tr1 l4'r'/Pr a tI i' v" M , E i 9 ~I , r ,r iI 1 i. i • I. 1 1 j, . 111 Irl1.•1 r I ! iii i r I, I 1 r 1 hlr J r ` fl' L a r I 4 1. f ' I / Y LI LI Ir.l 1 rr 11 ;rr r l r t I I I .r 1 I 1. I 1 . Y .k I c,r tll, '121 I .;n I r trli I 'I rr 111 f.hl,. [,,,,;t ~,1' I ' I r :I frr 111 rlt ,ll 11 t , r 1 r 11 }ail , I-Ir LI '1 r: f+,I r ,f 11'r 1 1 II 1 II 1'~ 1!.If N .(...~r l1 trr I I ,I'i f! 1, 1'j I 1 it a•.I ,.L ~ r , l.,n lr1 111 l,l. llf~ . rr'1If,1711:1I 1C II 1t rtl, t1 P" 1' I 1]%11'r 'r( t, , i I" I a I I f II l! lll'1 til? 1 II'il'I r 0! ;rl .r ,1 t,f " Ir=1k. trl lYl}f+1 f C!nt Ic h. hrr .n1 f. r:',. II ,r's(I) fcVr. t ~ 1rl+a r t ar, .1 ' L 1 Farr 11 r t Li 1°.^ 1 1 tr,e; °1;'" r'tt ,lilY', { •,p?I: h lny !L'~ r111rh I'IL In ! (1a I I G1 CI tlrl ri PPClr,i t t•ICI,' 0 b" 1 III MI I' C' 1 {Li Y' rl r, I r l!'7.' Ill11 rl; i 1 C'C UY'Cl i. n11 tY) -1o+'It"gn. It fs, na',t,-„'llr•I t, ll,at. L'1•'' II I r:nl 1111hiL G14rl~;~tilr'tdr~p .Io 1{ accrcl no'n tM o k.h1 a fclrnral.a t li+u tc UP ,or t' ro n1U( • t'CI Cif f , th rlr'iqu It w ~l I~ 1 , ! I, , beat ct1ar'r,E~ a An n amour It IappY'uYlr tatr? f(r t.h1r- ,zvcnt, fur r 1,~`Il,lnr 1'uIl"IY : t . +1,lla AI phi wao , ln1{ for Ahout cha ~ c;a. il_,rdsv ti the u'ntyr'a r,laelr r., pi h ~ rrc Ir Its re>rine',t i f we simply I or''t, {cr!ir°tl1 nt thr.' t+r~a of the Wrll.=, t § [+IV r' ,L h tcrl1 r W1 r o%it, w" ig'l,.r.. kklr~,r IlIl r,:'oan up, c:cl"IK r 'I ~r 6`I il,r` L. lr't 4 C, O'.i IS On I'doonrP. r' ~f I UYI n^1'1n 1i' A (1, I'Lllt I I. Or oY) y wcl1llln1d 110t r I M ( I 'I'1 1111 Ih•"IIC„ 1f. II rII "I'.rlrl 0711 v 1111;"'_i r:' L. W of V r=.^.1~7'J@ritIng d -I V 0°?t ~ t.Il1=I I '1.11d 'if i 14~ U.l {.t..,..1•' llc+'. 1Ir,f',,r. flud r. ..,Ir100 1 111ro Thin on=10 II r, r' t C'f tIT 45'11 I 1'6 !N a 'J r'!111 Ira. nod ,z al t nni r1+1 awrpp a'CiV I'I th+ ^ f the f',itr trout, .Iwinur. t tY'C!C?f: n JT nyr ho i ..it ir I. F E In { y i l PQuIlt Ed ' , ! yr '.LI1.1C11 r'lu t11r1 Irlt-E S~ ]11c7 ci 7{ lrll [CI 'I a rand in h Le ni1911 ar to c'" laniZrlticlrl fin ti n F'nt:1F' off 11~r wuuld ,ri,r1•~~ic.nr*,. fur f'ul i u o m,' n•.I ^ f ow f liner el f rho Ivow '"Cl+n pF Ii,'t.` I.r'(ran f r.11ILLn• ltc.t'11VU Old in t.h+` r~'ivu II`.Ir 111 rIII,riIt i1:111 t:hru r J1",1'.. 1111 r ' 11r'dit llr "c ifl(.0 thlr' rl} 111,"'+1 r' II, .1 II1'I'1 I, (W : r1IIITf'., thv Al rJ I'alllrr 11 f I'I n' F,-in r r,.. r i,, ; y r',I.r t .,•.I 1 r L ''.Il on 1 a Yv'CV f111 r r.r!.'al, r I,~j, (tin it My. u1,1' ,r r r n I' I , `n1 ( ( of II 11" E' r Il,.r'rl IT UM thtl r I , h rl f I r ;I c'r', f 11 ,''I:i in 1 n{Ia frF°C7plr:. in the t"Ip t Ur;rh 1 c if 1 r!1, r. r,l r a t 1 i IT ,'1rJ r r± Mon thr t u I ~'1 ,UIIl „ { ] 1 1 I Pd II I r,lrt,ull f+1 II i Irv 'flea! 'i ClIu r lr,• II hl V v. ,111'' 11~ 1 I f I'r ,!l 1 4'1'1 rl r..'. 1 : Y 1, k1t` 1. ~'1 i r1 Uf1. lu=I'1! I It t1.. ;I f r ,.It. r rrl Ir.il'l11'..r .111 ':,)a,,'. 7 J 1 I y t tA r ~ < n N `i ~r' r i,,,. iir':11 ~ i~ L i '.i' ~ r., .,1 i , l' 1_i] I (f... rat i"i c~~i; Cij r;,~11-1r r. '.,f1:, ~ I~;I n1~~-:. '.I,:Yntl,tl v.-:,:;:•r I.1~..' tr,'. I.r11 i~,';I11.!N ~iY:~ ~ ~ , ,~,;j~~..~ il:. r,:i ~ , .1 ! I f r,ln~ ':•!,r-eva~h i1"'i7Y" ~i. r 't:n,fr i,rl 11n i'~' C• ~~I f.fr .,,.L .1 p] t 1)I t. C'r'F I,r• 'rr I.I'1 V r rl '1: [fl!1 Cd! 1 X11 f li' 1;17 il.i !i'li i} hi •f', Jl'fi t pr+' I',k 1 tci fcu.ll ~r_11 1'I 1'.17f I~~!i f i1~ll t~ ! Ar 'v r D'[-fir t ! r..~l f ''itl I:r , i._. 1 r, ry{ 1 i.f! [ 1 'i~P, 11[l IIYI:rzIr'it b.rn.ll,, fall 'IV ['r,-~'f•'~'lt'.! .i'~ Ini,i'I°r'. ai ,ref" Imf°. f'I It1 flfl.-'.1 I'i(I~!.br 'h Iln,ir"7 iV"rT.t', gt.ill,:{ N i. Fl l.! potittir;ninn c'tir' f hi a kt,r l •,..:.t_ of '1 f ,'clc'!1 I ty 1 I Ir. rl4''I~v a rs',r a 'r Fr k 4 R~, k,/ f ,'1F:f tC1 i. fh1,? III i7n~:, r'•f 1'. i F'uq' Nc~l'-,on r'rlniir'r W~~1tr,h,',; I ~ I I I II I J i i j k8 j M Y ! L~ 9 r,. sktr ~r, ( t t~tl~ r rr1~= FLr b; t l o ~p i t l 1} i l 1} ;,p : o l l 01 t. f n r° thy o ry t. i t cr i tFWr ~h 1i7 1 of F' J 1;r.Q wtl'I Iv i,E !hrr 1;r.~ fawrl!_ I, of tht~ r!eecj for o trof{ L LLAnni uftirm- tor LhH L`.r^,L.. lr•:' rIriannotion I,r po w C1 1',%,,inA r. Pic, uuaK 6P UKlod d1r'Ectly fry+'• the affic r time. Lleor! ~i~.r 11 , i,.. t por 'in- •nr- foot tG c'lr_arl Aririn stf'K e tee - f` I i I j a t n s i REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTY I Organization requesting street closure for block party:, Contact Person: Address: Phone Number: Street To Be Closed: Date and Time To Be intersecting Streets:- _ - - _ - Reason For Closure: Please complete the bottom portion of this form. ALL residents affected by the block party MUST be contacted and sign below with an indication of being in favor or in opposition to the block party/street closure. ~I `-_SIGNATURE ADDRESS _ FAVOR OPPOSE I 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. I F 2983C/4 I I i I I { a RESUEST FOR STRtET CLOSURE Organization requesting street closure Contact Person: Address: Phone Numbe r Street To Be Closed: Date and Time To Be Closed:_- _ - ` - r~ Intersecting Streets: Reason For Closure: Please complete the bottom portion of this form. ALL residents and/or businesses affected by the street closure MUST be contacted and sign below with an indication of being in favor or in opposition to the street closure. i NAME AUTHORIZED J OF BUSINESS SIGNATURE FAVOR /OPPOSE I { 1. ' _ 3._ _ J 4._- - 5. 6. 8. _ 9. --Y~_-_ _ i 10. I 2983C/5 i J i FIL~ El~ IE= ul~ All jjlff INN I'll fill a lllx~. . . . JHHHH I I I i F i DATE: 02101/89 ` CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF THE 1989-1994 CIP RECOMMENDATION: 1. Advise staff of any areas of concern or interest associated with the CIP development process and specific CIP projects. 2. Add a bond election and sale schedule. 3. Authorize staff to conduct a CIP fiscal impact analysis. SUMMARY: 1. A discussion of developing the 1989-1994 CIP. 2. Amending the 1989-1993 utility CIP and adding FY 1993-94 year projects. 3. Amending the 1989-1990 non-utility CIP and adding 1991-1994 projects. BACKGROUND: 1. Council adopted a 1988-1992 utility CIP and a 1988-1991 non-utility CIP in July 1988. 2. Staff kickoff: January 11, 1989. 3. Mail out of CIP schedule January 4 and January 18. 4. Joint Planning and Zoning/Public Utilities Board public hearings , February 8. J PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: All departments, programs, and groups interested is developing the physical improvement of the community could be affected. i FISCAL IMPACTi Developing the CIP will have no additional fiscal impact. The fiscal impact of implementing the CIP will be provided to the Council at a later date. ATTACHMENTSs Memo, Robbins, CIP. Recpec ly submi s 52 1'~ 2oq Harrell City eager App veds Frink H. Robbins, AICP Executive Director k Planning and Development I 30968 1 1 i 4 a i a a. CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING i DENTON, TEXAS 16201 i TELEPHONE (811) 566.8200 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 31, 1989 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Frank H. Robbins, Executive Director for Planning and Development SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT OF THE 1989-1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) THE CIP The CIP is a proposed schedule of all future capital improvements to be carried out during a five year period (in this case, fiscal 1989 through fiscal 1994) listed by category together with cost estimates and the anticipated means of financing each project. A capital improvement is a new or expanded physical facility or equippment that is relatively large in size, expensive and long lastirk, . i THE BENEFITS OF A CIP An effective capital improvements pprogramming process can lead to many benefits. Specifically, the CIP can ensure that plans for community facilities are carried out; can allow improvement proposals to be tested against a set of policies; can better schedule public Improvements that require more than one year to construct; can provide an opportunity, assuming funds are available, to purchase land before costs go up; can provide an opportunity for long-range financial planning and management; can help stabilize tax and utility rates through careful debt management; can avoid such mismanagement as paving a street one year and tearing it up the next to build a sewer; can offer an opportunity for citizens and public interest groups to participate in decision making; and can contribute to a better overall management of city affairs. I R ' Mayor and City Council January 31, 1989 Page 2 DEVELOPING THE CIP - PROCESS AND DOCUMENTS Enclosed is the CIP time schedule. This schedule represents the following: 1. Council agreement on the process and the form of the CIP 2. Taking input during public hearings. Enclosure 2 is an example of the summary report form of public inputs r --1 3. Department ranking of identified projects. Enclosure three includes examples of completed non-utility: a. CIP project form b. Ranking criteria c. Project narrative Enclosure 4 includes examples of completed utility: a. CIP project form b. Evaluation criteria 4. Review and recommendation by the Executive staff of all proposed projects to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P$Z) and the Public Utility Board (PUB) at public hearings. Enclosure S is a prioritized list of projects which will be prepared for the Executive staff. S. Review of and recommendations by the CDBG committee, P & Z, and the PUB to the City Council. 6. Review and adoption of the CEP by resolution by the Council, the date for which is not shown on the schedule but would be determined by Council later. Last year, the CIP was adopted during the first Council meeting in July. This process represents reevaluation of existing, adopted CIP projects as well as adding new projects. } ADVANCED FINANCIAL ANALYSIS i i We have in the past made financial analysis of the CIP in order to help determine what we could afford, given certain assump- tions. This year staff proposes to make those financial assumptions and analysis more explicit. For instance, staff would provide you the tax impact of selling general obligation (GO) bonds, sold at a certain time, for certain CIP projects given various assumptions about the tax base and tax revenues. 1 f~ i a G J g Mayor and City Council Members January 31, 1989 Page 3 For example, assuming there is no increase in the tax base and revenues to support new GO bond issuei, and that $200,000 of new annual general revenue expenditures equals a It tax increase, and given an assumed bond rate, staff might say that for every $2 million of CIP bonding, ld would be added to the tax rate for the term of the bonds; e.g. on a 20-year bond, 1a for 2U years. Staff is also proposing to add to the CIP coordinate election and sale schedule as a means to better efficient actions necessary to implement the CIP. FACILITY OPERATING COSTS For new public facilities such as fire stations and parks, addition of a column showing annual operating costs is proposed. ran on ns wp Enclosures 3098g III j ~ J l i I I 1 I I I I V, ~ I y 4 i Enclosure 1 RECOMENVED CALVIUAR OF TVENIS 02 CITY OF OENT011 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL Ii IPROVEIIENT PLAIT January 11, M19 February S, 1989 (Sunday) Advertise PUB/P61 Jolnt meeting for public input In newspaper February 7, 1909 Ituesday) City Council Work ':sslon: Seek (5:30 o.m.l Policy direction and discuss Council ICIv1) Defense Room) priorities 'February 0, 1969 (Wednesday) Public Utility Board B Planning 6 (5:30 p.m,l Zoning Commission hold joint meeting (Council Chambers) to hear requests and receive Input from public, staff and other community Interests February 24, 1909 (Friday) Staff Wit-up due manager's office Istelf analysis of requests, cost + estimates for proposed and existing projects, location maps and ranking sheet for all re Quested projects) (larch 9, 1989 (Thursday) Executive Committee reviews reausts i M OTT a.m.) and ranking by department and (Service Center) forrulates recommendation to toe forrarded to Planning 6 2onfnQ Comnltsfon ttarch 20, 1969 (tiondayI C08G Corwnfttee review of proposals ')larch 22, 1909 (4ednesday) Planntng 6 Zoning Comm lssion and 15:30 p.m.l Public Utility Board receives (Count{} Chambersl Executive Comm ittee and Utility staff I i recommendation and holds final public 1 hearing larch 27, 1989 (liondayI Presentation made to CDBG Committee 1 Mod p.m.l (Service Center) April 5, 1969 (Wednesday) Pubic Utility Board review of staff recommendation In wort session April 6, 1989 IThursdayI Presentations made to CDBG Committee 15:00 P.M.) IServlce Centerl E April 10, 1989 (Ibnday) COBG Committee makes recommendetlon to (S:OU P.M.) Council IServlce Center) April 19, 1989 (Wednesday) Publle Vtllity Board and PZinn Ing l (6:30V m.) toning Commission formulate final (Council Chambers) recommendations in separate work sessions Aprit 26, 1909 (Wednesday) Flannfmg B tdnlog Commlssion takes formal action on recommended Five Year CIP for General Goverrvnent and Jtilfties (lay $4. 1909 ITuesdayl Recosmended fire year CIF presented to City Council a Opportunity for Public Input and Reaction to Staff recommendations. 24694 I L-1 I I I i I g~ ri 1 r 4 y 1986 C1P REQUESTS AND RESPONSES FROM CITIZENS, ORGANIZATIONS AND INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT REQUESTS, PROBLEMS, COMMENTS Public Works Joe Burris Need Utilities to follow { E proposed extension in West Utilities Denton/Airport area. Need City participation in extension of j ' road i Public Works Bill Holt, Director of More road and utility Infra- 4 I Economic Development I structure is needed in West d Utilities 1 Chamber of Commerce Denton near Airport. Masch Branch Road is a good start and next critical need is section of M Loop 286 that would link 1-3SW N and 1-3SE. i Utilities Ailie Miller Property along Masch Branch Road has been in City for 6 I h Public Works years. Masch Branch Road street i ` improvements are in CIP but would like to see utilities put in before road work is done. f Utilities Paul Haygood, Pastor Own 10 acres at NW corner of Life Tabernacle Bonnie Brae $ Windsor and water, sewer, road, sidewalk and Public Works ~ drainage improvements are needed. Drainage study needed for entire area, I I I i i Enclosure 3 09-Jan-89 CIP DETAIL FORM PROJECT: Ranch Estates Drainage Project Number: ENGD-92/93-2 Project Cost: 1,1550000 Evaluation Total: 98.75 Description: Ranch Estates is an older subdivision in the northwest portion of Denton. Typical of older subdivisions, adequate drainage wasn't provided. Flooding, even during small storm events is not uncommon. ENGD-92/93-2 provides major channel improvements through the subdivision to Hwy 380. Benefits: ENGD-92/93-2 will solve local flooding problems and remove several homes from the floodplain. Cost Calculation: Engineering costs - $20,000 700,000 ft concrete @ 1.62 per $11135,000 Additional Percent BUDGET Original Costs of Total Contract Svc: 20,000 21 Land/ROW: 01 Construction: 11135,000 981 Equipment: 01 Misc: 0% TOTAL: 1,155,000 0 1001 Funding Requirements Total cost of project: 1,155,000 (i expenditures per month) i Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 i 1 1st 13th 25th 2nd 14th 26th 3rd 15th 24 27th 4th 16th 28th ' 5th 17th 29th 6th 18th 16 30th 7th 19th 31st 8th 12 20th 32nd 9th 14 21st 33rd 1Gy 22nd 34th 11th 23rd 35th 12th 34 24th 36th 3 Total Year 1: 60 1 Total Year 2: 40 1 Total Year 3: 0 1 Grand Total: 100 1 FUNDING SOURCE Bonds already approved X New General Obligation Bonds needed Industrial Development Bonds Revenue Bonds certificates of MAP Obligation 3-1 I I------------------------------------------ DENTON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EVALUTAION FORM BUDGET YEAR 1969 - 1994 PROJECT: Ranch Estates Drainage PROJECT NUMBER: ENGD-92/93-2 CRITERIA SCORE WEIGHT TOTAL 1. NEED (OTHER THAN 2 - 4) 2 Serious, immediate identified need 1 Moderate identified need 0 Low or unidentified need 2 7.5 15 2. PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY 2 Addresses a major health or safety hazard 1 Addresses a minor health or safety hazard 0 All other projects 2 6 12 3. LEGALLY REQUIRED 2 Required to meet legal requirements 1 Will meet anticipated legal requirements 0 All other projects 2 3.5 7 j 4. COMPLETES A PROJECT 3 Makes a mayor public improvement usable 2 Completes already usable public improvement 1 Adds to or enhances completed program 0 All other projects 3 3.5 10.5 5. ADDRESSES NEED 2 Project hiyhly effective and efficient 1 Project moderately effective and efficient 0 Project low effectiveness and efficiency 2 5 10 6, RELATIONSHIP TO PLANS/POLICIES 2 Clearly advances plans and policies 1 Does not conflict with plans and policies 0 Conflicts with plans and policies 2 515 11 76 NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT 2 Overall positive impact 1 Little or no impact 0 Overall negative effect 2 5 20 8. GENERAL BUDGET IMPACT 2 Returns investment or more than investment 1.5 Reduces or avoids subsequent costs 1 Little or no net impact on subsequent costs .5 Moderate net impact 0 High net impact 1.5 7.5 11.25 9. MOTOR VEHICLE UTILIZATION 2 Results in economy of motor vehicle use 1 No impact j 0 Inreaaes cost of motor vehicle use I 1 1 10. COINCIDES WITH MASTER PLAN 2 Coincides 1 No impact 0 Conflict 2 2.5 5 11. QUALITY OF INFORMATION 2 Complete and accurate 1 Incomplete ----O --Very little, poor 2 3 6 TOTAL SCORE98.75 09-Jan-89 f 3-2 I PIWU? TOLLS AM w minis Ranch Estates Drainage Coati #1,155,000 R wM ft' 1NEM AM m , Public Works/Engineering PROJECT NARRATIVE LOCATION MAP Ranch Estates Subdivision is an older established subdivision in northwest Denton. Typical o9 boat older subdivisions, adequate i drainage was not provided, Several hoaes in the I area experience flooding even In relatively Gull storm events. I i This project would provide major channel improvements through the subdivision to the south side of Highway 360. In addition to solving localised floodingr this project would remove several houa from the floodplain. I ~ I ~ 1 \ .y 4 ' 3 I i I 1 f r I r i F,nclnSuze 4 CITY 01: DENTON UTILITY DEPARTMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS I YEAR/DEPT & CIP NUH: 92-WWL 0481-1 ESTIMATED COST: ;19000,000 PROJECT TITLE: FACILITY PARKING LOT PRIORITYt Must X Need X Should X TYPE: Repair/Repl X New/Cont X Upgrade X Vehicle X EVALUATION CRITERIA TOTAL: 75 DESCRIPTION: This project would provide for the enlargement and repair of the existing parking lot. In addition, covered parking will be provided for division vehicles. BENEFITS: Provide additional parking for the division II Improve aesthetics of building COST CALCULATION: 10,000 aq ft x ; 1.00 ■ ; 10,000 (Additional Lot) 31600 sq ft x ; 0.67 ■ 1 2,000 (Repair) Parking Canopy n 1 41000 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: (Per-cent expenditures by month) 1st 0 2nd 0 3rd 0 4th 0 6th 0 8th 0 1 7th 67 8th 11 9th 22 10th 0 11th 0 12th 0 13th 0 14th 0 16th 0 16th 0 17th 0 18th 0 19th 0 20th 0 21st 0 22nd 0 23rd 0 24th 0 26th 0 28th 0 27th 0 28th 0 29th 0 30th 0 31st 0 32nd 0 33rd 0 34th 0 36th 0 38th 0 TOTAL 1ST YR 100 % ;1000000 TOTAL 3RD YR 0 % ;0 TOTAL 2ND YR 0 % /0 GRAND TOTAL 100 % 11000000 TYPE FUNDINO: (Dollars) lO ~AT10N MAP Bond 500000 Rev 600000 AIC 0 0th 0 DATESt(Honth/Year) Est Act 3 Encumbered N/A N/A Eng Start N/A N/A Covet Start N/A N/A y Const Cmpte N/A N/A COMNENTS: This project is split as follows: Water: 26% of Total j Wastewater: 75% of Total 0 ~ . C:\ETC\WW\92CIF'-WWL.WR1 Date and Time: 9/23/88 0 1:29:68 DEDICATED TO QUALITY SERVICE 4-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA 92-WWL 0481-1 YEAR/DEPT & CIP NUHt PROJECT TITLE$ FACILITY PARKING LOT i Need X Should PRIORITY% Nust X J HAXIHUH POSTPONABLE DATEi i WEIGHT VALUE SCORE ITEH DESCRIPTION (t) I 4 X 5 ■ 20 1. Legal, regulatory, reliability 4 X 5 ■ 20 2. Health, safety, environmental f 4 X 5 s 20 I 3. Service benefiti continuing project 2 X 5 s 10 4. Upgrade with high benefit to cost ratio i I 2 X 62 10 5. Coordinate with other projects 2 X 5 • 10 1 8. Replaces deteriorated/tailed system, preventive maintenance I X 5 s 6 I 1, Aesthetics 5 areas X i 8. Speculative extensions to now l too EVALUATION TOTAL (MAX score • 100) + Attach a copy of this evaluation criteria to each Project@ i entinlsmaximumfisportancearo for not applicable from (s) Assi n a numbs I I Ct\ETC\WW\92CIP-WWL4WRI Page xx I 4-2 1 r„ r Enclosure S CIPRANII THIS FORA 15 BEING PREPARED ON..... 20-Apr-09 THIS 19 THE RASTER L.I.P. RANKINO SHEET For the Denton Capikal loproveitnt Protect Ranking Fart, Budget Years 1991.93 I.......... 1............ 1 ..............1 Total a Protect I Total 1 Frolect I Cuwaulalive 1 Froltct e Rink 1i11s 1 Score I Cost I Total I Cost I - I I I.............. I............ I Signals For Control of ]nteritctlona 1 103.50 I 235,000 1 430,000 1 a 2 turn limit for Arterials I 103.50 1 95,000 1 951000 I a 3 Traffic Study - NISO 1 103.50 1 10-20,000 I 95,000 1 4 4 Drainage - Oak I Ave. B 1 103.50 1 100,000 1 195,000 1 i 5 Pariing - Square, Garage or lots 1 103.50 12.51000,000 1 195,000 I 1 6 Parallel Tewy Extension 6 Naldiny Apronal 102.50 1 151110 1 443,810 1 158,100 e 7 Alesandor Stitt Drainage, 1 102.50 1 128,000 l 573,170 1 1 1 Cooper Creak Channel - 114 1 102.50 1 110001000 1 1057318)0 1 a 9 Highland Park Road Drainage 1 102.50 1 1111000 l 11694,810 l e 10 Sidewalks Throughout Denton 1 102.50 lumdetoreinedl 11684,870 1 + 11 South lonnte Bras 1 100.00 1 1,500,000 1 3,184,170 1 t 12 South loop 201 1 100.00 1 25,0400000 1 21,164,810 1 e 13 lostwood Paring 1 100.00 1 235,000 1 210419,970 1 1 14 Street Maintenance - Do" town t 100.00 lconlinuin) 1 280419,170 1 a 15 Runway 11115 Extension 1000 ft. e 1 99.00 1 23,460 1 28,443,330 1 234,600 e 14 Sidewalk (Repair I Replace) Square I 99.00 lundeterelnedl 280443,330 1 0 11 Myrtle Streit - Paring 1 Drainage k 99.00 1397-525,000 1 21,443,330 1 a lI Ninth Estates Dralnays - 1117 l 98.75 1 101550000 1 29r59B,330 1 1 19 Pasch Branch Road phase 111 k 97.50 1 830,000 1 29,2730330 1 a 20 Much Branch Road Phase IV I 9),50 I 21200,000 I 3117981330 I I 21 Fire Dept Training Facility 1 96.50 1 21000,000 1 31,2731330 I a 22 Eagle (rive - I35 to 1#11 ere 1 9650 1 113501000 I 39t141t330 I 4 23 Mel, fatensity Ruhry tights Fut. Rnwy 1 1 95.00 1 5,200 1 39,153,530 1 $2,000 1 24 Red. Wow Lights Rummy Estitslon a 1 95.00 1 1,400 I ly541930 1 14,004 1 25 Stitt School Road 135 to Corinth city E 94.50 1 312009000 1 420354,930 1 a 26 traffic Signal - Rat High School 1 94.23 1 100000 I 42,434,930 1 I 27 Airport Road fast I 94.00 1 560,000 1 420994,930 1 a 21 land Acq. North Utility Runway - 13.5 Act 93.73 1 584,060 I 43,582,990 1 1 24 land Acq. No. 17135 - 24,75 Acres 0191 93.75 1 1,015,932 1 440651,922 1 a 30 Infisldloralnage lWavstsnts 0191 93.75 1 709,100 I 45,341,102 1 1 31 land Acq. South 11135 - 31 Acres 0191 93.75 F 11350,360 1 461118,462 1 4 32 Computer syttto for Fire Station 1 93.00 1 2000000 I 4609111462 1 1 t 33111en King'$ Rat Nottingham to 211 1 92.50 I 1,4DO,D00 1 41,111,462 1 4 f 34 lilloeood Paving - berearl to bono.brae 1 92.50 1 118000000 I 491111t462 1 e 15 Recomstruclion of Station 14 1 91.75 1 750,000 1 50,661,441 1 4 36 Sanitary Storer Nile NN Industrial 019 1 91.50 1 2480000 I 501916,462 1 2411000 1 31 1' Fire War Main to NR Ind. trick 019 I 91.50 1 112t000 I 51,028,462 1 112,000 1 30 Robinten Road 1 90,50 1 2,000,003 I 53,021t462 1 a 39 Ector Street Drilnage - 11 1 19.50 1 110,600 1 5311399062 I 4 40 Corbin Roll Bridge - 117 1 09.25 1 7001004 I 530138,062 1 1 41 like Path1Sidtwalk Lillian Miller l 19,00 1 15,000 1 5309140062 I 4 42 Aahabilititiom of Station 13 1 88.25 1 1540000 I 5410641062 1 1 43 Rehibilltation of Station 11 1 10.25 1 5001000 1 5009000 I 4 44 Too Cole Aoloc, - No.Eol Vill Runway 1 1 81.75 1 31590 I 505,390 1 5511DO 1 5-1 4 rr r I 45 Dveruted Street Participation I 11,75 1 100,000 1 805,590 I a 16 Hickory Creek Road 1 81.00 1 5,500,004 1 60103,590 1 a 17 Collins Streit - Paring I Drainage 1 56.50 1 503,750 1 6,608,510 1 e 'f 11 Ryan Road - FN 2181 to FM 1830 1 85.00 1 1,200,000 1 10,808,1i0 1 49 EapenaionlRenovatfon of Civic POOL 1 81,50 1 1,2001000 I 12,048,810 1 I 50 Eagll7Morie connection 5t 1 81.04 1 7000000 1 19,008,810 1 a Crash Fire Rescue Facilities e 7 53.00 i 23,400 I 19,011,510 1 230,000 1 32 Athletic Field 0evelopgnt T4enta park 1 Sl.2S 1 600,000 1 19,631,810 I 1 53 hr1 4ev,, Acquisition? watlon 1 81,25 1 11200,D00 1 24,831,810 I s 5 5 Elecutiverletcloteriaircraft parking 0191 80,00 1 210,170 1 211,062,110 1 150,700 34 TAWY 57 yindaorsDriveE hAlsting brae I 79,25 I 660,250 1 21,712,630 I 196,700; SB lralllt Signal -loop 258 at King's Roe 1 18.25 1 100,000 1 2115121630 I I 59 Strickland - Drainage 1 71.00 1 7%000 1 21,917,630 f I 60 North Aircraft Holding Apron e 1 76.25 1 5,710 1 21,9230370 1 579100 1 61 Aireriet Apron Y. of Eelstlnq l1relnd /I 76.25 1 3,870 I 21,9271210 1 351700 a 62 FID Paving - 160 1 280 0191 76.25 1 111500 k 21,998,]10 1 71,504 1 63 Runeay 17R - 351 a I 76,00 1 16,900 1 22,015,610 f 169,404 1 61 111111 lltitian of Station 12 1 11,75 1 250,000 1 22,295,610 1 1 65 Sward St. - E191e to Hickory 1 73.23 1 1000,000 3 21,295,640 1 I 66 R.Y. Industrial tract Road 0191 72,50 1 92,100 1 2303870110 1 92,100 1 67 Parsll+l Taey to Fut. Aney 1711-351 e I 72.25 1 281320 1 23,1161060 1 2830200 1 61 Gay bet. Present Runey 6 Fut. Amy 1 I 72.25 1 15,310 1 230131,390 1 153,300 I 69 Maple - Street paving and Drainage 1 72.23 1 3950000 1 210126,390 I I 70 Stub Taey 5E Corner to Indust. Area I I 69.00 l Aircraft Parking Apron wilt I 8,400 I 211137,190 ! 60,004 I 1 68.73 1 1211610 1 231961,030 1 11216,140 I 72 ActsH Ad Ynt Aircraft Pkq Apron 0191 68.75 1 46,600 1 2110010630 ! 4616D4 I 13 Coal./Service Area Paving e 1 68,50 1 121104 1 21,019,730 1 1210000 I I 11111"Ates airport projects ehicA are funded 44114 from FM grants. Milieus possible rating • 103.5 I I 5-2 J I r~ k C i I i ~ l I I , l I I, i I k ~ i k , f E i y I 700 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 3, 1989 The council convened in the Work session at 5:30 P.M. in the Civil Defense Room. ncil PRESENT: Mayor SteVhens; Mayor P Hopkins: C Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd. Gorton and MAdams. ABSENT: None PUB MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Laney; Members LaForte and Chew. 1. The council considered legislation to create a Regional Water and Wastewater System for Denton County. i ' Lloyd Harrell, City Manager. stated that staff would like to bring this item to Council January 10 for Council discussion and staff direction regarding a resolution format. Questions needed to be answered included (1) was the Authority desirable for the City of Denton, (2) if the City wanted the Authority, were these amendments for conditional o enrsement. or at(3) should the staff draft a resolution sppo t legislion as drafted. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, reviewed the background information on the Authority and presented mayor options for the City of Denton. These options included (1) j Denton becoming a Regional Agency, (2) Denton, alone or with partners, create a 115111, non-profit corporation to serve as a , Regional Agency, (3) Denton participating in the creation of an J independent Regional Agency, and (4) Denton not participating in the creation of a Regional Agency. Nelson stated pros and cons for each option. Denton I Council together, ecould they have asked diit 3 or 4 rect Influence lover cities got its raw water. Nelson replied that that could be possible but if the City of Denton did not want to participate in .t protect, i,: did not have to participate. Mayor Stephens asked about of members and was the it Advisory necessary. Was there a duplication Tom Taylor, Interim Director, stated that the Advisory l f ~ Comm om ea f customerecities to provide technicaliadvice toe the Committee the Mayor Stephens suggested that that information be pvt in the legislation so as to keep that information clear. f E I ~ j City of Denton City Council Minutes January 3, 1969 Page 2 Council Member McAdams stated that the legislation created the Board and that there was no control over what the Board would do. She wanted more information on what the Board might possibly look like. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins expressed concern regarding how Denton would maintain a dagree of control when it would have only one vote out of 15-20 votes. She felt that Denton would still have administrative responsibilities for the Authority and that the per capita contribution from each city would be raised whenever the Board felt it was necessary to do so. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that Denton would have the same vote at others but would be able to influence others from a technical standpoint. Council Member Ayer suggested revising the wording of the legislation to put a cap on the per capita contribution which could not be changed without a vote of each member city. Council Member McAdams asked how the City's bond rating would be tied into the Authority, It the Authority get into trouble, would that hurt the City's bond rating. Frank Medanich, First Southwest, stated that it would not affect the City if it were not involved in the project. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked what the Authority would do for Denton that Denton could not just as easily do for itself. She could only see the Authority if it assured the City of Denton raw water in the future. She felt that it was necessary to decide if the strengths/advantages would override any disadvantages. Council Member Boyd saw an advantage that new plants would be built without bearing the sole cost of the plants. Council Member Ayer suggested changing the legislation to eliminate the prohibition of elected officials from serving on the Board. Tom Taylor reviewed the provisions for the weighted vote and how the vote was structured. He stated that participating j members and members voting to participate in a project would k have a weighted vote. Cities over $0,000 population would receive an additional vote. An extra vote would be given for each 10 mqd above one. i -r tA s City of Denton City Council Minutes January 3, 1989 I Page 3 Council Member Alexander asked why the City of Denton should be concerned with the lowering of the water table and would the Agency help with this concern. Nelson replied that the City of Denton had ? wells which were for back-up use only. He stated that the cities needed to get off ground water except for very rural areas. Tom Taylor replied that smaller cities on ground water might push the City of Denton for water if the water table was reduced too much. ALexander asked if the Agency would help contribute to the improved quality of wastewater control. Nelson replied that several smaller cities were looking at the Agency to front end the cost of building a treatment plant which they currently could not afford. Council Member Gorton stated that he would like to see a cap on i the per capita contribution to require a unanimous vote to increase the contribution, elected officials should be allowed to serve on the Board and would like find out how Lewisville and Carrollton feel about these issues. ' Council Member Boyd questioned why the county was given a position on the Board. Taylor replied that the proposed make-up of the Board was one member per city plus one representative from the County with a possibility of two members from the County. Those representatives would be from smaller non-profit entities that could not participate in the projects but would be affected by the projects. Mayor Stephens suggested alternative wording such as "two additi,inal members from non-incorporated areas to be selected and approved by the Board". A discussion followed regarding the possible effects on the City's bond rating if one city defaulted on its share of a bond. Advice of bond counsel was that it would not affect Denton unless Denton was involved in that particular project and listed on the bond. If so, then perhaps there would be some fallout in the future. A summary of the recommendations from the Council regarding the legislation is attached. I I 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 3, 1989 Page 4 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. J RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I 1 JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS f k 3029C k I ~I i I 1 1 I.~ I , l i iJ I I i J I t F h City of Donton City Council M'..rutes January 5, 1988 The council convened into a special -,alled =-ieet:ug at 5:00 p.m, in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens; Mayor Pro Ism Hopkins; Co+.ocil Members Alexander, Ayer, Bold, Gorton and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance annexir.q 135 acres located south of Mills Road, east of ~4ayhill Road, and north of McKinney Street adjacent to existic.g city limits (A-55). (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval). The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-001 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING A TRACT OF LAND CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; BEING ALL THAT LOT, TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 135.0 ACRES OF LAND LYINQ AND BEING SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF DENTON, STATE OF TEXAS AND BEING PART OF THE M. FORREST SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 417, j DENTON COUNTY. TEXAS; CLASSIFYING THZ SAME AS AGRICULTURAL "A" DISTRICT PROPERTY; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I Gorton motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. on roll vcte. McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins "aye," Gorton "aye," Ayer "aye," Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. 2. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: i A. Council Member Boyd requested that the "chalk on sidewalk" ordinance be interpreted by the Ci~y + Attorney. I B. Council Member Gorton requested adequate time for III discussion of County vs. City regarding Flow Hospital at the next agenda. I 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 5, 1989 Page 2 C. Council Member Ayer stated that it was time to look again at the traffic pattern at Carroll and Pearl Street. D. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins stated that when outside Council was coming to the meeting, there be no other discussions during the work sboaion. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:08 p.m. RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS i, { 3036C i I i4 I I 1 i 1 k: n G 1 i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 The Council convened into the work Session at 5:30 p,m. in the Civil Defense Room. 'RESENT: Mayor Stephens Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. The Council held a discussion concerning the funding criteria to be utilized by the Human Resources Committee. Barbara Ross, Community Development Coordinator, presented the changes in the criteria for funding as suggested by Council, Council reviewed the criteria changes and suggested a joint meeting with the Human Resources Committee be scheduled for the next Council meeting. 2. The Council received a presentation of the results of the financial audit from Deloitte, Haskins 6 Sells. Wayne Stephens, Deloitte, Haskins 6 Sells stated that the firm had given the City a 'clean opinion', everything was in order and the City had a good financial condition. He stated that the report to management indicated improvements from a management and fiscal standpoint. He stated that the audit operated on the 'management by exception' principal which stated specifics that could be improved on and did not mention all of the good points. i Council reviewed the comments by the firm and thanked Mr. Stephens for his presentation. 3. The Council considered legislation to create a Regional Water and Wastewater system and considered giving direction to the staff, Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that there were now two main areas of suggestions needed from the Council (1) issues that could easily be incorporated into the legislation, and (2) issues that represented substantial changes. He suggested that the Council look at the remaining issues and divide them into (1) critical issues that needed to be in the legislation before the Council could support the legislation or (2) strongly recommended issues to be placed in the legislation, He felt that the main concern of the Council was that the City of Denton be adequately represented in the body of the committee. He had worked with Tom Taylor and had changed the language of the legislation to read that the contributing members would be one city, one vote but the assessment would be limited to 500/capita. I 1 i i r w City of Denton City Council Minutes January 100 1989 Pnge 2 Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked that a contributing member regardless of what was said or done, would still be limited to one vote. City Manager Harrell replied yes, but that there would be a limit on the funds to be spent and to change the per capita contribution would require a 75% vote from the members. Council Member Boyd expressed concern with smaller towns having equal vote in the planning issues. If a pla-i of the City of Denton went against a regional plan, there might be staff opposition. He could see a 49-51% vote regarding a plant and a possible problem. Tom Taylor stated that they had attempted to address that problem. All other agencies did not get a vote and this was a substantial way from other agencies. He may not be able to go any further on that issue. He stated that once the agency got E into a project, there would be a weighted vote and that if there were no sponsors for a project, there would be no project. Council Member Ayer felt that if there were a conflict between what Denton wanted to do and neighboring communities, in the ` final analysis, it would be based on economics of the situation and the availability of the situation. I Council Member McAdams stated that some kind of organizational effort would be preferable to doing nothing. Denton needed to do all it could to protect itself as a city. She suggested Paul Horton write a memo with further suggestions to insure Denton was well protected. Council Member Boyd stated that Denton needed to become a part of the agency to preserve its water rights to remain the same. If Denton did not participate, it might be, conceivable that Denton would have to take others as customers and would then " need to look for more raw water. There was a need for a regional authority and that could be Denton but there were many problems teing the regional authority. Courrnil reviewed the issues that required a substantial changes from the direction previously received from the steering Committee. Consensus of the Council on those issues were as followed: Weighted vote for participating members - essentials removal of the prohibition on elected officials being appointed to the Board - strongly desired' at-large (rural) Board members - strongly desireds establish qualifications for Board members - strongly desired] prohibit compensation to Board members - essential. 1 'r F t E f , I Cit! of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 3 i 4. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during the Work Session. I The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens: Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins: Council Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. The Council considered approval of the minutes of the Regular Meetings of December 13 and 20, 1988. Alexander motioned, McAdams seconded to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Consent Agenda Hopkins motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the Consent Agenda es presented. Motion carried unanimously. 1. Bid 09893 - Change Order # 1 - Woodrow Lane/Burning Tree Lane 2. Bid #9893 - Change Order #2 - Woodrow Lane/Burning Tree Lane t 3. Bid #9912 - Padmounted Switchgear 4. Bid 09920 - Denton Municipal Lab Expansion/ Building (The Public Utilities Board recommends approval) B. Tax Refunds 1. Consider approval of a tax refund for First Quality Foods Inc. for $1,803.20. 2. Consider ap roval of a tax refund for Selwyn School for 21216.13. 3. Consider approval of a tax refund for Glen W. Justice for $11549.80. 3. Ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. 1 1 t City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 6 The following ordinance was considered: N,). 89-002 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONIRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye," Alexander "aye," Hopkins 'aye," Gorton "aye,' Ayer 'aye," Boyd 'aye," and Mayor Stephens 'aye," Motion carried unanimously, B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance j accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. I The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-003 i AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS: PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance, On l roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' ~ Gorton 'aye,' Ayer "aye,' Boyd "aye," and Mayor Stephens 'aye." Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the execution of Change Order M1 to a contract between the City of Denton and Sunmount Corporation and providing for an increase in the contract price. _ The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-004 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SUNMOUNT CORPORATION: PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. i j I 1 k 1 i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 5 Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that items C. and D, implemented items that were on the Consent Agenda. Council Member Ayer noted that there was an incorrect amount in the first paragraph of the ordinance and requested a change in the amount. Alexander motioned, Hopkins seconded to adept the ordinance with the correction as noted. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins "aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer "aye," Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye." Motion carried unanimously. f D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the execution of Change Order Y2 to a contract between the City of Denton and Sunmount Corporation and providing for an increase in the contract price. The following ordinance was considered: NO, 89-005 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF CHANGE ORDER i NO. 2 TO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SUNMOUNT CORPORATION: PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE= AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 McAdams motioned, Hopkins seconded to adopt the ordinance with the correction noted. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye." Motion carried unanimously. E. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a lease between the City of Denton and Bert E. Mahon and Mary L. Mahon for property located at the City of Denton Municipal Airport, Denton, Texas. {The Airport Advisory Board recommended approval). The following ordinance was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 89-006 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BERT E. MAHON AND MARY L, MAHON FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CITY OF DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, DENTON, TEXAS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, i i Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that Council had previously had three concerns regarding the lease (1) how the escalating clause would be calculated, (2) if the rate of 80/foot was consistent with the Master Plan, (3) where the CIP improvements would be at the airport. t r 5 I' City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 6 Council Member Ayer asked what was the proposed use for the land, Svehla stated that it was for parsonal use only, not for commercial use. Council Member McAdams stated that it would be helpful if there were indicators of what fell in the categories of improvements which were 'none, some, minor, maor' improvements. Council Member Ayer stated that his concern had not been l~'1 addressed. The lease was a low price for an extended period of time. He was reluctant to enter a contract for that figure I without the option for renegotiation.. City Manager Harrell stated that this 80 rate wou;.d represent the highest rate at the Airport for a marginal edge, He stated that there was a small protection with the escalator clause. David Arno, Airport Board Chairman, stated that this lease was different because it was with a private individual without 1 profit - no business opportunity. Council Member Boyd asked if the lease was transferable but with the same conditions. There would Le no commercial use at all. Svehla replied that was correct. Council Member McAdams requested a work session dealing with information on the airport without the pressure of a proposed lease at hand. McAdams motioned, Boyd seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton 'nay,' Ayer 'nay,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving a contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for professional engineering services in connection with the development of a twenty year master plan for improvements to the Wastewater Treatment System, (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval.) The following ordinance was considered: I I City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 7 NO. 89-007 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that it r--~ had been 15 years since the previous Master Plan had been done 1 at the wastewater treatment plant. State law required that once a plant reached a 75% leading capacity, plans needed to be ofithetplant,deThisiyearhthe was plant reached with the next loading, so phase it was time to update the Master Plan and determine what the needs were and how to need those needs, Hopkins motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, M,:Adams oaye,* Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer aye, Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. 4. Resolutions A, The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting the boundaries of moderate activity center #40 as a part of Appendix A and amending the Intensity Planning Area Boundary Map. (The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval). The fallowing resolution was considered; RESOLUTION 140. R89-001 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BOUNDARIES OF MODERATE ACTIVITY CENTER NUMBER 40 AS PART OF APPENDIX A OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT PLAN; AMENDING THE INTENSITY PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY MAPS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Harry Persaud, Urban Planner, presented the background information on the Task Force consilerations and the criteria i used in defining the intensity area. Council Member Boyd felt that doubling the size of the proposed node would be creating problems. He asked if the land north of the moderate node was fully developed, would it be likely t):at the Council would see a proposal in a short period of time, to expand the node north. Y I F f 1 t 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 8 Persaud replied that he felt it was quite unlikely that the City would receive such a request in 5 years time, The north side had a good quality housing development, If there were pressure to expand the node, it would be in 10-20 years time. City Manager Harrell stated that the debate was to expend the node just slightly and take in the single family houses and square off the area. Persaud replied that if the 10 single family homes were excluded, then those people would have been in a situation. were the land south of their area zoned industrial, they would f be abutting a thoroughfare and in a low intensity area. Council Member McAdams stated that she had a groat deal of concert, with the size of the node. The node was too large. Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, McAdams 'nay,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton "aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and mayor Stephens nay." Motion carried with a 5-2 vote. I 5. The Council received a report from Gene Douglas and Mr. and Mrs. Tillman Uland regarding the City of Denton operating defensive driving classes in free competition with their programs. Gene Douglas presented additional reasons why the City of Denton should not operating defensive driving classes which included (1) there was a law against a city operating a school outside the city limits, (2) the city could not operate a school unless it had a school district for the purpose of a school, (3) the City was in violation of the Texas Constitution in mingling its own resources with that of another association, (4) if the city operated a school, it must be free, (5) the City was damaging the economy of its competitors. Council Member Gorton requested that the City Attorney address j the matter as to whether to continue discussion as Mr. Dougles had been to an attorney. Joe Morris, Assistant City Attorney, stated that there were no significant legal prohlems with the City's defensive driving program. Tillman Uland felt tha' the ad placed in the phone book was unfair and improper. Mayor Stephens felt that it could be a potential case for litigation and should not continue discussion. I I I } ( City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 9 City Manager Harrell stated that this item would be looked at during the next budget process. Consensus of the Council was to take up the item is budget time unless there was a legal opinion that the City was in violation of the law. 6. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. City Manager Harrell presented the following items: A. The formal dedication of the Texas Instruments plant would be February 25. B. The formal dedication of the Martin Luther King, j Jr, Recreation Center was set for the same day, February 25 at 2:00 p.m. C. Harrell had distributed financial statements from the 911 Board for use by the Task Force. The Task Force represented people from the various municipalities within the County where staff had agreed to serve on an oversight committee to examine all aspects of the 911 plan and report back to the Board by March 1. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, had been asked to be temporary chairman of the group. 7. There was no Executive Session during the Work Session, 8. The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Alexander requested information on problems regarding the mowing of the right-of-ways within the City and .he ability to accomplish that task, Council then returned to the Work Session item to continue discussion on Item 3. Minutes on that discussion are incorporated into the discussion found under Item 3. 9, The Council convened into the Executive Session to discuss legal matters (Ali AI-Khafaji vs. City of Denton, Flow Memorial Hospital bankruptcy), real estate, and personnel and Vf board appointments (appointments to the Airport Board, Community Development Block Grant committee and the Low Income Housing Task Force), No official action was taken. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:21 p.m. i 1 i ~ a 5 a i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 10, 1989 Page 10 RAY STEP HENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 3O37C 1 i k I ~ I ~J K i I 1 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNC.'.L MINUTES JANUARY 17, 1989 The Council convened into the work Session in the Service Center Training Room at 5:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens! Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins? Council Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams. ABSENT: None 1. The Council held a joint discussion with the Human Resources Committee to discuss funding criteria to be utilized by the Committee. Members of the Committee present were Chair Dorothy Damicoi Members Linda Ashmore, Irene Price, Jim eezdek, Don Harper, Dick Enos, and Barbara Atkins. f Dorothy Damico, Chair-Human Resources Committee, presented an overview of the Committee. She stated that human resources were social service agencies and services, not just city services. The Committee felt that the services should be basic services rather than social services. The Committee felt that social services should be involved and would like to see social welfare services mentioned. The Committee had concern over the funding of new agencies for only three years, the absence of health care, and the funding criteria with no social welfare services allowed. i I Mayor Stephens replied that the new agencies may only need funding for a short period of time before they could get outside funding and that provisions could be made on an as I needed basis. The City did not want to infringe on the County health care services and the social welfare services needed to be looked at as a function of the United Way - community wide by community volunteers rather than city funding. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkin,i stated that social welfare services could not be addressed until the pending litigation had been taken care of. Council Member McAdams stated that budget was also a concern. There were many needs that were not being met in the City. The City needed to spend the money in the fairest way possible. 1 Council Member Ayer stated that there were many dedicated people on the Committee but that conditions such as budget j constraints and legal complications confronted the Council. Consensus of the Council was to place the item on the study session for the February 7th Council meeting for proposed ordinance wording with possible adoption at a following meetir4. I f I J fi ti A { 9 City of Denton city council minutes January 17, 1989 Page 2 2. The Council received a response from the Finance Department regarding the Report to Management of Delootte, Haskins & Sells. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, reviewed staff's response to the report from Deloitte, Haskins 6 Sells. Areas of response included cash and investment activities, accounting procedures and issues, employee benefits, tax information reporting evaluation, municipal court, and hotel/motel occupancy tax. r 3. The Council considered a draft ordinance dealing with 1 drawing on City sidewalks and provided staff with direction. Joe Morris, Assistant City Attorney, stated that a draft ordinance had been revised to correct the situation the Council was concerned about. Council Member Gorton suggested included wording regarding I posting notice of advertisement and to include the name, address and permit number on the advertising for painting house numbers on curbs. f Assistant City Attorney Morris stated that the sign ordinance addressee the issue of posting notice of advertisement. i Council Member Alexander was concerned that the revised 1 ordinance may be creating more potential problems than the old ordinance had. He felt it might be best to leave it alone. { Consensus of the Council was to place the ordinance on the next Council meeting with a change to include the name, address and permit number to be required on advertising for curb number painting. 4. Item 4 was not discussed during the Work Session. \f 5. The Council did not meet in Executive Session during the Work Session. The Council then convened into the Regular Session at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Stephens! Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins; Council Members Alexander, Ayer, Boyd, Gorton and McAdams. ABSENT; None The Mayor presented a proclamation for 'The Beat of America say NO Week. I Y 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 3 1. The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for David Ellison. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION NO. R89-002 A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF DAVID ELLISON AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. i Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' ~--1 Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens ' 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council was to hear a presentation from Mr. Tom Van regarding raising the basic meter fee for taxicabs from i t $1.20 to $1.30. f Mr. Van did not attend the meeting. t 3. The Council received a request from the Cross Timbers Girl Scout Council to hang a banner at Locust Street and E i McKinney Street. I Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to approve the request. Motion carried unanimously. { Item 6.A. was moved ahead in the agenda order. { 6. Public Hearings A. The Council was to hold a public hearing public hearing on n detailed plan in an existing Planned Development District (Ph-6). Petitioner was Pep Boys of California, Inc. The property was located on I-35E in San Jacinto Plaza Shopping Center adjacent to Wolfe's Nursery. If approved, the property may be utilized for an automobile service center and automobile parts store. Z-88-016. (The Planning and Zoning Coir.mission recommended den a Mayor Stephens stated that the petitioner had requested an f additional postponement until February 7 due to the progress j made with the neighborhood. Council Member Ayer felt that if changes were done, the item should return to the Planning and Zoning commission before consideration by Council. i 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 4 Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded for postponement until February 71 1989 unless significant changes were done and if so, return the itew to the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration before returning to the Council.. Motion carried unanimously. 4. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 1989, and approving and I~ authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. and 5, the Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton k General Obligation Bonds, Series 1989, levying the tax to pay same, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting. John McGrane, Executive Director for Finance, stated that representatives from First Southwest would first open the bids i and taoulate them before voting on the ordinance. 1 Frank Medanich, First Southwest, stated that there were 6 bids for the Certificates of Obligation and 9 bids for the General Obligation Bonds. He would read the net interest cost for each. The bids received for the bonds were as followed: NCNB Bank of Texas - 7.29506; Kemper Financial Companies - 7.36741 Bear Stearns - 7.3002; Merrill Lynch Capital Markets - 7.3681 First Southwest - 7.29941 Underwood Neuhaus and Co. - 7.41201 Prudential Bachi1 - 7.4216; Shearson American Express Inc. - 7.312081 and MBank Capital Markets of Dallas - 7.25107. Medanich then read the bids for the certificates as followed: MBank - 7.0185791 Underwood Neuhaus - 7.356191 Shearson American Express - 7.0866; First Southwest - 7.07171 Bear Stearns - 7.1674; NCNB Bank of Texas - 7.1477. Medanich stated that they would return as soon as the bids had been tabulated. Mayor Pro 'rem Hopkins returned to the meeting. IE I t a i city of Denton City Council Minutes January 171 1989 Page 5 6. Item 6 was considered earlier in the meeting. 7. Consent Agenda Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins requested Item 7.A.5. be pulled for special consideration. McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 7-A-5. Motion carried unanimously. A. Bids and Purchase orders; 1. RFP #9902 - HVAC Design and Renovation 2. Bid #9923 - Tree Spade/Transplanter 3. Bid 09924 - Vans, Pick-ups & Trucks 4. Bid #9925 - Police & 4-Door Sedans 6, P.O. #88272 - Data Processing Equipment and Software. f s j I Item 7.A.5, was considered. I Mayor Pro Hopkins stated that she felt Data Processing had some serious questions abcut the bid and that it was an issue that the Council had repeatedly asked to have more information on. From the minutes of the Data Processing Advisory Committee, she felt that the Committee was trying to say something regarding the purpose. stated that when the Gary Collins, Director of Data Processing, bid went out, the Data Processing Department had solicited from different departments, their needs and what they wanted. The Department wrote up a number of specifications for the various machines. Nine or ten vendors responded with bids, The bids and tally sheets went to the Data Processing Advisory Board for discussion, Some of the bids were lower than the recommended bid because they did not meet specifications for the type of the Cejdifferent l~ mother board requesThe, Bthe oardic actively questioned p speed required. departments r their capabilities of Tthe here machinessoto network. regaardid"n ng the apa because vendor the vendors not couldknot provide ~`in house were rejected deliver for at lease: 9 weeks. i I ! 4 r i JCity anuary I7, 19City council Minutes Pa 6y 1989 4a I Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins did not like etti totals displayed and felt that the minutesnreflthe ectbid w without for IBM machines. Other companies might have been ruled out. Collins replied that no one else who had the microchannel architecture placed a bid. Council Member Hopkins stated that the Data Processing Advisory Board did not say anything about the individual department requests. It was not clear if something was really needed or not. Tom dividedw by ssistnt Purchasing Agent, stated that the bids were + options su 5 was the computer itself, B - the ggested by the Advisory Board to department to select which options they would like to have. Some of the bids were impossible to total as suggested allow each k 4 the nature of the bid. Some due to f of the vendor everything, some of the vendors included optionssindthe not bid package while with general additional charge, other vendors those options were an ~ Council Member McAdams felt that in spite of all that the Data Processing Advisory Board was saying, ultimately they took the ' position that they couldn't say anything about the department requests. Council had talked at len f individual role of that Board and the role that the Board was I it not the one that she saw it g h about the playing +as II pla in If al te Board was going to do was to look at a request and assumelifha department asked for it, that it was legitimate and that it was the best thing for that department, then she was not sure there was any need for them to be reviewing it at all. There were outside people with computer, software and hardware knowledge and she + thougthmtenthat looke wanted the them function be able that t departme determine what it is that department needed. when look nt and looked at this before, they ested tat auditors + capability in some places thansit nee ed,hthathe City had more pt of wh the city had, it was not using because it was t oarco plex at She wanted the Board to look at requests and determined if the request was valid. City Manager Harrell felt that some discussion needed to take place on the appropriate role of the Data Processing Advisory Board. From the staff's standpoint and from what he understood i thatBthe Bhadd's feelings tthe ast up until this time, was that back to the Cit auditors had made their report with Gary Collins with that very er`y issue. The Board had worked specifications on items that he wCit a standard set of vendors to included as the C t y should ask various together. He felt that it would be unrealisticpforrthe Council to expect the Advisory Board to be able to purchases 4o into individual departments and to make a determination if indeed the computer 1 Y k i i City of Denton City Council Minute January 11, 1989 Page 7 capabilities that that department was asking for, were needed or not. Staff tried to do that two different ways. First, any computer item that was justified during the budget process, went through a stringent review by the Executive Staff and the appropriate department head involved to make sure that use was needed in that particular function. Only after that review, was that item ranked with all the other items in determining what the recommendation would be to the City Council, He respectfully felt that if the Council charged the Board to make a determination as the the actual need for each one of the individual PC computers that were being requested, they would become very frustrated simply because they did not understand the function of that department, what it was charged to carry out and what the management and policy level priorities were. His reading of the minutes was that the Board could not make a judgment call on every simple PC that was being recommended to the Council but on the other hand, they had no objection because the items they had told staff should be in those specifications were followed. He felt that the Board felt that that was a management function to determine the necessity of the computers and not an advisory function. Alexander motioned, Ayer seconded to approve Consent Agenda Item 7.A.5. Motion carried unanimously. 5. Bid #9918 - Personal Computers 6 Softwara 1 8. Ordinances A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or services. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-010 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A 6 CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES1 PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOREI AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to adopt the ordinance. on roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander "aye,' Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd "aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. 1 1 i ~ r. f City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 8 B. The council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-011 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS) PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR: AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 1 Boyd motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams "aye,' Alexander "aye," Hopkins 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance providing for the expenditure of funds for purchases of materials or equipment which are available from only one source in accordance with the provisions of state law exempting such purchases from requirements of competitive bids. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-012 t AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASES OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 11 PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS1 AND PROVIDING AN I EFFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander `ayand HopkinsStephens Gorton 'aye,' Ayer "aye,' Boyd 'aye,• Mayor 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. The Council returned to Items 4, and 5. } Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins left the meeting. i 4. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton Certificates of Obligation, Series 19890 and approving and f authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. 1) J i City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 9 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-098 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 19891 AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO. Frank Medanich, First Southwest, stated that the bid of MBank-Capital Markets for both the bonds at 7,251070 and the certificates at 7.018579 were correct as reported. Those bids were the highest and best received. Paul Horton, McCall Parkhurst & Horton, stated that in E accordance with Section 9.02 and 9.04 of the Charter, as Bond Counsel, he recommended passage of the ordinance authorizing the Certificates of obligation to MBank-Capital Markets. On k Ayer motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance. roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye, 'Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 4 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried , unanimously. 5. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance, sale, and delivery of City of Denton General Obligation Bonds, Series 1989, levying the tax to pay same, and approving and authorizing instruments and procedures relating thereto. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-009 I AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF DENTON GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, E SERIES 1989, LEVYING THE TAX TO PAY SAME, AND I APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES RELATING THERETO. I Paul Horton, McCall, Parkhurst and Horton, recommended the bid from MBank-Capital Markets and passage of the ordinance. Alexander motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. ` I I , I 1 i ~ t M City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 10 Mayor Pro Teri Hopkins returned to the meeting. D. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 15 'Parks ani Recreation" of the Code or Ordinances of the City of Denton as amended, amending Section 15-6 by prohibiting certain motorized vessels on City park bodies of water. (The Park Board recommended approval). The following ordinance was considered: N0. 89-013 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 "PARKS AND RECREATION" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON AS AMENDED, AMENDING SECTION 15-6 BY PROHIBITING THE TAKING OF AQUATIC LIFE FROM PARK WATERS BY CERTAIN MEANS; PROHIBITING CERTAIN MOTORIZED VESSELS ON CITY PARK BODIES OF WATER: REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING FOR A MAXIMUM PENALTY IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.00 THEREFORE] AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, 1 Bob Tickner, Superintendent of Parks, stated that there was a growing problem with motorized vehicles on City lakes, especially at North Lakes. People were using jet skis on the 1 lake as well as model boats. This caused a problem with the area fishermen and posed a potential safety hazard. The ordinance would prohibit internal combustion engines. Hopkins motioned, McAdams seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Hopkins "aye,' Gorton 'aye," Ayer 'aye," Boyd 'aye,' and mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance awarding a contract to Coopers and Lybrand to conduct a managerial study and actuarial audit for the city of Denton Health Insurance Fund. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 89-014 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN 11 AGREEMENT WITH COOPERS 6 LYBRAND TO CONDUCT A 1 COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE CITY'S EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS' THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. e City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 11 r Mayor Stephens left the meeting. McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' Boyd "aye,' and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. F. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the execution of a contract between the City of Denton and the United States Army Corps of Engineers for access and site activities on the hydropower project at Lewisville Lake. (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval). The following ordinance was considered: NO. 69-015 TN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR ACCESS AND SITE ACTIVITIES ON THE HYDROPOWER PROJECT AT LEWISVILLE LAXEI PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOREI AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, Council Member Boyd left the meeting. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated the Corps needed to review all plans and drawings prior to the actual construction of the hydroelectric plant on Lake Lewisville so that all of the work done conforms to federal regulations. Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance, on roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins "aye.' Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving supplemental agreement No. 2 between the cities of Dallas and Dentont authorizing the mayor to execute the agreements approving the expenditure of funds therefor, The following ordinance was considered: C jl NO. 89-016 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT N0, 2 j BETWEEN THE CITIES OF DALLAS AND DENTON; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT► AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. V f I i r r i I a City of Denton City±uncil Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 12 Bob t+elson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that this agreement was for the Ray Roberts project. I McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye, 'Gorton "aye," Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Pro Ten Hopkins 'aye." Motion carried unanimously. Resolutions A. The Council considered approval of a resolution supporting legislation to create a regional water and wastewater system for Denton County. (The Public Utilities Hoard recommended approval). Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that the resolution as drafted followed the Council's instructions in that previous amendments desired by the Council had been incorporated into the legislation, The resolution was drafted giving the City of Denton endorsement to the legislation contingent upon certain essential amendments being incorporated into the legislation. There were three other items that the Council strongly recommended be included in the legislation. The resolution does not join the City into the agency at this point but merely put the City on record as to its stance regarding the proposed legislation. Council Member Alexander stated that approval would be contingent upon that language being acceptable to Council and Council would still have the opportunity to review at even a later point, that particular language. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if the legislation would come back to the Council. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that the legislation could come back to the Council to be certain that the wording was clarified as Council desired. Council Member McAdams felt that it was important to recognize that because the resolution might be passed, it did not mean automatic participation by the City of Denton. Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins asked if anyone on the state level had 1I talked to the Texas Water Commission. Nelson replied that officials on the Water Development Board had been contacted but not the Commission itself. He was sure that the Commission would review the legislation. r i. E City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 i Page 13 I RESOLUTION NO. R89-003 I A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO CREATE AN UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT FOR DENTON COUNTY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander "aye," Gorton 'aye," Ayer "aye," and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins 'nay.' Motion carried with a 4-1 vote, B. The Council considered approval of a resolution designating certain city officials as being responsible for, acting for, and on behalf of the City of Denton in dealing with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for the purpose of participating in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of + 1965= and certifying that the City of Denton is eligible to I receive assistance under such program. (The Parks Board recommended approval). 1 The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION NO. R89-005 11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON 1 DESIGNATING CERTAIN CITY OFFICIALS AS BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR, ACTING FOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF DENTON IN DEALING WITH THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN THE I LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965; CERTIFYING THAT THE CITY OF DENTON IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE ASSISTANCE UNDER SUCH PROGRAMI AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, Bob Tickner, Superintendent of Parks, stated that this was authorization for a request for a grant application for Denia Park. I McAdams motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer "aye," Boyd 'aye,' and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins "aye," E Motion carried unanimously. 4 C. The Council considered approval of a resolution setting a date, time a,±d place for public hearings on the proposed annexation by the City of Denton, Texas of certain property located along the Elm Fork of the Trinity River. (A-58). 1 I I I { City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 14 The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION] NO. R89-005 A RESOLUTION SETTING A DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION BY THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT 'A" ATTACHED HERETO A14D AUTHORIZING AND F DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC r--1 HEARINGS. Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, stated that this annexation would continue the 1000' strip of annexation to the dam. The annexation would start with a 1000' strip but staff had contacted property owners requesting a voluntary 100' strip j annexation. The publi,. hearings would be February 7 and 21, 1989 with institution on March 16. f Ayer motioned, McAdams seconded to approve the resolution. )n roll vote, McAdams 'aye,' Alexander 'aye,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins 'aye.' Motion carried it unanimously. D. The Council considered approval of a resolution endorsing the reinstitution of passenger rail service through Denton County. The following resolution was considered: RESOLUTION NO. R89-006 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE REINSTITUTION OF PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ayer motioned, Gorton seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, McAdams "aye," Alexander "a~e,' Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Pro Tem Hopkins aye.' Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Stephens returned to the meeting. ~I E. The Council considered approval of a resolution supporting the extension and the Instrument Landing System (ILS) at the Fort Worth Alliance Airport. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this was a request from the Perot Group for support for their extension of f a runway. The Airport Board reviewed the request and was very 4 concerned about Denton's airspace. Because of that the Board felt that it could not pass a resolution. The Board could not pass a resolution until it received assurances from the F.A.A. that Denton's airspace would not be violated. The Perot Group asked staff to bring something to the Council with conditional support. i i f r 5 V I R; I City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 15 Council MembeL McAdams stated that she had a concern with the wording of the resolution ds the conditional support for the resolution was not noted until the bottom of the resolution. She was not sure that a separate cover letter which might become separated from the resolution would be sufficient. Mayor Stephens asked Robyn White, Perot Group if a letter from h the Group had been sent yet stating that it was not the ~---1 intention of the airport extension to infringe on Denton's airspace. White replied not that she was aware of. from Denton Advisory to Board, stated that an David rn of a Chair-Airport addition F A h. expressing Denton's concern was most appropriate. RESOLUTION NO. R89-007 A CONDITIONAL RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON SUPPORTING THE EXTENSION AND THE INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) AT THE FORT WORTH ALLIANCE AIRPORT) AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Hopkins motioned, McAdams seconded to approve the resolution but only if the resolution itself was stamped at the top in red 'conditional" so that if the accompanying letter were removed, it would still be clear that the resolution was Hopkins On roll vote, McAdams aye, Alexander aye, Gorton "aye,' Ayer "aye," and mayor Stephens "aye.' Motion carried unanimously. F. The Council considered approval of a resolution supporting the establishment of a Jones Farm Living History Center. The following resolution was considered; RESOLUTION NO. R89-008 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JONES FARM LIVING HtSTORY CENTER AT JOHNSON BRANCH PARK ON RAY ROBERTS LAKE AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mike Cochran, Historical Society of Denton, requested support from the Council for passage of the resolution. l Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that Bob Nelson, Executive the a bouconcern ndariestoft because within had of raised site was located Utilities Lake Ray Roberts that the Cities of Dallas and Denton might become responsible for some of the capital expenditures of the park. i I h City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page lb Denton. Cochran stated that fit was his inancial burden on then City of t did not want to put any McAdams motioned, Alexander seconded to approve the resolution. Gorton motioned, Ayer seconded to amend the main motion to insert 'moral` before support in the resolution." Gortonl'vote, McAdams 'aye," Alexander aye, Hopkins aye, Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye.' Motion carried unanimously. The Council then voted on the main moti on as Hop amended. OGoroll vote, McAdams aye, Alexander aye, 'aye,' Ayer "aye,' and Mayor Stephens "aye." Motion carried unanimously. G. The Council considered approval of a resolution DentoniIndependent School District for a joint election. The following resolution was considered: I RESOLUTION NO. R89-009 I A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY EFFECTIVE DISTRICT OF DENTON A FOR A JONTELECTIONIE AND N PROVIDING INDEPENDENT AN SCHOOL Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this was the same contract as last year except that one voting place had been changed. The new Martin Luther King, Jr. Recreation Center would be used in District 1 this year. Hopkins motioned, Gorton seconded to approve "tHOpkinsl"ayeR' on roll vote, McAdams aye, Alexander aye, Gorton 'aye,' Ayer 'aye,' and Mayor Stephens 'aye,' Motion carried unanimously. 10. The Council considered approval of a 43' tower extension for KJZY - FM 99.1 and direct staff to advise the 4 F.A.A. (The Airport Advisory Board recommended denial), Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the Airport Advisory Board received communications from the T.A.C suggesting that Denton opposed the extension because it would extend into Denton's ILS. The Board concurred with the T.A.C. and recommended denial. I 1 1 ( 1 City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 17 Hopkins motioned, McAdams seconded to deny the request. Motion carried unanimously. 11. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. City Manager Harrell presented the following items for Council: A. The December budget recap was presented in the agenda back-up. John McGrane stated that word had been received from the rating agencies that Denton had kept its same bond rating but that it was very close to being upgraded to a double A. The State of Texas economy had kept the City from receiving that rating, B. Update on Lone Star Gas Gate Rate Filing (Energy Partnership). McGrane stated that the City of Denton had been requested to intervene on a gate rate case that Lone Start Gas had applied for. It was their energy partnership program. Lone Star would like to raise $4,5 million by adding approximately 3.50/million Cubic feet of gas usage on all Lone Star Gas customers including the City itself. There were 15 cities who had intervened in the case. Staff was not recommending that the City intervene in the case at this time. The reason for not recommending intervention was that the City was in sensitive negotiations with Lone Star for long term contracts. Also the City did not want to appear to not be in support of energy conservation which the energy partnership program did. Consensus of the Council was agreement with no intervention at that time. 12. There was no Executive Session held during the Work Session, 13. New Business There were not items of New Business suggested by Council Members for future agendas. 1 _ The Council returned to Item 04, on the Work Session, I 4. The council considered proposed revisions to Article 17, Signs, of Appendix B, zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, Council Member Boyd returned to the meeting. Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, showed a slide presentation of the recommended changes. She reviewed the changes to the proposed ordinance since the last study session. Those changes included size of signs on all streets except for Loop 288 and 135, sign materials that could be used, suggested sizes of signs on 135 and wind devices. L I ' City of Denton City Council Minutes January 17, 1989 Page 18 Council held a discussion on portable signs that included life expectancy of portable signs, the tagging of the signs after the permit was approved, repair of the portable signs and power to enforce repairs. Council also discussed political signs regarding placement, compliance with the ordinance and the ability to enforce the ordinance. A discussion also took place regarding the percentage of plastic for the signs. Consensus of the Council was to place the ordinance on the February 7th agenda for consideration. j 14. The Council did not meet in Executive Session. With no further business the meeting was adjourned at 10,44 p.m. RA.: STEPHENS, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS I F ~ JENNIFER WALTERS I f ~ CITY SECRETARY f CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS 3038C i E i i r l i i f €I I l I I i I i i 5t5 j T yt r } 1 > 3 n CiTY*f DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE f817) 566.8307 Office of the City Manager M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jack Miller, Chairman, 191 Committee DATE: February 3, 1989 SUBJECT: 191 Committee Report and Recommendation on Funding Issues On January 25, the Staff gave us the latest briefing on the CiP and Street Bond projects. At that meeting, we talked about several major issues and wanted to appear before the Council to make recommendations and to give the Council our input. Our Committee would like to deal with the following three topics and questions: i (1) Is the recommendation from the Library Board regarding construction of new library facilities consistent with the CIP bond proposal approved by the voters? (2) Are there additional improvements associated with street j projects approved by the voters which should be considered in view of the substantial increase in funds which are available because of an increase in State participation level? If so, what additional improvements are recommended? Are thera with additional minor a funds small remaining fromhtheoStreet constructed ~ l--~ Bond Issue? The first of these issues is the Library and its funding. We have reviewed critical issues in the consultant's report, and we have also discussed the matter with Joella Orr, Director of the Library. We know that during the bond election discussions and in the information that was distributed there was talk i about looking at different options for the Library. The two main thoughts being improvements and additions to the existing building and looking at the branch concept. Based on the consultant's work and the fart that making additions to this building would be hampered by the flood plain, Lhe proximity to I I R Mayor and Membors of the City Council February 3, 1989 Page 2 Oakland Street, and the parking restrictions, the Committee felt that looking at the branch concept was appropriate and is consistent with the bond proposal. Tho Committee did not think It was appropriate for it to review the additional costs 1 Involved in staffing separate facilities, the location of the facilities in relation to its users, or its other budgetary impacts. They felt that the Library Board and the Council were much more appropriate groups to review those items. The Committee felt that it was important to spend as much of, the funding as possible on the building and look for ways to use a site for more than one building or donation of land to eliminate some of the funding costs. With those thoughts and + ideas, we would recommend to you that Council move forward with reviewing that concept. The second major issue revolved around the new rulings by the Highway Department that eliminates the need for funding a number of projects through the Street Bond issue or the C1P Issue. In particular, since we will not have to fund , Improvements to Teasley Lane (FM 2181), Fort Worth Drive (U.S. 377), University Drive (U.S. 380), and Loop 288, staff has estimated that we will net approximately $5.5 million to be available to fund projects. The Committee felt that it would be reasonable to consider spending some of that money for the additional right-of-way costa that are included on U.S. 380 + from 1-35 to Locust Street. As you all know, this is a new project from the Highway Department and is scheduled to be built in the same time frame as the eastern section of U.S. 380. Since this is the same road that was listed in the bond issues, the Committee felt it would be appropriate to use the funding. At our meeting, we also discussed other uses for some of the excess funding. One of our major concerns has been sidewalks. Since the bond issues were passed, Subdivision Rules and Regulations have changed that require sidewalks on all 1 streets. Since out projects were estimated and d W fined without walks, we would suggest looking at putting walks at least on one side of all of our improvements. Staff has looked at those costs and hrs estimated them to be apprcximately $575,000. We think this is a good way to spend our money. We Mould be building the walks on the same projects that were in the bond issues. This would provide pedestrian access on all of our new projects. We would suggest that the normal review process be used that is now in place in Engineering for receiving input from effected landowners on each new project for the projects which have not as yet been bid. For those that have been completed, we would suggest that they fall into two categories, those that the sidewalk is pretty well dictated i 11 J ,w Mayor and Members of the City Council February 3. 1989 Page 3 y for because of development or institutional uses, etc. and those that would require neighborhood input. We would suggest 1 that both these groups be presented to Planning and Zoning for their review and recommendation before the improvements were built. This seems appropriate to us since P 6 Z makes all the recommendations to you on CIP projects. We also discussed beautification and the need to continue to improve the entranceways into the City. Again, a number of these are included in our CIP projects, such as University Drive, Teasley Lane, Fort Worth Drive, Loop 288. Since we do have additional funding, it seemed appropriate to the Committee to recommend to you that some of this money be spent to landscape the median islands involved with the construction. Again, it would seem appropriate that the Council review this with the Staff to determine the right places and the right amounts to spend on these efforts, and we would recommend setting aside some funds for this kind of activity. I ~ The last major area that we talked about as a possibility for some of this funding is for additional signal improvements. The Engineering staff has put together a cost estimate of upgrading systems around town that are very old. They have advised us that the need is between $1.5 and $2 million for 1 refurbishment of all these signals. We do not think that we can afford to spend this kind of money. However, we do think some sort of effort is appropriate. We would recommend to you that all of the signal system around the Square including the ' Sycamore intersections on Locust and Elm as well as the McKinney Street intersections on Locust and Elm be included in a project for upgrading. The Staff has estimated that the cost of tieing this whole system together as we have done similarly on Carroll would be approximately $430,000. All of this system would be built underground and tied together with underground wiring. Again, all of these intersections are on existing streets which were approved by the voters and where you have already spent bond dollars. F It should be emphasized that even by allocating funds for these new activities, a substantial sum will remain from the $5.5 million previously authorized. This remaining authorization will not require the issuance of bonds and thus a beneficial 'k s effect will be experienced by our tax rate. ,r i Finally, we would like to recommend some smaller projects to be built with bond funds remaining from our Street Bond issue. The first of these is rebuilding of two streets Oakland street from McKinney to Oak and Sunset between Bolivar and Anna. Oakland is scheduled to have some underground electrical utilities installed on it. With the patching money that could i i Mayor and Members of the city council February 3, 1989 Page 4 be gotten from Utilities plus a small amount of repaving money that it left from the Street bond issue, this street could be rebuilt including curb and gutter. Using a small amount of the repaving money that is left over, we could also rebuild Sunset and install curbs and gutters. We would do this with the Street Department personnel, and we were advised that any costs that could not be covered with the repaving funds could be covered with Street Maintenance money. We think both of these are good projects, and we would suggest to you that we use the !eaaining amount of repaving and overlaying money from the Street Bond issue for these two projects. TherE is also some money left in the turn lane funds from this same issue. Since the last installations that we made at Color.►do and Loop 288, Staff has been approached to provide turn lanes at two other sites. The first of these is at Carroll and Prairie for northbound Carroll traffic. Currentl there is no turn lane there and turns to the left must be made from the inside traffic lane causing some safety problems and slow down of traffic on Carroll Boulevard. The second is at Morse and Loop 288. We unders'and that the State has agreed to build a signal at this intersection. We would suggest widening Loop 288 to provide for the left hand storage that will be required to allow left hand turns on Loop 288. We think both of these projects are warranted. There is sufficient funding left from the bond issues for these two projects, and we would recommend them to you. Finally. Staff has seen the need to replace a flume on Kings Row west of Stuart. This is part of the old Yellowstone drainage facilities. Originally, the City tried to get by with an asphalt valley gutter that was existing. That has not performed well, and this flume needs to be replaced with a concrete one. There is a small amount of drainage money left in the Selene drainage project, and we would suggest to you that funding for this project come from this existing fund. In conclusion, the btaff also updated us on existing projects. We continue to make headway on a number of major issues. We are excited about those possibilities, and we continue to be pleased with the efforts of Staff in carrying out the projects i on the bon] issue. v l I have included backup from the Staff from our meeting in January and will be happy to try and answer any questions that the 'Co!un~cil may have. Ja Miller Ch ,airman Attachments 4419M/bw i a CITY of DENTONrTEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 566.8907 Office of the City Manager M E M O R A N D U M TO: Members of the 191 Committee FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy city manager DATE: January 23, 1969 SUBJECT: 4989, at Quarterly eeting to Wednesday,'January 25, JConference Room at city Hall II j For the last three months, we have continued to be busy, and we have also had some major reports and information passed on to us. We will have a number of major issues to discuss at the meeting, and we will try and update you on all of this information and ask foe your recommendation on several issues. The first of these issues is some information about the Library. We have included in the backup three separate documents that are excerpts from the consultant's report on the Library. Joella Orr has been working very closely with the consultant that was hired to look at the options for the Library. As you recall, in the bond issue $1 million was approved for Library improvements. Before that went to the voters, there was a lot of discussion of where this money should used. it ofsththe final at money to decision a 'of study donenonl the appropriate expenditure of that money. two library The consultant has recommended triat the City ultimately have is suggesting sites that would be capable of supporting ultimate buildings of 30,000 square feet be acquired and that the first construction begin in the southern part of the City. He does not feel that a complete building car, be built for the $1 million, but certainly a major step can be taken toward that building. first Obviously, after first one built. he is second building be built in the northern part of 1 the City: t i 1 I 191 Committee January 23, 1989 Page 2 As you can see from other data we have supplied to you, the Library Board generally concurs with these recommendations. They think they can fine] some contributions and possibly some people willing to donate land for a site. This committee's recommendation would center on whether this is consistent with the information that was given to the voters prior to the bond election. The staff thinks it is consistent since there was discussions about hiring of having a study done to decide how to best appropriate the money. We think the committee should recommend approval of this concept to the Council. Our second major item to discuss is the excess funding that we have available due to recent Highway Department rule changes. You may recall that several months ago the Highway Department notified us that we would no longer have to participate in curb and gutter and longitudinal or parallel drainage that ran along the curb and gutter. This was very good news. There was approximately $5 million in both the 1985 Street Bond Election and the 1986 C1P Bond Election that were earmarked for highway ; projects. The staff has been doing a lot of research on the amounts of money that will be available and possible suggestions to you on where some of this money might be appropriated. As mentioned earlier, there is approximately $5 million that could be spent on related items to the original issues in the election. Some of this money will have to be retained for tight-of-way acquisition (approximately $400,000) since the Highway Department did not remove that requirement. In fact, a larger amount of money will have to be spent on right-of-way (approximately $870,000) if sorae of the newer priority projects for the Highway Department are included with the original projects. If this right-of-way funding was set aside, it would leave approximately $4,650,000 for other things. Thirdly, since our funding requirement has been greatly reduced, we would be able to do a number of other improvements along a majority of the projects in the bond issues. When these issues were passed, we looked at "bare bones" kinds of projects. They do not have any sidewalks or any other improvements related to them. Since those issues have been passed, we have also passed some new beautification and landscaping requirements that were not in effect at the time of the bond elections. Since we have this excess funding, it occurred to the staff that we might want to go back and at least look at some additional improvements to these projects. ` One of the things we have looked at are sidewalks. Currently, our subdivision rules and regulations require sidewalks on both sides of all streets. When the bond issues were passed, some sidewalks were required at least on one side streetu depending 191 Committee January 23, 1989 Page 3 on their classification. We think it would be appropriate to go back and look at providing sidewalks along all of our street projects. Engineering has done a cost estimate on that kind of project, and we have estimated the cost to be $575,000 to install sidewalks on all the projects in both issues on at least one side of the street. Again, we think this is reasonable since we now have even stricter requirements on any other development within the City. New beautification requirements have also just been approved by the Council in the last year. They have been particularly interested in major entrances to the City and our bond programs include a number of these such as Teasley, U.S. 380, Fort Worth Drive, Loop 288 and others. We think it would be appropriate to spend some money on beautification efforts as these projects are built. We think this is certainly a pact of these projects and certainly it would be reasonable to spend some monies on j beautification. We have been making some efforts to do this in limited ways even now. We have been seeking Highway Department matching funds. We have been pledging in-kind services for our match such as the labor to install sprinkler systems, turf, engineering work, etc. We have also been working with the local resident office of the Highway Department on a joint project on U.S. 380 from Malone out to I-35. The Highway Department is going to do some rebuilding of existing median and curbs and we think we can use our staff to help replace the median topsoil and to do some planting in those areas. We could do even more if we were allowed to spend some of the funds for the U.S. 380 projects in order to install pavers and plantings along the majority of this project and not just a much smaller kind of effort from Malone to I-35. We would suggest to you that if this seems appropriate, a recommendation to Council would be in order. We could then get input from the Council on the extent of kinds of improvements that they would like us to pursue. Finally, we think there is one other area that we could spend some of these excess funds to help make improvements in the overall operation of our street system. That is in the area of signals. The bond issues did devote some money to signal systems, and we are in the final stages of installation of the systems on University and Cacroll Boulevard. We have completed almost all of the installations of the stand alone system such as U.B. 380 and old North Road. There ace, however, a large number of signals that we have not addressed in the system. We think it would be appropriate to spend some money on signals that are again on projects that were allocated money in the ll J i r r I i 91 Committee January 23. 1989 Page 4 the Downtown signals Texas orHickory Square area bond North Oak them streets nearsuch on issue that was included in all of the rebuilding stages. There are also signals up on Bell Avenue through TWU that could be looked at and addressed. find the needs to an extensive xapproximatelye $1.5 to e$2 Jerry signals and his i we group million. We do not think that this amount of money can be spent on signals. However, we do think there is a need for at least $200-300,000 to be spent on signals that are in very bad shape. With that in mind, we have included a list of all of the signals that need attention. r recommendation is for an expenditure of approximately $350,0 amount because it Is what is needed to completely replace the Square system. Now on to other things. There have been a number of projects that have been completed in which we have been able to take advantage of the economy of scale One of reduce those costs an issa in some of the original funding. areas rebuilding category. We have been able to save approximately candidates fundsonumber We have been usee thesealways that seem fappcourse, ropriatethere advised by the Utility Department that they will be tearing up a portion of Oakland Street between McKinney and Oak to put some of the utilities underground. When they do that, they will have to repave a portion of Oakland from Oak to McKinney. entire could rebuild the could rebuilding S money, s very old and if of t the of Oakland This some section street from McKinney CWe~ would suggest thatsthand is isttargood well as new paving. The other short candidate for some of the rebuilding money. section of street that we are aware of is on Sunset, and it runs from Bolivar to Anna. This street is very old. It has no curb and gutter rands sonow. We think me contributionwifromth theemStreet rebuilding money Department, we would be able to rebuild this section and thus use all of the last remaining funds for the rebuilding projects on these two particular streets. I have included a separate memo from Jerry on these two and our estimated cost. The staff would make this recommendation to you. this to eefunds. some Wofwould We also have some money lefcoi~iathe turn te placelane suggest to you that an app P money would be on Carroll Boulevard at Prairie. Currently, if you are northbound on Carroll and you want to make a left turn in to the shopping center or the apartment complex at Prairie, you have to do that from the Inside lane on Carroll. obviously, this safety o problems traffic since obstructions many vehicles i do area and some potential not i completely move out of the inside lane before making that left Ii r I ` 191 Committee January 23, 1989 Page 5 t turn. I think we could do this for a relatively small amount of money and provide a needed improvement in this area and again would recommend this to you. The other area to use some of this money is on Loop 288 at Morse Street. The Highway Department has agreed to signalize this intersection and has asked us to foot the cost of widening the pavement to accommodate a right turn for northbound Loop 288 to Morse. We think this is also an appropriate project to recommend. We also see the need to replace a flume on Kings Row. We have a small amount of drainage money left from earlier and would suggest funding this replacement. Finally, we would like to update you on the existing projects and what our activities have been in the last three months. The last time we met we still had some of the streets on the outside of the Square to finish repaving. All of those have been finished. We have now rebuttoned everything and painted everything and the Square is totally finished. Again, James Corbin and his crews from the Street Department were a big help to us. We have now finished all of the repaving and overlaying and have approximately $6,000 left. This is part of the money we suggested be used on Oakland and Sunset Streets. Since we last met, Teasley Lane has also been finished. The job was completed earlier this month. We were very lucky with the weather, and because we were able to shut down the entire project, we were able to move there quickly. Engineering tells me we were able to bring the project in as bid. Bolivar and Magnolia continues to move on. If any of you have been in that area, Magnolia is basically finished. We have the last 1 1/2" of asphalt to lay on Magnolia, but the traffic and all of the driveways are complete. On Bolivar, most of the rough cutting has been finished. The contractor has also laid almost all the storm sewer line. The contractors worked very well with us on this project, and we would expect him to finish within the next several months. We are also continuing to work on Oak and Hickory. We have now gone through all the Boards and Commissions that we must go through. We will be making presentations to the Council in February and give them the choices on structure width as well as choices on different construction methods. It will be good to get this one finally out for bid and under way. These are basically the street bond projects. As you know we are also continuing to move forward on the CiP programs. The first of these is Woodrow Lane and Burning Tree Lane Bridges, Paving and Drainage. As you know, we bid all of those together. The only change in that was since we had received new indications from the Highway Department on funding levels, Council decided to use Teasley money for the overruns rather E ~ I I I h 191 Committee January 23, 1989 Page 6 than the funds from Locust. That project is moving forward rather rapidly. On Woodrow, almost all the rough cutting is done, the majority of the storm sewer is complete, the abutments and most of the column work is being completed on the Woodrow Bridge. We have hit a small snag on Burning Tree. We have had some trouble acquiring the right-of-way. We are in condemnation process now, and we are having a little difficulty hunting the owners down in Florida. However, the attorney's office should have been able to serve the owners by the time you receive this, and we should be able to proceed with condemnation very shortly. On Tuesday of last week, we were able to officially dedicate the University and Carroll traffic control systems. We are very pleased with the systems and the way they run right now. I think this is one of the reasons we mentioned to you the possibility of using extra funding for more signals. i The MLK Recreation Center is very close to completion. Currently, grand opening for the facility is scheduled for February 25. Finally, the Taylor Park Drainage System has been completed. All the improvements are in, and we were able to bring the + contract in $20,000 under the contract price so we are very pleased with that. The last time we left you, we also gave you a list of other projects that were coming up, and they include the following: Animal Control Building was bid last month. The bids were high, and we are talking to the architect and are rescheduling bids for next month. The same is true for the fire stations. The Mulberry and Carroll signal has lagged just a little bit because of the final touches we were putting on the Carroll and University systems. We expect to have it f finished by the middle of next month. We were also expecting Bell Avenue to go out for bid the first of this year. We have rescheduled that because of the activities of TWU up on Administration Drive. They expect to be finished some where around Spring Break, and we would expect to then begin to proceed with our project. Willow Springs drainage continues to remain ready for bid. We are still trying to bring to a close the lawsuit on this project so that we can get started. Mingo Road drainage has slipped just a little bit because j we have been concentrating on Bonnie Brae. We expect to 1 have that out by March or so. i I I i r E i r F I I I '91 Committee January 23, 1989 Page 7 Malone Street drainage is going out for bid next month as well as Audra Lane Paving and Drainage and Acme Street Paving and Davis Street Paving. As mentioned earlier, Bonnie Brae will also be bid this month. We are bidding all of Bonnie Brae from Scripture to Riney Road rather than just from Scripture to Windsor. Because we added from Windsor to Riney, it has taken us just a little bit longer. We think by advertising all of these at once, we will be able to then gain some economy of scale. 11 The McKinney street signals continue to be worked on. We h would expect those to slip just a little bit also since we have taken a little bit more time on Carroll and University. The subsequent years in both the CIP and the Street Boni Issue continue to look okay, and we expect to be able to get to them very close to our scheduling projections. 1 want to reiterate that the staff visits as well as the visits by the Mayor with the Highway Department have really appeared to pay off for us. We are very excited about the new development plan of the Highway Department, and we think with their new regulations on funding we will he able to do more projects that could help us maintain our efforts to meet the City's growing needs. t If any of you have questions about any of this information, we would be happy to try and respond to them. Rick Svehla Deputy City Manager RS:bw 4403M Attachments f ! i j I I i d k N 1988-91 1-CHEEDULE FOR DENTON LIBRARY BOARD EXPANSION DECEMBER 20, 1968 uct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. filar. Apr. 4av Jun. Jul. Aug. Sett. i '`/s9 x x x x x x Txx i~ 1) Begin Soli~0te lon of Gifts X 2) Hire Architect x x x 3) Renovation of Present builiirg 4) Order Shelving for Present x Building/To Be Reused - 5) Preapplicetion for Graot Funds I I 1989/ 1) Continue Solicitation of Gifts x x 2) Acquire Land 3) Continue Renovation of X. x x x x x x X Present Building I x 4) Complete Building Plans 5) Order Balance of Shelving 1990/91 X 1) Start Building 1250H I 4 i I I k J J f r Y i I I HXldc7tJ91' E VU SOMMARV This study of the Dunt„n Pllblle I rbrer Consisted of two phases. Phase line was a review of Iliv t•%ist my capital fuudir•g available to the Library 141Ih rc Aununerl lat tons un hou to beat expend the money III order to a0iiv tt the Krreiilest t+oLenlial for improving libraty srr%i,:r in tht- city ui' Menton. Phase Uloe was compleled early 11,fs sutaner; the reaumnoenof atIoit s are cuntarnted II Ihis rrpurI n., '.111) 1-ndI I. r The sevond phase cunsisrs of a ItniK-r:lore plan. The plan addresses racIIIty tie edb as they' r.elit le t., I.t,e 1) rug ram of service, fundIrig requirements l'nr crapilaI Improvemertt.s and operations. Me plan tooks 1'orwitrof to the yFar 211U5. The II specit'ic recommen,laliin s t -ontarnol i n pit it ses line and No t'.iIow. i I A ?strategy and Structure I'or Lite Futurv A good planning i•rucvss uses goal I, iaiject.ives and priorities as the basis t'or planning alit ivi 1 Ies. Al l . good c,rganIzations--public, and private seelnr +ilil;e--require two t'aclors: Hirst, a strategy, and secotid, it sirue.ture which 1 supports and fits Lhe strategy. niv ronsullant.s rooommend that the Denton Public Library develop a ctrstomoi-oriented, oustomer-driven approach. Iitfs will not fit- difricult inasm-v.h as the level of seVVACH prut,dcd nt,+--t.ilJtin the r,;HUivt!es tivailnble--is survi,•a minded. PInnning,Tuday.for Servioe Tomorrow i Today the public Library must bet priorit.ius and it must deLermine the role It. is to play Ili the idly and county based upon the needs of the residentb. fit geuorai, income and education move in tandem end, as they Ilorr..ase, au duns library usage. ALP-of the demographics of the oily lit Pentr,n and Lite county ad rly point to even greater use being made of the j public-bf6eary if the far,ilities, servlees aloof support are j in place. I'n~ $xldciftl6.SI M111It1R 1. l,pgrade bullding as rrcummended ipage4 U-IU lit' appendix . 'l; expending nbuut 355,000 - itaU,000. j Y. live remaining t'unds to purchase two sites, one in north section of Lhe city, another in south secliuli. Sites should be adequate rur 30,000 OF oummunity library. i i i r 3. Purchase and operate bookmobile service, making at least six stops per week, stops to be equally divided between service to seniors and other users/potential users. Library".. Budget 4. Increase library materials budget over next two fiscal years to an amount equal to 10 percent of total operating budget. 5. Increase library materials budget over folluwing five years to an amount equal to 15 percent of total operating budget. 6. By end of seventh fiscal year (beginning with current FYI, increase budget for library materials to 20 percent of total annual operating budget. i . 7. Do NOT achieve the above by reduction in the staffing or salary levels of the library. R., 2verall.lopport 8. Increase support from Denton County to an amount that i■ equal to the non-resident usage of the library, usage to include in-library, telephone and circulation. 9, in order to measure true usage, conduct on a regular basis (at least twice a year) sample surveys of in- library, telephone and circulation usage. 4iltc!lrr. Ba~111it1!'a • 10. Design and build two 30,000 sq. ft. comc,unity libraries over the next five to ten years. When the second I library is In place, close the existing Oakland Avenue faoility. Two libraries of this size, v aupled with bookmobile service. will enable the library to provide th*--eeeommended 62,500 GSF of library space by the year 20M L First new library in southeast Denton. 4J.h~1~t~lta 11. Continue the active Children's 34!rvicps programmint, and expand it as possible by offering additional programming for older children iottes 8 tr) 121. j 12. Offer adult programming by means of pro%ldlnq space for groups to present programs, e.g. investment seminars, etc. The library should also conr;ider discussion groups and thematic programs for adults. ti r I:{. lair I I1,• i~ r f i+r->r,It plnWr•am R Iotal utLomaler! Ilhrarl •)wl.m. !I IIIe vu•1t r.t' 3r,luirins the Iwo altos 1'or , nnnrrntilti Iihrrtrles :tnrl the purrhnit re 4) a lit i,rlunnt,ilis dnr,x flat r.!gnirr, the viol Ire $951) ,000 1sit) lI'll thr•S ml nulif n,rl I, rnnsIde or rpIyIng Rome 111' Ihv Nails Ivitullso rn,t tr,r nutum:0 icon fit Rnnlrig and instal ISLlbn. 14. tIkI - I- Ili, nr %.l. vacnral years, m01,1P toward I'ul I Implo-m- lal Foil nl the planning guidelines. 1.1brvu•Itr,a--llFlow Ivdf;N and Iitl'oreaLiun rho, rut l i, I iIF rary iv an 1nc, nluable pub IIv Inveatlnvot. thrit pays , -aunt 1 r•c4 it i%IIf erid Fit IU I. he citizens of the r:Ity 1111,1 the r ,.unI r. The cI I i"s I,I the future must, ot'I'nr a sl rung .r du,vll 11On:1 i 4y,4l.vm. Knod uttlversi Is loop a Hound vyaLeto oL hr at.I h r:rr., na•I n line sol of pull is setrvices, eapPrial ly I ibra rIr b qVf v,wrrw lan earl arts lariI II Ion ;tnd progrnics lhv puhllr 41tr:rI;• hna liaw hr+Pt1 irlentI1'Ied an a rompnnenL: of nor nrll Ivn'v vif loat.i4alm1 -0-Mil em. PublIn Rupport rests- prim•Ilulil~ 010,11 IIv 1, now IedgP, educaIIunal and {nl',rl•InRI 1,m:11 rate,. I l I i II i I if rim I 1 I F 5 SUMARY OF RECOPYENDATIONS BY LIBRARY BOARD, HBh CONSULTANTS AND LIBRARY STAFF N04EXPEh 1, 1988 CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATION BOARD CONSFNSUS STAFF COMMENTS 1) Upgrade interim building Spend only on a "must do" basis. Concur with as recommended (page 9-10). Library board. 2) Use remaining funds to purchase Try to obtain land by donation, Board Concur with two sites. Sites should be willing to make "one-to-one" contacts. Library hoard. adequate for 30,000 OSF community Wants to make clear to public from the library. beginning that one building will be in the North and one building in the South. 3) Purchase 9 operate book- Agree with recommendation, but Concur with mobile service, making at want to postpone, using the Library Board. least 6 stops per week; $1,000,000 on Phase 1 of a build- stops to b! equally ing at s new site which will become divided between service the new Central Library. to seniors & other users/ potential users. 4) Increase library materials Concur Concur with budget ever next 2 fiscal Library Board. years to an amount equal to 10% of total operating bud- get. I 5) Increase library materials Concur Concur with budget over fcllcwing 5 Library Board. years to an amount equal to 15% of total operating bud- get. 6) Py end of 7th fiscal year Concur Concur with j (beginning with current FY), Library Board, i } increase budget for library materials to 20% of total I annual operating budget. L I r f y, Page -2- CONSULTANTS EECOMSIENPATION BOARD CONSENSUS STAFF COMMENTS 7) Do NOT achieve Nos. 4r 5 and Concur and would like Concur with 6 by a reduction in the staffing to bring current staff Library Board. or salary levels of the nu,abers up to standard. library. S) Increase support from len- Concur Concur with ton County to an amount that Library Eoard. is equal to the non-resident usage of the library, usage to include in-library, telephone & circulation, 9) In order to measure true usage, Concur Concur with conduct on a regular basis (at Library Board. least twice a year) sample sur- veys of in-library, telephone & i circulation usage. 10) Design 4 build two 30,000 Library Board visualizes Concur with community libraries over the present building use as a Library Board. next 5-10 years. When the branch until 2nd library is 2nd library is in place, close completed, then recommends 1 the existing Oakland Avenue that part of the building be facility. Two libraries of retained for a municipal this size, coupled with book- library for special collec- mobile service, will enable the tions and for the citizens library to provide the recommended in this area, 62,500 GSF of library apace by the year 2005. 11) Continue the active Children's Concur Concur with Services programming and expand Library Board, it as possible by offering addi- tional programming for older children (ages 8-12). V V 1 ~ f ! y 1 I~~ I I } Page -3- CONSULTANTS RECOMMENDATION BOARD CONSENSUS STAFF COMENTS 12) Offer adult programming by means Concur Concur with of providing space for groups to Library Board, present pro1_:ams, e.g., investment seminars, etc. The library should also consider discussion groups and thematic programs for adults. 13) Initiate as a 5 year Ircgram a total Concur Concur with automated library system. it' the coat Library board. of acquiring the 2 sites for con;munity libraries and the purchase of a tock- mobile does not require the entire $950,000 (which they should not), consider applying some of the funds re- maining for automation planning a j installation. 1+ 14) Over the next several years, Concur Concur with I move toward full implementation of Library board, j the planning guidelines. i I I J; I 1 1 ~ L i CITY of DENTONr TEXAS MUNICIPAL SUILDINC / DENTON, TEXAS 76101 / 'TELEPHONE (817) 566-820( MEMORANDUM DATE: January 20, 1989 Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager T0: FROM: Jerry Clark, City Engineer SUBJECT: Closed Loop Expanalon/City of Denton i we have completed basic cost estimates for expansion of the Closed Loop System into most of the major signalized areas throughout the City. Those areas ras include the Square, Bell Avenue from University to Prairie, oak/Hickory area from Carroll to Avenue no Eagle area from Bell to Avenue Dr and the University Drive area from Bonnie Brae to Loop 286. The system recently installed ? already includes from Malone to Bell Avenue. The following are cost estimates for each component with projects listed in order of priority. 3 have included a table below to give you all the estimated coats. I F J h Master Location All Number - Project Deacri tion Cost Underground { A. Construction: 11 Square Sycamore/Pkwy - Elm/Locust $430,000 $ 480,000 j All but Sycamore done that way University to Prairie $2400000 3400000 42 Bell 41 University Oak/Hickory Carroll to $380,000 4800000 1 11 univeceity Eagle, (Bell to Ave D) $200,000 300,000 60,000 f2 University a) 'donnie from Malone -$361000 b) Bell to Loop 288 $2100000 310x000 9. Bngineerln9: r~ Engineering costs based :1300/Intecaection { 1) 10 int !$1300 131000 10,000 21 8 int 100000 3) 8 int 9,100 4) 7 int 1,300 5) a) 50200 61 b) 4 1 $ 50,000 i System with overhead and underground 5115460000 $2,010,000 System with all underground 062PE/2S 1 C C1TYof DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 566.8200 MEMORANDUM DEC 19 l9A8 DATE: December 19, 1983 CITY OFUE~+TON CITE MANAGERS OFFICE TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager i FROM: Jerry Clark, City Engineer SUBJECT: Cost Estimates for Oakland Street and Sunset I i F We have completed two additional cost estimates that we would like you to consider. The first project is Oakland street between Oak and McKinney streets. The length is approximately 320 feet. As you are aware, it has never been paved other than r the seal coat and some patci+ing work by the Street Department. The electric department and telephone company will be coming through there with an underground conduit system completely J tearing the street up. With the patch money, we will be able I to rebuild the street in its entirety. We are proposing to use the $5,000 plus dollars remaining in the repaving section of the bond issue to put curb and gutter along this section of Oakland street and pay for the lime subgrade. We estimate 764 lineal feet of curb and gutter including radiuses and 10 tons of lime which totals $5,800. ) The second project is Sunset between Anna and Bolivar. We will be widening this to a 31 foot street to match the section between Anna and Carroll. The length again is 320 feet. We would have the same length of curb which is 764 feet which cost approximately $S,000. The width is a little longer so you would have 12 tons of lime which totals $960. Total cost is $6,000. I Jim Corbin would be using the patch monies on Oakland street and maintenance funds on Sunset street to do the rebuilding in either bomagging or reconstructing the subgrades using his crews at no labor cost. Please aJvise if you need further information. I CAAAX_ err a cJ~ Lo 0613E I 1 I r f ~ DEC :GIE cITY CITY MANE CITY of DRNTON$ TEXAS 215 E. McKINNEY/ DEN TON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 566.8200 I 1 MEMORANDUM j DATE: December 15, 1988 TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, City EngineerceyNt SUBJECT: January "91 Committee" meeting I 1 ~ We have 3 issues that we want you to consider. Each has citizen input and has been reviewed by staff. All are address safety issues. { Item 01 Left turn lane for north bound Carroll to shopping center opposite Prairie street: This site has had several accidents and fairly large left turn movements into the cent.,r. It was the only major left turn where a turn lane was not built with Carroll Boulevard. The Offenbacker Addition will place a good sized office complex on the east side of Carroll. This will greatly increase traffic at this intersection which will effect safety. Therefore, we recommend that the remaining funds from the Eagle at Carroll turn lanes be used to fund this construction. Item #2 Right turn lane north bound Loop 288 to Morse Street: The State Department of Highways will be letting the contract for the traffic signal at Morse and Loop 288 In March or April 1989. They seem to have asked that we fund a right turn lane to help justify the response we received on this project. I feel the fact that the State has reacted so quickly to City of Denton citizens and staff on this signal should bp considered to keep their attitude about us I January "91 Committee" page 2 positive. The right turn lane is definitely needed and they have already designed it. Construction could be done by a contractor or City forces. The only complicating factors are the culvert ends that will require extension and redirection to cover proper turn radii for large vehicles. Funds are available in the Loop 288 at 135 project as we completed that work well under budget. Estimates for this work should be between $15,000 to $200000. Please approve this to keep this project on the schedule to obtain summer of 1989 construction. i Item N3 Elm and Locust Street Inlet Upgrades: 1 This area has been covered briefly by Rick in a past meeting. We want to remove all grate inlets and deteriorated curb inlets to improve the collection of water into the storm sewer pipes. The existing condition has little value since the grate inlets clog up quickly which creates flooding and a lot of maintenance work for City crews. Please formally approve this item so we can create specifications to place the project out for bids. 0613E l 1 J I I. I I I I r r ~ f i DATE: 02/07/89 t CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF REVISIONS TO ARTICLE 17, SIGNS OF APPENDIX B, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 4 RECOMMENDATION: The ~^1 Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and recommended revisions to the sign ordinance at its meeting of i January 25, 1989. SUMMARY: A summary of revisions is attached. I~ I BACKGROUND: ` I The Beautification Task Force began review of the Sign Ordinance in ` 1987 and recommended changes to the City Council in October of that year. The Planning and Zoning Commission review began in July of 1 1988. A number of meetings including representatives from the Government Relations Committees of the Chamber of Commerce, the Beautification Task Force, and P1anuing and Zoning Commission have been meeting for several months to discuss the revisions. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED? Sign company owners, business owners, City staff and citteens of Denton. i FISCAL IMPACT: No impact has been determined at this time. An ordinance establishing fees will be scheduled for the February 21, 1989 meeting. Reszlo=. y su m it Prepared by: Lloyd or, Harrell n City Manager Cecile Carson Urban Planner App ved: 1 rank H. Robbinas AICP Executive Director for Planning and Development 1519k T NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF D£NTONo TEXAS, AMENDING ARTICLE 17 OF APPENDIX B-ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO SIGNS; PROHIBITING PORTABLE AND INFLATABLE SIGNS; AMENDING THE SIZE, HEIGHT, AND SPACING REGULATIONS FOR GROUND SIGNS) AMENDING THE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO ILLUMINATED SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE LICENSING OF SIGN CONTRACTORS; PROVIDING FOR PERMITS FOR WIND DEVICE SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REMOVAL OF ABANDONED SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR REGULATIONS FOR STAKE SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR THE REGISTRATION OF NONCONFORMING PORTABLE SIGNS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR A SEVEPABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council appointed a Blue Ribbon Beautification Task Force for the purpose of studying, developing, and recommending actions to be taken to enhance the overall appearance of the City; and WHEREAS, in performance of its charge, the Task Force has recommended amendments of the regulation applicable to signs within i the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 19890 the Planning and Zoning i Commission, after holding a public hearing for which notice was given as required by law, recommended adoption of the amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after having received and considered the report of the Task Force and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and after having held a public hearing for which public notice was given as required by law, has found and determined that this ordinance amending the sign enhance regulations arance Cofy the DCityn and woulwouldd further ythe goal tof overall app protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the community; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS; fijQT1ON i. That article 17 A. 2. ("Definitions") of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows; 2. WinitiM. The following words, as used in this article, shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them, as followsi i i I~ Abandoned sign neans a si3n: (a) which, for at least six (6) continuous months, does not identify or advertise a bona fide business, lessor, ser+ii.ce, owner, product, or activity; (b) for which no legal owner can be found; or (c) which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no longer applies. Advertising means to convey information to, seek the attraction of, or to direct the attention of, the public to any location, event, person, activity, goods, services, or merchandise. Attached sign means any sign attached to, on or supported by any part of a building (such as a wall, roof, window, canopy, awning, or marquee) which encloses or covers usable space. Wall, roof, and projecting signs shall be considered attached signs. Curbline means an imaginary line drawn along and parallel to the outermost part or back of the curb and gutter on either side of a public streets or, if there is no curb and gutter, along and parallel to the outermost portion of the paved streets or, if there is no paved street, along and parallel to the outermost edge of the traveled 1 portion of the street. Dilapidated or Deteriorated Dion means a signs (a) Where any portion of the finished material, surface, or message portion of the sign is visibly faded, flaked, broken off, missing, cracked, splintered, defective, or is otherwise visibly deteriorated or in a state of disrepair so as not to substantially - appear as it was intended or designed to appear when originally constructed; (b) whose elements or the structural support or frame members are visibly bent, broken, dented, or torn, twisted, leaning, or at angles other than those at which it wt,s originally erected (such as may result from being blown or by the failure of a structural support). k Effective area means the area enclosed by the smallest imaginary parallelogram which would fully contain all portions of the sign when rotated horizontally around the sign. The effective area shall not include that portion i SIGNS/Page 2 I i r of the supporting structure which is used solely for support of the sign and which is not an integral part of the sign, such as poles, columns, and cables, but shall include all decorative or ornamental elements and features, borders, trims, or other materials or portion of the sign or supporting structure which is an integral part of the sign. (See Appendix Illustration No. 148 and 14f). C~roun~ s_on means a sign whose principal support is provided by burying, anchoring or otherwise connecting the sign, or supporting structure thereof, to tho ground in such a manner as not to be easily or quickly removed or relocated, and which is not a stake sign, portable sign or attached sign. off-Premise Sian means any sign advertising a business, activity, goods, products or services not usually located on the premises where the sign is located or which directs persons to any premise other than where the sign is located. On-Premise Sion means any sign advertising the business, person, activity, goods, products or services primarily located, sold or offered for sale on the premises where the sign is located. A sign which promotes or displays a political, religious or ideological thought, belief, opinion or other noncommercial message shall be considered an on-premise sign. Portable Sian means a sign whose principal supporting structure is intended, by design, use, or construction, to be used by resting upon the ground for support and which may be easily moved or relocated for reuse. Portable signs shall include, but not be limited to, signs mounted upon or designed to be mounted upon a trailer, bench, wheeled carrier or other non-motorized mobile structure with or without wheels, and A-frame and other similar signs, resting or leaning on the ground or other structures, but not permanently attached thereto. Premise means: (a) for any developed property, the area of real j property which encompasses all the buildings, structures, appurtenances, and land held under common ownership and devoted to a common use, such as a shopping centers or (b) for undeveloped property, the area of real property designated as a lot on a plat approved in accordance SIGNS/Page 3 i with law and filed with the County Clerk's office, or an unplatted tract of land as conveyed by deed or operation of law and recorded in the deed records of Denton County, Texas. I Proj_ctai ins Sian means any sign which is wholly affixed to or supported by any building wall, and which extends beyond the building wall more than twelve (12) inches. goof Sion means any sign wholly erected on, affixed to, constructed on, maintained upon, supported by, or located upon any roof of any building. Sian means and includes any surface, fabric, material, or device visible from any public street, which bears or is used to display any letter, word, figure, character, ` mark, design, picture, illustration, light, insignia, or information for advertising. "One sign" or "a sign" means any number of signs located on or supported by a single or common supporting structure. , Stake Sian means a sign whose principal supporting structure is so designed or shaped, usually by making one end pointed, so as to be erected and used by pushing, pounding, hammering or forcing it into the ground so as to allow quick and easy placement, removal or relocation. g++ooortina StructuL~ means any pole, post, cable, foundation, or other supporting structural materials or fixtures arranged, designed, or used to hold, secure or support a sign, or part thereof, and which is not imprinted or labeled with any pictures, symbols, letters, numbers, or words in excess of one inch in height, nor is internally or decoratively illuminated. Wail Sian means any sign wholly affixed to, supported by, or painted upon the wall of any building, and which is not a projecting sign. Wind Device Sian means any flag, banner, pennant, streamer or similar sign made of cloth, canvas, plastic, or other flexible material, with or without a frama or other supporting structure, that moves or is designed to move freely in the wind. SECTION it, That article 17 A. 4. (d) of Appendix 8-Zoning is amended to read as follows: (d) signs on Public Property. Any ground or attached sign located on, over, or within a public street, sidewalk, alley, right-of-way, street lamp, utility pole, hydrant, SIGNS/Page 4 i bridge, building or structure, traffic or street sign or device or other public property; except for projecting signs in central business districts as specifically permitted in this article, markings made on public sidewalks with water-soluble materials as otherwise permitted by the Code of Ordinances, or to wind device signs placed over a public street by or with the consent of the city to advertise annual community events for a temporary period of time. SECTION III. That article 17 A. 4. (1) of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows: (i) Certain illuminated signs Signs, illuminated from within or without, and which: (1) are illuminated in such a manner, to such intensity, or not properly shielded, so as to potentially impair or interfere with the vision of any driver of any motor vehicle upon a public street; or (2) have any type of intermittent illumination, including flashing, fading, revolving or blinking lights, or any type of moving, travelling, or changing message by means of illumination, excluding temporary Christmas lights and i lights used for time and temperature signs. i SECTION iV. That article 17 A. 4. (j) of Appendix B - Zoning is amended to read as followas (j) inflatable devices. Signs which are inflatable devices anchored to the ground, a building, or a structure. I SECTION V. That article 17 A. 4. of Appendix B-Zoning is amended by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as follows: (k) Portable siqns. Any portable sign which is not a properly registered nonconforming portable sign as provided for in this article. SECTION Vi. That article 17 A. of Appendix 8 - Zoning is amended by adding a new paragraph 6 to read as follows: 6. Lice Ming, (a) it shall be unlawful for any person to erect, construct, i place, locate, reconstruct, repair, replace, or sorvice any ground, roof, or projecting sign for compensation without first having obtained a license for such work from the Building Official as provided herein. The provisions of the section requiring a license for such i SIGNS/page 5 I ? V work shall not apply to an employee of a person holding a license under this section. (b) Any person making application for a license shall be issued a license, valid for one year, upon paying the applicable fee and passing a written examination testing the applicant's general knowledge of the provisions of J11 this article. The examination shall be administered in accordance with the rules and procedures established by the Building official. (c) The Building official may revoke, upon prior written notice to the licensee, any license granted where it is found that the application made was knowingly false or that the licensee, after having determined by the JI Building Official to have violated any provision of this ordinance, failed to correct the violation within fourteen (14) days after the date written notice of the violation was sent to the address of the licensee, as shown on the license. (d) Any person may appeal a denial, proposed revocation, or revocation of a license to the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the rules applicable to decisions of the Building Official, as provided for in Appendix B-Zoning. I i i SECTION VIZ. That article 14. B. 2. of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows: 2.FExceptions to Permit Requirement. The following types of signs shall be exempt from the permit requirements of this articles J (a) ugally nonconforming signs as defined herein. (b) Wall signs, legal notices, and building address 1111 numbers. (o) state, national, or corporate flags as otherwise specified in this article. (d) signs painted on glass surfaces of windows or doors. (e) stake signs. ACTION VIII. That article 14. B. 4. and S. of Appendix B-Zoning are amended to read as follows: ~ j E 4. Permit Fee. If the plans and specifications for a sign set forth in any application for a permit conform to all of the requirements of this article and any other ordinance i SIGNS/Page 6 I LJ rl I k applicable thereto, the Building official shall, upon payment of the applicable permit fes, issue the appropriate permit. 5. a other than permits for wind device signs, every permit issued for a sign shall expire by J of the 0 days from the date 1I permit. mtiesuance be nril and void after 18 SECTION ?I. That article 14. C. of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows: C. PORTABLE SIGNS irk I. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, place, or locate any portable sign on any premise on or after February 21, 1989. 2. Any portable sign lawfully existing upon any premiss before February 21, 1989, in accordance with the provisions of any prior ordinance, shall be allowed to remain on that premise as a nonconforming portable sign if properly registered and continuously maintained in accordance with the provisions of this article. 3. A nonconforming portable sign which is properly registered in accordance 4ith this artic1c, shall not: (a) Be moved to another so as to be visible I from any public street. (b) If removed from any premise for any reason, be placed on the same premise so as to be visible from any public street. 4. All lawful nonconforming portable signs shall at all times be securely anchored so as to prevent overturning or J of such anchorage to be unsafe movement, he Building sufficiency al, determined by t That article 17 D. of Appendix B-Zoning is amended two rye as followst D. REGULATION OF SIGNS BY ZONING DISTRICTS. 1 a LdW& wl districts. The following regulations . n shall apply to A, SF-7, SF-10, SF-130 3F-16, 2-F, MF-R, MF-1 and MF-2 zoning districts, as shown on the official zoning ` district map of the city of Denton, as amended: (a) Permitted TY44. Ground, wall, wind device, and stake signs are permitted in residential districts. Roof, SIGNS/Page 7 I rA i projecting, and off-premise signs are prohibited in residential districts. (b) Effective Area and Height. No ground sign shall have a effective area greater than fifty (50) feet or a greater height than six (6) feet. (c) Setbacks. All ground signor shall maintain a minimum distance or setback from the curbline which is equal to or greater than one-half of the required front yard setback for the premise where the sign is located, and shall maintain a minimum distance or setback of ten (10) feet from all perimeter property lines of the premise where the sign is located. (d) Number of Ground Signs. Only one ground sign shall be located on any one premise, except as follows: (1) Any premise having frontage on more than one arterial or collector street may locate cne on-premise ground sign I in the defined front yard of each street, provided that 1 neither sign is located within that area that includes the overlapping front yards of both streets. I (2) Any premise which has more than five hundred (500) feet of public street frontage on an arterial or collector street may make use of one additional sign for each additional five hundred (500) feet of frontage, or fraction thereof, if each additional sign permitted is located more than four hundred (400) feet from another r permitted ground sign on tae same premise. (e) Materials for Ground SigDl. All ground signs shall be constructed of stone, concrete, brick, routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar materials. The face or message portion of the sign may include plastic material if it does not encompass more than 60S of the effective. I area of the sign and the plastic material used is framed by stone, concrete, brick, routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar materials. 2. Nonresidential Districts The following regulations shall apply to signs in any zoning district designated as a p, 00 NS, GR, C, LI or HI district, as shown on the official zoning district map of the City of Denton, as amended: t ti (a) Tyne. Ground, wall, roof, stake, wind device, and projecting signs are permitted in nonresidential i districts. SIGNS/page 8 ~J (b) F. active Area and Height No ground or roof sign shall have an effective area greater than sixty (60 feet and no ground sign shall have a height greater than uix (6) feet, except as follows: (1) A ground sign located on a premise which has frontage upon U.S. Interstate Highway 35N, 35E, or 35W shall not have an effective area greater than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet or a height greater than forty (40) feet. (2) A ground sign located on a premise which has frontage upon State Highway Loop 288 shall not have an effective area greater than one hundred and fifty (150) square feet or a height greater than thirty (30) feet. i I ' (3) oAny n-premise premise permitted tsign t shall be permitted one ground sign of a maximum height of fifteen. (15) ~ feet and an effective area of one hundred twenty (120) squa-e feet, in lieu of any two permitted ground signs. i (c) Setbacks. All signs shall maintain a minimum + distance or setback of twenty (20) feet from the curblins and a minimum distance or setback of ten (10) feet from any perimeter property line of the premise upon which the sign is located. I (d) der. Only one on-premise ground sign shall be located on any one premise, except as follows (1) Any premise which has frontage irpon more than one arterial or collector street, may locate one on-premise ground sign in the defined front yard of each arterial or collector street, provided that neither sign is located within that area that includes the overlapping front yards of both streets. (2) Any premise which has more than 500 feet of public street frontage on an arterial or collector street may make use of one additional on-premise j ground sign for each additional 500 feet of frontage, or fraction thereof, if each additional sign permitted is located more than four hundred (400) feet from another permitted ground sign on the same premise. (See Appendix illustration 14c). SIGNS/Page 9 i4 ,A {e) Spacing Requirements. (1) Off-premise signs. No off-premise ground sign shall be located within 1500 feet of another off- premise ground sign on the same side of a public street. The measurement shall be between the two points on the curblines which are closest to the respective signs, along and parallel to the curbline, and across any intervening street intersections. (2) signs and Residential Structuras. No sign over 10 feet in height, which is not located on the same premise where there is a residential structure, shall be located within the following distances from the boundary of a residential zoning district or a premise used for residential purposes: Illuminated 500 feet Non-illuminated 100 feet The measurement shall be made in a straight line { from the nearest portion-of the supporting structure at ground level, to the nearest boundary of a residential zoning district or the property line of an existing residential structure. (f) Materials for Ground Signs. All ground signs, except those ground signs located on a promise which has frontage upon U.S. Interstate Highway 35N, 35E, 35W, or State Highway Loop 288, shall be constructed of stone, conc:ate, brick, routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar materials. The face or messaya portion of the sign may include plastic material if it does not encompass more than 801 of f the effective area of the sign and the plastic 1 material used is framed by stone, concrete, brick, j routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar I materials. 3. Planned Development Districts. The regulations for signs located in planned development zoning districts shall be contained in the ordinance or concept or detailed plan approved for the district, except that no off-premise signs shall be permitted. Should the regulations for signs be omitted from an ordinance or concept or detailed plan for the district, the sign regulations that would be applicable to the most restrictive comparable zoning district classification, based upon the land uses permitted therein, as determined by the Executive Director of the Department of Planning and SIGNS/Page 10 paCommunity the regulations were omitted. 'M 4.,gentral a&-Districts. The following regulations shall apply to signs in central business zoning districts: I, (a) Type. Ground, wall, roof, stake, and projecting signs are permitted in central business districts. (b) Effective Area and Heiaht._ No ground or root sign F shall have an effective area greater than sixty (60) feet and no ground sign shall have a height greater than six (6) feet. i r^~ + ~f w Limita~;~+n on Proi~ing signs. No I (c) projecting sign shall project or extend into the the than ( 0) public feet ~t or right-of-way for a two (2) t feet more nearest c+irbline, whichever is more restrictive. No projecting sign, supporting structure, or part thereof, which extends into the public right-of-way lin shall evel an4 eight any (a) of feethe t abovee sabetween the id grouP4 1 vo M l said right-of-way. plE 2CT ON XI. That article 17 F 1. and 2. of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows: j 1. Mi,a and Ordei. Any sign which is erected, located, or maintained in violation of this article ray be removed by the Buildinq official as provided herein. The i Building official shall deliver or send a written notice and order to the owner of an unlawful n is sign owner of the promise where he unlawful tg A notice and order sent or delivered totho lperson Districtlisted as the owner of City the Office or Denton County Apprais+ premise where the unlawful sign is located shall be presumed to be sufficient. The notice and order shall: (a) Describe the nature of the violations (b) Order the correction of the violation within a time specified, which shall not be less than live (5) business days of the delivery or mailing of the notice= and j (e) Give notice that the Building official may remove and impound the unlawful sign at the owner's expense it the violation is not corrected within the time specified. SIGNS/page 11 i i I I r, 2. Removals Aboeals. If the person ordered to correct the violation fails to do so within the time specified, the Building Official may remove or cause th4s removal of the unlawful signs provided, however, that any person aggrieved by said notice or order may file an appeal with the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the provisions applicable for other appeals from decisions of the Building official. In case such appeal is timely filed, the procedures applicable to other appeals shall be followed and the order of the Building official may be stayed in accordance thereof, pending the final determination of the Board of Adjustment. SECTION XII. That article 17 F of Appendix B-Zoning is amended by adding a new paragraph 6 to read as follows: 6. Summary Removal of Hazardous Signs. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the Building official may summarily remove any unlawful sign which, because of its location or condition, clearly constitutes an immediate hazard E or danger to the public. Prior to removing the sign, the i Building official shall make a reasonable attempt to locate the owner of the hazardous eign or person responsible for its placement to give written notice of the violation, the action necessary to correct the violation, and the time period in which the correction must be made. The notice shall be delivered to the owner of the sign, the owner of the premise, or the person responsible for the signs placement, if located; I otherwise, the notice shall be affixed to the sign or other prominent place on the premise likely to come to the attention of the owner of the sign or premise. Thereafter, the Building Official may remove the sign if no corrective action is taken in the time specified. I ` SECTION XIII. That article 17 G. 1. (b) (1) of Appendix B-Zoning is amended to read as follows: (1) Draw an imaginary vertical line extending upward from the closest point on the curbline of the public street to which the premise has access; I SECTION XIY. That article 17 0. 2, 3, 4, S, and 6 of Appendix B-Zoning are amended to read as follows: 2. Abandoned~gns. The owner of the premise on which there is located any abandoned sign shall: (a) If it is a portable sign, remove the sign within f q thirty days of the date it becomes abandoned so that it is not visible from any public right-of-way. ~I SIGNS/Page 12 i I I I 4 (b) If the sign is a ground or attached sign, either remove the sign and supporting structure so as not to be visible from any public right-of-way, or paint out, cover, or remove the face or message portion of the sign so as to leave the sign and supporting structure neat and unobtrusive in appearance, within ninety days of the date it becomes abandoned. 3. Clearance from Electrical _Lines, _ All signs shall be located a minimum distance of six (6) feet, measured horizontally, and eight (8) feet, measured vertically, from any overhead electrical conductors which are energized in excess of seven hundred and fifty (750) volts. The term "overhead conductors" means any electrical line, either bare or insulated, installed above the ground. 4. Stake Signs. 1 (a) No stake sign shall be larger than thirty two (32) square feet in effective area. (b) No stake sign shall be located within any public street median or within ten (10) feet of any curbline. (c) Any stake sign advertising the sale or lease of real estate, a garage sale, a candidate or issue to be voted upon at an election, or other temporary event or happening, shall be removed by the owner of the premise if placed thereon by the owner, or if placed thereon by other than the owner, by the person responsible for the placement of the sign, within ton (10) days after the date of the occurrence of the event advertised. (d) No more than one off-premise stake sign advertising the sale or lease of one piece of real property or one real estate subdivision or development shall be placed on any one premise. 5. Sion Maintenance. It shall be unlawful for any j person to erect, locate, or maintain any dilapidated or 11 deteriorated sign. I 6. Rind Device Signs. No person shall display one or I more wind device signs on any one promise without first applying for and receiving a permit as required by this article. Permits shall be valid for thirty (30) consecutive days. No more than three (3) permits for any one premise shall be issued in any one calendar year. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the followings i Srm/Page 13 I Two (2) ground signs used (a)e o Ration! on any one to display only a national or state height, size, and Qremise, for which the number, spacing, permit requirements applicable etback to giro ents shall apply- apply, but to which the s (1) ground sign used to ~ nnrake Flaca.red one (1) corporate logo flag on any (b) registe display only the corporation, and permit requirements business premise owned sracing,controlled for which the number. P all not a1 but to which applicable to 9rirements shall apply.Thr corporate flag the setback requ unless it have a maximum effective area of fifty (50) shall aqua feet and a maximum height of thirty (30) there are one or is l on the same remi whe moreoflagpole used to displayeonlyra national or state flag. endix B-Zoning That article 17 G. 7, of App is repealed - 3. 8-Zoning is ~~rrTnK X~LI• That article 17 H. 7. of Appendix l j amended toad as follows: On r an 3. 1989r it shall be unlawful f re mise or after June lr ortable sign on any pre person tc mainaavalid registration tag affixed thereto without having as required herein. ;*;nn for ea atratl4II• To register a (a) nonconforming Portable sign, application shall be ding Official, on forms provided for made to Buil application shall be accompanied that purpose. The eat of the applicable fee and shall by the paym the contain the name and address of the owner date of the signo sign, the exact locatoio~et (information reasonably placement, and any other required by the Building Official. If the Building e o Reatat ation~4• portable sign is a (b) Official determine! that lawfully nonconforming portable ign, he shall iss:ie a registration tag to the applicant. The owner of affixed in a the sign shall cause the tag to o be be portable sign conspicuous place to the corresponding registered. • Any owner who removes (o) validly registered al of causes the ortable sign from any premise shall, nonconforming p SIGNS/Pegs 14 r } ( t within five (5) business days of its removal, report the removal to the Building Official. (d) Invalidation of Registration. The Building official shall invalidate any registration tag for a nonconforming portable sign when; (1) It is removed from the premises for any reason. (2) It has been dauaged or destroyed so as to lose its nonconforming status as provided in this article. (3) It has become an abandoned sign. ,"rj10N XVII. That Appendix Illustration go. 14a, of Appendix B-Zoning 14', amended to show as follows; I 4&.SETSACKS GROUND SIGNS to Felt NOM-RESIDENTIAL.* sTSe~T SACK 0/ ZYRN * RfeW9W" SMACKS ON MALI OF TRN NOY~IaO FRONT YARD. ~ E I SIGNS/Page 15 r . .i r f,CTION XIFF. That Appendix Illustration No. 14c. of Appendix 8-Zoning is amended to show as follows: BER AND 4epNUM PLACEMENT PROPERTY (LIII THAI 111.3 b GROUND SIGNS 41140. 1o• IoYAR4 plot M PROPERTY A. i tloo'♦or r7401/ko11 OR I SION, 120 SQUARE PENT MAXIMUM. 1 1 j I CONS, 40 SQUARE FEET EACH, MAXIMUM. I ~ II SIX I Nam » I W +400' 84PA04T,oN ~i Me I tNAN 6984 STREET FRONTAGE ~ k CTIGN XIX. That the Appendix Illustrations of Appendix S•Zoning are amended to add a new Illustration No. 14e. to show as follows: I ; I 14e.EFFECTIY■ AREA GROUND SIGNS r-wrr +wrq r-.. I 1 rrww• I / 1011 Inactive ARIA / or ?No& 6140 U [ ' 14YARl plot I i i SIGNS/Page 16 ti a S 'r ' r SECTION XX. That the Appendix Illustrations of Appendix B-Zoning are amended to add a new illustration No. 14f. to show as follcws: 14t,EFFECTINE AREA EXCEPTIONS I EI • I 1XCwsls ►ROfI IRewoss ►M i IFFGCTIVI ARIA fFFICTIVI ARIA , ~ I I SECTION XXIC That the provisions of this ordinance are severable and the invalidity of any phrase, clause or part :of this ordinance shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remainder of the ordinance. SECTION XXIi. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sus not exceeding $2000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. ' CTI N xiIiili. That this ordinance shall bacons effective f fourteen (14) days from the date. of its passage, and the City secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance SIGNS/page 17 '6 A 1 " 79 a p ~ to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the offfi the newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (1o) days date of its passage. , J PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1999' RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR i f ATTEST: JENNIFER W1ILTER3, CITY SECRETARY + i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY Byl . i I I SIGNS/Page 18 4. l t a37L N0. „~'!dQ(p AN ORDINANCE REPEALING THE EXISTING ARTICLE 17 AND OTHEP• PROVISIONS RELATING TO SIGNS AND REENACTING A NEW ARTICLE 17 OF APPENDIX B- ZOUING Of THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATING OP SIGNS ASO THE PERMITTING THEREOFr PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS (:1,000.00) FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOFI PROVIDING FOR A SEVERASILITY CLAUSEr REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT THEREOFr AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFLC'TIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Oenton finds tnat the regulation of the sine, Location, nelght, use, maintenance, construction and placement of signs and otner outdoor advertising h devices and structures is necessary to prevent impediments and dangets to drivers eno pedestrians upon and along City streets, t sidewalks and esssmentsl and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton finds that the v use of signs and otner outdoor advertising devices and structures, if unregulated, can, because of tneic numote, placement, and i cnaracteristics, adversely affect property valuesr aesthetically damage the overall envicoriaentl create an unfavorable ouslness climate wnicn hampers attempts to attract and retain destraole coamerciel and cusiness enterpcisasi and foster conditions that lesson trio enjoyment and destraollity of the city of Denton as a place in wnicn to visit, Live and wocAl and WHEREAS, the city council of the City of Denton finds that poctaole at moolle signs present special traffic narards when towed on public streets or displayed on or along public rights-of-wayr act as tmpediments to the effectiveness of the police and fire departments in. pecformtng tnair dutlesr present dangers to the nealtn, safety and general welfare of the cititans of the City of Denton oecause Of their mooility and pcopehslty to ae clown aodut if not property anenored, and, if ltghted, present special maxards. of electrical use not found in Other signal and WHEREAS, article 1175 (2e), Texas Revised Civil Statutes specifically enumerates at one of the powers poefeased Dy the I a City of Denton is tnv autnotity to regulate, license and control ac promo:t the erection of signs and billocardsr NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS] SECTION I. Tnat article 17 of Appendix s-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances of tae City of Denton is hereby in all tnings repealed. SECTION II. That a new article 17 of Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Orainances of the City of Denton is nereey adopted to neceafter coda as follower ARTICLE 17. SIGN REGULATIONS A. General provisions 1. Purpose a Intent 2. Definitions 1. Signs Not Regulated E t. Pconioited Signs S. Administration a Enforcement e. Permits C. Portaole Signs D. Aegulation of Signs oy toning Districts E. Regulation of Attached Signs 1. Removal of unlawful sigma G. Special provisions 1. ,canner of measurement 2. Setoack Clearance Zone 1. diyns on certain Hignways 1. Clearance from Electclcal Lines S. Temporary a Political Signs 6. Sign Maintenance 7. Identification of Signs H. Nonconforming Signs I. Special Exceptions Allowed Historical Landmark Signs Conflicting Pfovislons A. GENERAL PROVISIONS i 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this article to regulate the construction, erection, placement, mdlntenance, use and removal of private signs within the City of Denton, Texas. 4 I j It is the Intent of this article to regulate Signs generally by classifying each sign according to its design and constriction and cy regulating, cased on swan classification, the type, numoer, sire, nnelgnt and SetoacK of signs according to tneir location In the various zoning districts. It is ALSO the intent and determination of the City Council tnae tnese regulations ee and are the minimum necessary ana least burdensome to accomplisn the purposes heratofoce states. i 2. Definitions. Tne following words, as used in tnis article, snail nave the meanings respectively ascribed to tnem, as foilowas (al "Advertising" mall mean to east the attraction or to direct the attention of the public to any location, event, person, activity, goods, services, or meccnendise wnateoevec. (o) "Business Purposes" snail mean the use of any premise, building, o: structure, permanent or temporary, foe trio purpose of conducting any .mmacclal enterprise or activity. ~ (c) "Curb line' snail mean an imaginary line drawn along the outermost pact or bacK of the curb and gutter on sitner aide of a public street, Or, It tneca is rid curs and gutter, along the outermost portion of trio paved roadway, or, if tnere is no paved roaaway, along the sage of the traveled portion of the roadway. (d) "Effective area" means tee area enclosed oy the minimum imaginary rectangle oc vertical and noctsontal lines wnich fully contains all extremities of a sign (Oc signa), exclusive of Its supporting structure. :n le rectangle is to be calculated from an octnagraynie projection of the sign viewed nocizontelly. A viewpoint for tnis projeetLOh is to be tAKen wnleh gives the 141- goat rectangle of that Kind, as the viewpoint is totatea norlsontally around tae sign, 19 elements of the sign E are movAble at flexible, as a flag cc string of lignts, the measurement shall be taKSn wnen Ina elements ace fully extended and parallel to the plena of view. M (e) "Non-Aesidentiai toning District, means any coning + district designated as a p, 0, NS, CA, Co Ll or At If` district as mown on the official coning district map of ens City of Denton. R (f) "Owner" means a person wno nas legal titLe, control at possession of property. (9) "Pcemise" Snell mean a lot, p.hccel or tract of teal pproperty as mown on a plat approved in accordance with Lav and filed witPk the County ClecK's office or in un- platted tract of la;rl as conveyed dy deed or operation of law and recorded in the official deed records of tr,e county ClecK's office. I r Y y. e 1 (n) 'Residential toning Distclct" means any coning district designated as an A, SF-1, SF-10, SP-11, SF-161 t-r, MF-R, M!-1 cc Ml-1 district as shown on tie ofticial toning district map of the City of Denton. (s) "Side Yard SetQ4ck Lines" mean the lmaginacy lines dc+wn parallel to the side yard lot line or property lines on a peamist wnlcn delineate the minimum required side yard ate&$ toe that premise. (0) "Sign' snail mean any flag, lignt, picture, oalloan, letter, word, message, symoal, p uque, oillucaed, poster, painting, wind device, of similar device ac oo)ect designed or used for advertising. i rot purposes of tats article, particular types of signs are fuctner defined attain as followst i (1) -Attached Sign' shall mean any sign attached to, an or supported cy, any pact of a ouildinq (such as a wall, root, windov, canopy, awning, or marquees f which encloses at covers usable space. Nall signs, coot signs and pro3ecting signs snail oe considtrea ateaened signs, (1) "D1Lapidated cc uetRriocated Sign" shall mean a algae i (aa) gates elements of the surface cc background can oe seen as vLewed !core tie normal viewing distance Itntenaed vLewinq distance)P to nave portions of tat finished material ac paint flaked, croken oft, or Mis a ng$ at oenerwise not in nacmony with the ctet of the surfaces or i (00) waste tae structural support of frame memters are viably dent, broken, dented, or tochs or (cc) where the panel is vlsioly cracked or in the cast of woad and similar products, splintered in such a way as to constitute an unsigntly or natmtul conditions or (ad) mere ens stgn, or its elements its twLstea at leaning or at angles otnec tnan tnote at wnL-m it was originaliv erected (such as day result team 0eing 010% the fatluce of a structural support)? cc (ee) waste tie eessage or wording can no longer oe clearly read cy a person witn normal eyeslgnt under normal viewing conditions. (3) "Ground Sign" snail main a sign whose principal support to provided cy ourying, anchoring or otnet- wise connecting the sign, 0c supporting structure theeeot, to the ground in such a manner as not to at easily or qui:xly etmoved cc relocated, and wnicn is not a stake Agn, portaole sign of attached sign. (11 "Oft-Pr#mioe Sign' shall mean any sign advertising a 041intts, activity, goods, products or setvicet not usually located on the preuiatt wnere tie sign is located at watch direct$ persons to any pedialst atilt than warm such sign is located. I 1 } f l (S) "On-Premise Sign' Snail mean any sign advertising the business, person, activity, goods, products ac sec- vices primarily located, sold or offered for sale on tae premises wnere toe sign is located. A sign wan w a pramotes ar displays a political, religious or taeo- logical tnougnt, belle!, opinio,, or otnec noncommer- cial message snail oe considered in on-premise sign. (6) 'One Sign' or "A Sign' Snell mean any number of signs iocatea on cc supported ay a single supporting structure, (T) "Particle SLgn" shall mean a sign wnoss principal suppoctinq structure is intended, by design ac foe suu ort and wnlch used may easilhgdo uicnial gmovId support Y Y anq Y or relocated for reuse. Portable signs small include, but not o• limited to, signs mounted upon or designed to as mounted upon a trailer, omen, vnaled carrier cc other non-motorised ,tootle structure with or vita- out wmeelas and A•teams signs and other similar signs, cc supporting structures cnereof, costing or leaning on ens ground or other structures, but not permanently attached thereto. (s) "Projecting Sign' email moan any sign which if wholly affixed to, or w ppocted by any auLlding wall, and wnicn extends beyond the building wall more tnan twelve (1301 Inches. (9) "Root sign" small mean any sign wholly erected un, affixed to, constructed on, maintained upon, supported ay, or located upon any cool of any building. (10) 'stake sign' small mean a sign wnoss principal sup- potting structure is so designed or smspod, usually by making one and pointed, so as to as ectcted Ana used by pusningp pounding, namm6rlnq or forcing it into the gcodnd so as to allow quick and seal place,eent, removal of relocation. (11) 'Wall Sign" small mean any sign wholly affixed to, suppported by, or painted upon the well of any buildingp and wnicn is not a projecting sign. (k) 'supporting structuro, mums any polo, Post, cools, ac Other structural fixtures, or pacts, so accanged or used so as to mold, eecuce or support a alga, at Pitt thereof, and wnich is not imprinted of 1604101 with any pictucos, symbols, lattice, numcors, or worms In execs of one inch in netgnt, not to internally of decoratively illuminated. (1) 'Hind Covic40 moans any flag, aannoco ponmant, streamer of similar d4vieo tnot moves freely in the air. 11 slams Not Rwulated. Tne following types of a/qhs snail ae exempt tram the pcovislons of this articles (a) ov rumen al n Any sign *tooted or maintained pue- euant to an In dleemacge of any governmental function or whim is rsyulred by law, ocdinanes or governmental regulation, (o) Railway Sl ns. Any sign within or on railway property an placed or maintained in reference to the operation of such railway, PA(3L S { V i . (e) utility sigma. Signs marKinq utility or underground C OmmuniCatiOn ur transn19si0n Iine S• Id) VeAtele Signs- Signs displayed or used upon vehicles, tra► ers or aircraft, unless such veniole, trailer cc aircraft on wn►en such sign is displayed to pei,:.anently stationed at regularly used at a fixed location to serve the same or 9►m►lar purpose of a permanent or poctaole sign not affixed to a vehicle, tesilet or aircraft. (e) Sl ns Noe vislol• iron Street. Any sign wnere no part o such asgn is vis o e tom any puolle strut. (i) Holida or Aeli ious Signs, Temporary holiday or ce 9[9149 Signs without commercial advertising. (ql Si ns on P rSons. Hand meld signs, at signs, symools or imp •ys on persons or animals. ' Ina unused signs. Signs oeinq manufactured, transported or store an not being used, in any manner or form, for purposes of advertising. i Ill Ply. Commemorative plaques of eecognired historical j eoeiee a and organlsaelons. , UI Private Sraffic_Cont_r_ol, On-promise signs which direct the mow menc o nr± c on private property (sucn as t entrance and exit stgns), or warn of oostaelu , averneau clearances, of control patxingl provtdea that such signs I are less tnan 10 feet in erfeetive etu, ate less than 6 fast In height, and ate not placed so as to interfere with the safe movement of venlcles or pedestrians. (k) Hail boxes. Nsr,spapsc Aacks. Signs located on mail Malt newspaper van ►ng macntnes and curoside rear dential newspaper holders wnian identify tae owner and &adseas of the premises or the name of the newspaper sold or sueerioea toi provide, that such devices are not placed so as to interfere with the gate movement of pedestrians of vshicular traffic. Signs I11 Si ns on Outdoor MaentnN device and Equipment. ocatea on, attached hed to or paints uyyon macntnes, devices and equipment located or used 9uedoats wnieh do not generally advertise the ousine a where such macntnes, devices and equipment ace used or located out do, In regard to mute macntnes, devices or equipment, Identify its teademarK, ttadename or manufadtureri give the name or cost of the product or service provided tnateftoml or give the operating instructions therefor. Suen msenlnes, aevtees and equipment snail include, out not at limited to, coin-operated vending macntnes, fuel dispensing pumps, telephone 990tns or facilities, auto' matia teller macntnes, automotive vacuum cleaners, and owner similar salf•setvice outdoor macntnes, devices at equipment. i. Prontotted 6tdns, it snail at unlawful fat any parson to erect, conatruet, maintaln, reconstruct, place, locate of maKe use of any of the following signs for Advettisinq p14rpoe4at (a) Signs on Peivaee PtoDaety_ Without onsent Of Omer. Igns orate oa pTaee property w thou[ the eonsene ' of the owner of said pesmisos. (o) Parking and Maneuvering Areas. Signs wnicn ago located in it. tntei Ores with the ise of a raqulrea off-street packing space or maneuvering area. (c) Unsafe Signs. Signs wnicn ale, or eecoma aetectorated, diiaptaa~u a oc in danger of falling at otnerwlso unsafe. (d) 11 ns on Puollc Pco aft Signs on, over, or w►tn►n a puo is s uet, siaewa k, alley, street lamp, utility polo, nyoeant, tree, sntuo, bridgo, ouilding or structure, traffic or street sign or device or otnec puolic Propettyi pcovidod, now vac, that to a provision small not apply to projecting signs in central Ousters alstctcts as specifically pacmltted in tnis article it signs that are used to advertise annual community events for a temporary period of time for wnicn tno city council has given its express consent. i le) Codo Com liance. signs which do not comply with any app icaa a provision of a ouilding code, electrical code, Of otnec applicable code or ordinance of the City. I If) Trees and Sneuos. signs located on traps and sncuos. 14) Motion Signs, Signs wnicn employ a stereoptican or moe on p 'tore machine. i (n) Sl ns 1 11 osCU~rnor Intec[erine Mich Vtew, signs located or 30 mat Ina In sicn a manner as to ooseuta of atnee- wise interface with the offectivenoss of an official traffic sign, signal or device, or so as to oastruct or Interlace with ens view of a delver of approacning, emerging or intersecting traffic, at eo as to prevent any trawler on any street from obtaining a clear view of approaching veniclos for a 'tatance of 150 fast along the street. (►I Pro er Snielain~ of ignted si.~. Signs containing it mak Sig use o ignes wn cn ace not effectively shielded as to prevent beams or rays of lignts from oetng directed at any portion of the traveled way of a puolic street or wnicn ate of such Intensity or atilliance, regardless of use, directions at aniflaing, so as to likely impair or interface with the vision of any driver of arty motor venicle upon a public street, U1 11as9llnkina oe rwelin L Sits. Any Sign wten asrit-Sig, o nk ng or trave nq gnts, escspt temporary Cncistmas lights or signs wnicn nave a moving message uc wnicn have aitomaticaily changing messages. j S. Administration and Enforcomont. Tne ouilding Official snail I enforce and administer the provisions of this article. The Building 09fidlal or City Manager may dolagate tna duties and pawocs gcantad to and imposed upon the Building Official by trill article. e. PERMITS 1. Permit Kacuiced for Slgms, It small Oa unlawful foe any person to plaCer locate, ereCt, COAAMICt, reconstruct, alter, P 5 5 1 L F A 1 4" I I matncain, or make uae of any etgn flat exempt from regulation, wttnout naving first secured a written permit for sucn sign er0.m the Building Oftlctal, eH:ept as otnerwLSe provided in tnis article. 2, fxceotions to Permit Requirement. Tile following types of regulated signs small as exempt from trio permit requirements of this article, out must comply wltn all other applicable regulations of tats uticlai (a) Legally nonconforming signs as defined in this article I (o) Mall signs, legal notices and building address numoers (c) State of national flags (d) Signs painted on glass surfaces of windows at doors (e) Portable signs ' i (f) Btaxe signs 33 J. Application Procedure. Tile application for a sigd per.eit i II I j small be submitted on such forms as the Building Official may pro- scribeand snall'be accompanied by such infotmation, drawings and deactiptive data as requited by the Building Official to insure proper regulation of the sign and to insure compliance wttn tills article. ~ i 1. Permit Pee. If tme plans and specifications for a sign set forth in any application foe a permit Conform to all of the cequiremento of tills article and any otnet oralnance or law applicable thereto, the duilding Official snail, upon payment of the following tee, issue the appeoprlste permits Wdetive AM sign($ L roe 0 to 50 $15.00 over 90 to 100 10.00 over 100 to 100 25,00 over 200 to 100 10.00 over 300 to 100 $0.00 over 100 75,00 S, Quration of Permit. Unless otherwise revoked, all permits issued far signs small be valid for in indefinite period of time, except as bthetwise provided for in this aittbls. -T--T s rl j ' b. Revocation of Permtt: AopmaIs. The Building Official is hereby granted the power to revoke any and all sign permits for violation of any provision of this article. Any permit holder i wishing cc appeal the decision and order of the Building Official revoking a sign permit, may appeal the same to the Board of I~ I Adjustment in accordance with she laws, ordinances, regulations and procedures governing other matters appealed to the Board. C. PORTABLE SIGNS 1. Roxulations Apoliceble to all Portable Stoma. In addition to all other applicable provisions, the following regulations shall apply to all portable signs in all zoning districts: a (a) Plaahint Lichee Prohibited. No portable sign shall be used so so-to mT`use o anyy flashing or intermittent ' ` lights on or in conjunction vlth such sign. r (b) Sisne Anchored. All portable signs used for advertis- ing puposes, when not to transtt, shall be securely I anchored, so as to prevent overturning or unsafe move- ment, the, sufficiency of such anchorage to be determined ` by the Building Official. (c) Naximuse Size,. No portable sign shall be used for I a vere a ng which is in excess of 72 square feet of I effective area. 2. Number of On-Premise Portable Stans Limited. No person shall place, erect, maintain or make use of, at any one clam, an any one premise, more than two (2) on-premise portable signs for f purposes of advertising of an effective area of 23 square teat or Items or more than one (1) on-premise portable sign for purposes Of advertising of an effective area of more than 2S square feet. j D. ResuIation of Off-Preatio Portable Sians, The, following I regulations shall apply to all off-prmmiso portable signs wood for advertising: (a) Number Waite . No person shall erect, mslatain or make, use o more en six off-premise portable signs at any one time to advertise, identify or otherwise give infor- mation ralatin, to the business, activity, went, Ono business, state oracommarcial iitabiiihmine d At any I (b) S seta No person shall place, erect, Mika use, of, or ma Aca o an oft-premise portable ILIA within 250 feet of II t I I' t I • ano taer orE•premiye portable sign. In computing ene spacing requirement, the measurameme snail at made parallel to n m.* arest curb lino and on ene mama side of the e att:At Icl Ldentifleation, Sig Tne owner o! an oL!-Atemis• n she cause teen sign to oe conspacuousl laaoled at marked pottaole telephone numoer witn "a ownerls name, address and , (d) Aegistet To as r or maintainin Every sigh owner placing, using keep a currant rim oft- premise pottaoie sign small dates wneh, and gister of book snowing the date or loca sign is placed at usedn Of, tme premises where sucn register A sign as oeinq used""on small record or at a premise vmen sucn sign was n4 date or dates or Snalln maxiulsw A to rkeep a current register or Ecoog Building official egister or book available to the at city enforcement personnel for j . inspection, upon demand, At any reasonable time. E 0. RtGULATZON Of SIGNS Sy ZONING DISTRICTS Tne following regulations APPLY to specified sigma in the specified Zoning districts. 1. Residential Oisetiees. Tne following regulations snail APPLY to signs in all residential toning districts, (+1 ?}C~. Roof, projecting, portaoie or oft- are ptonibited. Premise sting (o) He n No sign snarl nave a greater nu cot. qnt than IS (a) 9186. No sign snail nave an effective area greater than SO equate feet. (a) otDack, All ground signs snail maintain a .tini,rtu,a utanee or setback from ene curb line wnlen a equal to of greater tman one•nalf of ene required front yatm setback fat trio premise wnere the sign is located! ravided, nowevar, that no ground signs snail of to ocated as to as within any puolic rignt•of•way, (e) umb , Only one gqround sign small 04 Located on one Petal!*, except as followsi ( Ill MY premise fronting more than one public street, nlcn ►s not an alloy, small be allowed to make use of one ground sign an eacn separate street frontage, (I1 Any promise which has mote than 100 toot of pualio sing ALLOYS) mayeMake ueeh of nana, uadditional t (excluding tot escn additional 100 foot of ftcntigoo so` fraction there01, I, Non•Risidenelal 0 acct..■, Tne following regulations small Apply to Signs in non•tosldential Zoning districtei Y t ro~ • (a) TYpe• All types of signs ace permitted. (o) Height. No sign, which is not a coot sign, mall nave neignt greater than 40 het, except tar signs locate( along interstate 3S as permitted by G. 3 of this article (e) Sire. No sign snail nave an effective area greater tear =Square het, except tot signs located along Inter- state 35 as permitted by G. 1 of tots article. (d) SetoacK. (1) All ground, portable, stake and protecting st4ms 1 snail maintain a minimum distance or eetoacK troll the curb like, ■s determined by height and effective area, in accordance with too foilowingi I Minimum Setback (ft) 10 30 0 0 30 Nelgnt (ft.) 20 0 i 0 0 20 30 0 so 00 , 400 I 6t fictive Area (sq.rt.) (2) All ground signs, in addition to meeting the required setback requirement, snail oe so located as not to be within any public rignt-of-way. j S3) In determining the required setbACK, the measurement of trio height or effective area of too sign wnien would require the 994ataat WCACK snail of 141441 provided, nowevec, that, if the dotecmining notgnt oe effective aces measurement is A dimension that separates two different latoaeK requirements, too least testeiCtive 2atC4CK SMALL 00 USOG, (e) NUmbar. only one ground sign, or supporting structure tnereof, snail of located on any one premise, except as fotlowr (1) Any premise fronting more tnan•Ome p40110 street, wntcn is not an alley, snail is allowed to make vs* of one ground slyn for each separate street frontage. (3) Any peemise wnien nu more than 100 toot of pu01le street frontage on any one street (excluding Alleys) mayy MAKI use of one additional ground sign for 44en additional 100 feet of frontage, or fraction tnereaf. (3) wheel any premise contains more than one lawfully permitted business or use in divided buildings, earn business or use thereon snail do allowed one or more on-premise signs on the permitted supporting struetura. j 3, planned Development, tstcica4. Ina regulations fat slims located in planned development soning districts shall 04 contained in too ordinance at site plan Approved for too disteiotl peov/dod, nowevet, should too regulations for signs as omitted from An f I V i k ordnance or final development plan approved for a planned develop- meat district, the sign regulations that would oe applieaole co the most restrictive comparsole aching district CSassiflcattonS, cased upon the land uses permitted therein, as determined ay the Director of the Department of Planning and Community Develop. nt, small ea applied to the district, or pact thereof, wneceln such regulations were omltteo. I i 1, Central Business Districts. The following regulations Snail. apply to signs in Central Business Zoning Districts, f lsl Rlgne-o!•a+v Llmltatton on pro]ect1rng !tans. No pro7ee- j sing eTyn s- nelI~pco3eee oc excen to the puolte ctgnt- Q% way for a distance of more than ten feet of within two fees of the nearest curo line, wmtenevec is mote cestctc- ttveo No projecting sign, supporting Structure, cc part tneceof, which extends Into the puolic fignt-of-way snail occupy any of the spats oetween the' ground level and eight feet shove said ground level in said right-of-way. (o) Size. No sign snail nave an effective area greater than TMaquace feet. i Icy Helgnt Limitations, No ground sign, cc supporting structure t eTi cer act snail have a height greater than 4u ~ feet. S. REGULATION GI ATTACKED SIGNS In addition to any other appitcaole ragulatione, the following reyulattans snail apply to the type of sign specified in all coning olstticas. 1, Roo! Signal Pco]ectton. Roof signs, of the eupporttaq Sttuctuts tnereol, snail not extend latefaily beyond the exterior walls, or upward oeyond the highest point of the coot of the biliding on wnica it is located, to a height, as massuced lco,a ground level to the highest pact of the tool, which is greater t•sn specified Delow as lollowsi Number of $factsS Maximum Height One SS% 09 oldg, height Two 761 of oldg, neignt Three to five 301 of oldge height six to nine 131 of oldg. height Ten to fSfteen 111 of bldg. height Sixteen or mote 40 feet i 1 , Prolectino Slane, la) Constcuctton. All pco1eeeta9 signs snail of securely art+"Q to-tna building or structure, lo) Pre eOtton Se and Roo(, A pcolecting sign snail not ue erects on the waZi Of any ouilding eo as to yro)ect above the coo[ or parapet wall, or aoove the coo( level whaea tneca is no parapet wails except, a alto erected age beyond rhos hoe extend hetigahtrnosgntt eanxceledin 9 eg two bu •tgnaen tnenes Oem th• wall, may be erected to a efeel it anbove thlcen c dooe[ or parapet wall or aoove the too[ level wnere tnece to no parapet wall, A sign attached to a corner of a ouilding and parallel to the vertical line of such Cotner, snail co deemed to be erected at a right angle to the ouilding ! wall. (c) Size. Tne total squats footage of all projecting signs TM &L not exceed twenty percent (101) of ene wall area on wntcn such signs are located. 1. Signs on Conotoh 9uildinee, When one or more attached signs are located on a building which is divided and contains more than one business or use, the regulation of such Attached signs $pact- [red riecetn, as to site and projection, small apply separately to the part of the exterior wells which contain that oustness or use. l 1. RL40YA4 Of UNLAWFUL 4113;79 1. Notice and Order. The Auilding Official snap deliver or memo a written notice to the owner of an unlawful sign or ptemisas wnere such sign is located, otdering ene removal of sucn siyh and its supporting structure witnin ten (10) dale of dalivety or mailing of the notice and ocder, for purpo u s Of this provision, the name of the person listed by trio City Tax AAmeemOCNOllector, or other local taxing jurtodtetion, foe tax purposes as the owner y of the premimes where trio unlawful sign to located snail oe { Preswzed to be the owner of such property or the agent for suet I owner and notice mailed or delivered to said person at the address listed shall oa presumed to be sufficient. 2. Rueovalt A Ali. it the person ordered to remove said sign fails to do so witnin trio time apsotfiod, the tuildinq Official may; after twenty (20) days of the date of delivery or matting of tna notice and order, remove or cause said sign to bs removeds provided, nowever, that Any pecson aggrieved oy said order 1 i . F' 1 , may fife an appeal with the Beard of Adjustment in accordance wytn the provisions applicable for otnec appeals from decisions at trio Building Official. to case suCn appeal is timely filed, the procedures applicable to other appeals snail be followed and the order of the Building Official may be stayed in accordance tnereot, 1 pending the final determination of the Board of Adjustment. 3.L'TP-oundment of 3lame Rademotione disposal. Any sign rnich is removed by the dulldinq Official pursuant to these provisions small be impounded and trans ported to, and stored by, the Building Official et a location designated tot sues purpose, Records of where aura signs were located and when removed Small at kept. Tne Building Official small send a letter to trio owner of sucn sign, it known, or, it not known, to the owner or parson In control of trio premises where such sign was located, giving notice of sucn impoundment, i Tha Building Official snail mold the Sign in storage for at least tnirty 130) days after notice of impoundment has coon mailed. Any pottaola sign may be redeemed by the owner upon tma payment of a he to the City at Canton of a total of 325.00 for mauling the same to storage, plus $1.00 per day storage its. Any nonpoctsole sign may of redeemed by the owner upon payment of the cost of removal of and mauling tna tame to storage, as determined by the Bulldlnq Official, plus $1.00 pat day storage fee, Any sign not reolalaed oy the owner tneelof within tnirty 1301 4 days of the mailing of the notice of impounament may as disposed of in accordance with, appliCabla law, a. Reooyecy of Costs, Its upon disposal of an unredeemed i nonpartaoie sign, the Building Official has mat received an amount E sufficient to cover the coat of tomoval and hauling of sucn removed sign, the Building Official shall send notice to the owner of the premiss wnece such sign was located, requesting payment of the removal and mauling costs, less any amount received in disposal of t I I such sign. Any such costs remaining unpaid after thirty (101 lays from the date of mailing of noti:o snail oecome delinquent and small coat interest at ten (101) percent per annum. The Building Official may cause such unpaid and delinquent amount to co assdised against the premises wneca such removed sign was located oy filing and Perfecting a lion against said premises. The cost levied Agalnet said premiaea snail include a !50.00 administration foe. S. Appeal of Cost IMPOSe41 Levied. Any person may contest the rISsonaolonesa of the cost for the removal Of a sign unposed loraindst 0y filing an appeal with the Board of Adjustment within twenty (20) days of the mailing of the notice Of such costs. The Board of Adjustment may either uphold the cos; imposed cy the Building Official or impose and cause to to levied wnatevar cost it I considers to 0e reasonaole. Storage costs imposed nereundsc snail not 0e appealaolo. 0. SPICIAL PROVISIONS 1. Manner of Measurement. (a) So 0a x. To apply the set0acx provlalon of this article or signs at any one point, the following meatycinq procedure snall to used) s (1) Draw an imaginary vertical line extending upward from the cuco line of ens promises) 121 Beginning at ■ny point on tno vertical line, draw an imaginary r.ocisontal line petpend LCUlar to tme votticsl line and cut* line and extending tcwacd the promises) (l) Beginning at the point where the vertical line inacaets the notarontal lino, mouuro along tno noraaontal line for the roquirod a t0acx, (des Appondix Ill,istratton 14x) 101 8e~i9_n_ti. To Apply the applicao.o motInt limitations of to T article at any one point foe signs, of supporting stcuetucoo thereof, which ace not too! ISgms) the following measicing ptoceduto snail as usAd) (1) Draw an imaginary vertical line oxtsmding upwAfd from tno neatest auto lini of the Palle streat fronting the pcadhisesI 111 Beginning 41. tnd Surface level of the cut* lima, measure along the vertical line to a point which is the maximum allowed height for a particular sign of supporting structure) I I p' t I 1 (1) From that point draw an imaginary nortzontal iine perpendicular to the vertical iine towards the premises? (e) Tnis extenced nociaontal line gives the .maximum nelgnt allowed at tnat location for a particular sign or supporting stcuctu re, (See Appendix Illustration 14o). (c) effective Area. In determiner the st g effective area of s 9n wnere more than one sign to locate sin d or affixed to a Ole auppoctinq structure, all signs loci u d enere- on or affixed tnereto shall ce included and measured together as tnouqn tney were one sign. 2. $attack clearance tone, in all Zoning districts, except Central Business Districts, all ground signs 'hall at so located that no part of the effective area of seep sign shall Occupy the I Space, (as determined in the same manner Eoc measurinq neignt and seteacx for signs), oetwten two and ten feet 4n nu qnt within ! fifteen feet of ens curb line of any public street. (See Appendix Illustration 14c.) Tne supporting structure of sucn sign may occupy sucn space to an extent no greater than two square feet In area, such area to be determined in the same manner as for effective area of signs. 1. Signs on Carta in Highways. (a) Tne provisions of tnid article shall apply to all signs along the interstate and primary system of nighways, as defined or designated oy state cc federal laws or requ- lotions, within the City only to the extent that sucn ' provisions are not in conflict with the Federal Hignway Beautification Act, (2] V.S.C.A., Sec. 111, et seq), including all amendments tnereto, or Article IV ("High- way duuttficatioO) of the Litter Acatement Act (article 4477-08, Texas Revised Civil Statutes), Including all amendments tnereto, or any regulation reds pursuant to w cn Acts oy governmental agencies. (o) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, ! on-pcemise ground signs in non-resldential Zonuig districts wnicn are located within the "controlied area" along Interstate Highway !S (and iSC and 35W) regulated by the foregoing federal or state laws or regulations, may, if not prohibited tneceoy, to constructed to a maximum hgight of 60 feet and a maximum effective area of 672 aqua N feet. Tilt Building Official may require, prior to issuance of a permit for sucn sign, a certifi- cate from a licensed engineer rectifying tnat the proposed sign is so designed to oe in compliance wttn the wind or other design requirements of the Unifocm Building Code, le) All sign permits issued by the Building Official pursuant to this article shall contain a notice advising the I IL I 1 E nP f permitter chat signs located along the interstate or primary system of ntghways may or regulated oy federai or state law or regulations and a permit may ee reguicea from another governmental agency, e. Clearance from Elecerieal Lines. Signs shall oe located a minimum distance of six feet measured norirontally and twelve feet measured vertically from overnead electrical conductors wnicn ace energized in excess of 750 volts. Tat term 'ovecr,ead conductors• as used nerein means any electrical conductor, either case or insulated, installed aoove the ground. 5. Temporary and Political Stans. Sal Temporary real estate sales and development, temporary political, occasional sales and other special use signs wnicn acs used for, or relate to, a particular purpose or event shall co removed oy tot owner of the premise on wnicn they are located after ten (10) days of the date of the accomplisnment of the purpose for wnich they are sed at ne occurrence of the event to which they refer u or colat4. I~ (a) In the cams of temporary to wnicn a sign cetera it notcplacednon a e candidate the owner of tee premise tneceof, shall of ian l ' for the removal for such signs within ine time spspectftteaol aoove. (cl Stake of poctaole signs, wnicn relate to a candidate or issue to be voted upon by a political party at at a puolte election and are 32 square feat or leas in effective area, may of erected witnout limit as to numbers provided, tnat such signs comply wttn All otner 'C applicable requirements of this article. 6. Sion ,talntmnance. All signs and supporting structures shall 4 ce kept in good repair, condition and appearance. All faces, Dolts, I supporting frames and fastenings snall oe free from deterioration, M insect or rodent Infestation, rot or loosening. Painted signs wnten are faded oc ooscuced because of weatner or time shall be repainted i or redone or painted over so as to be nest in appearance. 7. Identification of Siang. Every oft-premise sign snail at plainly marked at all times, in a location to as to be conspicuous and easily identifiable, with the current name, address and tele- phone number of the owner or 101ses of the sign, H. NONCONFORMING SIGNS 1. Applicebllity, Tne provisions of this article, defining and regulating nonconforming signs, shall control over any other con- I i ~i ti p fltcting provision of Appendix a-Zonis g of trio Code of Ordinances. 2. Defined. A sign, incluoing its supporting structure, .nail be considered noncohfocmLng wnen it does not conform to all or pact of the provisions of this article applicaole thereto, is nor a stake sign, ands (a) was in existence and lawfully located and used on the effective date of this article; or (b) was in existence and lawfully located and usea in accordance with the provisions of trio prior ordinance applicaole thereto, or which was considered legally nonconforming tneceundec, and has since teen in continuous or regular use= or (c) was in existence, located, and used an the premises at the time it was annexed to the City of Denton and nas since been in regular and continuous use. 3. Registration Required. Within one nundred and eighty days i ~ 1 (Ld0) of the effective date of this article, every owner of a l nonconforming sign shall file with the Building Official, on forms i provided for that- purpose, a notice that tee owner has a sign whica (i qualifies as a nonconforming sign, as defined neceln. 5ucn notice shall contain the name of the owner of the sign, the location, description, type of sign, and date of erection, and any otnec infocmatlon required by the Building Official to determine If one sign is legally nonconforming. Zf the Building official is satisfied, oased upon the information supplied, that the sign is a lawfully nonconforming sign, me snail approve sucn notice, suppif the owner with in approved copy, and file the notice as a record !f with nil office. 4. Presumption. Any sign which does not conform to the regulations of this article and is not properly registered as a legally nonconforming sign as provided foe neceln, shall ee V presumed not to of a legally nonconforming sight provided, novever, that the owner of any sign that is determined not to Comply Wien the provisions of the article, may, at any time, present avidence to trio Building Official that the sign is a Legally nonc0nformin9 sign, and the Building Official shall, if satisfied that the IL94 6 1 is a legally nonconforming Sign Cased on the evidence presented, allow the sign to oa registered as a legally nonconforming sign. 5. OeatCUCtrdnt Regaic. (a) Any nonconforming sign, including its supporting structure, which is destroyed, damaged, dilapidated or r deteclocated, snail not oe replaced, repaired, or renovated, in whole or in pact, if such replacement, i repair or renovation would require an expenditure of monies in excess of sixty percent (601) of trio repro- duction Cost of a new sign, including its supporting structure, which is suostantially the same oc similar to the nonconforming sign oestcoyed, damaged, dilapidated or deteriorated. I Ib) Trio Building official may, whenever he deems necessary to reasonably determine the applicability of the fore- going provision, require the owner of said nonconforming sign to submit two or more independent estimates from established sign companies of the cost of replacing, re- pairing or renovating, in whole or in Batt, the existing f nonconforming sign and two or more independent estimates from established sign companies of the reproduction cost of a new sign, including its supporting structure, which { is substantially the same or similar to the nonconforming sign destroyed, damaged, dilapidated of deteriorated. V) (c) No sign or supporting structure whicn is lawfully reproduced, repaired, or renovated as a nonconforming sign snail be increased in effective area or rieignt. C Relocation of Nonconforming Signs. ttotwitnstsndinq any other provision of this article, any sign which is a legally existing non- conforming sign nereundar may at relocated on the same lot or tract f of land, if the sign is required to oe removed from its present ` location because one property upon wnicn the sign is located is acquired by any governmental agency or other entity which nos or could have acquired toe property through the exercise of its power og eminent domain. Such relocated sign snail be placed, insofar As I possible, As to comply with all the provisions of this article. i 7. Signs Located on Nbndbnfocming Promisee. Whorl, on trio effective dace of enla ordinance, a sign to located on a premise which is a legally nonconforming use of the promise and such sign is used in regard tnereto, the sign oay oe used and maintained tnoceoh, even though it would not be a permitted use, so long AS Such premise is continually ulae as a lawful nonconforming use. 1 i I l L ' t 4 9 i I III 1 1 • 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED ' 1. Tne aOAed of Adjustment may grant a special exception from the provisions of tnis article foe the setcACK or neignt of a nonpoctable sign under the following circumstances, ` (a) Visibility postcuctions. When fifty percent (Sot) or r more oC the a ective area of such sign as located or to F be located in accocda,;ce with the setoacK or neignt r" requirements of this article cannot or would not co visible from at least one 'visibility point` because of ' the location of a building cc structure constructed or erected prior to the effective data of this ordinance. For the purposes of this provision, "vistoility point" snail mean tae viewing locations, at a height of six feet above the general surface level, determined oy extending the required side yard setback lines of the premise on whien such sign is located or to on located so as to intersect the curb line of the public street fronting said peemisei than measuring from said inter- section points along the curb line in the direction of II the nearest side lot line of said lot for a distance of one hundred feet. If the strut fronting said premise allows traffic flow in only one direction, the vrii- j bility point located along the Curb line in the direction from wnicn traffic Approaches said premise 1 small ee used to determine the visibility requirement herein. (See Appendix Illustestloh No, l/d.) I~ (o) Kedical Emer enc 3i ns. when a sign located on the pies se o an emergency medical treatment facility would not, because of me setOACK or neignt requirements of this actlcle, be readily vistole from adjacent public streets. Poe purposes of this provision, "Emergency Medical Treatment Faoility' small mean any hospital, clinic oc other facility wnece .medical aid is offered to a person or animal who suffers an injury or illness wnicn requires immediate medical attention. In granting special exceptions allowed herein, the doatd of iM Adjustment snail specify, uy written order, the particular setbacK h cc the particular neignt that will of allowed and in doing so shall not allow deviation from the provisions of tnis article cayond '+hat j is minimally necessity to remedy the situation allowing foe said special exception. J. BISTORIAL LANOAARK SIGNS Tne provisions of this actlcle snail not apply Insofar as they i conflct with any provision applicable to a sign deslgnated as a historical landmark pursuant to the provisions of article 2dA of I Appendix 0-toning of the Code of Ordinances of tna City of Denton, Texas. I u: 4ai\ r ry, r9 Y 4 r, i , K. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS Tne definitions and provisions of tnis article applicable to signs small control over any otner conflicting definition or provision found in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Taxes. SECTION III. Tnat the Appendix Illustrations of Appendix B-toning of tna Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton are nereby amended oy adding the following illustrations i I } { I a tw.. J i 14. SIGNS 144. X*ASWfdMQMt Of SIt04CK. I I s}rW I a I 1 curb Iins i i i I i i SIGN I I k arf IiM PAGE 32 5: 1 F ! :ic. Secbeek C:ee:eree :ore NCO I e:uare Peer i i 00 ! rf. M. m _ I to Ia. M. Z''J~f i f rsereoer { i ~n ~eH MINI! I Gfe Ilse f 11Q. Vlribiltty Point / 1eaYYrP \ Polar / ~ 5 ! 471'' / li ft / f `dti 'do llreM VirdNMy Oe~M . ri y E.CTION iV. Tnat the definitions of various type signs of article 14 (SI) 1 tnrougn (59.1) of Appendix a-Zoning of ene Coa• of Ordin,nceS 04 the city of contort are nereoy repealed in tnelc entirety; rsid numoeting to oe reserved for future uae. SECTION V. i TMAt article 19 C of Appendix S-Zonrnq of the Code of OralnanCee i of the City of Denton relating to special devaiopment signs Ls net*. or repealed in its enttcetyl Sala paragcapn C to oe reserved for future use. SECTION VI. Tnat article 27 (52) of Appenolx a-Zoning of the Code of Oraii- mantes of the City of Denton definlnq "sign" is nereoy repealed in its entrrstyi Said numoec reserved for future uee. SECTION VII. Tnat Section S-a of Article I of Cnapter S of sae Code of Ofdi- i nanees of the City of Denton relating to per.nits foe signs is nereoy r repealed in its entirety, said SeOtiam ms,aoet to o• reserved foe future uee. SECTION VIII. I i Teat •I, Sign and Identification Uses" Of article 7 of Appendix a-Coming of the Code of Ordinances of the City of 0entan, Texas it repealed in its emttcety. SECTION M Any person who Sna.i erect, construct, ljcate, puce, matmtaln, Keep or max* use of any sign in violation ar any provisions of tnu ordinance of otnecwtse violate a provision of tnis ordinance, oc wme falls to comply tnerwitn or witn any of ene requirements thereof, at of a permit issued tneceunder, small oe guilty of a uAdemdanor i punisnaols cy a time not excsedina One tnousand Dollars (51,000.0d). E Eacn suen person snail be deemed guilty of a separate offense for Qaca and every day of portion thereof during waicn any violation of tnis ordinance is committed, or contimuea, and upon conviction of I j y .q any suen violations such person snail to punisnod within trio limits a0dve. SECTION X. Tnat if any section, SuOSection, paragraph, Sentence, C1aa Se, pnease or word in tnis ordinance, oc application tmeroof to any person or circumstance is meld Invalid cy any court of competent Zurisdiction, sack nolding snail not affect the validity of the remaining portions of tnis ordinance, and the City Council of trio City of Denton, Texas, nereoy deelar a it would nave enacted sucn remu ning portions despite any sucn invalidity. IE SECTION XI. All ordinances or pacts of ordinances in force wnen trio ;to. i ~ visions of this ordinance oacom• effective which ace inconsistent oc in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in tnis ordinance ate nereoy repealed to the extent o' any sucn conflict. SECTION YII. ` h Tnat tale ordinance snail cocome effective fourteen (14) days i ' from the date of its passage and the City Secretary is nereoy Illl aicacteo to cause the caption of tnls ordinance to uo yuolisned twice in the Denton Raeocd-Cnconicle, the official nowsvapor of the City of Denton, Texas, within ton (10) days of the data of its passage. 71C PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1985. l Z aA r Y IT Of DE. N, TEXAS j I ATTESTi CHAMWITZ i CITY SECKLTX17- CITY OP DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS DEBRA AOAHI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY CITY Of DENTON, TEXAS h RYA ~n ; • oSRr )S . i rA L , J e 1 i / SUMRARY Or SIGN ORDINANCt I I I RAs. irPtcrivi I ON It is, I OA-P T Si _ARNA tee. ft. MR CRT I SiTBACR I I PRRM IT I 1 TTpi Or SIGN I R(11 I NRf9t I q l NA I A I NR t R l NR I SIDR YARD I LICINSINO I NO. 1 J R 1 NR I 9RTBACR I Rio l Rip I II Ground - I-35 i yl i yeo i no see i 50 1 250 i 6 i 40 j 1/2 of j 20 j 10 I I required I roe I lea ( 1 per Soo' I I 1 I I I I I 1 112 of I I I 1 Ground - Loos 288 i as f re. i no i n. i 50 ' ISO i 6 i 30 i required i 20 i 10 I rea ! on I 1 per 5001 Ground - other I etraets 1 r.a I res I eo I r.. I ( I 1 1/2 of { 1 1 I I f I I I ~0 i b0 1 6 1 6 I required 1 20 I -10 I ra. I r. 11 per p I I I tRC~ptlon I I I I { 1 I I I t/x of I { I I I I ! required I ) I if 2 cline I ~ 2 .tans for l i no i ree i po ; re. i 1 120 I iS I 15 I - l 20 I 10 I ree 1 ru I are perill portable f no { y I LAW L*v es { no I yea I N/A I 72 N/A j N/A j i,A { 20 I N/A relill no no ) tratlon -1 I t ( ~ j I additional k I I I I I I - I r.gul red f killing Deice { yes I Its { no { yaa I N/A I I I I 1 yes, I I I I I N/A ) VIA I N/A I 20 I xo I to { except I no I I I I I I I I I I I I I national. I 17 retell. I { I I I per year I I I I I ! 1 I I I I state. or I { 30 date each -I I I I I 1 ) j_ __j I I I flu rate i { Stable 1 re. I 1 .,k-, I `ve I It I, 32 I N/A I N/A I 10 I 10 1 N~ I I I no t no I unllasted Projecting I DO ; yen 100 I yen I N/A 10% of j N/A j Not ( I I I N/A 1 N/A I I { I ~ N/A I { ~ yes i yes ; no ]gait 1 I I j ~ I well .pone I area~_ ~ roof I f I I Root j no I yea I no j yes I I I f ! I I N/A i 60 I N/A lot no. 1 N/A I N/A I N/A j yes I I I of I I I { yes no ltnse I I I I I I I.torie.l I I I J I Na11 I res I r■ I we 1 ,01 N/A I N/A I N/, 1 Y/A I N/A I g/A I I 1 no I no I no limit 11) R - Residential Zoning (2) NR - Non-RestdontLat Zoning (3) LHO - Legal Noa-conforming Land loss (4) N/A - Not Applicable 10960 I _J r' SIGN REVISIONS Key provision included in the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation: I 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to erect, place, or locate any portable sign on any premise after the effective date of the ordinance. ` 2. Height of signs in Residential Zoning Districts shall be limited to l six (6) feet. 1 3. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: i (a) I-35 - Maximum effective area - 250 sq.ft. Maximum height - 40 feet j (b) Loop 288 - Maximum effective area - 150 s,q.ft. Maximum height - 30 feet (c) All other streets - Maximum effective area - 60 sq.ft. s Maximum height - 6 feet Exception: Any premise permitted to have more than one on-premise ground sign may, in lieu of erecting any two permitted ground signs, be permitted one ground sign of a Maximum effective area - 120 sq.ft. i Maximum height - 15 feet ` 4. No off-premise signs shall be located within 1500 feet of another off-premise sign on the same side of a public street. 5. No person shall display one or more wind device signs on any premise without a permit. A permit shall be valid for thirty (30) consecutive days. No more than 3 permits for any one premise shall be issued in any one year. 6. Two ground signs which are used to display only a national or state flag shall be permitted per premise without regard to other provisions of the ordinance, and one ground sign which is used to display a registered corporate logo on property osnied or controlled by the corporation. The size and height of these ground signs shall i not be limited unless the corporate logo is displayed alone in which case tte corporate logo shall be limited to a 50 sq.ft. effective area 30 feet in height. 7. All ground signs except those along I-35 and Loop 288 shall be to be construated of atone, concrete, brick, wood, or metal. The face or message portion of the sign may include ple9tic material if it does 1 not encompass more than 802 of the effective area. 1519k. ~ J I I SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Article 17 I Proposed Revisions I State Standards (if applicable) I I Section A.2. Effective area is determined by I drawing the smallest imaginary I Definition of effective area I parallelogram which contains all I I portions of the sign and then I { l Definition of how to determine the I moving the parallelogram around the I + I area of a sign I sign. I 1 I I 1 Section A.2.g I A developed tract under one owner- I I ship or for undeveloped property I I Definition of a premise by plat or by deed or recorded I document if unplatted I 111 Currently defined by plat or if Lot I platted by deed or recorded document i I I I I Section A.2.j. I Add wind device to definition of an I I attached sign Definition of attached sign I I I Section A,2.j. I Add definitions for abandoned signs I and wind device. Definition section I I I I Section A.2.1. ! Move definition I 1 Definition of wind device I I Section A.2.i and J. ± Combine definitions III Proper shielding of lighted signs I and flashing, blinking, or travel- I ing lights I I I 2246s I f l I 'k SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Page 2 Article 17 I Proposed Revisions 3 State Standards (if applicable) I ~ I Section A.2.j. I Add new definition for inflatable I j I signs Proper shielding of lighted signs E and flashing, blinking, or travel- ing lights Section A.2.k. I Add to section that portable signs I are prohibited except for those New section I lawfully placed prior to the amend- ed ordinance ` Section A.4 I Clarifies what is public property I and allows banners over a public Sagas on public property and I street by and with the consent of ` banners over streets must be I the city approved by the Council Section A.6 This provision would require f I an individual to have a license I New section on licensing I before doing any work relating to signs in the City of Denton. Some exceptions are provided. ` Section 9.2.ca Revise to clarify that three grcind j I signs located on premise for a I Revise to clarify number and location I national, state and corporate flags I of a national or state flag on premise I Not included in number of signs per I and corporate flags I premise. Corporate 50 sq.ft.-30' 4 ~ IT Section B.4. I Remove specific fees from this G ' f ordinance and place in a separate Permit Fees are included in Zoning I fee ordinance Ordinance for signs I „ j SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Page 3 Article 17 I Proposed Revisions i State Standards (if applicable) { Section C. I No additional I portable s n would be allowed to be placed in the city, I On-premise I Two (2) with an effective area I All existing signs would be legal I of 25 square feet or lesst or non-conforming signs and could more than one (1) of so effective I remain in the city as long the area of more than 25 equate feet I sign is maintained and to lawfully I placed. I Off-premise I I Six (6) off-premise relating to the I Provisions for registration are I same business, activity, event, I located in Section H.3. product or service, whether one or more, located at any one business, i store, or commercial establishment I + F I I Section D.l.b. I Reduce height to six (6) feet. I ! Residential Districts (Height) I I No sign shall have a height greater I than twenty-five (23) feet. i I Section D.l.e. A ground sign shall be separated I by a minimum 500 feet from another Residential Districts (Number) i ground sign on the same premise. Any premise which has more than one I Any premise having frontage on more I hundred (100) feet of public street I than one arterial or collector frontage on any one street may make I street may make use of one ground E use of one additional ground sign for I sign on each separate street I each additional one hundred (100) feet I of frontage or fraction thereof. I Maintain a 400' separation between signs on the same premise. I k 2246a 1 V SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Page 4 Article 17 I Proposed Revisions I State Standards (if applicable) Section D.l.e. I All ground signs shall be made of I E I atone, concrete, brick, routed wood ! Residential and Nonresidential I planks or beams, or metal, or I j ! Districts I similar materials. Not more than I 180% of the effective area shall be I New section I plastic. I I Section D,2.b. I Reduce the maximum height to 40' I The State Department of Highways and I for property with frontage on I-35 I Transportation has provisions for Nonresidential Districts (Height) I and 30' for property with frontage I off-premise signs along I-35, 380, I on Loop 288. All other signs I and 377. I No sign shall have a height greater I shall have a maximum height of 61. I I than forty (40) feet except for I In lieu of two signs, one sign with I on-premise sigoa along Interstate 35 I a maximum height of 15' is allowed. I I f I ~ ! Section D.2.c. I The effective area of a sign shall I Off-premise signs along I-350 380, I be 250 square feet for property with I and 377 are governed by provisions I Nooresidential Districts (Size) I frontage on I-35, 150 square feet I of the State Department of I I for property with frontage on Loop I Highways and Public Transportation No sign shall have an effective area 1288, and 60 square feet on all other I greater than four hundred (400) square I streets. In lieu of two signs, one I feet except signs along Interstate 35, i 120 square foot sign is permitted, Section D.2 I A ground sign shall be separated I I by a minimum 500 feet from another Nonresidential Districts (Number) i ground sign on the same premise. Any premise which has more than one I Any premise having frontage on more k hundred (100) feet of public street I than one arterial or collector I frontage on any one street may make I street may make use of one ground I f use of one additional ground sign for I sign on each separate street. each additional one hundred (100) feet of frontage or fraction thereof. I Minimum 400' separation of signs on the same premise 2246a 1 SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Page 5 Article 17 i Proposed Revisions i State Standards (if applicable) Section D.2 i Ground signs over 10' in height I New section on distance from a I Sign: Distance: residential property or coning. ! I 1 Illuminated 500' Straight line i Noa-illuminated 100' Straight line I Section D.4.b. The effective area of a sign shall I I be 60 square feet. I Central Business Districts (Site) I Maximum effective area - 400 sq.ft. I Section E.4. I Minimum 20 foot setback. Three (3) I permits per calendar year. No wind I New section on wind devices I device may be displayed for than I 30 consecutive days. f Section G.3. I Delete section all ground signs I State regulations permit off-premise would be covered by other sections I signs with effective areas of 612 Signs on certain highways I square feet and a maximum height of On-premise maximum 672 aq.ft. In , I 42 112 feet. Cut outs may be added not to txceed 20% of sign area or effective area and 60' in height I 807 square feet. I I Section G.3. I Portable or wind device signs I I must be removed within 30 days of Signs on certain highways i the date it becomes abandoned. Replace section with new section I Ground or attached signs shall I on abandoned signs I be removed within 90 days of the i I date of it becoming abandoned by I I removing the supporting structure I E f or painting out or covering the I I face or message of the sign ~rrF ~ I I t SIGN ORDINANCE REVISIONS Page 6 Artf.cle 17 I Proposed Revisions I State Standards (if applicable) I I Section 0,5 I No stake sign shall be larger than I 1 132 square feet and must be at least ,I Temporary and Political Signs 10 feet from the curb line, 4 Signs which are used for or relate to I No more than one off-premise stake I a particular event or purpose shall be I sign advertising the sale or lease I removed by the owner of the premise on i of real property or one real estate I which they are located after 1.0 (ten) { subdivision or development shall be I , days of the date of the accomplishment I placed on any one premise I of the purpose for which they are used I or the occurrence of the event which I they refer or relate. J Section H.3. I Within 90 days of the passage of the ordinance registration I Registration Requirements I would be required of all I 1 { non-conforming portable signs. 1 f` Registration of nonconforming signs was required within 160 days of I Registration to be completed by I the paaaage of Ordinance 85-206. i June 1, 1989. I j 7 I ~ ~ I I h v I I f I { 2246a 1 P I 1 Minutes February 10, 1911 Fags 1 Ms, frock stated that she would like to see a provis tan In the ordinance to encourage developers to preserve trees !n a single family area. Mr, Glssscock stated that the Sam Houston school area was cleared of all the trees and a [ew were planted back. Mr. Claiborne seated that this happened At the Hadpe scboot at well. Ms. Colo stated that she could remember a lot of trees where the office building is built an Teasley Lane. Mr. Holt stated that all the trees In the Noadhllt Apart- pent$ wort dead. Ms, Carson stated that Mr. Cooper is belplna thu :t"." prepare a guide for plantifl and pre• serving treeprovide to developers and others who are Interested. Ms. frock pointed out that Dr. Paul Giesal stated that J ^ moving the lawn kilts new native treas. Hr. Claiborne stated that Mr. gobbing had Informed blot that in San Marcos no trees tan be cut dawn in the flood- . way and that concept Should be Included In this ordinance. Mr. Clark acted that this provision is Included In the drolnage section of the subASvlsion regulations. Mr. Holt stated that what to now Preston Road in the r Highland fork area used to have ate creel and now there are trees. He sold that even if not native there are i to sea. 4'. Ca non stated that the still wilt receive caarents from the ad hoc committer on Friday. She said staff will work with the lepl department to prepare an ordinance for the Commission to consider In March And forward to the city Council. rl, PROPOSED REVISIONS 10 THE SIGN OADINANCE As. Carson stated that the Intent of the stiff Is to l!ief j in overflew of the recoemmndallons by the lesutttlcatloe Task force and another study session will be scheduled. She explained the cbmnaas recommended by the leak Force. 'l Ns, Iracl ogled If bar nnen included glass. No. Carson said yes plus balloons and streaet n that drape on the side of a bulldlnA are else considered portable lions. Mr. Holt filed how this ordinance compared with other cities. Ms, Carson said that mast are not allovinA ' 10,1111, $1so$ and titles ITf fettlnR more confidence with tltltmtimm. She added that San Antomlo was upheld j is court by banning the it po rtllle slonf. Mr. Holt asked a'aout ItouAd flIna. M1, cargo" stated most cities have mmpltatlon dtstences between residential dittrlcto or uses and a billboard And soma have unified systems that require all businesses on a premise to sdvoft-tie em one sign. No, Stock sac nd that tha g1overnment his limited the right L of titles t0 lava rat these afves to ■toy area. C. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SU/DIVISION AND LANG DEy ELOPMENT No. Car aoa explained concept tuba lit ad 1y Dicl Rtleay to hive a sisal and 1:1,i, Subdlelston and the sit arnatln recommended by the star to expand the short face or $imp- titled plat process. j' i I 1 1 fA 4 I 31,~ie9 ' i pur:hase ii IY. Consider oakin a recoaesndacion on a contract for epproriastely ~5A S was for the new rooster Puap Station LM conjunction with the proposed lay Roberts water Plant, STIFF REPORT: Mr. Allison laid the Utility Cepartoant orig- na y wanted to purchase 10 acres but with the difficulty in negotiating, a 15.95 acre tract was agreed upon. He laid the Utility 0apar sent staff recommends approval as they were able to stay under the budgated amount and would like to get approval from the Commission. C W SIGN: Mr. Classeock mowed to recosmend approval of the par- cif aE appraftma m y iS.9S acres Eor the new looster pucep Statica. Seconded by Mr. Samoan and unanimously carried (S•u). Y, Discussion of Mouse till 1, "State and Local Permits". mi. !rack referred to the memorandum in the packet and said the purpose was to Inform the Co ulsstomers of the till. Vt. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson. Mr. Kansan moved to postpone the eloctlon until all C a else stoners were present. Seconded by sir. Engelbrecht and ' unanimously allied (S•0). Ytt. Adlourn to a work scansion to discuss amendments to the sign or leaner. I Ms. Brack explained to the Commiesiomets the altersatirmm that they could take In either making a decision or hate`` am erd- j inanco completed and making changes to the draft ordtnmoce. Ms. track 4.~cussed the proposed revisions from the current ordinance as (Ottawas SoctiON • Etcmptloas to hr►it RoOulrements , Tor-ta e s =as are cutreetly except from permit requirements. PROfOSRD RRY►StONt A permit aid one for portable signs iOYLG 90 tequ rc . the existing portable signs would also be required to rellster slid resty the permit annually In order to aaln ale the legal Aon•eosfore(ag status. Se C • Os-lruiss wo Wilk as affective aree of twesty•fivr square fret or less, or mere this men (1) of an offactir0 atca of more than twesty•flwe equate foot. . PRO►OIBD ar!15101_11 Ose (1) oil-promise portable figs 1 a w f•/nitre { S3iiSeT[•prealee relat►mg to tke same business, activity, erase redact or service, whether one or mere, located at any estab~l~kaat. P ►0R01108111 Arl UUI No o:f•prulre portable $tgns are oil - 110mreeidemtlel Districts (Mellht) I e e s all have a heilkt getter tkan forty (10) feet I oicep~■ Silas O mks Caters ate SS. F . 1 Reduce the maxima height to thirty as I -45• r rG i• Section D.2 • Nonresidential Districts (Site) .o it n shall have an effective area greater thin four nuns dred 1100) square feet except signs along Interstate 3S. AROAOSED REVISION: The effective area of a ground sign s a a squats feet. STATE STANDARDS: Signs along 1.35 are governed by Section LAT.-'~Y~arisions to lect those of the State Departeenc of Highways and Public Transportation. Section 0.2 - Nonresidential Districts (Number) ny pree se which has more than one hundred (100) feet of public street frontage on any one street may make use of one additional ground sirn for each addlttonal one hundred (l~G) feet of frontage or traction thereof. PROPOSED REVISION: A `round sign shall be separated by a ■ n gut five un red (100) feet from another ground sign on the isms premise. Section 0.2 Distance frog a residential property or toning. -so -7-t 3 s. PROPOSED REVISION: Up to 100 square feet: SI■ns Distance: I Illuminated 500' Radially ' Non-Illuminated 100, Straight line 100 square feet or greeter: i Silo: Distances Illuminated $00' ladially Noa•llluminated 200' Straight line Section G.5 Temporary and Political Signs gas w c are used for or relate to a particular event or purpose shall bm riaoved by the owner of the premise on which they ere located after ten (10) days of the date of the accom- pllshteat of the put Gas for which they are used or the occur- rence of the great which they toter or rotate. PROPOIE REVI IONi A read oppgain banner is pDermitted or tea iLu) ays following tha Is$ Race et a Certilicate of occupancy. Ms. Iroct asked it there were any questions oa any of the Iroposed revUioas. Jtcto~~.a tf_oaLlidontiml Districts (1110) l Qr. lkh si rid-!rise sage Oa g■n wou pertain to thane ales/ 1.31, Mr. Morris stated that the ataee controlled the pate ttiag procedure for algae as Interstate 35. Mr, Ciglbarae asked how such of each side of the read was the 1 state's authorla. Mr. Morris said it was 660 feet trot the j Coster liae of the right-of-way. E nestles D.2 Denruideatlat 0111rlete (Height) oc ms s g City cow rrgu a g 1 ht rgatflt• j sloes along 1.35. Mr. Morris stated that the State's regulations Dave eseeptiene based on the 60411 1$ land cotpatibilitr. No. Carson said the state requires the pro arty to !0 toned Cowerelal (C) and Industrial (I) or to have existing Comeorclal or industrial uses. hr. Robbins added that the city may adopt stricter regulations them the state. -46- t i 1 Ms. Brock asked about the 4eight of the signs. Ms. Carson said the city was set for clxty (60) feet and the states standard was set at forty two and one-half (41 112) feet. Mr. Entclbrecht asked if the signs were allowed to be nigher only at Interstate 3S. Ms. Carson stated that the ordinance said "certain hllhways" whereas the Task Force wanted it to be at Interstate 3S only. Ms. Brock asked it the city could r,oncrol the signs on U.S. hlihvay 340 and 77, Mr. Morris said th,,t there had been changes Ice the Highcay Beautification Act since the city ordinance was orig;rally written. According to the Act, signs are regulated as the primary syst c e of the state interstate highways as desl nal.ed by the State Htlhway CamaI slag. he said it would Include highways other than 1.35. He sulgesttd etting Bore information for the Commissioners for a later meeting. Ms. Brock sold she believed there was legislation passed in 191S which limited the rights of cities to regulate signs. She asked Mr. Morris it he would expand on the laws. Mr. Morris stated that the State teliilgture passed a bill that provided that say silo ordinance passed by municipalities after the dots, of the bill, required the city to pay cospen- cation for the removal of the silo. No sold the bill provided some alternatives. He added that ;be bill did got clearly i define the different types of signs. Ms. Brock asked if theIllislgtion would apply to 411 019AS within the city, I,r. Morris said yes. Mr. Robbins stated that some cities adopt stricter standards along incerstit• highways, "Cause they ors federally funded. the state would rule with respect to outdoor advertising suns. Mr. Enlolbrscht said he would be Interested to getting adds-. tional Information and would alma like to know which roadways Commissioners couldtrec•Ivdhthe otoristion balereeltlwas the on the afeeda again. Section G.S Tu erne lad Aol t ea Sl n s. roc u • w 4 t • reset et oar wou b• on tAe rimming of a store. Mr. Morris stated that it it was not cowered by the ordinance, the state would also regulate them, Ms. (rock asked what would happen to signs that were currently existlal. Mr. Metals said that the silos are legal before passing the law, therefore, they dould be able to stay. Ms. Brock asked how long they would be able to stay. Mr. Morris stated there we to proposed restrictions. No added that It they were removed, they could net be replaced wlthout a permit. Ms. Brock askeJ it the lott•riag could be changed. Mr. lobbies said yes as loo as it did not chaal• the status from on•preais• to off-promis•, No. Brock asked It the city could regulate wkit is oil the sign. Mr. Bobbles said It would depend on what was on the silo, No said they could roRulet• pornographic material. Mr. Eatelbrecht asked if there were condittons that showed what adequate salntemsnce was. its. Carson sold yes. -47- l5. ;)99 7ti ws. Tartan asked who would pay for the sign permit. 4%. Carson said it would to the person who owns the silo, according to the way it is written at this time. S#<tlon D.2 Non-residential tistricts s. roc u • % no propose rem s ohs for the Non• residential Districts applied to the Central lusiness 11 District, its. Cmrsom stated that the regulations for the Central Business District were in another section. 1111 Claiborne, a20 Smokotise, stated that he was a ■eo:nr of the Beautification Task force and wanted to lire the two reasons why the Task Force recommended revisions. He said l) sestRetic reasons so that the city would look good, and 2) the l•sutltication Task force encours ad the Coo mission to make a recommendation to the City Council on the Task force's proposed changes. Mr. Claiborne sold there were is 20 yeople on the 'ask Force and test that with the re call eadatlon from each perso% on the force, the Task Force wee able to address some serlrus issues. Mr. Claiborne added that the leeutificatlon Task Force did not make any recommendations relarding the Central lusiness District. Mike Cochran, 609 M. Oak Denton, stated the Task force consts• tad of a cross section of people from the community. The talk i Force reviewed the sign ordinances in different ,Likes before aakln its recommendation. He added that though there ware some ask Force stab to who wanted It Otticter and that the recommendations were the results of com romiss. The Items propafere tleftIn twereltot beautiful. hurt the ~uslaoeses but were Ms. track asked It any sign company owners wore consulted. Mr. Cochran said there were not any owners consulted but some of the took force members did use the alias for their own businesses. Jeff Smith, 1119 Crescent Denton, liked It the silo permit would have to be transferred it the sign wee sold. hr. Robbins stated that the city would not rogulate that, but when/it reglstraties started, it would be required. Terri [elks. , sign company owmor, asked it the Commission would recommend to the city Couacll to have all off•prulse bill- boards stapled kestood of oin11 down to lSO toot. He said he felt that tgarm were mmougi billboards ka the city. Jerry false, owner of folios till Company, said he could see two DDroblems with the proposed revisions. He felt the So toot hotght limit would met let si ma be seen by care from a dis- tonce. Me also teat the $00 toot separat10a between skins was toe far. He added that odes were to later■ people where they are mad whs.t was ahead of them. Hppe felt the proposed revi- the holl,htdtolul6tien for`on-Proetie'mlini &loot1 is`li ens.` some oot orimiiit the N paratioa dlstama l1 between signs on the t trends NCNie►lm, Patrick Media Croup, stated that her company has signs to Delta% Bad bar comps.ay wanted them to be able to stay. She added that the billboards arm matmtainod. Ms. track asked Ns. MCNlckle how mans sagas her company had. No. McNtckim to 4 they had eight billboards that were 10 a lS toot, E i I -48- 1 va 3 hr. Claiborne stated the Task Force recommended a aaratarkum on signs due to the overabundance of signs in the City, Ms, track asked when it would `o to City Council, Mr. Claiborne sold he did not know, but if the planning and ioaing Commission and City Council needed ties to review the recommendations, he re44efted the Cammissian put o moratorium Into effect Immediately. Slick Smith, owner of a sign company, stated that he has been a portable sign company owner for I? years. He said that his can. pany has always maintained their Signs and felt people should be able to use and have signs on their property. He gave examples of problems he has had with not being able to put 511as where people have Vented thee. He added that banne n are expensive and the ten day proposed tins, Is not enough time to be worth the banner. _ Mr. Smith recommended getting with code enforcement and exDplain- 1 ing the sign ordinance to all. Mr. Morris stated it was planned to get with coda enforcement and go over the ordinance. Mr. Robbins stated that Cliff Redding, who was not able to at- tend the meeting, asked Mr. Robbins to take his statements for • his. Mr. Redding felt the city should require testing before a skin permit was issued. He said the test could Involve know- 14 go of cis ordinances and a possible violation of the ord- nance migit se to temporarily suspend the permit. , Ms. Carson stated that nanr of the followini issues were mot j discussed in detail with the leautfication ask forces o Create Category for lanaers/find Devices ` Determine when they can be used. Grand Opening Banner would be under this category, o Vehicle Slim CLAW cation of what is fixed of pormaneat. , o Flashing Blinking or traveling Lights Clarify - eliminate message moving or changing. a Planned DeveloDDmost Districts Regular sulmission of documents to be attached to FD file. 1 Clarify that state re ulations apply al ng 1.31 (PD for comrcial/ia~ustrial yses only). o Consider Adding Provisions for Abandeacd Signs o Signs oa Certalm Highways iiviis state rejulilleaifled cityg~i=ulitiensereaee 1 o Clearssco from electrical Lines Add in accordance with llectttcal Safety C040- 0 Temporary sad Political Signs place iteas relating to bamaers under that Category'. 1 e illustration lfb Mould measuraeat be the some it the sign is to a hole, as as a hill or higher Level this the curb. o Now Will or Should Directorr Signs Is Treated Differently! One silo listing multiple toasnts. I -49- I I i 0 Consider Adding licensing Ra4ulre a test and license fee to be ellgkble to erect, maintain, or replace a sign in the city. Ns. Brock asked who would handle the Issees. Mr. Robbins said staff would handle them. Jack Reddtng, sign company owner, slid he felt the owners of the suns should not recelwe citations when the lessee has moved the portable signs and the owner of the start has not. Mr. r►mman said that he felt more work should be done on the ordinance. Mr. fngelbrecht asked the timetramo for finishing the ordinance. Mr. Morris said that as soon as he was able to prepare a draft ordinance. Ms. Carson stated that the Beautification Task farce recom- mended a ninety (90) day moratorium. Mr. Robbins stated that they did not want a total ban an all signs, just specific ones. Mr. Morris stated that the three major changes would be on 1) tar or signs reduced, 1) off-promise signs, and 1) port- able )fsns. f Mr, gamete moved to hav• staff ppreppare an ordinance reflecting the amendments to the $lra regulations and to prepare a more- tatiu■ ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and unanimously castled (S•0). VIII. Director's Report A. OF I Mr. Robbins stated that the City Ceuncll adopted Planatog and lotting Commission's recomeon4ations for the first three years, but did net adopt the 1991.92 and 1902.91 years. Hm added that as soon ma he got the resolution, he would give copies to each of the Commissioners. Mr. Robbins stated that Council members were concerned with the pool, mooch hutch Road, and improvements to the Airport. These proposals were not adopted. 9. 14810481 Mater Planning l/ Mr. Rob►ku stated a raglomel water plan has been ptapered, sleet with in entity to implement the Plan. Me laid the en- tity has a "cam44d" presentation on water supply for Denton county and others. Mr. Rob►Ins meted the Coutasloners it they would Ilk* to sit the ressntatlen. Me told if ao, he would contact the Utility $epartmeat. The Coamlislom &Srood that they would like to see the presentation, C. tntroductiom to the job of a planning and locking commissioner Mr. Robbins said a date had been set for July 2e, 1911,&t 2100 P.m. for the rldeolvresentatlos for the new Camels- sloters. He said It would be la the library and that all Commissioner$ were welcome. Meeti48 adjourned at silo P.M. i I -so- I t •1 P!: Mrnutes ~ Juiy : ildd Page li DECISION; Mr, Glasscock moved to recommend approval of t e pre lminary plat of Lots 1, I and J, S1ock A, of the t Levels Medic N Addition, Seconded by Hr. Engelbreeht and unanimously carried (7.0), B. Make's recommendation on an ordinance establishing a moratorlua on specific types of signs, Ms, Carson stated that the Commissioners mere Provided a scl:eopy of the moratorium ordinance, She said it covered the , hel ht, and spacing of `round slgnsi and the number of portable signs on•premise and off-premse, Ms. Carson continued that In order to provide adequate Noe for review of the revision to the sign ordinance by the Aoratoriuanrouldibe offactiventhand rougheDecemberu6lll~11 or approximately four months, i~ Ms. Stock moved to recommend adoption of the moratorium ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Holt and unanimously carried IV. Discussion of City-initiated coning tt two ppEartszoning roorse. The1firstsPartnwould bebtoidoathe orlglnal toning for the annexed areas which by ordinance are ' zoned temporary sgricultrral. She said the second part would usefVporesares cribodwhere by theedevelopment policies of the match City. he continued that a reduced fea might be considered for down- toning parcels. Ms. Brock stated that she thou ht it would be a good way to preserve the older areas. r. Engelbrocht agreed and encouraged it. Mr. Holt suggested down-caging for entire streets. i Ms. Evans stated that a map of the different areas could be presented to the Commissioners at a later date. Y. Elrction of Chairperjon and Vice-Chairperson SecondedabymMr. GlasscockaandMugmaimouslyrcarriede(7-0). Mr, Belong moved to nominate Mr. Holt for Vice•Chairperson. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and unanimously carried (T-o). Y1, Dlreetor's Report A. Status of the Denton Development Plan and Appendix A. lastRsestla sthe DentonCDerainsent PlanuAppeondixtAeand another work session would be held for further discussion. He said that one of the issues raised was having to deal with All Intensity boundary decision the sego night to a zoning case, He stated that staff will be discussin with the Council an alternative of asklnt the A`pendix A ask Force to Win the other components ofppApopondlx A. He said It would limit the number of cases being presented at the same tine. He sold another option would e for the City Council to wait until all boundaries were adopted. -51- i J r 1 t "inures ?ugust 1C, Ls9g Fags I !Is. Brock askeo if there were problems with the nanos In the past. Ms. Evans stated yes, the police, fire depart- tent, mail, and even pitta was being ~ellvered to the wrong house. "s. Evans stated that there were severs! other possible tames that wore not considered because they sounded too similar to Highview, or other streets In the city. Cnair declared public hearing closed. DECISION; lit. Clesscack moved to recommend approval of ttNe street nsee change to Treecrest Place. Seconded by Mr. kamman and unanimously carried (6.0). 11i. Consider makln a recommendation an the preliminary plat of Lots l and 2, lock A, Marine Plastics Addition. 1 Ms. Evans stated that a request for withdrawal of the plat was received. rlV. Discussion of the revisions to the sign ordinance. Ms. Carson stated that staff had drafted some revisions to the sign ordinance but that the wording may change slightly with the ordinance. She said she would go over the changes and would then show slides of some signs as am illustration of the changes. Page S • Definitions. Ms. Carson said there would be three additions to the j definition section, as follows: 1 1 O) (12) "Banner" snall mean a too *racy sign made of cloth, canvas, or other light fabric, which Is attached to a building structu:e either with or wltnout a frame. National ags and (Is s, emblems, and Insignia of political, professional, religious, educational, or corporate organizations are not considered banners provided that such flags, emblems, and insignia are displayed for non-commercial purposes. (3) ill) "Teeporery Signs" shall Room JAY slin Intended for use for a short period of time to a vertloe a site, event, or limiter activity. (11) "Abandoned Sign" shall mean a sign which was at one time, but is not now, used as an on-promise sign, because the business pur oft of the premises has changed or ceased, and t~e sign is not belnll used as a lawful offipreelee sige. The sign no longer serves a bona fde use or purpose. Ms. Carson added that there were tome questions whether the legislation muthorlsol a city to have to hey for abandoned 1 slims, but Mr. Morris would research further on Abandoned Signs. Page I • Prohibited Signo. (I) 1 (J) combined (1) Certain Illumiaatod s! e , No sign shall be Illuminated SUE an n ens y or a such a manner, as to C141e a glare or briehtne/e to a degree that it constitutes a hatand or nuisance. S1 as that ore not effectively shielded as to prevent teams or rays of lights from being directed it any portion of the traveled way of a public I -52- J Pi: litnutes August 10, i9ll Page 5 street or which impair or Interfere witn the vision of any driver of any motor vehicle upon a public street shall be prohibited. Moving, flashing, Intermittently lighted, Chan Ing color, beacons, revolving, or similarly constructed signs shall not be allowed except for time and temperature signs and temporary Christmas lights. In no instance shall the lighting intensity of any sign exceed seventy-five (7S) foot a ndtaa measured with a standard light motor. Ms. Carson stated this provision would prohibit moving message signs except for time and temperature signs. Ms. Morgart asked if It would include signs currently existing. Ms. Carson stated it was for future permits only and not exist- Ing signs, She added that it signs were 50 percent damaged then they would not be allowed to receive a new permit under the legal non-conforming use section of the toning Crdinance. j Ms. Brock asked if it was primarily a distraction to drivers. Ms. Carson sold yes. (k) Balloons and tither Floatin Derlcto. Any a oon or o or oa rig or nflatable device erected for advertising purposes anchored to the ground or to any structure. j (l) Sl n Atucheen. Na rev a rigtautter shall be displayed on or attached to any sign No i.+ys braces, attachments, banners, flags, or similar devices shall bs attached to any sign. Mi. not signsnallowedu el ss tthey alloons devics war* around, Ms. Carson stated that a new section on licensing was included in the permit section. the procedure is as foilewst Page 7 • Licensing. 1. License Required. No person or corporation shall engage or con_sue in the business of erecting, @atataining, or replacing oey sign and/or advertising structure, or per- for■ any such gets for coageowto",'without first having obtained a license for such work (roe the Building Inspee• tioa Division. Such licenses shall be renewed annually. The Building Inspection Division shall determine, prior to the initial Issuance of the license required by this sec- tion,the geeeral competence of each applicant by means of written examlostlot. Such examination shall include ques- tions relating to applicable city and state laws rogulatkng lists and generally accepted construction procedures. 2, All sign permit a p lications shall bear the titans, numbers of the contractor 1) who will actually be performing the d work for which the permit is requested, 3. The Building Inspection Dlrfaloo or deal not shall have the right, after written notice to the licensee, to revoke gay license ranted where the division finds that the application Information is knowingly Islas or oisIsading or that the licensee has violated any provision of this ordinance unless such licensee shall Correct such infor- u tion and/or comply with trio ordinance within fourteen (la) days from receipt of the notice. An appe&I of the decision of the building fnspDectton Division may be processed in accordance with lrticle 21 of Appendix 1, losing, of the Code of Ordinances. -53- V r P6, Minutes August 10, 1961 Page 6 i Ms. Carson stated that examinations will be given to the sign owners In their area 0f expertise. She continued that it someone only erects person toteacedlns than that would be the area on watch tke p Ms. Brock asked who would devise and test the examination. Ms. Carson stated that theBuilding wouldpections,Code Enforce, ment, and the planning Cgpartsoftt inecprocess would to 0througndtheaBoardtof AdJustaentn +ppe411 Page 1 • Permits. 1. All *((;promise and on-Premise signs located on proper prior to the effective date of the ordinance must be red registered The Cltyoreachpyear, shall prori annually. dethortcehthat m the e permit must be renewed. portable signs will be coma sidered legal nonconformtng uses only if the stgn is registered and nos a valid permit. (in-premise portable sighs Olt, plicableere4uirementsaof ! of the ordinance must lest all aD , the ordinance. Ms, Carson stated that in addition to other on•presls• portibls signs permitted, the following shall apDlyi haYerer, t~es• pro- lfte ~ visions sty be covered and it that •ls t • case, the soot on I will not be added: I i pale 9 Portable Si ns. as or S• Y co tat oa Slgass tfts ice 1. or relevantl W Oraatl0mtortdlrectlok to parsonslusinor the facility but containing no advertlsihs material she be permitted. rAlst (l0) square hall have An area of lots than twenty 1 servlco Islandbandfshall be statlonaey.• pumps or the + 6, Nothim hoists shalt be construed to prohibit the advertisement of fuel pthis an any othet sign meeting the 1e4utrem•nts of this chapter. Ks. Carsea stated that as discussed earlier, a sectioean abandoned alias v as added and slate removal e cull the settles was added to the Ual awful Sign motels:. {I Pale 13 - Removal of Unlatful St 1. Removal a Abasdotied Si a6. In the event a business ceues opera oa or a poi o o slaty (60) days, the 61 a owner or lea see or the property ownerr shall iuedlatoly remora ptOducem6atdsthgrobyloprorlded,ahowievera ehl6niQUlreieot shall not a plY where under the provisions of this ordl- tiss ance a a now a bu/laesi oioproductisoldaehir~ itor•d to adver• R Ms Catiaidthatmeot the purposes of the section, the wo;d sore I A) porno tofu the slgmrin sucttri unsor IS te•leave the sign and supporting structure neetaand nebpulldlnlsn 1 appaaraneo or in harmony to which it is located or attached& or V Pi: Minutes August l0, 1981 Page 7 b) To take down the face, posts, columns, or supports for a ground sign and remove said materials from the prop- erty; or e) To take down the face and suppporting structures of a roof or wall slgn and remove iron the property all sign materials. Mr. tamean asked what would happen it businesses didn't take care of their signs. Ms. Carson stated there was a mainten- ance provision In the ordinance. Ms. Carson expialned the problem with defining what type of lien a banner is. She stated staff was concerned about allowing some types of banners. Page 17 • Temporary Slsns. 1. Regardless of the status of conformity of all other on-premise signs, two (2) temporary banners, other than a grand opening banner, shall be allowed per premise; prow Idedi a) Each sign is less than twenty (20) square feet in area. , I b) Each sign Is secuiely attached to a building structure. c) That such signs are displayed no more than fourteen A (14) consecutive days. j d) That no establishient may display a temporary sign more than four (4) times per calendar year. e) fennants and stiosmors, without advertising, ma be displayed simultaneously with temporary signs, but at no other times, 2. Tompporary event signs announcing a campaign, drive actlvlty, or event of a civic, philen N topic, educa- tional, or fell sous organilatioa for non-commercial purposes shall to subject to the followings a) Any temporary event banner which is ppermitted to extend over or onto a public right-o[-way shall be erected and maintained In such a rannef as to not Interfere or obstruct access, activity, or vision along say such public right-ot•WAY, b) No more then two (2) permits for temporary event banners shall be issued for the same campaign, drive, 1 activity, or event In one calendar year. c) Temporary event signs and banners may be erected and maintained for a period not escesdia thinsl~ (30) days prior to the date of which AdvertltoI is scheduled to occur and shall be removed within three (3) dayys of the termination of such campaign, drive, activity, or event. Me. Carsoa stated that representatives of Plasalmg, Building gas actions and Code Enforcement had discussed the situation of Connote over streets and recommended that the banners not I be permitted to extend over the right-of-way. i 3, A rand opening banner shalt be permitted subject to the followings a) One banner per address. -55- ! k v Y P5: ka;ni,tes august IC, 196A Page 6 b) Banner may be erected for not more than ten (10) days end in conjunction with a Dona fide grand opening as evidenced by a change in the certificate of occupancy, c) The banner must be securely attached to a building structure. d) The area shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet. S's. Carson stated that the Commissioners had the choice to ban all portable signs or to make special requirements on certain portable signs. Ms. Carson said that in regards to Tom~raty Political Sl ns, they would be required to have a ten {(0) foot setback. 1hls should mean thAt the sign is not in the rlgnt-of-way but in a 1 few places It 0 ght be in the right-of•way. She said election sign standards u s currently 32 square feet but the proposal was to reduce then to 20 square feet In residential areas. She contanutd that the proposal in the back-up was changed after discussion with staff. Fags U - Temporary Sian. s. Temporary Political S! nfi Temporary political signs , j announe ng po tea can doto$ seeking public office, political parties and/or political and public Issues contained on a ballot shell be subject to the following; a) Stns any be erected not more thin sixty (60) days ino~ tEleate of the election of rM1lch such signs DDltca , b) Signs snall be removed by the owner of the profile on which they are located after ten (10) days of the date of the election; c) The candidate to which the sl`a refers or chaitaan of the campaign for an issue shall be responsible for the removal of the signs, If the sign was not placed on the promise by the owner, with the time frame specified Above; d) Signs may be located in accordance with the following conditions; I) Silas shall be it least ten (10) feet from the curb or edge of pavement; 2) Silas shall not interfere with or obstruct access or view along or to too public rilht•of-way; and 3) Maximum effective area of signal (a) lasidentla; toning districts - twenty (20) square trot; and (b) Non•ro idintial toning districts - thirty two square ,fat. 7. ldentiflcatien of Siege , All signs shall be plainly mare s a us, a a coneyyicuous place, 3n letters not lots than one (1) inch in hslght, the current au address, and telephone number of the owner or losses e1 the signi the sl n permit number; sign permit expiration dotal and the ve~ Uge of shy electricd Apparatus u'ad in connection therewith. -56- r PS: Minutes august lG, 1986 Page y Ms. Carson stated this section adds the requirement of voltage of electricity because of the safety factors that are Involved. She added that signs in pplanned lopaente would be handled administratively by pplacing a coderepy of thesign permit applica- tlon in the aipllcable file. She stated that this would elimi- nate questions about where the sign Is located, Ms. Carson discussed the problems and possible solutions in the future during her silde presentatlon. Sne added that staff encouragei the use of wall signs. Mr, En Albrecht asked how staff was encouraging the use of wall suns. Ms. Carson stated that a permit was not required for a wall sign. Mr. Engelbrecht asked If real estate signs warm included in the sign ordinance. Ms. Carson said yes. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that he would like a provision in the ordinanco to regulate subdivision development sign+. He stated he bellevod that included in the ordinance should be a provi- slon as to the distance between signs. Ms. Brock agreed and added that there should be a time limit on the signs boing posted. Robert Rayner 700 Del,}as Drive, asked it banners for open ' houses in residential nellhborhoods would be affected by the roposed chines. Ms. Carson stated that advertising with a I ~anner would be permitted for fourteen days. Mr. Rayner asked to have the height requirement around 1.151 stay at a ■aslmu■ of 10 feet. He sold that with the overpass height of 12.11 feet, a 10 foot sin would be difficult to be seen in a saving car. This would he duo to lower elevation where the liens arm located. No. Carson said the sign's height is measured from the curb or road without o curb. Mr. Engaibrecht asked it other businesses felt the same way and if he could get data showing the sue. Mr. Rayner said yes. Mike Cochran, 609 Vest Oak, stated that he was representing the Beautification task force. He told the Took Force woo requested to give comments re prdlhg the overall beautifi- cation of the city. One major concern was the entranceways into the city. He said that is a result of a survey that the Task Force took to identify problems with the entranceways, signs were high on the list. Mr. Cochran stated that he felt tAAt when she sign ordinance woo wvalled is 1615, tae City had some good ideas but that Ctoblus developed +s a result of it. He said that with the Task Forte's recommendation, he to hoping to take care of these problems. h He continued that the beautification of a city createo a "quality of life" climate and also a good business climate, ' j that beautification leads to presp Wiry. No Bald it was a question of rights of the isalll buslnessmem and a question of effectiveness of a visual shouting match that WAS Aappening on many utrancexays. Research has shows that the Competition among signs is counterpproductive. He Added that it to diffi- cult to difteruttate between signs from the emeust Of tlutter an the rood. He said he via speaking in regards to portable aline mainly. Mr. Cothran continued and stated that on behalf of the Beautification Task force, ne felt they did not to far enough because at the grandfather clause. -57- 1 Ds: xinutes August 10, lass page 10 He added that he had received a list of the sign companies that staff notified and the Commission may have ecelved the same list. The at en companies that are in town had come from towns where portable signs are not permitted. Willie Hudspeth, 116 N. Bonnie Brae, asked if other changes, besides the site, would be required with political skins, Ms. Carson said site is the only asjor con urn at this time. A portable sign that is 32 square feet would be allowed for non-residential areas and 20 square feet for residential areas. She added that someone from the campaign would be required to request + ermit. Mr Hudspeth stated that he thought It would be a good Idea to have a representative of the companies talk to the city. Mr. sasaan asked if theca was + alto requirement on will SLIMS. ins. Carson said no. i Mr. fngelbrecht asked when a sign would be considered sepparate from a building. Mr. Robbins stated that the sign must be attached to the building or the sign would be considered a ground sign. I Ns. Bror.k stated that she wanted to prevent numerous wall signs that resembled Tune-up Masters. She said the Commission ' may want to see the results from the revisions and adjust the L.!rdlnsnce again later. Y. Discussion of the "Northwest Canton" project. 1 Mr. Robbins stated he would So over the process and standards that would be used on the Northwest Denton project. He showed a u y with the boundaries to the intensity items, according to the Penton Development Guide. He added that what was shown may not represent whet was join to be built but would probably represent what would ultimately be built. He Said in order to approve or deny a toning ass, a step process is used and he shovel the steps on a chart. He said the first step was general policy, to Qetermint the intensity, share, and disproportionate share. Mr. Robblot coatloued by saying the intensity is meatured by the number of trips pet acre, The study area showed 491 acres. The total number o! trips allowed by the Guide is TS, where as only 60 trips are alloved by the plan. If the trips per acts set the standards to develop, then the concentration/ separation voliclos would be consider ad and would then So on to other pollclu. Me. Robbins stated that if the case did not pass through l1oneral polities, there were three dtffetest things that could be done. He said the plan spoke of "left out lots"; it the area was over the allocation, the last Intense most logical land use would be coAsidered. fl Ms. Web. asked that "left out lots', were. Mr. Robbins stated that the Ilan spoke of "left out total' as a small parcel that had not beta developed though It was urrounded by a large atom that was developed. The total developed area would be over allocated so It would allow the least intense most logical land use for the small parcel. Mr. Robbins continued that there are four criteria used to dote nine it the development would be allowed to use dispro- portionsts share of intensity. He said one way would be to change the standard, by eadin the plan, tihlch could mean changing the b-fidarits.aHe Sold the standard in number of trips could else be changed. -58- r r i 9 F%, Minutes August 31, 1981 Pate I 8. E•1. Make a recommendation on & request for abandonment aTa 16 foot drainage and canIuntcation$ easement and establishment of en I foot communications easement at Lot a, Black The Ridge of Southrldge. STAFF AiPOAT: Ms. Evans stated that an error in the 'w1 t o t s easement was discovered when the petitioner, Dr. Vera Cershner, requested a fence pereit. She said the es a bllshe-at of a 16 foot drainage and communications easement at Lot a, Block t, The Ridge of Southrldte, was an error on the orilinal yylat document. It should have been an eight foot communicatione easement. ` Ms. Evans stated that the Development Review Committee ` recommends approval. r~ DECISION: Mr. gammon moved to recommend approval for h a a-6 adonment of a 16 foot drainal• and communications easement and establishment of an eight foot communlca- ttons easement at Lot a, Block 1, The Rid a of Southridle. Seconded by Mr. Holt and unanimously carried (6.0). 4 C. A-S6. Make a recommendation on pro need annexation of '?4:7309 acres located at FM 2111 and Old Alton Road. STAFF RLPORTt M#y Carson stated that after a submittal , o!' apTf for development of the Shady Oaks Mobile Home Park, the City Council requested staff to proceed with annexation of the property. She said the property was previously subdivided which required submlaton of the plat. The City Council directed still to begin the annexation process at a study session on May 17, 1911. Shr said the property also includes a tract it the north- west corner of the propostd annexed not shown on the plat, but the tract was previously subdivided from the tract s`ova on the plat. No, Carson continued that City services are available in the area Including utilities. She said that FM 2111 is a state road and ao rood is rovesent would be necessary. She added that the Council gas held two public hearings, and A COPY of A letter (VON the owner expreasinl his objections to the annexation to Included with the reply fares. Mr. Molt asked if the area was sonod, No. Carson stated that the City samaed the Styyr.tab Addition mad a $00 foot strip along FM 2181 on July 1997 to tie the city limits into the Corinth city limits. this was Santa temporary alelcultural (A). DE S: Mt. Brock moved to recommend approval of A•16. icon •ON by Nt. MorlAm and unaalmoully carried (6.0). f IV. Discussion of rtvlsioss to the sign ordtummce. We. Cation stated that that@ vere four areas that the wanted to discuss rtlarding the revisions to the silo ordinance. Mt. Carson stand that the first topic to be dimcuased concerns a partial ben votive a total boa of portable silos. She said that a partial bas would be Iola IIg possible but eeferces•ot would be difficult. She so d tat noa•eosstrcitl messages are nelthor am not off promise mo additional portable signs could be placed in the City. Examples would be churches pptaeiel Bible r•rs•1 oa alias and aen•PPrefit agencies advartis- tns community activities, She old thin makes unfair advert!,. Iris practices because commarclal butiaesses would not be alit to have portable silos. Legally It could be done thoulh It would prestat problems to enforcement of the ordinance. .59- Pit !tlnutes August 31, 1911 Page I Mr. Holt asked if there were limitations to the amount of signs. Ms. Carson stated that a non-profit are9nlzatlon typically could place signs with them being on or off-premise signs. She added that, therefore, there would be no limit an the number. She stressed that a total ban could mean no addi- tionaL portable signs would be allowed. Ms. Brock asked if some signs were not connected with the actual premise that they are on. Ms. Carson said yes. Millie Hudspeth, 316 N. Bonnie Brae, asked it it meant that no ` portable signs would be allowed. Ms. Carson stated that the / Task force recommendation ■eant that no additional off-premise portable signs would be allowed but a total ban would mean no additional portable signs. ' Mike Cochran, 609 M. Oak Street, stated that he was represent. ins the Beautification. Tasx Force. He said that he felt the Task Force did not go for enoulb on the recommendations for the signs. He said that he agreed with Mr. Claiborne when say- tng that portable atlas have "turned the town into a larbago dump„ Jeans Morrison, 2011 Scripture, stated that she wanted the , Commission to consider the beauty of Denton whew ukinl their recomsendation. She stated that portable sighs cause a traffic hazard and a complete ban would be the best way to eliminate { that hazard. Ms. Morgan asked what would happen to the existing signs if all the portable signs were banned. Ms. Carson said that unless the City pays for the portable signs, they'would stsyti Mr. Holt sold that a total ban would be to eliminate non- commercial signs. He asked how many cities have banned Dpartable signs. No. Carson stated that eleast all North Texma cities. She said that post cities are going to a complete ban, Mr. Holt asked what would happen it the signs are banned and an existing sign became vacant. Me. Morris stated it would then fail into the category of abandoned signs. Ms. Brock asked for the Comsisslom's opinion on a partial or J total ben of portable signs. She said that she would agree to a total bas. The Commission agreed. No. Carlos stated that the second topic of discussion was the helBht of sigma along 1.3s. She said that there was some con- cern that the 30 toot reautreaeot would aot be high enough, whereas the 40 toot would be better. She Bald that the current requirement 10 60 feet and asked the Commission to consider it the on and off premise silos should be the ease helBht. She added that stall had been contacted about plattlag a separate, lot so that the slim would be oil-praise and therefore the sign could meet state requirements of 12 112 teat in helBht, No. Brock skad it the property could be divided to allow for more sagas duriot A letting process. Ms. Carson said that the city has the elggt to deny the plat for this purpose. Mr. Halt asked it a surrey has been takes accordial to the silo of silos. Ms. Carson stated that surveys show that signs are totting smaller. Mr. Engalbreeht stated that he felt the Coomissdon should look at the beautification of the City. Ms. Brock agreed and felt i that the Watt should also be considered. She said that the height should be lower. Mr, Engolbrecht stated that he felt not only lower but also smaller in square footage. -60- i k P$Z ~'inutes August 51, 1956 Page 9 Ms. Carson stated that in regards to direction signs for subdivisions, most titles have adopted time limits in the last year to IJ months. She said that time limits vary but staff proposes Friday noon until Monday at noon. 1 Mr. Enlelbracht asked what the site requirements are in other titles. Ms. Carson stated that they vary. sir. Enle R recht asked what the spacing requlreatnts were In other clt,es. Hs. Carson stated that they also vary. Ms. Carson stated that some cities that have the time limits are allowing the Home and Apartment guilders Association to enforce the times and police their members' conformance with the ordinance. Ms. Brock asked staff to contact the Denton home and Apartment Builders Association and see if they would be willing to do 1 . the same. V. Adjourn to a work session in the Civil Defense Room on the "Northwest Denton" Project. Larry Lloyd, 7171 Forest Lane Dallas, stated that EDS pur- chased the property 16 months ago as an investment for the , f EDS retirement fund with the intent to change the toning of the land. Hs said it was a single family area and they were aware of problems with it. Mr. Lloyd said that EDS called other property owners to con- Sider combininjj the property and reasoning the land together. Combined belle[e of the property owners at that time was that pteceae+l aoning vas not bast for the area or for the City. He ~sid that the c,,blood owners met with local developers and asked how they would develop the tract. The developers felt l that single family toning would not be good for the owners or the area considering the economic status of the City. Mr. Lloyd continued that the owners hired a land Pincer to look st the arse and, not censidtring the nodes o1 the arts, draw up plans to show the most useful way to develop the prop- erty. He showed a map of the proposal that the planner had su lastedi the map included roaios of general retail office, mu~ti-famly, and giegla family restricted. Mr. Lloyd said that he would Ilk1 the Commission to look at the tract of land and notice that the proposed lam is the most lejical use for the area. He added that the Else staff suggested a cbange in the lntemsity to accommodate these uses. T. Rick May, 2516 Maple Avenue, Dallas, stated that two criteria wet* usgd in consideration of tht proposal for the f report? compatibility and transition. The three major areas or consideration are th• pro arty north of U. S. Hl hvay 77, most of local* Iran, and IoutA of RIAmi Road. He said that the uses in all areas wK1 teAelderod elote deciding the + locations of their structures. He said that adjacent to U.S. { Highway 119 all cometreial uses were addressed and he felt that they more not only compatible but were well below the doositr. To the south of linty Road is almgle fully 0124 he 5114 they tried to put the town iotenslty uses to the south 4 for buttering, He said that because of tht limited PAR, the h• to 14, arking and the minima 10 percent landscaped area (oft tpe issue was well addressed and was not unres 5onabfe. Mr. Lloyd said that the purpose of the work session was to discuss the area and to see It the Commission felt the lend plan war good. 1 Mr. Engelbrecht asked It they were requesting m moderate ' node. Mt. Llefd said yes but he was told that it would not work. Mr. Robbing stated that the proposal would generate -61- I I V- , P 6 Minutes September 14, 1968 Pate it Mr. Morris stated that Pep Boys is entitled by right to completely withdraw their proposal. He said that the Commission can reject the postponement but Pep Boys can still request a withdrawal. James Dewey, engineer for the project, said that they came with the Intention of presenting the case. At that time, they thought that they had neighborhood support but when they arrived at the seeting they found that both staff and the neighborhood were not In agreement with them. He sail that they have listened to the neighborhood comments and appreciate their input. Pep Boys would like 30 days to determine whether they can work It out with them. Robert Brown, 1600 Angelina Bend, stated that Pep Boys not with the homeowners and neighbors. They found out that they don't have their support although they came erpectinS it. He said that the homeowners and neighbors told them 1 that the basis of their objections would not be able to be addressed. They are only requesting postponement to build their case. He said that on behalf of the homeowners and neighbors they request the postponement be denied. i Mr. Robbins stated that the policies of the Commission , state that a petition may be withdrawn from the a enda and it a second withdrawal is requested, the Commission { may choose to hold the hearing. Mr. Morris stated that the result of postponement or withdrawal is the some. The petitioner has the right to withdraw the case from the agenda. Mr. Goodwin stated that he Is a lawyer also and has a different legtal opinion of the olicy. The policy refers to witbdrawe of a cue, not withdrawal from the agenda. He said that these is a differeace between withdrawal and postponement. Mr. Holt stated that whom cases are withdrawn they usually come out better for all concerned in his experience. He said that the homeowners should consider that it the case is heard tonight it aight be approved. They might be better of[ irle` th• ppetitioners f chaste to improve their proposal. ~e to 4 thet when he asked .has It they wanted the postponement in order to make changes they said yes. Mr. Goodwin stated that they bare been wilting for 3 1/1 hours. If Pep Borrs wished to withdraw they should have 15101864 them •atller. Mr. Holt moved that the case be withdrawn. Second by Ms. block and unanimously carried (6.0). Mr. brown +eked it the request could be brought back before the Commission. Mi. stock stated that it the case is again scheduled tar public hearial, the property owners will be motlEted. ' rVt. Discussion of religions to the figs ordinance. Me. Csrsoa stated that at the Commisslon's last meeting th•y requested vote research on the film ordinance. The Comm issdon was particularly interested in sums along 1.11 and in the Central Business District. The certification process may cause delays In getting certification from the State for on•ppremlge signs along I-3S. The currant sign ordinance allows lieens along promise.beThere I sum gnestion of ost a qultibiietreatment6oftsignsn- $long I•SS in the proposed sign ordinance because of the over- sionwslideshoghslens along I-lS slid.inathe Central Businessis -62- I r j P S Minutes September 11, 1988 Page 12 District. She said that, in addition, there is a pLopoSSl to have illuminated suns keppt a distance from residences. She asked the Cams aston if they would like to have higher signs than what is proposed :loos 1.3S. She said the service road Is often laver thin the hisnway and there are concerns about whether tae signs can be seen. Mr. Engelbrecht asked if people will be able to request variances it the Commissioa decides to stick with the pro- posed 30 foot height. Ms. Carson said that there is a provision in the ordinance about signs being obscured. The Board of Adjustment can grant variances and geographic irregularities would quality. Mr. Holt stated that he is concerned about peopple who don't have frontsle on 1-3S wanting higher signs to De visible from 1.35. Mr. Glasscock stated that travelers wh2 are looking for a j particular type of place will need those signs. Ms. Brock stated that soon places have signs on the h!`hwsys with chain logos incorporated. It is dangerous to look for ! particular signs. Most large chain restaurants have billboards ' several miles away directing traffic to a location. They don't rely on on-premise signs. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that he does not have a problem with 30 foot signs. Ms. Carson stated that one suggestion is to measure signs from the interstate height and not the service road. She said that special requiranants for service roads would have to be loyal- oped. At the present time they are treated the some as any 1 other road. Ms. Brock stated that this would be unfair because the silos with frontage on 1.3S service road would be consider- ably h~Sher than the signs on adjacent property. The Coamission agreed that 30 feet is an adequate height for Silas. Ms. Carson referred to silos In the Central Business District and stated that attot reviewing the retouendation of tom Task Force she felt that the $0 toot and 150 toot meximua effective area recoseendatlon included signs to the Central Business L District. VII. Director's Report A. Mr. Robbins stated that staff would like to mod lose time with the Legal Department grins the ordinance together. Staff would Ilk* to bring the ordinance to the Commission am October 11. 1. Mr. Robbins advised that Council will hold a public hearing j on the Poston Development P164 On September 209 1911. i C. Mr. Robbins said that at the North Central Texas Council of Government taming workshop, therm were discussions about the Civil Rights Act Regulations of 1913 with regard to lawsuits over land use. He said Mr. Morris will discuss how this might affect the Cosmisslom at the next meeting. D. Mr. Robbins stated that staff would be discussing the down- coning is, in the lost agenda. me said there are some eltisens who would Ilk* the City to lnitiatm some sening and do everything iliac lAted with a months Cafe. Staff Ala daveloped a proposal to reduce the fee to halt under certain conditions. -63- 1 U I F PGZ Minutes October 12, 1988 Page a Mr. Holt asked if notices would be sent out contacting the t neighbors. Ms. Carson stated the notices of a request for a SUP would be sent to adjacent property owners with 200 feet and advertisements would be in the paper. She added that no notices were sent out for this meeting because tue purpose of the meet- Ing was to consider a zoning category and not to consider creat- ing the busiress for a specific area. Mr. Glasscock stated the wedding and reception could last up to one and one-half hours or longer. Ms. Carson stated that with a specific use permit, a time limit could be set Including the d.ys and hours of operation. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that the wedding business could not be compared to a day care center. The day care center would be 1 licensed by the state and day time use would be a "come and go" type basis, lie said he felt that parking would become a problem and not too many people would like it in their neighborhood. 1 Mr. Holt agreed. I Mr. Engelbrecht asked if there were other options open to the petitioner. Ms. Carson said It could be established in a non-residential area, DECISION: Mr, Engelbrecht moved to recommend denial to Include t e ome wedding business into the Specific Use Permit category In residential districts. Seconded by Ms. Morgan and unanimous- 1), carried (6-U). ' rYI. Consider permitting banners over streets, a component of the sign ordinance re-write. STAFF REPORT; Mr. Robbins stated that staff would like the Comm ss on s direction on allowing banners over the streets, 1111 Ms, Morgan asked If a time limit for the banners could be included. Mr. Robbins said the Commission had the choice of 1 prohibiting the banners or applying certain conditions. ' Mr. Morris stated that the present ordinance has the provision of allowing the City Council to give prior approval, Ms. Brock asked what the process was. Mr. Morris stated that after approval of the banner from City Council, the utility department will hang and take down the banner, I Ms. Bruck asked how the City Council was approving the banners, I Mr. Morris stated that he was not sure but thought the City Council was honoring all requests. Mr. Holt asked if he had understood that he couldn't put up a banner but the City could put the banner up for him. Mr. Morris stated that the ordinance says "upon approval of City Council". He said that there were restrictions on where the banners could I plated. In the right-of-way was one restriction. Ms. Carson stated that an option would be a fee to cover the f cost of placing the High. I f Ms. Brock said that she felt the community should support the events, such as Spring Fling, and not charge a fee. I Ms. Brock asked why there had not been a problem before. Mr. Morris stated the problem with the ordinance as currently written, is that the City Council must decide which banners are allowed over the streets and which are not. If a group request- ed a banner and the Council disapproved of the group or the message, the Council might not allow the placement of the banner. in this case, the Council would be violating the groups First Amendment rights end the City might be sued on a v!nlstlon of constitutional rights. Mr. Morris stated that legal staff recommended it be corrected before potential problems arose, II '4 I I i a t P&L Minutes October 12, 1988 S Page S i blr, Engelbrecht asked what the benefit of the slgus over the streets is to the City- Ms, 5rock stated it glues a festive atmosphere, Mr. Robbins read the present ordinance provision " that are used to advertise annual community events for algns temporary period of time for which the City Council has given its expressed consent,". 1111S1ONt Mr, Holt moved to accept the ordinance, as existing, -Ut 7W Wo any changes. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and carried a L vote of (S-I). Mr. Engelbrecht voted no. 411, Director's Report The Commission talked briefly about the outcome of the Appendix A meeting of October 11, 1988. Meeting adjourned 6t40 p.m. 1 i ! i f ~ f j 1 i 1510x I s Poi Minutes October 26, 1988 Page 7 the staff has also provided the r:relssion with infor- mation in conjunction with an e.rller toning request. fhe research indicates that there was a fire at one plant that resulted in an evacuation. RE9UIIAL: Mr. Jester Jr. stated Safety-Xleen has not had 6n~Tls and there were no employees that were com- plaining of breathing problems. He said that they have not stated whether they would condemn the water well or not. Chair declared public hearing closed. DECISION: Mr. Glasscock stated that he understood that t e-expansion would be for just a warehouse and no chemicals would be recycled in the new portion. Mr. Glasscock moved to recommend approval of Z-a8.020 with the condition stated by staff. Seconded by Mr. Engelbrecht and unanimously carried (6.0) for approval. IV, Consider making a recommendation on Article 17, Signs, of Appendix b, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances. Mr. Holt moved to table the consideration of the sign ordinance until the November 9, 1988 meeting. Seconded by Ms. Klker and unanimously carried (6.0). L Y. Consider an amendment to the Denton Development Plan to add a note on the Thoroughfare Plan about the widths and parking in Oak and Hickory Streets. STAFF IIEPORft Mr. Robbins stated that the Ianguaya in the memo that was on the Commissioner's desks were different from what they received in their packets. Ile stated that, on the new memo, deleted words were crossed out and additional words were underlined. i Mr. Robbins stated that at the time that the packets were passed out to the Commissioner's, he was not aware of the three travel lanes of traffic on part of Hickory Street. lie said that was the most substantial cnange from the document that was In the Commissioner's packets. Mr. Robbins said that staff was recommending approval of the amendment to protect the historic district along Oak and Hickory Streets as well as other homes outside the district. Mr. Clark added that the area was not affected by the CIP project. Mr. Robbins stated that to clarify Mr. Clark's statement, the area between Welch Street and south Carroll Boulevard is not part of the construction activity In the Cltr's CIP project. he said that It was In the area that the pokey would apply. The ppolicy would apply to Hir.kory and Oak Streets between l1 Donrtle Brae and Carroll Boulevard. ? Mr. Holt asked if this area of the street would not be paved, Mr. Clark said that the only ppart affected by the CIP pro- ject, in the historical dtstrtct, is on Oak Street between Carroll Boulevard and welch Street. Hickory Street, between Carroll Boulevard and Welch Street Is not affected. Mr. Glasscock tusked if there was parking on both sides of Oak Street. Mr. Clark said that it varies with the location. Mr. Holt asked what wider than the footprint was. Mr. Robbins stated that it the policy is adopted, the footprints would be wider where labeled "wider" than the existing footprint to accommodate what was said at art earlier meeting. Mr. Holt stated that the Commission's recommendation was to keep the existing footpr nt. TOO CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES / NOVEMBER 1, 1988 The Council convened into the Work Session at 5:30 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room. McAdams. Council FR85rNT: embers Alexander,SAyer, ~ Gorton and Hopkins; M ASSENT: Council Member Boyd The Mayor recognized the attendance of the Leadership Denton group at the meeting. 1, The Council received an update on the COG Economic Study for the Denton Municipal Airport and the C.O. Debt Retirement for the Denton Municipal Airport. Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, reviewed the COG study regarding counts at the airport and the time table involved with the counts. He presented an update on the C.O. Issues and Bonds stating that the southeast corner was almost completed, the roof had been repaired on the terminal, a tractor/mover had been purchased, and a drainage project had been completed. Council Member Ayer stated that he felt that the numbers from { COG were not really helpful, The numbers needed to be divided out from recreational planes versus commercial planes. Council Member Boyd joined the meeting. r2. The Council held a discussion regarding the proposed revisions to Article 17, Signs, of Appendix B, of the Code of Ordinances, Lloyd Harrell, City Manager, stated that this was a recommendation from the Beautification Committee to take a comprehensive look at the sign ordinance and made a had been several Commission recommendation. ordiThe nance Planning the last Zoning months, discussion the Cecile Carson, Urban Planner, presented a parapec~:ive o what was current, what was proposed and examples of such. She stated that the main objective was to address the portable sign issue and gays examples of problems with portable signs. The Committee was recommending a total ban of new portable signs with no additional signs allowed, Carson stated that staff was recommending that the moratorium ordinance be extended until { 1 the second meeting in January. Council held a discussion regarding signs in residential areas, abandoned signs, banners/flags and political signs. 1... 3, The Council received a report from the Council's legislative lobbying committee. V i . P5C Minutes November 9, 1988 Page 4 Carl Anderson stated that the city is short on parkland and increased parkland would Improve the looks of the city greatly. DECISION: Mr. gamman stated that he was not happy with the thought of the developer making an extra profit from the fee. +11J Mr. Morris stated that once property or money is given to the City, It is considered a gift. He said the City could decide whether or not to keep it. Mr. Holt stated that at the end of paragraph a9, the City has 24 months to develop the property or make Improve- ments. Ms. Morgan asked if the City had plans of reviewing the status of donations of money or land. Mr. Brinkman stated that the City will be reviewing it every year at City Council and will change the policy, if necessary. i Ms. Brock moved to recommend approval of the Park Dona- tioa Policy. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and unanimously carried (7-0). ' rC. Consider making a recommendation on Article 17, Signs, of Appendix B, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances. / STAFF REPORT: Ms. Carson stated that this item was 1 tableabe-bran the last meeting until after the Government Relations Committee met. She said that staff has also met with the City Council in ■ work session and the Beautification Task Force regarding the Ordinance. j Ms. Carson said that some Items were discussed by the City Council. The City Council requested additional information on two areas: 1) a bonus for a directory sign with more political signs t In than reone sidentiale diper sign stricts,and 2? 'r Ms. Carson said that to regard to 11, the current pro- posal allows one sign for each S00 feet of frontage. This would limit most properties to one ground sign. She said that staff reviewed the possibility of two adjacent businesses going together to create one sign, however, it would be extremely difficult to administer any future changes to business or use of the sign i.e. two businesses located on separate adjacent lots, decided to have one larger sign. One business goes out of business, but they have a larger sign, There would be nothing to require that one portion be covered up and couldn t be used until another business went in next door. Ms. Carson added that this would also become a very complicated process In regards to the legalities of regulating the message. Ms. 'aoson continued that under the Ordinance, wall signs would to permitted. Every business does have the oppor- tunity to have a wall sign to advertise their business. Shc sold In addition, that it 150 square foot sign, on a I 30 foot pole, could be used for m directory of all the businesses. Ms. Carson continued that a second question that was asked was concerning political signs. She said a question was raised about limiting the number of pol- itical signs In residential neighborhoods and reviewing the square foots a that is permitted. She said that limiting the number of signs, would be a constitutional Infringement on freedom of speech, The current proposal would e stake signs with a maximum square foots a of $2 square feet. This Is also the maximum that is allowed in the current sign ordinance. i , r~ i Pd: Minutes November 9, 1988 Page S Ms. Carson stated that at one point staff submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission a possible variable of 20 square feet in a residential area and 32 square feet in a non-residential area, Staff had concluded that the 32 square foot size was a consensus of the Commission for all political signs. Ms. Carson added that it is possible that a slightly smaller sign in residential 1 areas would be applicable. Ms. Carson said that two other questions had been raised regarding the measurement of the signs and heights of signs in particular areas. She said that In regards to the 30 foot maximum height, the question was brought up by the Government Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce and the Commission may want to address that further. The question was the height of signs on roads and highways and whether or not the signs could be seen in time for people to enter a piece of property. Ms. Carson stated that based on the previous meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff concluded that the Commission recommended the 30 foot height requirement for the signs. Mr. Holt stated that he felt that all signs should be one height to the road. He said that he felt it would create a problem between business people who have signs on the { road. Mr. Glasscock agreed. Ms. Carson commented that the ordinance was written that ail signs would be the same height. The slides that were shown in an earlier meeting showed that the signs were measured from the service road. I ~ Jerry Cott, Chairman of the Government Relations Commit- tee, stated that the Committee is addressing subjects such as the businesses and overall improvements of Denton. He stated that the Committee would be meeting next week and asked that at least two of the Commis- sioners be ppresent at the meeting. He said the purpose of the meettns is discuss the recommendations on signs. He added that portable signs arm a problem but those that own pot able sign companies do need to feed their farm- lies. He said that he understood that the purpose of the signs are to further the business. i Mr. Holt suggested surveying other titles to see what they are doing. Mr. Cott stated staff has surveyed S1 cities ■nd he Eelt that was a sufficient amount of cities. Slick Smith, 2100 Redwood Place Denton, stated that he was an owner of a portable sign company ■nd he felt there would be isolated uses of signs that are currently the pproposed 30 foot height. He said that there are and will be problems of smaller signs at overpasses. Jeanne Morrison, Chairman for the Beautification Task Force, stated that all cities that were surveyed have i taken out portable signs from their titles. She said that if other cities have prohibited portable signs then she felt that Denton should also. She added that other plates that people travel are not as congested with signs as Denton is. Mr. Engelbrecht asked if the City could put signs on the highway, like other states do, which state what services are at the next exit. Ms, Brock said that signs cannot be put in the right-of-way or on a state controlled hlghway without permisston from the State Highway Department. Ms. Carson stated that the Beautification Task Force had an idea to do directional signs or logos, but the State Highway Department and possibly the Legislature would I k~ I s t Pt,;. Minutes November 9, 1998 Page 6 have to permit it, She added that the City Council, at the next meeting, will consider an extension for the moratorium until February 21, 1989. Mr. Smith stated that in defense of his and other businesses, he was not aware of an accident that was caused by portable signs and he felt that billboards are more of a distraction than portable signs. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that other cities as well have developed ordinances opposing portable signs . He said that portable signs consist of a trallor anchored by concrete blacks with a small space for lettering, He continued that many people find that in its entirety to be asthetically displeasing. Mr. Engelbrecht asked Mr. Smith why portable sign manufacturers, knowing that ordinances were opposingg portable signs, had not tried to enhance the asthetlcs of the signs. Mr. Smith stated that the signs that are in bad shape are those that are Individually owned. He said that business owned portable signs are not in bad condition because the signs are better cared for by the owner. ' DEC[SION: Mr. Holt moved to postpone the recommendation untul[ TFe November 30th meeting. Seconded by Ms. Morgan L.- and unanimously carried (7-0). D. Consider making a recommendation to add the intensity calculations for study area 63 to Appendix A, Denton Development Plan. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Robbins stated that area 163 is bounded on the north by Edwards Road, on the south by 1-SSE, M[ and I' Rail Road and Shady Shores Road, on the East by Swisher Road, and on the west by Mayhill Road. He said the calculations for the area shows area 163 is one peusrcent above Intensity capacity based on existing land e and 59 percent above Intensity capacity based on current toning. Mr. Robbins stated that the Appendix A Task force recom- mends that the boundaries and Intensity calculstlons be part of Appendix A to the Denton Development Plan. DECISION: Mr. Glasscock moved to recommend that area 163 eidde3 to the Appendix A of the Denton Development Plan. Seconded by Mr. Engelbrecht and unanimously carried (1-0). III. Consider setting a date, time, and place for a work session to consider a clarification to the policy in the Denton Development Plan with respect to updating the analysis component (intensity calculations) of Appendix A, Denton Development Plan. I Mr. Robbins stated that the purpose of the clarification to the policy would be so that staff would be able to add the 1 study areas to Appendix A of the Denton Development Plan. He said that every time a change is made, staff would have to go back to the Commission for spproyal. He said that the clari- fication would eliminate studies being brought to the Commissioners one at a time. Ms. !rock asked if staff could come back at the next meeting with the clarification. Mr. Robbins said yes. I Mr, Engelbrecht commented that he would like to at least continue to see the areas on a single map. Li PBZ Minutes November 30, 1988 Page 6 and the City Council in accordance with he update procedures set out in the Denton Development Plan. The Executive Director for Planning and Development shall be responsible for preparing and updating the intensity calculations for each of the moderate and low intensity areas In accordance with the standard methodology and boundaries contained in Appendix A." Ms. Brock stated that staff would not be changing the boundaries but would be chsnging the calculations. Mr, Persaud agreed. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that the calculations were designed after the Plan was approved. He asked if this was just an administrative detail. Mr. Persaud said yes. Ms. Brock stated that the policy should be changed to read This appendix is to be developed by a committee comprised of representatives DECISIONS Ms. Brock moved to recommend approval of the policy as amended. Seconded by Mr. Glasscock and unanimously carried (7-0). rF. Consider making a recommendation on Article 17, Signs, of Appendix B, Zoning of the Code of Ordinances. STAFF REPORTS Ms. Carson stated that the Government e at ins ommittee has requested more time to consider the chin as and submit those changes for the Planning and Zoning meeting on December 11th. Ms. Brock asked Ms. Carson to review the schedule of the j moratorium. Ms. Carson said that the City Council has extended the moratorium until February 11, 1989. The re ulrement for amending the ordinance is that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council and then the Council would hold s public hearin on the issue and make a decision. She sold that the Plannfae and Zoning Commission will have only one meeting to December and the City Council would be meeting on the 3rd and 17th of January and the 7th and Zlst of February. The City Council would need an additional work session for consideration before a motion would be made and the Council has previously requested that this type of item not be scheduled for a special called meeting. Ms. Carson continued that a chart in the Commissioners back up shoved the sign requirements In other titles. Ms. Brock asked when was the last possible date to have the draft sign ordinance brought to the Commission. Ms. Carson stated the first meeting in January in order for staff to advertise fifteen days prior to the City Council public hearing. , L G. Consider making a recommendation on an amendment to the Denton Developpment plan to add a note to the Thoroughfare Plan in relstion to Oak/Hickory Street. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Robbins stated that In the Commissioners' pat ets vas a copy of the policy amendment and the recos- mendatioas that were made By the Historic Landmark Commission, Mr. Robbins said that at the lost Historic Landmark Commission meeting, staff had exprossed concerns and after f discussion the Historic Landmark Commission made the tal- lowing recommendatlonst 1) Oak Street between Bonnie Brae and Carroll Boulevard should not be wider than allowing for two trivet lanes 1Ius on•stree! parking in selected areas and/or bike panes in selected areas. a' 1 ~ i l I r L) IL -il- P&Z Minutes December 14, 1988 B. Consider making a recommendation on Article 17, Signs of Appendix B, Zoning of the Code of Ordinances. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Carson gave a summary of the meetings regaling tFe sign ordinance. She said that the Government Relations Committee met with staff and members of the Beautification Task Force on December 5, 1988 to discuss the revisions to the sign ordinance and the following suggestions were made by the Committee: 1. Maximum square footage of signs on I-35 - 150 Maximum height of signs on 1-35 - 30 feet 2. Allow wind devices to extend beyond 5 feet from the building and for a maximum of 30 to 45 days and require a permit. 3. Establish a public awareness program about the sign ordinance. 4. Establish a routine code enforcement process to randomly inspect signs including giving notice when h a sign complies with the ordinance. 5. Consider allowing two ground signs for state or national flags. 6. Consider reducing the effective area and height of signs allowed on arterial streets. Ms. Carson stated that following the meeting, staff was contacted by a representative of the Government Relations Committee requesting that consideration be given to increase the size of the signs along I-35E. She said that based on the comments from the meetings with the Government Relations Committee, staff suggests the Ih following: 1. Signs on 1-3SE - 250 square feet - 40 feet height ` for the area from I-35W to the city limits between State School Road and Shady Shores Road. 2. Eliminate provision that wind devices may not be extended beyond five feet of the building. Add f provision that a wind device must have a minimum setback as provided for other signs. A permit is re- quired and may be renewed once. 3r Include state provisions for spacing between off-premise signs, i.e. a minimum 1500 feet spacing is required between off-premise ground signs on the same side of the road. Ms. Carson stated that public awareness and code enforce- ment programs were not part of the ordinance. These Items may be Implemented with the adoption of the revised ordinance. i i DP&Z ecember December 14, 1988 Page 2 DRAFT Ms. Carson said another type of sign is the "monument" sign. This would be a sign that is constructed of concrete or other types of material, could have multiple tenant listings, and would have a limited height of 3 - 6 feet. Mr. Holt asked if it would be for major arterials. Ms. Carson stated that she believed it would be for secondary arterials but that signs could be used on all arterials. Mr. Glasscock stated that he felt the monument sign looked good. Jerry Cott, representative of the Government Relations Committee, stated that he felt the signs would be good for the city. Mike Cochran, member of the Beautificaton Task Force, agreed. Mr. signs a on the present Ms. Carsonnsaidt30efeet in maximum tfor asked height and ISO square feet in size. i Mr. Holt said that he would like to see monument signs in ` Denton. Ms. Carson said the Commission could decide to have a certain requirement for I-3S and a separate one for other streets. Mr. Holt said that he felt University Drive should stay the 39 foot height requirement. Ms. Carson commented that the Commission could break down the locations for the height. Mr. Engelbreegcht asked why University Drive would not have tonclutterednand thatCthe competition would be aoproblem, Mr, Engelbrecht stated that he was concerned about dividing A the city into two aesthetic types. Mr. Holt stated that he felt the best thing was to go with the monument signs on all streets except for 1-3S. Ms. Carson stressed that the moratorium expires on February 21 , 89 1 so 9 thand at a t~ draft something ordinance needed could to bee esdone by tablished~,uary li, 19 Mr. Holt asked if they could extend the moratorium. Ms. Carson stated that the Legal Department did not advise another extension. 1 1 1 a ; P&Z Minutes December 14, 1988 DRAFT Fag e 3 Mr. Glasscock stated that he felt the Commission should look again at monument signs. Mr. Bolt said that he thought monument signs could be on all major arterials except for I-35 and Loop 288. The signs on I-35 will have a maximum height of 40 feet and 250 square foot effective area and Loop 288 will be 30 feet in height with 150 square feet effective area. The Commission agreed. Mr. Holt said that the next item to consider would be wind devices. Ms. Carson said that staff suggests eliminating the provi- storr that wind devices may not be extended beyond five feet of the building and to add the provision that a wind device must have a minimum setback from the curb. She said another suggestion is to have a permit required and allow it to be renewed once. Mr. Cott asked if businesses that were opening for new events would go to the city for a permit for the banner. Ms. Carson said yes. Ms. Carson stated that another item to consider would be to allow one or two flagpoles that carry the state and/or national flags. Bill Holt stated that the Tetra Pak Corporation flies their country flag, Sweden, at the plant site. He said that he felt it was good. Ms. Kiker asked if a flag attracts people to a certain place. Ms. Carson said that a corporate flag carries a sign of the business. She said that state or national flags would not be required to be permitted. Mr. Cott stated that it was a recommendation of the Government Relations Committee to have up to three { flagpoles with the company, state, and national flags. 1 The Commission agreed to have staff make the changes on the ordinance and return the draft back to them for consideration at the next available meeting. 4 1 I J i , PbZ Minutes January 11, 1989 DRAFT D. Consider making a recommendation on Article 17, Signs, of Appendix 9, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances. REPORT: Ms. Carson stated that the Government ,j____--__TAFF REPO RT Relations Committee of the Chamber of Commerce met on January 4, 1989 to discuss issues raised at the continue Planning n Zoning Commission 1988. Shesaidthattheirdiscussion g was to c ~ with their recommendations that they had given before and three main items were discussed in some detail. A summary of those discussed are as follows: 1. Each premise should be permitted three (3) ground signs without regard to other provi- sions of the ordinance for a national or state flag and for a corporate logo. Effective area, height, spacing, etc. would not be applicable; 2. Grounds signs along freeways - I-35, I-35E, I-35W, and Loop 288 shall have a maximum effective area of 160 square feet and a maxi- mum height of 30 feet, except for I-35E between Avenue D and Luby's which shall have a maximum effective area of 250 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet; and 3. All ground signs on other streets shall be "monument" signs or signs of lose height and effective area and made of specific materials. The Committee did n recommendation on the effective area or height of this type of sign. Ms. Carson continued that the Beautification Task force later held a meeting on January 5, 1989 to discuss the sign ordinance. The Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. wEach ithout promise may other hprovisionsoofd the signs ordinance for the following: C two for display of a state or national flag and one for the display of a registered corporate logo. The corporate logo shall be limited to a maximum effective area of 60 square feet and a maximum height of 30 feet; 2. Ground signs along freeways should be limited to a maximum effective area of 160 square feet, and maximum height of 30 feet except that area between Avenue D and Luby's on I-35E may have a maximum effective area of 260 square feet and maximum height of 40 feet; V` 4 I 1 I I P3Z Minutes January 11 , 1989 Page 2 DRAFT 3. All other ground signs shall be constructed of brick routed wood planks or ~ stone, concrete, beams, metal, or similar materials. The face or message portion of the sign may include plastic I material if it does not encompass more than 50% of the effective area of the sign. The maximum effective are of these signs shall be sixty (60) square feet with a maximum height of six (6) feet. In addition, if a premise is permitted to have more than one ground sign under the ordinance, in lieu of the additional ground signs, a sign with a maximum effective area of 120 square feet and a maximum height of 20 feet will be permitted. 4. The maximum height of a ground sign in a residential zoning district be reduced from a twenty-fiye (25) maximum height of maximum height of six(6)feet; and feet to a Ms. Carson showed the Commission a slide presentation of various signs and flags in the city limits. Ms. Kiker stated that she was concerned with businesses i not having a limit on the size of flags for their business. She said that she felt the ordinance should read: 1. Each premise may have three (3) ground signs without regard to other provisions of the sign ordinance for the following: two for display of a state or national flag and + one for the display of a registered corporate logo. The corporate logo shall be limited to a maximum effective area of 50 square feet with a national flags, or similar sheight of max Ms. Kiker continued that she was concerned with businesses us!ng state and national flags to attract i attention to their business. She said she feels that if all of the sizes are regulated consistently, it would be more aesthetically pleasing and more patriotic rather than commercial. Jerry Cott, Chairman for Government Relations Committee, stated that it is possible that people may abuse the sizes if they are not regulated but because there are different sizes and heights of warehouses and I I J P&Z Minutes OJ A Jan D uary 1 1 , 1989 f! ll❑ an Page 3 buildings, the committee decided to leave it the way it was, with no restrictions, because it would not look right to have three flags that are all different sizes. Ms. Kiker stated that she appreciated the committee's opinion but felt there may be a businessman that would want to have one. She said that the ordinance need not be specific but at least have some statement to prevent flag abuse. r Mr. Engelbrecht stated that it seemed inconsistent to have a ground sign of 30 feet with an effective area of 150 square feet but would allow a flag at any height. Ms..Horgan suggested having a statement put in the ordinance to read that flags would have a height requirement in a residential area. Mr. Cott stated that he would take it back to his committee to discuss. Ms. Carson stated that the Commission may wish to discuss several points about the recommendations including: 1. Three grounds signs for flags per premise means any premise could have four ground signs regardless of the size of property. 2. Clarification of reasons for allowing signs with a maximum effective area of 250 square feet and a maximum height of 40 feet between Avenue D and Luby's on 1-35. 3. A ground sign with a maximum height of 20 feet, as proposed by the Beautification Task Force, may not classify under a low profile type sign. The type of material that may be used has been specified, but a 20 foot sign would more likely be a mono-pole type of sign. The Commission agreed with staff recommendations though there was some dispute in the recommendation for flags. Mr. Cott stated that the committee was in favor of corporate logos on flags. Mr. Holt stated that he felt one company logo flag per premise should be the limit. He asked what the height for most flag poles are. Me. Carson said 20 to 25 feet. fi i ti i PAZ Minutes January 11, 1989 Page 4 DRAFT Jeane Morrison, Beautification Task Force, stated that 1 there may not be very many people wanting to put in 1 flag poles that are larger due to the expensive cost to install them. Ms. Carson stated that the amount of frontage at some corporations would allow for more signage. Ms. Carson added that if the Commissioners were concerned with businesses abusing the amount of flags and the size, staff could monitor them. Mr. Holt agreed. r~ Ms. Carson said another recommendation was the freeway sign. She said that it currently states that a height shall not be greater than six fee!r except for a freeway sign, which will have a maximum height of 30 feet with a maximum of 1R0 feet of square area. i Mr. Holt asked what the requirements would be For Loop i 288, Mr. Robbins stated 30 feet height with a 160 square foot area. Mr. Engelbrecht asked if that would be a problem since I-36 requirements would be 40 feet in height with 260 square feet. Mr. Morris stated that if the topography is the same it would be a problem, but that it is not i the case. J Mr. Engelbrecht proposed that the Commission except the 30 feet and 150 square foot area with the exception b foot area etween Avenue D and Luby's at 40 feet and 250 square with a statement that the Commission area as the exception andnotastherule in the event that an exception is legally questionable. Mr. Holt stated that he would like to see businesses on Loop 288 but feels that they should have a limit of 30 feet with 150 square feet. Mr. Holt recommended that the requirements for I-35 be 40 feet with 250 square feet whereas all other freeways should be 30 feet with 150 square feet. Mr. Engelbrecht agreed, Ms. Carson said that the Commission needed to determine the southern boundary as Luby's but did not mention a boundary on the north side of I-35. She said that the option is to go to the northern boundary of Pace's Crossing AAddition ddition. orSheesaid tthat the boundary Pace's lines up with the southern boundary of Southridge Village Shopping Center, which is the side of Luby's, She asked if the Commission wanted that on both sides of I-35E. I, J S i P&Z anMinutes anuary 1 1 , 1989 Page 5 AFT j DR Mr. Engelbrecht asked if by choosing that, if it would 1 leave out some of the businesses on the north side of II I-35E. Ms. Carson said no. The Commission agreed to have the southern boundary of Pace's Crossing Addition. DECISION: Mr. Holt moved to recommend approval of the sign ordinance with the changes stated. Seconded by j ~--1 Mr. Glasscock and unanimously carried (6-0). I I I ~J I ~ I1 i I c 1 { 1I I ~h 9 J d P&Z Minutes January 25, 1989 D DR A` A. Consider making a recommendation on the adoption of an ordinance amending Article 17 of Appendix B, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances relating to signs. STAFF REPORT: Ms. Carson stated that in preparing backup for the ty` o ncil$ it was discovered that a formal public hearing had not been held on the ordinance. She said that according to state law, the Planning and Zoning Commission, after holding a public hearing, needed to make a recommend- atio:. to the City Council on amendments to the Zoning Ordi- nance. Ms. Carson stated that at the same time it would give ~f staff an opportunity to address questions discussed by City Council. Ms. Carson stated that she would go over the changes in the ordinance. She said that the definition of "effective area" on page 2 was discussed with the City Council at the work session. She continued that effective area is defined as: "Effective area" means the area enclosed by an imaginary { rectangle which would fully contain all portions of ilia sign when rotated horizontally around the sign. The effective area shall not include that portion of the supporting structure which is used solely for support of the sign and which is not an integral part of the sign, such as poles, columns, and cables, but shall include all decorative or ornamental elements and features, borders, trims, or other materials or portion of the sign or sup- porting structure which is an integral part of the sign. Ms. Carson stated that the Commission should also note that several definitions have been added to the ordinance. The definitions are those contained in the existing ordinance but for effectiveness they were added to the ordinance and alpha- betized. Ms. Carson stated that the next item was on page five of the t'raft ordinance in regards to banners over the streets. She said that Commission had recommended that anyone wanting to put a banner over tho street would need the approval from the city. Ms. Carson stated that the approval would not be coming from the City Council but would be from the city. P # Ms. Carson then discussed the regulation of ground signs on page eight of the draft ordinance in regard to the number of ground signs for a premise. The City Council had expressed a concern that if two ground signs would be allowed on the pre- mise that by grouping them together they appeared to be a much larger sign. She continued that language had been added to specify that the additional sign is spaced at least 400 feet from the other sign. a E p&Z anMinutes anuary 25, 1989 f` Ii~j J A Page 2 TER 19 T Ms. Carson continued or page nine under the materials for grounds sigrrs. She said that she had received a letter and had provided the Commission with a copy from Dick Stevens with Henry S. Miller regarding the plastic on ground signs. She said that the proposed ordinance states: "All ground signs shall be constructed of stone, concrete, brick, routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar materials. The face or message portion of the sign may include plastic material if it does not encompass more than 801 of the effective area of the sign and the plastic material used is framed by stone, concrete, brick, routed wood planks or beams, or metal, or similar materials." Ms. Carson stated there was a revision to the date on page 15 regarding the registration for non-conforming signs. She said that staff recommends that the date be changed to June 1, 1989 which would allow ninety (90) days for registration. Slick Smith, 2100 Redwood Place, stated that he felt the re- striction of the portable signs was only going to cost the city a lot of money in paperwork. He said that he has owned a portable sign company in Denton for six years. Mr. Smith ex- pressed concern with the restriction of portable signs and felt that without the ability to rent his signs his income would be seriously restricted. James Simms, Pastor of Calvery Baptist Church, stated that he feels the portable sign is the only way that his church can afford to get their message out to others. He asked the Commission to reconsider the proposal. E. L. Morris, Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church, stated that he has been a pastor in the community since 1941 and feels that the portable sign is the only way he can reach a large group of people at one time. He stated that his church sup- ports the Christian Law Society and that he does not want to, but would sue the city if he could not get his message out either by church services or through message on signs. Kenneth Moore, Associate Pastor for Maranatha Baptist Church, expressed that portable signs did not cause as significant problem in the beautification of the city as billboards along 1-35, which project images that are immoral. Charlotte Pennington, 702 W. Oak, stated that she has been in the day care business for 13 years. She has tried to find methods of advertising that would reach a large quantity of people and feels that the portable sign does just that. Bill Claiborne, 820 Smokerise, stated that he was speaking in favor of the proposed amendments as they benefit the city in its beautification efforts. He said that he was a member of the committee that helped draft the proposed amendments. The i I i 1 i P$Z Minutes f January 25, 1989 R A F T Page 3 fU~ city is attempting to attract major industries in the city and feels that the restriction of the sign ordinance would help to accomplish the beautification. He stated that he, personally, is in favor of one on-premise sign but is not in favor of the off-premise signs. Ilene Powell, Rt. 7 Denton, stated that she feels the churches should have a right to get out their messages. Mr. Smith said that the condition of University Drive was 4 worse than portable signs were in regard to the beautification of the city. Mr. Claiborne stated that he could not speak for the city as a whole but felt the city contributes to the cleanliness by city t employees picking up garbage on a designated day every year. He emphasized that the employees were not just those of the solid waste department but from all departments within the city. ` Mr. Simms stated that he believed that attracting more busi- II nesses would enhance the Denton area but that the Commission should consider the residents in the city as well. RECOMMENDATION: Ms. Carson clarified for the audience that city staff an the Commissioners were not considering a pro- I~ posal to take the lawful existing portable signs away. The ? proposal was to prohibit any new portable signs from being installed within the city. She added that the ordinance has the support of the Beautification Task Force and Chamber of Commerce. i i Mr. Kamman stated that if a church or day care center has a II sign on their property now that conforms with law, they could I keep the sign. Ms. Carson stated that is correct, any signs that are lawfully placed can remain. j Mr. Engelbrecht asked what would happen in the event a new church was built in the city limits. Ms. Carson stated that the church would be allowed to build a sign to deliver their h messages but no new portable signs would be allowed. Mr. Engelbrecht stated the church could not have a portable sign. Ms Carson stated that a new portable sign would not be permitted, but they could use any sign lawfully placed in the II city. Mr. Glasscock asked if the existing portable signs would be allowed to stay. Ms. Carson said yes, as long as they are maintained in accordance with the ordinance. Mr. Holt stated that he thought the Commission had agreed upon one corporate flag in addition to two state or national flags on page 14 of the draft ordinance, without a height and size J F r n 5, 1989 January 25, DRAFT 2 a 8u limit. Ms. Carson said yes, though if a business had a cor- porate flag only there would be the requirement of 30 feet In height and 50 square feet. Chair declared public hearing closed. Ms. Morgan asked if the Commission could allow for some port- able signs to be placed on a property like a church but then moved would portable signs ever be eliminated. Ms. Brock stated that they had discussed not making a destination in content because of constitutional guarantees. She continued that one group could not be allowed to advertise when that right is denied to others. Mr. Engelbrecht stated that the document has been reviewed extensively by various groups and has been reviewed to de- f termine the legality of the ordinance. He moved to recommend approval of the sign ordinance amendments with the changes f from staff. Seconded by Ms. Morgan. Mr. Holt stated that the Commission, when facing a major issue as this, always seems to be infringing on somebodies rights. I lie said that it is difficult to regulate somethings, for example it is very difficult to regulate what goes on a sign. E He added a church would be allowed to have a sign on premise. He continued that the majority of the people be regulated and that we are inaminority agree grthat oup ofgns cities that still allow portable signs. He added that there are still options for signage in the city. Chairman Brock called for a vote on the motion and it carried unanimously (7-0). I 1b48x JI I I I f i I I 0 t ti A , DATE: 02/07/89 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council PROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager 1J SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY ALONG THE ELM FORK OF THE TRINITY RIVER (A-58) J RECOMMENDATION: 11 ; Staff recommends approval of the annexation. 1 SUMMARY: This annexation would complete the extension of the City limits to ! Lake Ray Roberts. A letter has been sent to the property owners requesting consent for a voluntary annexation of a 100' strip. An involuntary annexation would require a minimum 1,000' strip. BACKGROUND: I j The City of Denton has annexed property in this area over the past 4 years in an attempt to control water quality and subdivision of I property, J PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: II Fourteen 11 property owners would be affected by this annexation, Including the Corps of Engineers. J FISCAL IMPACT: J City services must be provided within the City limits. The costa would be minimal because of the width of the annexation. Res Euily,eub eds Prepared by: Li0 V. Harrell ii . IL JJ11 City Manager Cecile Carson f Urban Planner APP oved: Frank H. Robbins Executive Director for Planning and Development 2414& J h J r 1ANNEXATI ON A-58 NORTH 3b 0007 34.7 Ac _ y~ rntp r~r.r• C 4 P 6S.4Ac 2l.11 A M. 0. CHAS. Ak ,22. u t. C J M N D~ 014 Ac J077 2,4c MA• y \11' /0A t Q~ i W, o%j AoAc 1`A 22 At Z f, . • urger d. A% /O.AG v R M,NNIf P ;OA 30 Ac. t ht 74 Ac Y a 5 eo*ry i u QA JOHN PORTER ANTO -ARLES MAY$ 103.3Ae 12 3 An. Mr/TAYR \P~ 33 Ac X BOBBY McDOwELL q1 74.&P AL V \yrL tr s o0 9G.3 9Ac 4 30Ac All v. I p 14~7Ac. 40044 2411 Af a. K 10 Ac. 30Ac #LAXL r ' t' Melt nn 2/.; 110 1 Ac. 71 SYAA1S I# At. •i r OA 24.11 . RN. WOOLS 10 Ac. !'AGLF RARM3 Je v 124.1 Ac p R. H. VIA 213 t 174 23Ae 146 Ac 4~ r A PROPOSED °p+ lip. ;YC7 s'Y ° CITY LIMITS o [ R. A ure t, ~ J,V. PRE8EN 75.Y4Ae CITY LIMITS oAYE MAr6ERRY +t 6, Er AL //D Ac 7! Ac t to j r 01)WAN SM,rk DAr /SS Ac 00, BEAT Y 24 Ac 74. S Ac 103. i Ac r. I i / y -i 4 23 I it it L 1f r it t~iAf r• A, CA6L2 g Z { AeOlt Y~ YuLR R , 10.2Ae. TAYLOR R. N. VENAdLE y -n 144 7 Ac 0 'RE F 4l At. Altt. T-Q.. I i L V L L y NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED ANNEXATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS THAT: The City of Denton, Texas, proposes to institute annexation territorygs deto alter scribed t in boExhibitlimits of said attached City hereto d athe nd incorporated by reference herein, to tha corporate limits of the City of Denton. A Public Hearing will be held by a afore the ity Council 1 of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 1989, at 1.00 o'clock?. H. in the C ty ounctl C am ara t e Municipal Building of the City of Denton, Texas, for all rsons interested in to above proposed annexation. At said time and I place all such persons shall have to right to a pear and be ' heard. Of all said matters and things, all parsons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. A Public Hearing will be held by an# bofore the Ci y council of the City of Denton, Texas, on thiXf OCC day of 1989, at 7,00 o'clock P. N. in to C ti y Council C am era t e Hunicipal Building of to City of Denton, Texas, for all Iona interested in the above proposed annexation. At said time and place all such persona shall have the right to appear and be heard. Of all said matters and things, all persons interested in the things and matters herein mentioned, will take notice. P , y 711"3 ---~~1 ATTEST: I i , 1 A-S8 i I i J OA i EXHIBIT "A" ALL that certain lot, tract or parcel of land lying and being situated in the County of Denton. State of Texas and being part of the N. McBride survey, Abst. No. 804, w. Tanzy survey Abst. No. 1253, S.A. i M. 4. X. R. Survey, Abst. No. 1228 and more fully described as follows: BEING a strip of land 1,000 feet in width and containing approximately 310.6678 acres or land more or less, said 10000 foot strip lying 500 feet on each side of the centerline described below; BEGINNING at a point lying in the centerline of the Elm Fork of the Trinity river, said point lying 434.43 foot, wore or less, southeast of the northwest corner of a tract conveyed from Daniel M. Mahoney Realtors, Inc. to D.N. Mahoney/O.S. Royalty Joint Venture by a deed dated January 30, 1961 and recorded in Volume 1058, Page 603 of the Deed Records of Denton County Texas said point also lying in the east boundary line of a tract conveyed from J.M. Porter to Eagle Farms, inc. by a deed dated July 19, 1979 and recorded in Volume 9630 Page 734 of the DRDCT; THENCE northwesterly along the west boundary line of said Mahone Tract and the east boundary line of said Eagle Farms, Inc. bract the following two courses and distances, (1) north 130 15' 690 west a distance of 252.74 feet; (2) north 400 05' 18' west, 161.69 feet to the westerly northwest corner of said Mahoney Tract and the southerly southeast corner of Tract it as conveyed from Scenic Joint Venture to E.L. Hughes and Ray Lynch by a deed dated December 30, 1986 and recorded in volume 20620 Page 311 of the OROCT; THENCE northerly the following 12 courses and distances along the west boundary line of sold Hu has Tract and continuing along the test boundary line of said Eagle Farts Tract, (1) north 660 6' west 169,0 feet; (2) scutb 830 03' west 303.2 foots (3) south 310 6' west, 397.0 foot; (4) south ISO 14' west. 236.7 foots (6) nortA 60 40' west, 400.2 foots (6) north 70 46' east, 336.6 foots (1) north 800 22' east, $97.4 feet; (6) north 310 63' oast, 149.6 foots (9) north 40 10' waste 701.9 feet; (10) north 630 OZ' west. 10534 foots (11) north 90 46' waft, 231.2 foots (12) north 160 18' test, 109.1 feat to the northwest corner of said Scenic Joint Venture Tract and the northeast corner of said Eagle Farms Tract said point also being the southwest corner of a tract of land Conveyed from Charles 0, Hail to Clyde A. r Slakeloy Jr, end wife Minnie 6. Elakelo by a deed dated January ~t0, 1966 and recorded in Volume 5,33, Page 434 of the DRDCT and bein0 the southeast corner of Tract One as conveyed from Scenic Joint Venture to E. L. Ru9bes and Ray Lynch by a j died dated December 300 1986 and recorded in Volume 2062. Page 311 of tho DRDCT, slid point also lying in the contorlin0 of an east/west public road known as McKinney Bridge Raad; I I I i i I /A 1 THENCE northe the following 4 course and distances along the centerline of said Elm Fork same bel q the west boundary line of said Tract One and the east boundary Blakelty Tract, {1} north 180 18' east, 180.6 feet; (2)f north 50 36 east, 420.0 feet, (3) north 420 21' west, 282.8 feet; (4) north 210 16' 30.0' west, 217.14 feet to the northwest corner of said Tract One and the northeast corner of said Blakeley Tract said point also lying in the north boundary line of said McBride surrey, Abst. No. 804 and the south alsodbeingitheosouthwestncornerrofya test. No. 1253 act McDoweDowel andDin1ee M. Evans and Was Barbara Evans to Bobby G. . Mcll l and wife, Bobbie B. McDowell by a dead dated December 1, 1977 and recorded in Volume in 6750 Page 783 of the DUCT and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John T. Campbell to Charles k. McCallum b a deed dated August 2, 1960 and recorded in Yolume 4580 Page 312 of the DUCT for corner; THENCE northerly the following 2 courses and distances, along the centerline of said Elm Fork soma being the west boundary line of said McCallum Tract an30theeast boundary line of said McDowell Tract (1) north 50 west, 198.55 feet; (2) north 80 22 30 west, 867.94 feet to the northeast corner of Said McDowell Tract and the southeast corner of a tract of land conveyed from $a■ Evans, it al to John M. Porter Auto Sales Inc by a dead dated August 23, 1971 and recorded in volume 621, Page 539 of the DUCT for corner; THENCE northerly the following 1 courses and distances along the centerline of said Elm Fork continuing along the west boundary tine of said McCallum Tract and the east boundal• line of said John Porter Auto Sales Inc. Tract, (1) north ?40 3' 304 east 230.9 feet; (2) north 410 feet; (3; north 650 17' east, 260,3 fea$51 30.0 t; (4)Onorthti704i81 30" east, 285.3 feet; (5) north 120 2 west, 309.8 feet; (6) north 70 39' west. 357.9 feet= (7) north 200 201 16 west, 33 feet to the northeast corner of the remainder ofthe John We Porter Auto Sales Inc. Tract and the southeast corner of a Ramos b`y ay d died datedJSepntembero10, 1984 andarecorded In Volume 15300 Page 151 of the ORiOCT for corner= THENCL northwesterly the following 2 courses and distances along the centerline of said Elm Fork along the west boundary line of sold McCellva Tract and the east boundary line of said Ramos Tract. (11- north 200 20 18 west, 27.8 feet= (2) north 180 1' west, 262,0 feet to the northeast corner of said Ramos Tract and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John N. Sopprtimberul0, 1984 IndnrecordedSinaVolvo* 1S30yPage 147 ofathe r OADCT for cornett THENCE north 180 07' west along the west boundary line of Porterctractma Tract distance of 317,75 feet to the nO heast dcoSusan rner of said Susan Porter tract and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John We Porter Auto Sales, Inc. to John A. Porter by a deed dated Se teeber 106 1984 and recorded is Volume 1523, Page 505 of the DAU T for corner; I III 1A 1 THENCE north~..sterly the following 3 uses and distances along the centerline of said Eta Fork, sloe being the west boundary line of said McCallum Tract and the east boundary line of said John R. Porter Tract, (1) north 180 7' west, 13.05 feats (2) north 170 49' 30' west passing the northwest corner of said McCallum and the southwest corner of a tract conveyed from Charles w. McCallum and wife Yinnye B. McCallum to the United States of America by a deed dated November 18, 1981 and recorded total Volume distance 11139 of Page 159 of feet; t (3) north and o i9t' nu301 1 west, 50.9d feet to the northeast corner of said John R. Porter Tract and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John W. Porter Auto Sales, Inc. to Vaughn Andrus by a deed dated September 10, 1984 and recorded in Volume 1523, page 501 of the OROCT for corner; THENCE north 200 19' 30' west along the centerline of said Elm Fork, same being the west boundary line of said McCallum to USA Tract and the east boundary line of said Vaughn Andrus Tract a distance of 343.12 feet to the northeast corner of said Andrus Tract and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John W. Porter Auto Sales, Inc. to Ann Andrus by a deed dated OROCTmf<r 10, 1984 and recorded in Volume 15230 Pigs 513 of the corner, THENCE north 200 19' 30' west along the centerline of sold I, Elm Fork, some being the west boundary line of said 6SA Tract and the east boundary line of said Ann Andrus Tract a distance of 377.33 feet to the northwest corner of said Ann Andrus and the southeast corner of a tract conveyed from John V. Porter Auto Sales, Inc. to Betty Cochran by a deed dated September 10, 1984 and recorded in Volume 1523, Page $17 of the OAOCT; THENCE northwesterly the following 2 courses and distances along the centerline of said Elm Fork, same being the west boundary line of said McCallum to USA Tract and the east boundary lino of sold Cochran Tract, (1) north 200 19' 30' west, 202.87 feet; (2) north 270 43' 300 west, 387.0 feet to corneRr rofaaattract econveyedi from Jo nAnn aBurger to ethe uUnitedi States of America by a died dated October Be 1981 and recorded In Volume 1107, Page 209 of the OROCT for corner= THENCE northwesterly along the center of said Elm Fork same being the west boundary line of sold McCallum to USA Tract and the gist boundary line of sold Burger to USA Tract a distance of 868 feet to the northwest corner of said McCallum to USA Tract and the northeast corner of said Burger to USA Tract, said point also 1 ing In the north boundary line of said Tansey survey and south Boundary line of said S. A. i M.O. R.A. Surrey, 3 also being the southwest corner of Tract 210.1 as conveyed from William E. Campbell Jr., at al to the United States of America by a dead dated Apr11 12, 1982 and recorded in Volume 1136, Page 801 of the OROCT and the southeast corner of Tract No. 213 as conveyed from John N. Porter at i1 to the United States of America by a deed dated August 249 1981 and recorded in Volume 10961 Page 787 of the OROCT for corner; I i{ S s k THENCE northwesterly along the centerline of said Elm Fork same being the west boundary line of said Campbell to USA Tract and the East boundary line of said Porter to USA Tract a distance of 20618 feet to an angle point in the west boundary line of said Campbell to USA Tract and the east boundary line of said Porter to USA Tracto said point also tying in the west boundary line of said S.A. 6 M.G. R.P.. Survey and the east boundary line of the W. Cox Survey, Abst. No. 291 for the Point of Termination. f-~ i i I 4 I I II f f ANNEXATION SCHEDULE A-58 ✓January 17, 1989 City Council sets date, ties and place for public hearings (January, 22, 1969 Notice published in Denton Record r--~ Chronicle for first public hearing 1 February 7, 1989 City Council - first public hearing 1 February 101 1969 Notice published in Denton Record i Chronicle for second public hearing February 21, 19$9 City Council - second public hearing Ii February 220 1969 Planning and Zoning Coealssion sakes recoeeandation March 160 1969 City Council institutes anasxtiom Special Called Keating march 170 1969 Publication of ordlnaaee in Denton Record Chronicle April 1$, 1989 Final action by City Comeil • i • r 1 E ` 2081L I PETITION FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION TO: The City Council of the City of Dentons Texas i WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 13 of the Local Government Codes the City of Denton has proposed to annex a strip of land extending from the existing city tlaits, northerly along the Eta Fork of the Trinity Rivers as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and Incorporated herein by reference; and, ~---1 WHEREAS, the area to be annexed is required by law to be at 1 least one thousand feet (110001) in width at its narrowest points unless the owner or owners of the land to be annexed request annexation by written petition; ands WHEREAS: in order to allow the proposed annexation to be of an area less than one thousand feet (110001) in width, the petitioner landowner's desire to request annexation of a portion of the area now proposed for annexation) NOW: THEREFORSs 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter /S of the Local Government Code, the undersigned: being the owners of all or part of the land described below, respectfully petition the mayor and city council of the City of Denton for annexation to the City of Denton of the unincorporated area within the County of Denton, described as follows: A strip of land of a maxiau■ width of 100 feet, lyin along and within the land described in Exhibit "A" mttachel here- to and incorporated herein by references said 100 foot strip generally followln , to the extent possible, the J centerline of the Elm Fort of the Trinity River, as here- I inafter to be determined by the City of Denton. Signature Tract No. of La_ Address (ref. attached) . i. p 2. I 3. I i 6. ANNEXATION A-58 EW!IODTH H )RTH r Oa 1+ . 5 ` a56 ,e e `o 131, 2 Acs OQ e.1. P ~'Mllb P P P. r Oil 65fAc MMa,~ A , i t. r, JIRlNG i 1 BIAS. Ak 1 a Y 122. LOI ; \ ry Fc ✓OA BURGGR A b h 77. I Aet~~ I A r. ' ~ 1. t q. YIQ 11 ~4. M ~ /0 AC V{ 22 At LAO& IVAc -to Ac 74 Ad + d~l JeA 1 F"~ JONN PORTER ALTO K11-V eRATY 1 ~P l A 37 k I /A3.lAe At1/TH6f" BOBBY MCDOW£LL S 7eLAe 477Ae147A1, $6.3 h ° 40Ae fO Ac" r - It 3OAc etA~fLf1' r. %YAN! l1Ae. CKinn17 r! 20.AAC '1b0.44e. 7i 41 I 24.0. ° k f y CAQLE iARMS ~1 /C RN X24. S 4.5Ad r, A • r31AC jv r4~AcPRO N. RM. Yid +.~Y 3Y CITY LIMITS ►A. A:r1 Pe J. v. t. isvfAc PRESEN 11 DAV£ MAVMRRV CiTY LIMITS c, i'TAL I/O Ac t L- 7e Ac OiN r£RMAN SM/T/V ` ISS Ac u 0, 0, B£gTY 26 Ac 102.4 AC 74,3Ad r. _P41 b1 . t ti Ac. c it 1 r 4 2f i -5t taeAr A, CAGtf y to.f Ae TAYLOR RM V£NA84t OufR Z Aft? Ad 0. 5A& U6Lt P Ae Vh NI Q• 4. f Ac . Cr I .Q~'ay 1. tl S Q,~ { PLAN OF SERVICE FOR ANNEXED AREA, CITY OF DENTON TEXAS 1. Basic Service Plan A. Police Patrolling, radio responses to calls, and other routine police services, using present personnel and equipment, will be provided on the effective date of annexation. B. Fire Fire protection by the present personnel and equipment of the fire fighting force, will be provided on the effective date of annexation. C. Water/Wastewater Maintenance of public water and wastewater facilities will 1 begin within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the annexation for all facilities required to be maintained by the City of Denton. I D. Refuse Collection ; ` The same regular refuse collection service now provided within the City will be extended to the annexed area within sixty (60) days after the effective date of annexation. I ' E. Streets 1. Emergency maintenance of streets (repair of hazardous chuckholes, measures necessary for traffic flow, etc.), will begin on the effective date of annexation. i 2. Routine maintenance on the same basis as in the present City, will begin in the annexed area on the effective date of annexation. 3. Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm drainage facilities, construction of curbs and I gutters, and other such major improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the governing body, will be accomplished under the established policies of the City. 4. Traffic signals, traffic signs, street markings, and other traffic control devices will be installed as the need therefore is established by appropriate study and traffic standards. F. Inspection Services Any inspection services now provided by the City (building, electrical, plumbing, gas, housing, sanitation, etc.) will begin in the annexation area on the effective date of annexation. { r Service Plan Annexed Area Page 2 G. Planning and Zoning The planning and zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to the annexed area on the effective date of annexation. City planning will thereafter encompass the annexed area and a zoning designation for the J property will be established. 11 H. Street Lighting Street lighting will be installed in the substantially developed areas in accordance with the established policies of the city. 1. Recreation Residents of the annexed area may use all existing , recreational facilities, parks, etc., on the effective date of annexation. The same standards and policies now used in the present City will be followed in expanding the recreational program and facilities in the enlarged City. J. Electric Distribution The City recommends the use of City of Denton for new electric power. K. Miscellaneous Street name signs where needed will be installed within approximately six (6) months after the effective date of annexation. 11. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) The CIP of the City Is prioritized by such policy guidelines i as: A. Demand for services as compared to other areas based t partly on density of population, magnitude of problems compared to other areas, established technical standards and professional studies, and natural or technical re- straints or opportunities. j B. Impact on the balanced growth policy of the City. C. Impact on overall City economics. The annexed area will be considered for CIP in the upcoming CIF plan. The annexation area will be judged according to the same established criteria as all other areas of the City. t i I I i f~ i I ANN 1111111 144-1 11 F=-l t I- CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Approval of a tax refund to Title USA/First Union Mtg. Corp. RECOMMENDATION: The Tax Technician has determined that a tax refund should be issued. SUMMARY; the Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of ! TitleoUSAnisgrequestingha refund initheoamountnof $n929.00, since$duOp100_ I cate tax payments were made on Account # BACKGROUND: 8904-00614, Commonwealth Mortgage paid $ 929.00 on 10-20-86. Title USA also paid !I 29. a tax basenof0$3929.00.TaA taxorefunddisaduepayments of $ 1,858.00 against PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: The Tax Department and the tax account of First Union Mtg. Corp. 1 ' FISCAL IMPACT: $ 929.00 l RES FUL~,,Y SJ/AI~ITT !re City Manager Prepared by: Name c e nei er E~ Title Tax Technician I 1i Approved: L a Jim un and le Treasur 2633C/3 i I i r~ 1 Refund Tax good MNnd ApPliuean calloh s1,1.t1 (l/l2) APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUND Collecting Office Namr I~Nrrl~rt-Tdf Collecting Tax For, rr)i 0 r /SJ~ /f7 i7 r1 E ~Ci 1 f0 n ex rla n7l 11~~ l Address T City, State, Zip Code In order to apply for a tax refund, the following information must be provided by the taxpayer, IDENTIFICATION OF PROP RTY OWN~EF Name; r's7" /Y/or~.aXe Address: Telephone Number (if additional mformabon is needed): 1 IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY: Description of Property; Tll a4z to o ycs-- Address or! t.!aUon of Property. - r Account Numt r nt Property.. - or Tow Receipt Number ~ INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF TAXES: Name of Taxing Unit Year for Amount of From Which Refund Which Refund Date of the Amount of Tax Refund is Requested Is Requested Tax Payment Taxes Paid Requested 1. G~ of 19 /D_ aA 19 $ 3.. 19 I19_ $ = Taxpayer's reason for refund (attach supporting documentation): id n+rrnrw pd~f~iilo~~ Or~"~~rr21 n rt /O-r7iYt~ Ti ~i4 v A;0/ . _Z ,c e-r 04 l0-.p-8f', //J / AR /10? 1 hereby apply for the refund of the abovedescribed taxes and certify that the Information I have given on this form is true and correct" Signature Lew%rp, I* T ;;%?l Date of Application for Tax Refund DETERMINATION FOR TAX REFUND: Approval Disapproval I Signature of Authorized Officer Date t i Signature of Prealding Officer(s) of Taxing~ Date tlnit(s) for refund applications over SSW Any N"onwho makes afalNentry~penthalapdngraeordahaatNfub)eclboneoftf+alo9owfngpanalWa L imprlsonmentot not more than 10 years not leas than 2 years and/or a fine of aol mere than 19,000 or both such New and imprisonment 3. conflnemaM fn 184 for a Ism up to 1 year a a Me not to ascsed 12,000 or "such One and ImprUonmenl» sat forth In Section 3f,10, Penal Code. WOO 3111 30 COLLECTIONS i CA tills USA Company of Denton ` PO Bo, 13 t 5 Le*,W4, ill 75061 214221 7676 iA%214221 7670 I 1 ~UM L6 January 11, 1989 City of Denton Tax Assessor 215 McKinney F Denton, Texas 76201 j RE: "1988 CITY TAXES" $929.000 TUSA Check No. 002500, 11/1/88 Acc.#890400614;L-5 B-9,The Village Ph.4 ? Our GF NUMBER 34334 M i Dear Sirs, In review of our rE::ords indicate that 1988 City Taxes have been paid once by Commonwealth Mortgage Company and also ..y Title USA Company of Denton(as referenced above by our check 1 j number and copy enclosed). Please double check your records and remit the refund ch^_ck to Title USA at the address above to the attention of Carol i r If I can be of further help, please give me a ring. Thank You. Very Truly Yours, Carol L. st a Escrow Assistant encls. IA t i 10 ~ b _ o r°O L C) M 6 O O YY I O ! cc j ! rr • O ! O s tj .4 Al ~ 2 ~ a i 16 i' O E N Ll C s o Aj N I x u u y 1 690400978 1988 7s 6909VUSS 1968 1 U5 NATO 12011111 TAX TRIAL BALANCE REAL PAGE 337 PINALIY E/r11CIIVI NETT MOMTN ACCOUNT R YEAR MAMI NET TAX CODE A PD-DATI TAX PAID PIN PAID 'TAX DUE PIN "I TOTAL WE I 690400!71 10 000014 SAMONA M 321.05 ►NMNNNNN M .00 371,03 .OQ 321,c 690400s79 11 TMWHA, Nur" MAE, 221.30 YNNMIIN"N 11/10 221030-00 Intoll4-•II-- HPAIIIAWI-I.f 4l}:R••~I~--}1f~8-• ...'88......_..gg .:......'88. 1 690400512 66 LIE MIADOMC HOMES IMC 45.65 YNMIINN"A 10121 6 .6s- .00 00 ,00 690400511 11 LEE MIAO0M1 M009: INC 45.65 Y"4110^ NA 10/21 4 b•• 00 :00 00 /90400114 69 LEN MEADOWS WYMIE INC 43.6$ YNNM"NNNA 10/21 45,61- .00 ,00 ,00...... 19Q. 490400965 66 LEE WADOW+ 000111 INC 45.65 YKVO* NNA 10/21 45.65• rA_•'. •00 40;0:......& ssa:1 .88 su.44i46060 II8t$81h-•11-•kE I°IYIIIs~7sls.................. al:fl-' ' Isa4its...... 1#0400511 61 Cowl"* OALE ~A.00 YNNNMMNN .00pp00 b0 .00 ,00 49000519 of flucif, 36.64 00 64 1904005" " HOIj0 141%06 BETTY L0, INC 557 At YNMMNNNNN .00 $57,69 000 ' 557.14 /90400591 69 041/071, NAYMOND L 2,670.15 YN""Alm 2,610,15 .00 it .1S 1 ..................1$~4 l~~.~~.........~...... IntnIIl••n- ~~i~l- RIlI~II-~. 690400594 11 YOOOMIL( ASSOCIATES 52 991:14YN"11NIINN S2 991,14 pp 32,"1.14 990400595 11 MCOAP 0401 SOLUTIONS 1;290,91 YNNNNIIN" 1213Q 1,290,91• .00 ~ ,00 .00 .00 0"400596 66 PAIEL, VIMOOBNAI T 5, 77.14 YNO~W I1/ s,N7,14• .00 .00 .00 /00400597 11 MOBIL OIL COOP 2 967.0 VNNNNNNN Z0967.01 .00 20967,01 is Inta81n•-II••IIfni 11JAM ltallle6asl ....sI~:I~-•~~'d- .88:......88 690400600 60 THIRIOT, LIROY.A ' 53.49 YNOIINNIIN 12129 35.49-•_ ,00 .00 190400601 N 0011/00, WILLIAM 57.45 YIINMBMN .00 251.45 .00 277,4y 6#0400602 " MULTI Mil 11641 K 3.49 YIM111WMIN .1[121 15),4 • 00 q, :00' 690400605 N IAMOIAE, PRRfISCCILLF A 116.00, YNN11100MN 516:0 ~~pp SO!--tN"RFi"Mp' .....:00 . 190400606 11 WHI1LER. VINNr 516.07 Y1NMNfNNN 12x10 S 6.V7•. ! `f OO w .00. }i,. . y ry y t' /90400607 as LIVIAlrr; JAMES M 4,l1 YNNIgfNNM• «.....i ,.y 7443 } '1~1,~+' 6#0100607'.67 IEYENE►T JAMES M °y 744. 1r1.01 422,121 , 6tG,304O1-141MV{111110 1661I.tl ~ ~ iy4 ~iiar~~~Ibl~t s'tt~:14•: /90400600 N BioOWN,, IAN AA 1,37 Twoom"N X00 301.37 ' .00 10{,59 00 69040066Q0 61• MOSMtC'KEMTO 1.6 ..YVNMNMNNN.-11/50.....' q t 16,91 00 }31`91.' 'I, t~~. ~1~yyyyy 4b 3b p Incas:~~••u IEI# IL' O MiiNMNNN i1136 0t1. ~dG .,rAy `y Co 7" illib 1 OL 1 all 0 INAC 1 . CO r,~ L '929 929 f V. 14 Of 14#1 690 006 4N fiR9r WIN "Ill ccup oRr i c' Y N, :A 99 c z 41 479111VU011 of ntn:Il••II--III44P~-"SIEs~olu.dr,as4. ....._..IiI: -}Imwommm -}lelgr }f ~g•...~ 3: :....:,~(.:..I ...::.;g8 ..:.►:;ga. l 490400616 11 OLIIN AMIN E 931.91 'YNN7INNNN ,Oh 931.41/; ,00 MOST, 690400619 11 00110 $000 1EV INC 737.69 Y NNNNNNA 9107 94S 46- pp 190400619 11 0110 PROP LEA INC A 9/07 945.46 .00 /90400619 98 ONOO PROP TEN INC N 12127 737,61......... ' ,_.._..•._.00 .00 .00 tntagtlB -II--8lll IlBt ill }~1 ......z~4.ft..r.► "I"V ;.....$0.1, 100400620 11 0010 PROP TER INC N 121 7 745.77• .00 ,00 ,00 .00 690400621 11 WILIONO CHARLES 930,03 Y NMNNNM 10127 30.03• .00 190400611 11 WILSON, CHARLII A 10130 1 41,1$ 100400621 41 WIL10N, CHARLES M A 10130 10041. .00 .00.... .00 ItBtaBtii• Il- ltl ;'l llEll 4l9.Q1._:.dmIN1_}gf ...t;~~4:JI;...... IV040"Is 11 WILSON CHARLES N A 101 1, 41.1 r .0 .00 .00 /90400623 11 IMAM SATILAL N 494.12 r""NNMNN ,QO .00 494,12 .00 494.12 190400624 11 rIO11AL MOM[ LOAN MTG CO 950105 YN""NNNN 11121 930.903• .00 00 ,00 .00 I i II i i f I L LL-LL s i 9 r C~ CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT ,13,V_•, T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Approval of a tax refund to Paul W. Noreen/l'icor Realty Tax Services RECOMMENDATION: The Tax Technician has determined that a tax refund should be issued. SUM MARY : Chapter 31.11 of the Texas Property Tax Code requires the approval of the governing body of the taxing unit for refunds in excess of $ 500.00. Ticor Realty Tax Services is requesting a refund in the amount of $ 893.61 on Account p 3942-00021, since they erroneously paid taxes on this property BACKGROUND: which they dk) not service. corr Realty Tax Services paid $ 893.61 on December 15, 1988. They later realized that they are not responsible for this account, hence they are requesting a refund of their payment. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: 11 The Tax Department end the tax account of Paul W. Noreen FISCAL IMPACT: $ 893.61 RFSP FULL X ITTED, 10 V, Harr e Cit Manager Prepared by: ate Vic Schneider Title Tax Technician Approved: 2L~ e Jim 13unfar~ itle Treasur 2633C/3 I I M y I I t stars antal, to 9401 fix 1041w1 as rk 414" 31.11(4011) APPLICATION FOR TAX REFUND O E q M I_ a2 C011ec1rng Office Name, _ - ' `r'r Collecting Tax Fat v 1 a~~ ng nr ' Address ',•`-f`-"T,-~ City, Slate, Zrp Code In order 10 apply lot a INK felund the lolfowing Informaton must be provided by the taxpayer. ` IDENTIFICATION OF PRO RTY OWNER: I' Name I Address _ Tetephone Number pl additional Info W,on is needed) ' IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY: ' Oe1cr pf on of Property 1zu5"it `/ig c:x) SC~Q Address or loch on of Pro M , ' ODO _ Accovni Number of Property or Tax Recaps Nimbler INFORMATION ON PAYMENT OF TAXES: ` Name of Tiling Unit veal lot ' Amount of Ter. From Wn.ch Refund Which Refund Dale of the Amount of Tax Refund Ia ReOuelatd Is Reouested Thx Payment Taxos Pad Requested + @r. t9 ~ ,~L / t9 fA S _d ~_,Z~LL S Q_Z.Zli2l + i I Taxpayatteasonfar refund lanathhsuppon/mg docume ahony.•E-RAONEOUS PAYMENT- PROPEtL1Y Il I S. - 4E "44 r D-AY (7R~ 1/S I YTI/L U OR TOTS IRIS-HAS-A"A, _„-J-USFD TfiL2AY0R OF THE TAX IN nR01R TO PAY EOAPI[T PALUL + ,1 herebl apply Ice the refund of the IbOr9Cescnbe0 nits And tartly that the+nlormalion IMr! given Onlhil lam is true and curate' Tltor Fealty Tax Services i n y h 11 ,Da 50 iret Drive, Suite S-00 ~ 11a1ta, Tt Texxas 11247 S'gnafur! Aleci LOtaney ale of APph -on for a4 Refund OETERMMATlO11 FOR TAX REFUND. - APpfovar D,saPproval Srgnalure of AulhohNd Officer Date S-gnature of Prardmg Oelcale) of Toss ng Date Urt,hs) lot telund ►PPhcat ons over 9500 AmpPenenwM+etyassWaswry yansotarpNn'tetorfOhio hewlleclltenoMlMWnringPtna1Ita, 1. anaManMtnlM MI Inert than is years Noel bee Plan 1 room 9411er a None M nN "a Yvan scow 61 bath euth am ens tr^Nrosnnlenl, II, 1MflnerMnf M its W a term 69 It 1 post at a ana, hal n 91c eN 11,000 M"eveh None en1ltlPrrosnnlenf ere "I Will in aetlrtn 11.10, final Cede 4140/a 1.p 1 I , ` J I r' k ~I r r ! flplG'fl! a ~ ~ l`c~ YOUR (AXES AREDUEUONOUENTCTOBER C+O,ofDmlan Tax DePe c) E I, S inney BECOME D !1 E. il(cX TAX STATWENT FF~3RUARY 111 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR PENALTY ANO 1NTER• DORONE % 18! 1 EST WAILS. ' fORRESTAIDGE, SEC it BLCCK 8.'L 3942-00021 9!6 •69 DT 21 2j/28 -2///A8499 6 .-RAW.* m ~ I 3.6 Y y to O !ONS ` 893.6E 2 2 PAUL Y NOREEN HDREST01 6.000 ' 040 HIGNYEEII CLR DENTON T%76201 FOR RETURN RECEIPT, SEND BOTH STATEMENT PARTS WITH SELF•AOORESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE I J r~ p~p/1~ 1RRf tMREIE 3~~211•!• 1~IE+ 0 14 A[ta1MM # tfgqAR IWIa TAR it1AL on in}}E~~ COK A M-MTL ?M ►M 1~6~1 pMp{! TAN ICYA TM NO PX MAC VA ~KpTOppUN~~ )NMOQ11 M i ~ 1 Ile NiAL :88 'M: "6 : 10 M q owl: 10 1y~l 3K}a} /dl 1 INA 12111 X01.11pppp • A 7M ~ ]90101 ~ TMMMM . 1~T~ =A Agno "lei p I IA Iprv X51: ~ .00 M0~ Oi qM I1I~Oaa~~~LTT I;p K ~M7~pQO 1E111 Mf~ 2 . p~ M EEUr; a wli ON "N'E"° IV" IMA- .00 AL~IUrt TbtK on IMON 41 %MIT AL W. wx M:9 :8 12 "UMM tull -n;c------ AL U: J he MA lam vjS :1 Iffi RN lam "A. :1 -M wMwF ON ON 82-M A , -----W 1 : A 11/ . . V FM I . 'O EIT '0° -88 MAL MI. lM10l lrna p p~1 ,,pppp cw K 0M. )19101 M ; 1 WA L:11 7/13 fi4.N- M. M; to !99107 1& .....t!! M at'M i M:u 12111 1,1WS .1 '011:9 :88 '011:00 191$1 309: " i I ~ I ~ i-1 i i i a M I E 2616L/1589 NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equip- ment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of state law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employes has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bide are the lowest responsible bide for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefor; and j WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids ror materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO. VENDOR AMOUNT 9921 All Bouvier Hydropower, Inc. 1824,500.00 9922 All 8mg Raw Water Pumpp 109,596.00 9926 1 Lone Star Peterbilt 51,239.00 9926 2 Lone Star Peterbilt 23,905.50 9927 1 AIS Equipmert 1769000.00 9927 2 AIS Equipment 77,700.00 9929 1-8 Kent Meter Company 72,278.00 - `1 9931 1 & 2 Poleline Electric 13,410.00 P 9932 1 & 2 Martin Uniform 130000.00 9934 1 & 2 TSE International, Inc. 23,885.00 9935 1 & 2 Koetter Fire Protection 14,760.00 9938 1 Construction Equipment 36,500.00 9939 1-5 Temple, Inc. 78,820.00 9939 6 Wesco 3,737.50 SECTION II. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bide, the City accepts the offer i f E S k i of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, a.ld related documents. SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting approve an accepted items and of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related bid documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbers items of the submitted bids the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance -rith the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. i4 SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective imme ante y-upon its passage and approval. I PASSED AND APPROVED this day of February, 1989. l E~AY J ATTEST: J E F WALTERS, CITY SECRETM APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY BY: PAGE TWO J r DATES FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TOt Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID# 9921 TURBINE GENERATOR RECOMMENDATIONt We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest evaluated bidder Bouvier Hydropower, Inc., in the contractual amount of $824,500.00. SUMMARYi This bid is for the purchase of a hydroelectric turbine generator for Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project. I BACKGROUNDI Memorandum from Utility Department, Letter from Black and Veatche Economic Analysis, Supplemental Agreement, Minutes From Public Utility Advisory Board PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDs Electric Utility k FISCAL IMPACTt Funds for this project are a portion of the aT2,32- ,r139.00 Capital Improvement Plan. Respect y submitteds Lloy azreIi City Manager Prepared bye Tom D. thaw ames---Tom-D-,- Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent Approveds o rs tall itleeo rchasing Agent 003.DOC I I ` ~.J fA i Fet•ruary 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJ: CONSIDER THE PURCHASE OF THE TUR81NE-GENERATOR FOR RAY ROBERTS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT ON BID #9921, RECOMMENDATION: The Public Utilities Board, at their meeting of January 25, 1989, recommended to the City Council Bid 09921 be :warded to Bouvier Hydropower, Inc., and the contract be executed in the amount of $8241500. II SUMMARY: I Bid proposals were received from five vedors for the turbine- 112e28t88 o leterDecember The 20, l1988, owest a evaluated evaluated bidder 81 was a Bouvier Hydropower, Inc., who bid a unit of 995 kilowatts with an annual generation of 8,384,460 kilowatt hours. The contract has been reviewed by the City's Legal Staff. The Public Utilities Staff { recommended the purchase of the turbine-generator and its i accessories in the amount of $8240500. Bouvier has signed the contract and forwarded it to the City of Denton January 30, 1989. A summary of the evaluation follows: Lump Sum Total Evaluated Differential Bid Bid Price Cost Total Evaluated Cost B Kvierner $967000 ouvier $824,500 $16120,339 $o Hydrolec $864,500 $lol50,976 $214,909 Bk/IP $894,170 $1,242,218 $30,631 Yoith $1,330,874 $1,493,025 $121,879 $372,686 In the attached economic analysis by the City of Denton, an average power cost of 60/kilowatt hour with NO ESCALATION is used to show the savings of the electric power cos to a ater i and WS$tewater Department under the existing rates. The project shows positive cash flows for every year as soon as the unit comes online. BACKGROUND: Denton was issued a construction license by the Federal Energy Reulatory Commission (FERC) for the project in 19850 project 03939. A condition of the license is that construction must i i m City Council Meeting Page 2 begin within two (2) years from the date the license is issued. A two year extension was approved which shifted the madatory construction date of March 20, 1989. The City Council approved on January 17, 19890 the Agreement 02 with Dallas for Non-Consumptive Water Rights. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Reduced electric costs for water and sewer rate payers. The primary user of the hydro output will be the new water plant, which is scheduled for construction at Ray Roberts. Il FISCAL IMPACT: The project is in the Capital Improvement Plan in the amount of $2,326,149, which includes $300,000 for 50% of the cost of the penstock constructed by the Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that the hydro unit will generate approximately 803849460 KWH annually, which is worth approximately $500,000 annually at a present rate of 60/KWH. The Slack 3 Veatch original feasibility study made in 1981, for a 1,000 kilowatts hydroelectric turbine, called for a total project cost of $3,396,000 and average annual generation of 7,7500000 kilowatt hours. This project is approximately one million less than the original estimate, and wilt furnish 600,000 KITH more annually. P AHED BY: Resp fully s fitted Plrfe nlllos, rector Harrell, Cit/ Electric SArvices Manager pproved by, R. Nelson, Executive Director- Department of Utilities Exhibit I Black b Veatch Turbine-Generator Bid Evaluation II City of Denton Economic Analysis III Copy of Agreement #2 with Dallas for Water Rights IV Ordinance V PUB Minutes of January 25, 1989 6308U:8-9 s {F f 6 RECEIVED uLv 3 0 188 B L A C K & V E A T W H ENGINEERS-ARCHITECTS TEL 19131339-2000 I lO""0W LAAe ftAKW" NAIUNO A0001US ►o e01f No. We MANSAS Cr" MSlOIW 64114 City of Denton, Teas Ray Roberts E3ydroe1eetric Project 86V Project 10567 Turbine Generator Bid Evaluation 86V File 62.0200 December 280 1900 City o': Denton ,irnieipel Building, 901A Texas Dnhtol, Texas 76201 Attentions Mr. R. E. Nelson Cantlaftnr specifications for f unishing the Turbine Cenerator for the subject project were issued OFA November 22, 1908 to nine vendors. rive of the nine bidders { submitted qualification data as necessary and subsequently submitted a proposal* the remainini four vendors chose not to subetit a proposal. The five proposals r"aelved were, opened on December 20, 1988 rt the public bid opening. I The proposals of the five bidders wars evaluated. Adjustment essts were, assigned by Black 6 Veatch based on the methods outlined in the specification to allow the bids to be compared on an equal basis. The evaluation tabulation and evaluation criteria are enclosed. A summary of the evaluation follows. Diffarco:fal Did Lump sus Total Evaluated Total Evaluated Bid -Price Costs Costs Bouvier 824,s00 1,120,329 ' Kvaerner 9670000 0 1,]5 8W/1P lee e64a94,,170 sa0 1,13000,976 916 309637 e0ith 1,790 a10 1,2420218 1210879 1,493,023 3720686 The evaluation indicated the following significant points. i 1. The Voith bid price was the highest, but they also had :ha moot generation. 2. The, Bouvier bid price, vas the lowest, but their generation Ves in the middle, of the, five bids. 1 i J O L A C K A V E A T C H City of Denton 2 86V Project 10361 Mr. A. E. Nelson December 289 1988 I 3. The Hydrolec bid price was second to lowest and their energy generation was second to highest. However, their powerhouse volume was highest dua to the large plan area needed for a double runner Francis. 4. The Bouviar machine operates over a flow range of 38-138.1 cis and the Hydrolec machine operates over a flow range of 81-190 efse Based on the enclosed bid evaluation, it is reeommanded that negotiations be held with Bouvier. The negotiations would be used to resolve questions and clarifications prior to conforming a contract. Therefore, these negotiations should only be held if a contract is to be awarded. To ensure that the manufacturer can begin fabrication by March 20, 1989, the contract 4 must be awarded by mid-January, 1989, to addition, to avoid repeating the miscommunication that occurred during the Lewisville contract award period over the- need for a conformed contract, please advise us as soon as possible regarding the need for conformed contract documents. 1 Please note that the City 'should review all commercial exceptions for acceptability. Black 3 Veatch has only ex"ioed those commercial exceptions with economic consequences. We have notified Bouvier that the 13 percent payment upon receipt of contract is not acceptable. They have agreed to postpone that first payment to tie it into the 30-day deliverables, if you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed, please contact us. Very truly yours, DLUX b VEAfCH D. F. Cuyvt~ JAY Enclosure i eel Ar. I* Is Tullos Mr. J, J. Marshall, Purchasing Agent I 1 I a ~ I I I I ` T ` TURDINE CINERATOR BID EVALUATION CRITERIA SUKWY 1. OifferentiaL balance-of-plant costs are based on differential turbine f bay and discharge pit volumes as determined fron each bidders turbine J and draft tube disenalons. Differential poverhaose volume was I assessed at a rate of $697/cu. yd. and differential excavation costs I were assessed at a rate of $5/cu, yd. 2. Interest during construction is based on future vorthins each bidder's paysmt schedule to the date of coaieerciaL operation at the bond rate of 7.5 percent. [I 4 1. Capitalisation of annual generation vas based on the following criteria* Present Worth Discount Race - 8 percent fixed Charge Rate - 10.9 percent Evaluation Period - 15 years I` Annualised Energy Cost - $78.2/" 1 1 i I j 4 I J , k. j r , CIrY OP DCµTON, TEAA6 I RAW RO6EAr6 NYpROEIlClAIC PNOJE(T TUA61N1 GENERATOR 610 !VALUATION 64V PROJECT I0967 SHEET 1 OF 3 - S1ILWARY 114V FILE 76, 01066 &OUVIE4 .AVAIANgit "v"OLEC W/10 VOITH LUMP SUN 610 PRICE $114,600 1611,000 (114,600 1604.170 $1,330.174 TECHNICAL A6J1,srwllrs I ~ Olt? OALANCE OF PLANT COSTS 16,000 13,000 INTEREST DIMING CON6TR 60.000 16,000 t1o,000 16 770 14,000 61,311 48.043 3/,111 0 117,000 i COWARATIVE CAP11A1 fOSlS _ _ 11,141 31,161 i COMWRCIAL AIIJUS1NLNIS 661,614 1,101.067 1.063.481 OI►P CAPITAL EQUIVALlN1 Ot 13,160 11,100 6,600 610.036 1,463,036 1 ANNUAL GINERA110N 16000 13,710 133,636 333,116 44.4!1 220.211 ' J TUTAL EVALUAIED COSTS - _ 0 I OI1P. TOTAL EVALUATED COSTS 1.131 ,116 1,346,341 1,166,116 60 6111,136 133,331 1,301,316• .1.604.736. rrrru rrru ru rraarssr •u rrrrrrrr •rr SM!!f urr19. 116 I 1 i I i 1 1 I J 1 4.. r Y CITY Of DENTON. TEXAS 1 R^Y 1106EATS NYOROELECIRIC fR']JECT' sty PROJECT 10557 :uA6,NE GENERATOR 810 EVALUATION $AV FILE 42.0200 1:4491 ! Of 9 - EVALUATION COST 6REAROOWN OECEMIR If. 1966 60UVIER NVAINNER MYDAOLEC 6W/2F•..'._ VOITM r iEC11111CA1 ADJU6;-~'04I1 ' ARAM! NOT IN IUM► SUM 6,000 7,310 INLET VALVE RJOUIRIQ 40,000 610 SMEAR FIR FAILU49 A01MI 6,000 6,000 6,000 WICKET GATES NOT ADJUSTA60 6,000 MISC. ELECTRICAL ENCf/11ON8 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 1ST CRITICAL $0190 > RUNAWAY 6,000 i SHOP COAIINGS NOT PER SPEC 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 j AL-6110612E M1CNEr GATES 0 CC4IR PRESS MICVIEA MAN ALLOT 3.000 2,000 CAVITATION WJARAN. DEVIATION 1.000 'I SUM Of TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS 11,000 11,000 32,000 66,520 14,000 COIWEICIAI COST ADJUSTMCNTS TARES L PEAMIIS NOT INCLMD 1,000 1,000 ADDITIONAL FIELD srN W C9S 1,71111 11,100 4,IIUD 0 13,110 LINIIAIION Of LIAM M Y 6,000 SUM Of COMMERCIAL ADJUSTMENTS 17,210 11,100 0,900 1.000 12,110 uLANCF•oF•PLANr costs UNIT 11111610 (PT, MSL) 639,6 539.2 144.0 626.0 540.0 DIM 6ALANCE•00-PLANT COSTS 90,000 76,000 140,000 0 111,000 { GENIAM ON DATA TURN EPP AT 160 CFS, 9O fT MD 91.1% 49.1% 93.0% 66.S% 93,6% ~i ll 1.010 CAPACITGEY l9w) 095 (WAIN) 6.584.46 1,201'03 6,44260 8,230 42 6,716 34 AOJUSTM9NT P" 2/3 MOOIIV 66,40 N/A M/1. N/A N/A J ADJUSIEO ANNUAL GEN. CIRRI) 9,441.86 { CAPITAL EQUIV. Of ANIMIAL GiN. 3,467,012 3,]61,376 3.644,052 3,340,247 3,600,540 { DIM CAPITAL EQ. Of ANN. GEN. 193,626 232,166 64,466 220,293 0 1 E I ~ I i CITY OF Ot NION, TEXAS MAY MOMENTS NY0110ELECIRIC PROJECT TUR/1NE GINERATON 810 EVALUATION 09V PROJECT 1066? SHE1I 3 OF 2 110 PRICK IAIAROO" ItV FILE 62,0200 OECE"14 31, 1166 IOUVIEM XVAERNER NYDMOLEC IW/IP VOITH C.1 IUTAP IIAY PRICE " . C.1.1 TuM11M,t 1151650o 4891,1;0 $1.330.814 C.1.2 CONTROLLER 321.693 325,300 C41.3 GIN 5 EXCIIAIIOH !V1 15.434 60,000 1 113,186 212,200 C.1,1 NIUIMIL GRouho lpYT 751,611 260,009 nLl, eDar6 1,630 610,011 f C.1.5 Sr11CNGEAR 6.612 192,100 261,798 63.115 C.1.6 CONTROL SYSTEM 61.920 5.500 4.600 212.371 C.1.2 FIELD SERVICES 90,955 115,000 76,762 1335'310 6.19 C, 1.6 ►lNFCAtWNtt MOND$ 161,070 61,162 ,010 126,112 1!, 100 62.100 110 130.076 C.1.0 OPT. PERFORMANCE TESTS 7.175 3,100 74.000 74 1, 01010 67,160 CAPACITYJINOEN 1.600 35,000 RUNAWAY 3,320 IN C.I.I 1.76? TURSINt EFFICIENCY IN C.I.? IN C.I.? 14.000 4,310 GIN91114T011 CFFICIENCY LATER IN C I ? LATER 4,310 13.601 j IN C.I,! IN SHOP LATER 1,310 1.710 ' C.2 YANUF.'S TECN. SERVICES LATER 1.310 13,009 PER DIEN AT PROJECT SITE IN C.1.3 PER ROUND IAI► 620 650 1,010 !40 i C.3 MAX. CANCILLAIION CIIARGEf ?1300 1.250 600660 906 C.3.1 ENGINEERING 2,316 C.7.7 PAOCU111M1NT OF MA h S 82.450 185.000 C.3,3 SHOP PAINICA111N1 329.600 9Yi,000 LATER 111.171 112,260 911.000 LATIN 402,12?10 1 326330,000 C 4 TRAINING PROGRAM IAIIR ,000 (6P1.) NIA ON 109,000 C.5 $PANE PARIS LATER 10.000 7,300 191. ' (0PT.1 27,176 35.000 19.118 11.160 IlAb0 61,166 1 10,817 I . 1 1 f :ITY OF DENTON ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FDA RAY ROBERTS HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1130!89 snau■ l a a nanar a na u n a an as a t t naaaan ran aaantaa aaarrnaaatfl annaaas HYDRO MATER a saaas*@"" uuanaaanneua a I aaaaaa nsaan aaaa asoaWAS TE WATER OPERATING NET DEBT RETURN ON CAPACITY TOTAL ELECTRIC SAVINGS DATE EIPENSES SERVICE INVESTMENT CREDIT UPENSES COST 1990 95.000 197,723 0 20.776 271.947 291,179 19.132 I 1991 153.000 21IT.24D 139.569 35.120 M.981 503.068 27,079 1992 151,000 215,750 134,771 35,820 467,701 503.061 37,360 1993 1$0.PC0 212,261 134.042 35.120 460,413 503.044 42,514 1 1441 149,000 291.772 131,361 35.120 452,313 503,044, 50,173 1997 14.000 263,436 121,734 35,820 502.350 503.061 717 1996 141.000 255.516 116.159 35.820 484,925 503,044 13.147 1997 IM HO 247,735 123.436 35.120 478,351 503,044 24,517 1991 141.000 234,884 121,10 35,120 446,227 503,068 34,140 1949 140.000 232,033 118,740 35.820 454,453 503.061 41,114 2000 131.000 224.163 116.365 33,820 442,721 503.061 60,340 2001 137.000 216.332 114.039 35,120 431.550 503.061 71,511 2002 1361000 201.481 111,157 33.120 420,411 503,061 62449 2003 174,005 200.430 109,522 35.120 401.332 503,068 441735 2004 133,000 192,790 107,332 33,120 347,291 503,064 105,776 2005 132,000 114,424 103.195 35,120 386,294 503.068 116,774 2006 131,000 177,078 103,041 33,121 375,334 $03,061 127,121 2007 129,000 149,227 101,020 35,820 k3,427 503,061 139."I 2001 1211000 161,371 41,941 33.120 332,SS& 503.061 130.512 2009 121,000 153,526 97,019 351120 341,723 503,061 161,342 2010 127,000 113473 95,079 33.121 331,934 503,044 171,134 2011 126,000 137,124 93,177 35.820 321,1h $03,044 111.844 2012 125,000 129,174 91,314 33,120 310,411 503.041 142,604 2013 124.000 122.123 89.411 33.110 299.190 503.00 203,277 2014 124,000 114,272 17,691 35,m 290,150 501,00 212,911 2015 121,000 25.006 15,944 35,120 191,130 503.068 304,931 2016 123.000 0 14,125 33,120 171.4011 503,048 331,663 2017 123.000 0 02,50 33,120 101120 503, 044 M. 347 TOTAL TOTAL Talk TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 3,131,000 1,875,416 2,933,466 917.116 10,5321116 13,1741604 3,341,711 Wits I- lenuatles for 1990 is 4,142,917 iwb. looerstioe for 1491 throslb 2017 is ' 1.314.460 kwh. 2- Total hydro cost is equal to the difference MOM the ou'F operatinj 11014115, net debt uN-yice$ end roturo on layefteMt mi capacity crodlt. 1 3• logtnnlal Principal is 12,326,149. 4- Water cost is oouaf to the product of the average cost par W, 6 coots. iy the lei 4oooratod ky the hydro unit, Iv the roar 2M, the total oefitlve cash flow will be 12,629,7 6• Caaacitr credit is 636.00 Dor RW Off You, i i I COUNCIL CHAMee11. 8 90 3 9 8 January 25, 1989 _ WHEREAS, the Cities of Dallas and Denton desire to amend Exhibit F of the 4 August 7, 1985 contract for the sale of untreated water to the City of Denton by the City of Dallas with "Supplemental Agreement No. 2"; and WHEREAS, the amendment will provide for specific details regarding the use of the Ray Roberts Lake Outlet Conduit and Water Flows and the City of Denton's Proposed Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Turbine; and WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to install a hydroelectric turbine generator on Ray Roberts Lake Outlet conduits for operation in 1991; Now, Therefore I RE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUWCIL OF THE CITY OF DALLAS: Section 1. That the City Manager be and is hereby authorized to enter into an amendment to Exhibit F of the existing August 16 1985 contract for the sale 1 j f of untreated water to the City of Denton with "Supplemental Agreement No. 2' after approval of the aaxndnent by the City Attorney, I Section 2. That this resolution shall take effect from and after its passage in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the City of Dallas and it is accordingly so resolved. I, f c~rr CoONCIL 1 JAN ~ t9B9 ~ " Gh SWAS" f A/}IIOY ~ / •pv[O AIMOY[0 ~ MAM QOM 1 ti SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 2 TO UNTREATED WATER CONTRACT BETWEEN THE LITIES OF DALLAS AND DENTON 1. Exhibit F to the Original Contract, dated August 1, 1985, is amended to add the following Paragraph 28: Regarding the use of the CITY OF DALLAS' RAY ROBERTS LAKE OUTLET CONDUIT and WATER FLOWS and the CITY OF DENTON'S Proposed RAY ROBERTS HYDROELECTRIC TURBINE, the Cities of Dallas and Denton agree to add the ' following operational conditions: i A. Dallas will not object to Denton's installation of a hydroelectric I turbine generator on Ray Roberts Lake Outlet conduits for operation in 1991. B. Dallas will continue to have complete control over determining Dallas, water releases from Ray Roberts Lake through Denton's hydroelectric turbine. Denton will continue to have complete control over determining Denton's water releases from Ray Roberts Lake through subject hydroelectric t bine. Such water releases shall be for the purpose of providing a supply of water to the downstream Lewisville Lake water supply reservoir and the water supply for water plants dependent on the water therein. The generation of electricity by the hydroelectric unit will be incidental to the water supply releases. The conservation of water for the municipal water system's use is the primary and paramount purpose of water releases; however, Dallas and Denton will take into consideration the needs of the hydroelectric plant where feasible. ~ j I i w C. Dallas and Denton will each obtain a separate "non-consumptive water right" from the Texas Water Commission for the hydroelectric turbine. Dallas and Denton will have permitted rights for their respective releases, but Dallas will allow Denton's use of its permit for hydroelectric generation as required by Denton's FERC permit and as herein agreed. Any costs incurred by Dallas to secure such permits and any annual or other periodic permit fees shall be paid by Denton. Any such permitted right shall be wbject to Dallas' and Denton's right to use water for municipal purposes; in the event Dallas' need for municipal purpose requires it, Dallas may discontinue discharge of its water releases which may cause Denton to cease hydroelectric operations. D. Denton shall work with and support Dallas, if any actions are initiated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or its successor agency and/or other bodies that may attempt to impose jurisdiction or any criteria on Denton or Dallas, resulting from Denton's hydroelectric project, which would have the effect of diminishing Dallas' and/or Denton's water rights or safe yields of Ray Roberts Lake. E. Ownership of the hydroelectric plant will stay with the City of Denton, and Denton will not sell or sublease to any other organization without the prior agreement of Dallas. 2. The above operational conditions are agreed to pursuant to Paragraph 2 of ` the Exhibit F of the Original Contract. j 3. All other terms, provisions, conditions and obligations of the original j ! Contract between Dallas and Dc.,,iton, dated August 7, 1955, shall remain in full force and effect, and said original contract, as same may have been previously amended, and this Supplemental Agreement No. 2 shall be construed togethar as a single contractual agreement. I I i 1 A ' 1989. PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 25th day of January Approved as to Form: CITY OF DALLAS ANALESLIE MUNCY, City Attorney RICHARD KNIGHT, JR., City Manager I I By 8y Assistant City Attorney Assistant City Manager Subm ud !o 4,IV Aj~w CITY OF DENTON 1 f ATTEST: I By By - CITY SECRETARY MAYOR f APPROVED AS TO FORM: i i By By._.... CITY ATTORNEY I ~ I 1 I i I Li 4 , 2/1/89 12 EXCERPT MINUTES ~I PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD JANUARY 25, 1989 8. CONSIDER BID OPENING 19921 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE RAY ROSERTS HYDROELECTRIC TURBINE-GENERATOR. Tullos advised the Board that the economic analysis done on this turbine in 1981 had estimated the cost at $3,396,000 which is $1.07 million higher than the bid actually came in. He stated this turbine is made in Grenoble, France. Laney asked if all permits have been acquired. Nelson stated that Supplemental Agreement 12 to the Dallas Water Contract is at Dallas City Council under consideration this evening. The only other permit that the City needs is the non-consum;tive water permit which is Item 19 on the Board's agenda. Thompson asked about the time line for the Lake Lewisville and Ray Roberts hydroprojects . Nelson stated that Lake Lewisville will come on line January/February of 1990; Ray Roberts by March 1991. Thompson made a motion to accept the bid of $824,500 made by Bouvier Hydropower Inc., Second by Chew. All ayes, no nays. Motion carried. i 1 ~ r I II II I CONTRACT AGREEMENT THIS CONTRACT AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 19_, by and between the City of Denton, Texas, Party of the First Part and hereinafter called the "Owner," and BOUVIER HTDROPOWER, INC. a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, Party of the Second Part and hereinafter called the "Contractor," j I WITNESSETHi THAT WHEREAS, the Owner has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law, specifications, plant and other contract documents for the work as heroin specified= and WHEREAS, the said Contractor has submitted to the Owner a Proposal in ac- eodance. with the terms of this Contract Agreement= and I WHEREAS, the Owner, to the manner prescribed by law, has datermina•i and 1 declared the aforesaid Contractor to be the lowest and best bidder for the said work and has duly awarded to the said Contractor a contract therefor, for the sum or sums named in the Contractor's Proposal, a copy thereof being attached to and made a part of this Contract Agrsementl NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the compensation to be paid to the Contractor and of the mutual agreements herein contained, the parties to thew presente have agreed sod hereby agree, the Owner for itself and its sueesesora, and the Contractor for itself, himself, or themselves, or its, his or their successors and assigns, or its, his or their executors and administrators, as follows. I PITICLE I. That the Contractor shall furnish the Turbine Generator as specified and required in accordance with the provisions of the contract documents, which era attached and made a part hereof, and shall execute and complete all work included in sad covered by the Owner's official award of this Contract Agreement to the said Contractor. ARTICLE It. That the Owner shall pay to the Contractor for the work and materials-embraced in this Contract Agteement, and the Contractor will accept as full compensation therefor, the sum (subject to adjustments as j provided by the contract) of EIGHT HUN M) TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO1100 U.S. DOLLARS (U.S.;824,500.00) for all work covered by and included in the contract award, designated in the foragoing Arti- cle 11 payment to be made in cash or its equivalent in the manner pro- vided in the specifications attached hereto. I `DENTON 10567 0TURBIN 12489E GEN. 62.0200' CA-1 J Ilk" s j f rl ARTICLE III. That time of completion is a basic consideration of the Contract Agreement, and that the Contractor shall proceed with the spec- ified work and shall conform to the specified schedule. IN WITNESS WIEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract Agree- ment as of e th day and year first above written. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS (SEAL) By Attest BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. (SEAL) By Attest A A A A A e A A A A A A A A A The foregoing Contract Agreement is in correct legal form. E Attorney or Owner III I I f I (DENTON 10367 TURBINE GEN. 62,0200) ( 012489 ) CA-2 3 BOND 1135 35 66 K=== [ PERFORMANCE BOND The h\'O i ALL '*-N lit' Z1fI:~lS PHE. E\'Td: ~ Conlinenfal Cra ad That, BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. . Corpaner as Principal, hereinafter called the Principal, and THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY co" d and at 80 Malden Lare, inethe City of New York, New York. asJSu ety. here nafterr called the bound unto CITY OF DENTON with its principal ofttce Surety, are held and firmly as Oalip,ee, hereinafter called the Obl4ree, in the just end full sum nr EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FIYS HUNDRED AND------._- ~~824,500.00)--°-_..-----°-__-____ to e p+4,ment of w~Aich sum well and respective heirs, administrators, executors, su cess0 made, ors and assiigpradoiintly and se a al y, Surety b in by e these sseelprs tine fihereas, the Principal has 9mtered inLr a certain written contract with theObligae, dated the 3rdreeenta day o! February 19 89 xx for Bid 19921 - Turbine Generator for City of Denton, Texas - Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project. herefn, which contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof, as fully and to the aarne extent as if copied at iength Now, Therefore, the condition of Vila obligation is such that, if the Principal %hall faidAll the obligations of the principal under the contract, and shall lily indemni6 and save harmless the Obligee from all cost and damage which the Obligee may suffer by reason of the failure of the Principal so to ic and shlrll e and p the Oti ofiou hlfailurre; thin thisyob gation shalllbenuli and void, t shall which the gee may incur by reason 1 remain in Oullll force and efrect. The fore going obligation, however, is limited by the k Irwing express conditions, the performance of each Of which shalt be a condition precedent to any right of claim or recovery hereunder: 1. In the event of my defaulton the part of the Principal, a written statement of the the date and nature of such defmrlt Mail to given bye Obligee to the Jrrety ids prom daces showing after aucA default has became known to the Obligee, and shall ire forwarded p y poasible Sutety, by registered mill to the if the Principal shall fell to comply with the provisions of the contract to such an extent that the con. truct shall be forfeited, the surety will have the right and opportmityy to aesume the remainderof the contract and at its option to perfutm or sublet the same, ,itaineil against me Sure on this mal 3. thSo action, e same beubrought roc or instittutedailand process served upon the Surety within twelve (12) tN mondis after completion of the work specified In said contract whether such work be completed by the Prilelpal, Surety or Obligee; but if ere Is any maintenance or guarantee ptriod provided In the contract for which said Suretyls !table, an action for maintenance may be brought within three tag months from the exit^ation of the mointa nee ptdod, but not afterwards. _ Signed and sealed this 20th day of January ► ~ .t. D. 19 89 BWYa~R H PROPOWER INC Priecip ! t`eall THE„CChITiNENTAI ! omas if. 0atterson, Secretary NSURANCE COMPANY li Harlon Libe'rtz` C ' i I - 1 I ' The Continental Insurance Company 180 Maiden Lane, New York, New York 10038 GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all men by these Presents, That THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY has made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents does make, constitute and appoint Marion Libertz of Philadelphia, PA I its true and lawful anomey, for it and in its name, plate, and stead to execute on behalf of the said Company, as surety, bonds, undertakings and contracts of suretyship to be given to All Obligees r provided that no bond or undertaking or contract of suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed in amount the sum of Ten Million ($10400,000.00) Dollars Attorne the Boisdowerof Direclom of the Canted ndiissignesdandseaW yfacsimil 7nderandbytheauthority ofthefollowing Resolution adopted by ra■ecko P Liet d tM w aWt+dw b eChak r.'~ dM. t4 F r W pro in (wv" ct h rr or a sew FwvN vice Piniiiii -IMVTD, drat rhii Chari+ad of 0* 11out company, and as sontrecb d aureryahip: and der an ,Y,Mtant Vke TAaskSenr. a SauewY «an NsIwM Seeateary be, and der each «anY d rFem herby is, canv+G, vd rtir eac arW ` nr, bonds, irndnukM+p IiI awtatted a anw ew eMeM,on d cats wcfi Powv d Mome1', and w anadr ennto dw Mal d rha Canp+ny. I FUeiHt ^ RiSOlVEO, Nn IM si~u+um daurh oaken an6 the Mal d ttr Comtww rM' ba ael.ed m a!ry such Pow« d Momry or to any cMikhre repore Ihmesu by I faaim~Nan6anYa+d~Ve++rdMa^eYdcereM1an~w~}aa'n ' a~O'mikMalJ~dlbevaldandMndrnauponiheCompanywMnao&MiixedantinrMh~twe waA resDM ro anY bond, rrrdenariM a moron d w rrbrcit e N anxMd." presents lot le signed b~yf one of C~V ce Pres dents andR+nesCted by one of its Assutanta/ke Prr l ents l thto be hereunto is t st day of May, 1985 and these THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Attest: By ' , ~..[.aM-.sets Molts W, Adler, Id. Auhtanr Vke Peswent kmdwd 1. aaeeram Vice habmr STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK On this lit day of May,1985, before me personally came Michael J. Beenuert to me known, who being by me duly sworn, did depose and say that he is a Vke President of THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the so above insirument; by order that the Board of Directors of said corporation ahnd that he signed his name thereto by like ordero ate seal; that it was NQTAYY PUBLIIC, Suit TVpNap Y(A Noc ""%IlII I CAW. in ~Kinpf ~ CERTIFICATE I, the underslgned,an IUsistanl 1 ke President of THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshlre corporation, DO forth In the said fAmo rne of remains in full force as not been revoked: and furthermore that the Re oEBY ClEof tlhe Board e" 1 irecton,r d attached Signed and sealed at the City of New York, in the Stale of New York. Dated the 20th day of Jan. .19 89 1, ~ ~ lames M. Keats, Awtitare Vke heaidera ~t Pnnied in U.SA 1160N0 43151, r' I ISSVE CA7E IMMrDO'Y'Y'U ar - ' 1/24189 PPOOUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OP INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS Il NO RICINTS UPON T HE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. 1 NIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AM END, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW, Johnson 6 Higgins of PA., Inc. COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE 1600 Market Street A J Philadelphia, PA. 19I03-7216 COMPANY A 11 LETTER Travel ~e COm2any _ _ COMPANY INSURED f LETTER 6 National Union CCMPANY Anchor/Darling Industries LETTER C_ Building II, Suite 305 COMPANY D 919 Conestoga Road LITTER Rosemont, PA, 19010 COMPANY E Attn: Kelly Moore LETTER THIS IS TO CEATIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUlO TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD:NDICATED. NOTWITHS TANDINO ANY REODUREMENT. TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIMAT[ MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIDED HEREIN 19 SUBUEC T TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDI• TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES F- _ TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER nG4-CY EpECIm AOL0 EXPOOTON LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS L~ - - N E ~uW96'M N'E IMWODYYI q4,N 'GOMEL, OENEMI LULSILRY SOOLY I ~ INJURY A 90Ct'lSt.'4RxJ11Gl Commar lal form S $ P~URNEMSES'OPERATIONS IM EArr S 5 R9t=6LAPSEHAbERO T GLSA112T143-5-88 5/1/88 5/1/89 J FACOLICTSCCMP<ETED oPEAAr:a.s 1+ MiMXTuAL COMBNED $1,000 $2,500 MPCNUNI CONTFXIORS SAW FORM PACPERTY CAMACE PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY s Incl. x Rrnaa Fnrm V~ _ ~ _ AUTOMOena LIAMOY M, A ANruT° TRJCAP165T637-4-88 5/1/88 5/1/89' S x AIL CANED AUTOS IFAN PIS~~S~~ FCI. f ALL OWED AUTOS 1PgrJ RPASSNI PE,~hw%T1 $ 1 ,r MIRED ALITO6 P„ OPEATY 5 NONGWIlD WTOfi DAMAGE OMEGE LAWN CompE ACV less $250 Dad cnniNED ~JeAS, D S1 000 EXCYSa UABRJTY c 51,000 51,000 g VMBF£LLAFDRM BE 3073019 5/1/88 5/1/89 x OTHER THAN UMSFrLSA FORM J 1JRq euivmar I WORKERS' COMPENSATION 5.1 .G~„TU;H'~CgEH?t ` A AND TDRJU8133T434-8-88 5/1/88 S/l/fl9 S 1 SEA;[POLICYLWI i EMPLOYERS' LIAMUTY $ 1 0 DSEASE (ACM EMkou OTHER A Products/Completed $1,000 each occurence Operations TJSLG198T450-5-88 5/1/88 5/1/89 ;2,500 Aggregate DESCRIPTION Of EUPEMTIONSILOCATIONSNEHICLE&iPECIAL ITEMS Policies include a waiver of subrogation. The owner, the engineer, and their officials, partners, directors, officers, agents and employees are included a.s an additional insureds. J Cit of Denton, Tx sHOULO ANY or THE Asovt DeecRlaeo ralclu eE cANCeueo BEFORE I.HE EX• Y PIRATICN DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO Hydroelectric Project 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE MOLDER 141111[0 TO THE LIEF?. BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SH POBE NOOeL T UABIUTY 901-B Texas S tree t OF ANY KIND UPON 114E COMPANY. ITS 1 OR [PRE! I Denton, Tx 76201 AUTHOR12E0 REPRESENTATIVE /1 Attn: Ray Roberts EL I i THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS AIA Document A311 BOND NO. 135 35 66 Labor and Material Payment Bond ! THIS BOND IS ISSUIO SIMU1fANIOUSIY WITH KA1011MMNC1 WNO IN FAVO* Of THE OWNER CON01tIONIO ON THE FUtL AND FAITHFUL /IIt10Rn1ANC1 OF THE CONTRACT f I I KNOW All MEN BY THESE PRESENTS; chit BOUVIER HYDROPOWER, INC. € nN.l r«A Nn Mw w we.a « ANTI Mfr of /MYI/Sr) as Principal, hereinafter called Principal, and, THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of New York Surety, hereinafter called Surety, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF DENTON i F4n IOWA 01111 PAN w IMw IN 181111111111110110044 aT Obligee, hereinafter called Owner, for the use and benefit of claimants as herelnbtlow defined, In the amount of EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND - Ilrn 414,01 1 WON 1*01 is at Iwo MI~IMA N W 4"VMI ONO) ...00/ 100 Dollars It 824 a 500.00""" for the payment whereof Principal and Surety bind themselves, their heirs, executors, administrator, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. WHEREAS, Principal his by written agreement dated February 3a 19 89emtered into a contract with Owner for Bid 11119921 - Turbine Generator for City of Denton, Texas - Ray Roberts Hydroelectric Project. in accordance with Oawings trid Specifications prepared by t Twr• IO«A %N am w lFtrlM «r11I MIN ,f ARNINJ I which contract is by reference made a part hereof, and is hereinafter referred to as the Contract. AIA DOCUMENT A111 • tA10E AND MAT(RIAL MYM(NT IOND • 1111RULaY 1110 ID. k a S A]91 3 M The Continental Insurance Company 180 Maiden Lane, New York, New York 10038 GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY Know all then by these PTE'sents, That THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY has made, constituted and appointed, and by these presents does make, constitute and appoint Harty; C. Rohlfirg of Philadelphia, Pewtly;var11a its true and lawful attorney, for it and in its name, place, and stead to execute on behalf of the said Company, as surety, bonds, undertakings and contrails of suretyship to be given to All Obligees provided that no bond or undertaking or coitrad of suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed in amount the sum of $Unlirnited Dollars This Power of Altaxney Isg: anted and Is signed and sealed by facsimile under aril by the authority of the following Resolution adopted by the Board of Dvedors of the Con'.Nny on the f st day of November, 1977: "a[SOlVtO, the ea Mirman of 1M sad, dw Vke C7sakman d nM lard the rn+idene an Execvnve vIa thesWenl a a Senior vxe lhesWW a a vi. fresidertt d dale Company, be, and thel each w am d d on k &0xinttd io evectde twee d Attatxy QuatAy♦It{ the Mornay AVried ✓n the VW foww d M Wn y to newte in beMx of the Company. borsds, wde•ukww std art caMracls d weryi?* and the an A i We ftsiderx, a Savetry or AA Aektre Sec" ry be, and Net fads or any of them Mnby Is. wrhoneed to atteel the eacv*m of any suer Poww of ottonry, rd ea attach INIM0 the seal of the Company. rUIi IIESOIVaD, rMt the 6WAUra or wilt often rd dx seal alto Cw"M may be aelxed ro any wch Power of Maney a to any t:fnAkat0 PoWled do.to by laeskrA. W am wch Fo vofAtbrney at cheek ee tim"wd (admAe upvtum ON LKSIONk seed 040 trvalid rd6ln&Vuponthe Compuiywfienwaeludrd'nthehnun with moo to rv tw A wdwWlne or ca>trn1 of wreryJYp ea wfJsh e Y smmd"" Lit W1bneaa Whereol, THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY has caused its oH•Kial seal to be hereunto affixed, and these presents to be signed by one of its Vice Presidents and attested by one of its Assistant Vice Presidents this 1st day of May, 1985. THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Attest: BY 1 Mlduel 1, OaertuM, Vice PmWrM Robert W. Adler, It, Nuew vKe Rwden STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK NJ on this lit day of may, 1985, before me personally came Michael I. Beernaert, to me known, who being by me duly swan, did depose and say that he is a Vice Praldent of THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the corpaatW described in and which executed the above instrument that he knows the seal cif the said corporation; that the seat affixed to the said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Bwrd of Directors of ud corporation and that he signed his fume thereto by like order. a ; or,., ~ 1~1G~ { NOTARY NNtIG SWf rtf New yo4 No. 14466) 117 (uY.nICirtr~ Caxuy CloinFICATE CWWAkeim Ever" hsrelr )e, 1"6 I, the undersigned, an Assistant Vice PresMkeni of THE CONTINENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire t otgoration, DO lias not been revoked; and furthermore that the Board of Directors, set afonh ntthe uld Power of y Aremains in ttorney, is full ow In force Rew 0cin of the that the Signed and sealed at the City of New York, in the State of New York. Dated the Vs,4' day of 't Mw r7. ,19 74) S~~! lamp hl Kerr, AOF W Via M46WM I It goNn 43151. Printed in U.SA, I 4 ti DATEt FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TOt Mayor and Member3 of the City Council FROMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTt BID# 9922 8mq RAW WATER PUMP RECOMMENDATIONt We recommend this bid be awarded to the low evaluated FFdder Smith Pump Company for the bid cost of $109,596.00. The evaluation included delivery efficiency and cost of lifetime operation. SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of an eight million gallon raw water pump. This pump is the last pump to be purchased in conjunction with the upgrade of the Lewisville Lake raw water intake. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet, Minutes of Public Utility Advisory Board PPR_O_O_R~A_M._3P. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Water Treatment Division Utility Department i FISCAL IMPACT: This unit was approved as a portion of the 1987 CIP Program. Funds will be taken from Water Band Account Number 623-008-0460-9106. Respec lly submitted: L1o Harrell City Manager Prepared byt Jimt t M are a et Purchasing Agent i Approved: Atl Ma rs alo Purchasing Agent 003.DOC L J w rl I 1 DID 1 9922 I I I I IID I]TlE VERf1CAl TURBINE PUMP I I 1 I I MOF i SMITH PUMP I 1N5ERSKI I 1 OPENED I CORPORATION !COMPANY, INC. I RAND COMPANY I .........................................1 I I 1 j ACCOUNT 1 I 1 I I ......._......1..............1......._......1 I I I 1 I 1 1 I TTY I ITEM DESCAIPfION I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I 1.........I 1.............. I.....-........ I.............. I I I I i l I { i IFJW STANDARD MOTOR 1 104,301.00 1 105,600.00 1 96,900.00 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1A601TIONAI COST I 11000.00 1 1,520.00 1 1150D.DD I I I I I I I 3 I IPREMWM MOTOR I ND 1 21268.00 1 31000.00 1 I i i I I 1 I I I I I I 1 j I ITOTAi 111 1 105,301.00 1 1091591•.00 1 101,400.00 1 i 'j ~I Ilf i i j February 1, 1989 CITY COUNCIL ,,,t,ENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager SUBJ: CONSIDER BID OPENING 09922, 8 MG RAN HATER PUMP NO. 3A. RECOMMENDATION: The Public Utilities Board, at their meeting of January 25, 1989, recommended to the City Council the awarding of the low bid, inclusive of the efficiency evaluation, in the amount of $109,596 to Smith Pump Company. { SUMMARY: Sealed bids were opened December 150 1988. The recommended bid contains the highest overall efficient rating submitted, 83.8%. and inclusive of the efficiency adjustment, is the lowest i evaluated bid. E BACKGROUND: The 8 MG raw water pump was originally bid in April 1988. The low bidder was not able to provide a performance bond as required. After bid evaluations and specification revisions to include higher overall efficiency ratings, Pump 3A was rebid. The bid tabulation for the rebidding (the second bidding) resiltted in a bid submittal from only one vendor. A decision was made to rebid Pump 3A a third time in order to obtain c~ompeetti__tiive~_ ri cI ng, a old tabulation from the third bidding T a-tEec a-F. Freese 8 Nichols, Inc., and the Water/Wastewater Engineering Staff recommend the contract be awarded to Smith Pump Company for having submitted the lowest evaluated bid in the total amount of ;109,696. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Citizens of Denton, Utility Department, Finance Department, I f Freese 8 Nfchols, Inc., Smith Pump Company. 1 F h t i 1 City Council Meeting Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: 1 FY 87 CIP Pump 8 Installation (Budget) $200,000 Recommended Pump Bid 1090596 Fund Available for installation $90,404 Source of Funds: Water Bonds 623-008-0460-9106-7857 ' Resp fully s itte o arre , Cit y + Man gee II 1 Prep d y,, ? e son," xecut ve-DI rector Department of Utilities i Appro .d by R. E. Ne son,R, E. son, ExecutiveCtor Department of Utilities Exhibit I Bid Tabulation iI Freese 6 Nichols Recommendation III Location Map IV PUB Minutes of January 25, 1989 V Ordinance. (Provided by Purchasing) 6308U:3-4 i r January 25, 1989 / CONSENT AGET-M PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD AGENDA ITEM TO: CHAIRMAN AND f+E7-8ER S OF TF-E PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD FROM: R. E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities ii SUBJ: CLNSIOER BID OPENING #9922, 8 &G RAW WATER PL&P NO. 3A. 1 RECOvf*34AT I CN: The %yater/Wastewater Engineering Staff and Freese do Nichols, Inc., recommend the awarding of the low bid, inclusive of the efficiency evaluation, in the amount of $1099596 to Smith Pump Company. SLI~Y: Sealed bids were opened December 15, 1988. The recommended bid f contains the highest overall efficiency rating submitted, 83.8%, and Inclusive of the efficiency adjustment, is the lowest evaluated bid. I BAOCC 1ROLM s i The 8 MG raw water pump was originally bid in April 1988. The low bidder was not able to provide a performance bond as required. After bid evaluations and specification revisions to Include higher overall efficiency ratings, Pump 3A was rebid. + The bid tabulation for the rebidding (the second bidding) resulted in a bid submittal from only one vendor. A decision was made to rabid-Purnp 3A a third tlme in order to obtain competitive er"cine. he bid tabulation from the third bidding is attached. Freese & Nichols, Inc., and the Water/Wastewater Engineering Staff recommend the contract be awarded to Smith Pump Company for having submitted the lowest evaluated bid In the total amount of :109,595. j PR00R*6, DEPARTMENTS OR CRCLPS AFFECTED: Citizens of Denton, Utility Department, Finance Department, Freese & Nichols, Inc., Smith Pump Company. F 1 l I I PUB hleeL ing ` Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: FY 87 CIP Pump h Installation (Budget) $200,OOo Recommended Pump Bid _109,s596 Fund Available for Installation $90,404 Source of Funds: Water Bonds 623-008-0460-9106-7857 ! ^1 Ri~e. pEe. cNt~feeoly n, submitted, /'J4 xecutive Director of Utilities , i I Prep ed by, Scott Lebsack, Engineer. g Technician II J Approve IdH avam, irector ater/ Wastewater Utilities Exhibit I Bid Tabulation It Freese do Nichols Reconmendatlon III Location Map ~ I I o ` 6277U:24-25 I ~ I 1 F. DENTON RAW WAo,.R PUMP 3A BIDS 2;00 P.W. 12/15/88 m X BIDDERS W INGERSOLL - RAND CO. MOF CORP. ( PEERLESS ) SMITH PUMP CO, (BYRON-JACKSON) P.O. 80X 19215 1325 WHITLOCK STE, 103 301 M & B INDUSTRIAL HOUSTON, TX. 77274.9215 CARROLLTON, TX. 75006 WACO. TX. 76710 METRO 268-4995 214-446-0796 817-776.0377 TOTAL BID $101,400 $105,301 $109,596 1.23) OVERALL 79.3 % 81.17 X 83.8 EFFICIENCY EFFICIENCY 0JUSTMENT 9 36.400 5 21,040 $ 0.00 EFFICIENCY :VALUATION $137,400 $126,341 $109,596 l MOTOR 600 600 600 IORSEPOWER ) OR EFFICIENCY FULL LOAD ) 94.7 94.7 94.7 LIVERY TIME 284 280 315 .ENDER DAYS ) )TAL WEIGHT 13,600 16,787 15,845 POUNDS 1 REMARKS SUCTION BELL IS 30" NEEDS TO BE 28" + ~ 4 I I 1 E I. 1 f n S+M7a'w nfifl. rE Freese ~FS! .r[hgt, 7l AND ro6url ^;CrKxt. Of ~fFi rrtllE rl lChO~^ r.TUOMS r[ J rocau OK Of o",,, re INC. r w coon . r "A r I4 Rtrrli0.r1. CA If CONSULTING ENGINEERS UCAC[I "uh HLA t clarcu" rL ,ofi wJnl r1. December 27, 1988 ILVLRV+^CTCLLwWr rl . CortLAr.o Of, ll IU AOIW $1 It R l . ro^" 4 LE!wt w l CRIUt of VICHMLC .KLI N, 71 C OW+I P gwp, of . rouln n"ce n, 14r. C. David Ham, P.E. uooorso".a o~v e. urns Director of Water and A"^~ o^ES.•t Wastewater Utilities %COOL" re wcwn L. r7oL NIRCHOLSrl WLxr" Service Center/warehouse 901-A Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 RE: Prepurchase of Raw Water pump No. 3A Bids I2/15/68 DTN 87107 Dear Mr. Ham: { A tabulation of the three bids is attached. It will be noted that Ingersol-Rand Co. is low bidder before applying efficiency evaluation. Smith Pump Co. (based on Byron-Jackson Pump) is low bidder after efficiency lvaluatiCil. Our recommendation is based on award'to Smith Pump Co. using V their proposal items as follows: Item 1 Pumping unit with Std i i efficiency motor $105,808 i Item 2 Additional cost for witness test 10520 Item 3 Additional cost for Premium efficiency Motor 2,268 J $109,596 4 A summary of the bids received follows: Bid Amount Bidder Efficiency Evaluated f s, Not Evaluated Bid Ingersol-Rand Co. I011400 137,400 Peerless Pump Co. 10S130I 126,341 Smith Pump Co. 109,596 109,596 1 EXHIBIT 11 ttL[PH0N11ELIt1."33 ONI HEGH ANC C114ttR I011 S60 114 M CK MO MALL 11", AUITIN, ?jXA3 3Cf2 ji i } 1 w i f , Mr. C. David Ham, D.F. necember 27, 1988 Page 2 The specifications has specified a "present worth" value of It overall I efficiency as $8,000. This present worth value of 1% efficiency was used 1 to compute the "evaluated bid." The Smith Pump Co. bid is based an a Byron-Jackson pump with a semi-open impeller. We have checked this pump submittal against our Specified requirements, and find that the pump does comply with all requirements with exception of the 30" suction bell which needs to be cut back to 28" to accommodate installation through the 30" floor opening. You will note that we have recommended that the pump test be witnessed based on Proposal Item 2 cost of $1,520. It is our recommendation that the contract be awarded to Smith Pump Co. as having submitted the lowest and best evaluated bid in the total amount of 5109,596. Yours very truly, FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. .n~ I Michael L. Nichols, P.E. I l 14LN/JBM:ksa:013 Attachment xc: Srini Sundaramoorthy Lee Allison Jerry Roush John Marshall Joe Napes 1 G r~ I r 1• . I 1. { -,`l.I CPO$ • 4 r' ' • I `I • k"04 l 1 :W r • 1 , 1 r twits rrT .,,....:'A 1 . 10 / I1 ~~L• f11 I.~ p~l~ •t I\•Y ` p.J~~•~. .~1 rv L 4••1 i t C.~. AoGn ~t 1 'i PROJECT J / PUMP STATIO r L LOCATION r< CAR"M 2 6" jet r,,,,a~ 1•....• 1.1. /H r i i OOYLI GYx 1 ~st @• mr d/) I IL1 .'SS• • , MM% A I ( 1 11.1 M 1 r1 QAr I ~I l!. w•u01O0.1 1 Lf Will • ~t frM•~s' , v0.tL ~ I I{ t u/`. 1 i r /I 14n r ~ 1 'I 1~ ~ mm~ ` r `Ir` 1 • SCALE:rwApprox. 3 Mllea, I VICINITY MAP i ti I e g 2/1/89 11 EXCERPT MINUTES PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ! JANUARY 25, 1989 7. CONSIDER BID OPENING #9922, 8 MO RAW WATER PUMP NO. 3A. The recommended bid contains the highest overall efficiency rating, 83.8%. In order to obtain ' competitive pricing, this pump has been bid three times. After general discussion, LaForte made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the Bid of $109,596 to Smith Pump Company. Second by Thompson. All ayes, no nays. Motion carried. ll i I i I 1 I I 1 r DATES FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TOs Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTS BID# 9926 REFUSE TRUCK RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend this bid be awarded to the evaluated lowest and best bid for the City of Denton. Item 1 Truck Cab/Chassis to Lone Star Peterbilt at $51,239.00 Item 2 Packer Body to Lone STOTALeBIDAWARD t X75,144.50 SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of a commercial refuse truck (round barrell, side loading, container type). This is a motor pool replacement. The lower price offered by Metro Ford fails to meet specifications in size of frame, rear suspension, cab design, paint, size of brakes and requirements for right hand sneering. The lower price offered by Davis Truck on the picker body Is farina body designed and built by Pak Mar Mfg. E similar trucks were manufactured by Rand Corp. For the $155.00 price difference, we do not feel that we can carry an additional parts, inventory and give up the interchangeability of lifts, tailgates, cylinders, etc. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet PROGRAMS, DEPARTMEN S OR GROUPS_ AFFECTEOs Solid Waste Commercial Refuse Collection FISCAL IMPACTS This unit is being funded through an in-house lease purchase aced on a 36-month from budget funds. yespe ul/i/y submittedS v Lio Harrell City ManaVar I 1 P ared b s I Name Tom D. Shaw Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent AppWJ9 d rshal l itlesrchasing Agent 003.DOC i I I a iL ? f 4 _ a i 1 i 1 1 BIB 1 9926 T 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I BIB Ill LE REFUSE TRUCKS ! 1 i 1 I LOME STAR !DAVIS TRUCK 1 1 NEIRD FORD ! MAHANEY I OPENER 2;09 P.N. 2ANlIAAY 10, 1989 1 PETERBILT IEOUIFNENI CO. i !INTERNATIONAL I I I I - 1 ACCDGNI i biU-024-~B02-BSuB ! ! 1 1 I 1 1 ! I I i i I I 1 1 I Illy I IIIN DESCRIPTION 1 VENDOR I VENDPR I VENDOR I VENDOR I I~ I-------------------------------- I-------- .....-1-----------•--I-------------- I-.....-.-..-.-! I I I 1 i I ! ` 1111 I I 1 135000 OVY ICIC 1 51,239.00 1 NB 1 46,594.50 1 NB I !I i I I I PEIERBILI I I FORD 1N8000 I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 2 130 CUBIC YARD PK BODI 1 23,905.50 1 23,750.00 i 23,905.50 I All 1 1 ! I RAND I PARMORE I RAND I 1 ~ i I 1 I 1 1 1 I ' ~ i 1 I I I i I I l l I 1 I 1 1 1 1 { ! I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 11 i I i 4 I I Ji 1 i J r ' i 2 1 r. ' r DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID# 9927 TRACK LOADER AND MOTOR GRADER RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder meeting specification, AIS Equipment in the amounts of: Item 1 Track Loader for Landfill at $176,000.00 Icem 2 Motor Grader for Street Department 5_77,700.00 TOTAL BID AWARD $253,700.00 SUMMARY: This bid is for purchase of two pieces of heavy equipment. A track loader for the Landfill and a motor grader for the Street Department. Both units are replacements for existing equipment. BACKGROUND: Bid Tabulation Sheet I PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Public Works, Landfill Operations and Motor Pool FISCAL IMPACT: These units will be funded through an in-house financ ng agreement and repaid on a 36-month payout schedule from budget funds. I I Respectfully submitted: i Z~& iiarrel1 Cit Manager ~ Pr ared bys .zZ Name: Tom D. S aw Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent Approved: E J. Mar s all itl asing Agent *rch 003.DOC r~ V I I I ! I 1 I t DID 1 9927 I 1 I I 1 I @IQ i1 AF 1RpCK LQADP.RlMOIOA 6RA0ER I t I I I I ; ' .....................I MESA I NAUKESHA i DARR I AIS I CASE I NICHOLS I DP[NED JANUARY l0 1969 I EQUIPMENT 1 PEARCE I EQUIPMENT I CONTINENTAL I PDNER I MACHINERY I t I i I ; 1 I ACCOUNT f I I I i I t ; I ..............1 1.............. 1.............. I 1 I I I I 1 1 I QlY I ITEM DESCRIPTION I VENDOR I VENDOR i VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I I_... -1..._.. I 1_....... °-........._.1.............. I j 1 I I I I 1 I ' l I 1 ITAACN LOADER I RI I Na I 227,510,00 1 176,ODD,DO I N8 I 141,075.40 I r i MAKE I 1 I CAT I KOMATSU i I LIEBHERA I 1 1 MODEL r I I 475 I D7555 I 1 641 I t I I I r I I i t I IDFLIVERY I I I 9o I 30-45 1 I 90 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 1 ~ 2 1 1 !MOTOR GRADER 1 77,400.00 1 80,118.34 1 1051400.0 1 731700.00 1 M@ I MB I I I MAKE 1 JD I DRESSER I CAI I CHAMPION I I I 1 I MODEL t 6701 1 830 1 126 1 7104 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I IDELIVERY I 30 1 30 5 1 30-45 i 1 t I I I I I i I I I ITERMS I ~Pl I NET I NET I NET I I I = I I I I I I I I I IPARIS I YES I YES I YES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IAIA LOHOITIONIA6 1 21300.00 1 21500.00 1 1,375.00 I 2,500.00 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 IE1110011) NARRANIT (3-TAI 1 41530.00 1 MIA 13-YR NlCHAAGE 1 11500.00 1 1 1 1 = I I I I I I 1 I THEN 2 TOTAL 1 84,230.00 1 02,918.34 1 106,715.00 1 77,700.00 1 I 1 1 I I I r 1 I 1 ! I I I 1 I r I ! t I r ' 1 1 1 i dA DATES FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT J TOt Mayor and Vembers of the City Council FROMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager I SUBJECT: BID# 9929 WATER METERS RECOMMENDATIONt We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Kent Meter Company in the estimated total annual amount of I $72,278.00. SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of the annual requirements for water meters from the 5/8 X 3/4 residential meter to the 6" i compound and 3" fire hydrant meters. The quantities are estimated and may vary according to the needs of the City, BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet I ; PROGRAMS, DEPARYME NTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Water Utility and 1 Warehouse j FISCAL IMPACT: These meters will be funded from Water and Sewer i nvf entozy working capital as replacements for Warehouse stock. i j Respectfully submitted: Ci Manerv-er Prepared byt Nome: Tom D. Shiaw Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent Approved: j et J=ha J~aii 1 it sing Agent 003.000 I ~ I 1 J 1 ~ Y i I . I I I I I BID 1 4929 1 i i ; { .........i I { { BIB HTLE YATEA BIERS { I I I 1 OPENED JANUARY i0, 1984 I I I i i MEPfUNE I BADGER I AOCYNEII I IEMT I I~1 ACEOUNI B I t i I i --.......1_............. I ......................••••••I h I I I i I I { 1 I 01Y I HIM OESCRIPIION I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR { L........1 1.............. 1.............. 1.............. 1......-------•{ ' I i 1 1 i I i I IA. NEN MIERS I I 1 I { { I 1 ; ! I I 1 11,500 1 510.314 1 18190 1 22.45 1 21.10 1 i6.;4 ,,Jn 2 1 100 1 1' 1 17.50 1 79.00 1 53.00 1 49.40 6ri 3 1 50 1 1 112' 1 11.00 1 144.00 1 141.00 1 129.50 1 4 1 100 1 2' 1 180.00 1 101.00 1 185.00 1 174.50 1 ` 5 1 4 1 3' COMP 1 640.00 1 W3.00 1 810.00 1 730.00 1 6 1 5 1 4' COMP 11,24D.00 i 11990.00 1 11230.00 1 1,049.00 1 7 1 2 1 5' COMP 1 21410.00 1 21860.00 1 21300.00 1 21049.00 1 8 1 10 1 3' EIRE H96RANI METERS 1 370.00 1 435.00 1 410.00 1 359.00 1 1 1 1 I I I I IIOIAL ES110111 i 761030.00 1 92,075.00 1 761530.00 1 721278.00 ! I IB. IAADE IN I I I ! 1 I I 1 1 i i 1 1 1 518-314 1 4.00 1 3.50 1 3150 1 5.00 1 2 1 1 1' 1 0.DO 4 8.00 1 7.00 1 8.00 1 3 1 1 1 112' 1 15.00 1 12.00 1 12.00 1 i5.00 1 4 1 1 2' 1 30.D0 1 20.00 1 20.00 1 20.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! I I I I I I I IE. REGISTER EICHAN6E I ! I I I 1 I ! i 1 1 { 1 I I i I I I i I I 518-314 { 11.60 1 9.00 1 10.65 1 9.74 I 2 1 1 1' I 18.70 1 9.00 1 10.65 1 9.79 1 3 1 1 1 112' 1 18.70 ; 9.4 1 10.65 1 9.74 1 4 1 1 2' 1 18.70 1 9.00 1 10.65 1 9.79 1 1 I i I i 1 ! I 1 ~J I r I ! i t I SID 11 9929 12NO FA6E1 ! I ! 1 I ` -----••---•-----•-•-1 I I 1 I 111D i[flE NAIER NEIERS i I 1 I I :.....................I NEPTUNE I 6ADGER I ROCKNEII I VENT I ` OPENEI IANOAAY 10 1969 1 l 1 I I 1 I I I 1 RCCOUNI 1 I t 1 I 1 ..-....I.-...---• .-••-•--••-------------------•...I_.-...-....-.-I---...-..----.I....-.......••I---°•--------I A I QTY I ITEM DESCRIPTION i VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR ! 1.......•.!-------------------------------- !••.-...-...•..I.............. 1.---•---•-----I h I I } I 1 S t I 1 I I I I I I !F. CNAM6EA EICNANSE I 1 I I I ~I I I I I I I I I 1 5!6-311 1 13.60 1 HAD ! 9.15 1 6.25 t j 2 I 1 I' 1 31.65 1 15.00 t 21.25 1 36.10 J 1 I 1 112' 1 13.95 1 55.00 1 61,50 1 62.09 I 1 I I 7' 1 101.36 1 55.00 ! 105.50 1 91,91 1 I i ! I I 1 I 1 ; y I I I ! t l I ! t I I ! 1 t ! I I i I 1 I 1 I ! I 1 I I 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I I I I I t I I I 1 I I I 1 I i I ! I I I I I I I I I i a S CITY COUNC IL REPORT DATE$ FEBRUARY 7, 1989 J TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council 1 FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID# 9931 FIBERGLASS STREETLIGHT POLE RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bid meeting specification. Poleline Electric, in the total amount of $.13,410.00. SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of fiberglass streetlight poles and aims. Thpse items are for the maintenance and new construction of the streetlighting system. They are replacement j for warehouse stock. BACROROUND: Tabulation Sheet PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDt Electric Distribution an Ware ouses FISCAL IMPACT: 1989/90 working capital budget funds for ' replacement of warehouse stock. Respe ully subm tted - Llo Harrell City Manager P pared b : Names Tom D. Shaw _ Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent Approvedt iTi t J ra l Purchasing Agent 003.DOC 1 t 1 i I I I I I I I I BID 1 9931 1 1 I i 1 1 1 I I I I I I t I I I t BID 11TLE FIAEA6lASS STPEETLI6H1 POLE I I I t I ! l I I i ___EN________________________'.____....____.....__._I CUMMINS I POLELINE I NESCO I TEMPLE, INC. I TEMPLE, INC. I DUSENBERRY I NELSON I PRIESTER I OPED JANUARYS 1989 1 SUPPLY I I I 11 1 12 1 t I I - ---•----------•-••--.1 I I I I I I I I "CCOUNT i I I I I I t I I I I i I I I ! I I I I I 1 I BTY I ITEM DESCRIPTION I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR i VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR 1 °-I-°°------------°°-°°--••--I --_......I 1.............. I..............I.............. I.............. I-------------- I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I 1 1 30 !FIBERGLASS POLE 1 458.00 i 447.00 1 466.00 1 414.60 1 71040 1 126.00 1 416.40 1 460.00 1 ' i I I i I I I i I I I E I IKYERNATE 1 439.00 1 425.OD I I 1 I I I 436.65 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 1 30 IARM FOR ABOVE I NC I NC I NC t 56.00 1 85.00 1 49.00 1 54.75 1 NC I I I I k I 1 1 I I I I i I TOTALS 113,74D.00 113,410.00 113,980.00 114,199.)0 123,650.00 1141310.00 1141329.00 1131800.00 1 I 1 I ! I i I t I I t I I I NHATLEY I NHATLEY 1 NHATLEY I SHEgAAN I HISKINE I SHAK I SHERMAN I WILEY I ! I I I i I I I I I t L I I 1 28.35 DAYS 1 26.35 DAYS ! 30 DAYS 1 26-:,2 DAYS 1 30 DAYS 1 30-45 DAYS t 35.40 DAYS 1 60 DAYS I ~ I S I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 i I I I I I t I S 1 I i I I I 1 4 i I I i DATEf FEBRUARY 7. 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTS BID# 9932 FIRE DEPARTMENT UNIFORMS SlaclergmeetIng1speWe recoend this cifications, MartinidUniformain awarded ttotal amount of $13,000.00, i ! SUMMARY: This bid is for the annual Prchase five ant uniforms. The quantities are estimated, Theseouniformsdarertmade from fire retardant material tailed "Flamex" and the bid includes measuring for sizes and sewing of Fire Department emblems and patches. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet i PROGRAM DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Fire Department FISCAL IMPACTS 1969/90 Budget Funds for uniform replacement account 100-060-0051-8108 Aespec lly submitted: U Lloyd/Harrell---- City ~ Manager Prepared by: Name: Tom S aw Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent Approved: o J. rsha 1 1i *Til Purchasing Agent 003.D0C Y i 8ID 1 4472 I I I 1 I I I I Btp TiliE FIRE DEPARTMENT ONIFOAMS ~ ~I 1 t I I . .--.-•.f CANNON I J.D. BAITLE I MARIIN'S I OPENED 2AN9ARY S, 1484 I I I I ~ I I I ACEOUNI 1 I I I I ..'........-i_......-• .......................t_--•- I I _I 1 I 1 I , 1 I' ply I ITEM DESCF1PilON I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I 1 f 1 1 i t 1 200 ISNIRTS I 31,91 1 73,55 I 32.OD I I 1 I I I I 2 1 2D0 IPANIS 1 27.11 1 40.50 1 37,00 1 I I I 1 I i I I 1 60-DAYS 1 30.60 DRYS 1 13-50 DAYS 1 ~ I I I I I 1 I 11OTAE i 13,058,00 1 14,890.00 1 13 ON. 00 f I 1 I 1 t 1 'I i 1 1 1 I lI 1 I I 1 I Y 1 DATE: FEBRUARY 70 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID# 9934 LINE PULLER TENSIONER RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder of TSE International, Inc. in the amount of $23,885.00. SUMMARY: This bid is for a Line Puller/Tensioner which will be used in distribution conductor installation. TSE, International, Inc, is the lowest bidder meeting all specification for this equipment. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet, Memorandum PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Electric Distribution budgeted funds 1989/90 i FISCAL IMPACT: Budgeted Account #610-080-0252-9232 Respec 12y sub i ted: Lloyd Harrell City Manager Prepared by: Name: Den se Mann nq Title: Buyer Approved: : o J. Marshall it Purchasing Agent 003.DOC I I 1 I i BID 1 9931 I ! 1 S I I I I I --••-0------ 610 llllE llRf PULIEA iENSIONEA I ISE 1NIERN'l IUEC EOOIPNENi 1 SHEPRRN 1 I EL6I4 B. I I INC. I I REILLY, INC. IROBINSON, INC.I CPEKED 2100 P.if. 7ANURRY f01 1969 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I ItiC0UN1 1...._...-. 610-OBO.0752-9272 I I 1 I ' _---•--I ....................•......•I..........................-•I I I 1 t I I I 1 I ply I 11EK DESCRIPTION I VENDOR f YENDDR I VENDOR 1 VENDOR I f I..--°---.....°_..... - I ---•------...I.............. I.............. I-•--•---•-----I ; i I I i I I I 1 I I .11NE PULLER TENSIONER I 18,795.00 1 23,501.00 1 22,231.00 1 22,231.00 1 E I i I I I I I j 2 1 61000• IUNIIINE ROPE i 5,10D.00 t 9,IBD.00 1 51750.00 1 5,250.00 1 4 I I 1 1 l I i 1 i I 60 DAY 1 60-70 1 30-DRY I 30-DAY S I 1 I I I I I i 1 ; i NET 1 NET I NEI I NET 1 i 1 1 I DENTEN I DENTOR I DENTON I DENIDN I I ; ; I I I I ~ '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S I i I I 1 1 I I ! S i I I I I S I ! I 1 1 4 f I { 1 L I r~ s CITY COUNCIL REPORT DATE, FEBRUARY 7, 1989 TOs Mayor and Members of the City Council FROMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID# 9935 BUNKER PANTS AND COATS RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder meet ng specification , Koetter Fire Protection, in the amount of $14,760.00. SUMMARYt This bid is for the purchase of fire fighting protective 1 clothing consisting of bunker coats and bunker pants. The quantity indicated is estimated and may vary. Huwever, these listed quantities are consistant with continuing annual upgrades of this j type equipment. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet r PROGRANLSL DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Fire Department FISCAL IMPACT: This purchase will be funded from 1989/90 budget funds account #100-060-0051-8121. I ~ I i Respcc idly submitted, Llo Harrel Cfty Manager ep:,AmD as I amet aw Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent Approved: I a e o n J. Mars 11 Tit e: Purchasing Agent 003.DOC i I I f r r 1 1 1 I I I I I BFD 1 9435 1 I I ~ I %DEIiER 1 CASCO I NEEI IVALIE% SAFETY I BID ii'.If BUNKER PANTS 1 COATS I SERVICE CO. I INDUSTRIES, I ASSOCIATES, I SUPPLY CL. I '____I i I INC. 1 INC. I I ..............10, 1909 I OPE%fl 2:00 4.ti. 70.%UARY S0, 1989 I 1 I .__--__•_._........_...._...I I 1 1 ACCOUNT 1 10D-460 0451 8121 ._-I ..............I 1 I QTY I ]TEA IIfSCR1PIID% 1 VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VXOR I L._....__-•-•-1 I------- ,..._..I i 1 1 I 291.00 I 232.00 I 232.10 1 232.54 I 1 30 IPAMF: I I 1 1 I I I I i i 2 1 30 ICOATS 1 211.00 1 271.00 1 296.11 ` 308.00 ` 1 1 1 I 1 I ` I I I 1 114,760.00 1151300.00 IIS,BIB.00 116,215.00 1 I 1 I 101AL I 1 I J S 1 1 i I I I I 1 I ~ I 1 1 i D':N10N 1 DEN10% i 9,010M S DE%TON I I ~ 1 I I NEI I NET 34 1 NET 30 1 %E1 30 I i I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 60-70 1 75-90 1 60-90 1 15.60 1 I 1 I I 1 T ` ~ 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I i J 1 t V a r DATEt FEBRUARY?, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TOt Mayor and Men0m rs of the City Council FPOMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTt BID# 9938 CONCRETE MIXER TRUCK RECOMMENDAT:JNt We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest overall er Construction Equipment in the amount of $3(1;500.00 with delivery in 25 days. SUMMARYt This bid is for the purchase of a used (1984) concrete i mixer truck. The unit will be utilized by the Water and Sewer Field Service Department for mixing and hauling concrete and backfill slurry mix. The unit is a reconditioned 1984 truck and is being purchased at less than half the price of a new unit. i BACKGROUNDt Tabulation Sheet PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS_AFFECTEDt Water and Sewer Field , l Services and Motor Pool f FISCAL IMPACTt This unit is being funced from 1989/90 budget funds or capital equipment Water/Sewer Utility. Account Numberst 620-081-0461-9104 $16,500.00 620-082-0471-9104 510,000.00 620-081-0462-9104 $10 000.00 36,500.00 J ` Respec/fully submittedt ' 1 L -d-- 1 Ciot+ Manage" Pre ared by Names Tom D. Shaw Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent Approveds { hn J. a s o Marshall Tit, Purchasing Agent j 1 I 1 a i 1 1 I BID 1 4938 I t 1 i ..........1 t I BID 111iE CONCRETE MIIEA-1RUCK I 1 1 CONSTRUCTION I METRO FORD I OPENFD 2rD0 P. M., JANUARY IT, 1989 1 EQUIPMENT I I I PAhIS, INC. I * I ACCOliI1T 1 I I I 1.............. 1.............. 1 I I I I I 1 I QTY I ITEM DESCRIPTION I VENDOR I VENDOR I I I.........I I.............. I.............. I I I I 1 i I ICONCREIE TRUCK 141,000.09 1 31,500.00 1 1 I t I I I I IRENIAL CREDIT 11 41500.001 1 MIA I j I I TOTAL 1 36,500.00 1 3Tr500.00 I I 1 I I I I IDELiVERT I 25-DAYS I 21-DAYS I 1 ~ I I I I I I1+ I I I I I 1 t 1 t ' i 1 i 1 J 1 1 3 S~ t yy `[r a I I w, i h I DATES FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL Ft?.PORT I TOt Mayor and Members of the City Council FROMt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager I SUBJECTt BID# 9939 STREETLIGHTS RECOMMENDATIONt We recommend this bid be awarded as followst A. Item 1 through 5 to Temple, Inc, at $780820.00 B. Item 6 to Wesco at $ 3,737.50 SUMMARYI This bid is for Warehouse replacement stock of Streetlights. Temple, Inc., was higher on Item 2 than another bidder, but they had bid Items 1 through 5 all or none which makes their bid lowest overall. BACKGROUNDt Tabulation Sheat PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS'AFFECTEDt Budgeted working capital for 1989/90 FISCAL IMBACTt Warehouse Account #710-043-0582-8708 Respect lly submittedt I Lloy Harrell ~ - City Manager Prepared byt Names Dense Mann ng Titles Buyer C Approvedt { met n J. Mare all itlet rchasing Agent 003.DOC I I i I i a x s . I I I I I I I BIB 1 9939 I I I I I I I ................I 1 r r I I 1 PilllflE 51REETLIBHIS i I I t I I I I NELSON I TEMPLE I NESCO I CUMMINS I UWE I TEMPLE I OPENE6 2100 P, M. 2ANUARI 19 1989 I ELECIRIC I ELEETRIC I i SUPPLY CD, I ELECTRIC I ELECTRIC I ..._.....t I I I I I t ACCOUNT i 110-013-0582•W08 I I 1 I I I I I.............. I.............. I.............. I I 811 1 ITEM DESCRIPTION I VENDOR t VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I VENDOR I l._ I............. 1 .I ..............i..............i.............. I 1 1 200 128516.550 1 48.45 I 62.00 1 48.15 1 50,90 1 41.34 1 11.00 1 2 1 200 128576.600 1 $9,95 1 61.50 l $1.89 1 50.90 3 58,00 1 51.90 I 1 1 200 128516.500 1 46.75 1 61,50 1 46.00 1 48.10 1 45.23 1 45.00 I 1 4 t 300 128576-650 1 91.15 1 81.00 1 89.59 186.801104.90 1 88.00 t 80.90 1 5 t 300 128516-750 I 91,15 1 80100 1 89.59 106.801104.90 1 81,17 1 81.90 I 6 I 250 120550-560 I 16.45 1 N. e. I 15,15 1 11.10 1 15.94 I 15.40 1 r I I I 1 I I I I I IOlALS 1 354.40 1 312.75 1 340.5! 1340.801311,00 1 342.28 1 328,60 1 ,I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I S I I IDE~iVfRl I 45 I 28 42 I 45 I 12 56 42-19 1 42-49 1 = I I I I I I I 1 I IF01 I UNION I DENTON I DENTON I DEMON I DENTON I DE NUN I I I I i I 1 I I I I IIERAS i NET 30 l NET 30 1 NET 30 1 NE1 JO I NET 30 1 N35 30 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 t I I I I I 1 t I i s I I I, I I 1 1 i i~ 1 i V i V i ' 2516L/ 1589 NO. AN ORDINANCE PRO111DING FOR THR EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY PLRCIIASES OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE B1D3; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE D/ATE. WHEREAS, state saw and ordinance require that certain con- tracts requiring an expenditure or payment by the City in an amount exceeding $10,000 be by competitive bids, except in the case of public calamity where it becomes necessary to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity of the citizens, or to preseirve the property of th,a city, or tt is necessary to protect the public health of the vitizeres of the city, or in case of unforeseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORP.AINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby determines that there is a pU511 ccalamity that hakes it neaesssr to act at once to appropriate money to relieve the necessity ofYthe citizens, or to preserve the property of the city, or to protect the public health of the citizens of the city, or to provide for unforseen damage to public property, machinery or equipment, and by reason there- of,the following emergency purchases of materials, equipments supplies or services, as described in the "Purchase Orders attached hereto, are herr!by approved: PURCHASE ORDER NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 88793 is EQUIPMENT SERVICE. IjiC. - L-L211Ak.B9--- `81I38T -M JS_EQUIPMP.NT SdRYICB. INC. - II 269.30 . SECTION L1, That because of such emergency, the Clay Manager or de'slgnatea' employee is hereby authorized to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies or services as described in the attached Purchase Orders and to make payment therefore in the amounts therein stated, such emergency purchases being in such accordance City provisions of state of l competitive nbids. t i r 1 SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immea ably uupon its passage and approval. PASSED AND A?PROVED this the day of 1989. ATTBST: JENNIFER WXLTERS9 CITY ECRETARY I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: i I l DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCHl CITY ATTORNEY BY. I i PACE TWO 1 Y fA { I DATEi FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY COUNCIL REPORT TOi Mayor and Members of the City council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECTt PC# 88793 TO JS EQUIPMENT SERVICE COMPANY FOR $12,746.89 RECOMMENDATIONI We recommend this PO be approved to pay this emergency purchase to JS Equipment company $12,746.89. I SUMMARYs This emergency purchase is to repair the undercarriage on our Track Loader Rig #2525 used at the Landfill by the Solid Waste Division. This emergency repair was quoted to us for the complete job for the above amount. BACKGROUNDt This equipment used in a Landfill has excessive wear on hun@ercarriage slid tracks. it then becomes necessary for this type repair to be done often. P.O. copy attached. 1 PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDs This is one of the pieces o egUIpment that Is require to be in continuous operation. i FISCAL IMPACT: This is budgeted maintenance and there is no I add t onaFTmpact on the General Fund. Respeully submittede ~ Lloy Harrell ~ City Manager Prepared bys I itJ.hn j . Mara all 9 ilel Purchasing Agent I Approvedl i *Jt~rchja;i~ar al g Agent 003.DOC 0 i O ' THIS IS A CITY of DENTON, TEXAS CONFIRMING ORDER E PURCHASE ORDER NO: (IF MARKED) This number must appear on all PC 68793 DO NOT DUPLICATE Invoices, dollvery slops, cases. ctns, boxes packing slips and bills. Req No: Ed No: ED Date: 01 20 89 Pape No, at VENDOR FlJrf A&rKl AMS+ON / 9018 TEXAS STREET / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 817/566.8311 D/FW METRC 267.0042 NAME/ JSS• EQUIPMENT SERVICE INC* ADDRESS 602 WILDLIFE PARKWAY DELIVERY CONFIRMATION ONLY GRAND PRAIRIES TX 75?50 ADDRESS YgHICLE M NTeeNANCE CITY OF D~14TONx TEXAS i VENDOR NO. DEUVERY OUOTED FOB TERMS E JJJ595Rr1, at 31 89 DESTINATION MEMO= 001 1 EA 2935 12x746@890 12x746.89 RIG/252S REPAIR UNIERCARRAGE AS PER QUOTE j i I I i PAGE TOTAL 19:746:89 j OL 710 025 0584' 8710 125746.89 GRAND TOTAL 2 12 746 89I VENDOR INSTRUCT)ONS: 3. Twma - Nat 301 4u wwww wwsoa l f1 1, Send oroma? invoice with wplicate copy, e. Shippirq buVuctOne, F 00, Destination Prepaid lUn"s o wAid xoe-1rral 2.8!11 to - Accounts Payable 6. No federal or state sales tax shell be included j 215 E. McKlnrwy St in prices billed, W,chaslnq DNlebn Denton, TX 70201 VENDOR A I . DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 1989 CITY CCUNCIL REPORT T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager ~ SUBJECT: PC# 08387 TO JS EQUIPMENT SERVICES COMPANY FOR $11,269.30 RECOMMF.NDATIONi We recommend this PO be approved f,)r the emergency purchase of repairs to the transmission for $3.1,269.30. SUMMARY: This emergency repair is for the service and repairs of lJ1 the transmission on our equipment #2490 used at our Solid Waste Landfill. " BACKGROUND: PO and invoice 5378. This was ordered repaired on j December 3.9, 1988, at a price under $10,000.00. Hr.-Never, after finding other repairs needed, while a, their shop, we ordered the exr.ra repairs and thereby raising the total cost to $11,269.30. I PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: The Landfill operation, the disposal of- solid waste, and 't3:e citizens of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: This is a budgeted item in Solid Waste and does not add'any additional to the General Fund. I f Respec lly/sub/mfitted: U/ Lloy Herrell City Manager ;Jtje~r pa ed by: i e,o u J. Marshall Purchasing Agent Approved: jtlc2ej JMarshall WPurcha;ing Agent I 003.DOC LJ g;- 11110 IJ A - CONFIRMING ORDER PURCHASE ORDER NO: 88387 (IF MARKED) This number must appear on an DO NOT DUPLICATE ~c s, deli~sli elpcases, btls. Rect No: Bic No. D Date: 1-27-89 Page No, 01 VENDOR J. S. EQUIPMENT SERVICE INCRArqA914 vmsCN gpt_a TWS STREET DENTON, TEXAS 16201 NAME/ 602 Wildlife Parkway 8171566.8311 Q1FWMETRO 267.0042 ADDRESS Grand Prairie, TX 75050 DELIVERY CONFIRMATION ONLY ADDRESS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS VENDORNO. JJJ59500 DELIVERY000TED 01 30 89 FOB DESTINATION TERMS 001 1 EA 92935 1'_.269.30 11,269.30 Earth handling, grading, moving, and packing equipment 1 I 01 710 025 0580 8710 11,269.30 RAND TOTAL: 11,269.30 VENDOR INSTRUCTrAS 3, Terms - Net 30 lunipm of wwu• splurro0l 1. Send original Invoice with duplicate copy. 4. Shipping Insirudlons', FA 8. Destinabor prepaid runless cxwww IMIT•a1 2 Bin to - Accounts Payable 6. No federal or state sales tax shall be included 215 E McKinney St. in prices billed. Denton Tx 76201 VENDOR rchesing Dlvlabnt✓ sly C e r I s37C3 J S GOUIPHFNr SERVICE INC. 1NVOICE3 ` r 60;> WrLDL IFF PARIsWAY' \ ~ r DATEt 011e0189 GRAND-PRAIf?IE. TEXAS •73050 OUR PHONE NUMBERI 214/262-0211 Q + YOUR P.0,1 88387 YOUR ACCOUNT NUMBERS 4,1"..070 AUTHORIZED BYt OZZ IE TATE CITY OF DENTr,;N FOR MODELi CAT 977 804 TEXAS ST. SFRIAL NO.I I I K 3905 DENTi•11 TX 76201 64Q01 EO NO.1 249@ I 4 TROVPLESHn1)T TRONSMISSIUN 6 ADVISE CV9TU~IER IF ~ r TURNS OUT TO P.E MA11QA PROBLEM. OUTSIDE'-LABOR -1 HAUL'ONIr 1-ROM fi;ip' 1 sITE -f<, 9 EnulPne*t'8Nc+P; . R & I CAE, FLOORFLATFA. RIDE PANEI.S. 6 B•A,Cf< BELLY VAN 01JARD9 & 9rFAM CCFAN TRACTOR. REMOVE SEAT FRAME. HYD TANK. FUEL TANK, F L INFS Al L IN ONF ~ATTERI~S I $[FCE AND REINSTALL +/N f COMPLETION. R & I HYD PUMP ' % R & I TRANS + RECONDITION TRANS 1 R 6I TUROVE CONVERTER { RECOND TOROUF CONVERTER R & I TRANS L SCAVANbER PUMPS b RECOND. R 6 16 RFCOND STFFRING BOOSTER Y h R I STEERING CL 1,' 'I &'_g AND BRAKES DISSABSEMBLE CLFAN AND REPAIR :,t. NECESSARY. R At I SPUR PINION FLANGES AND RESEAL R At I CROSSHAFT BEARINGS AND REPLACE AND RESEAL 9TFERING RELEASE PISTONS DRAIN BOTH FINAL. DRIVES CHF'CK FOR CONTAMINATION AN ,REFILL WITH 85-140 OIL,. R & I TOROUF. CONVERTER OIL COOLER, CLEAN * FLUSH THOROUGHLY. INSTALL ANTIPRFEZE 5P;< SOLUTION IN COOLING SYSTEM J RUN & RECORD LEVEL IF PROTECTION RFPLACFD GLOW PLUGS & 14PAIRED HARNESS REPLACED HEAT SrART,SWITCI+ REPLACFrr FAN HUR FFARING9 REPLACED DF,FFCTIV; ALTERNATOR- ANTI FREF'ZE • t 59.90 riHOP LABOR f 106.00 pgURS REGULAR rime;) $ 24968,00 FI1.1 n LABOR + Y\00 100PjT REGULAR TIME) PAAt8 AND OIL $ 60.02 I OUTSIDA L-AAOR 9 7.347.42 WELVINL 744.38 SALES TAX 90.td0 i NONE INVOICE TOTAL 4 114269,30, NnTICEI' INV01CF9 ARE PAYABLE WITHIN .10 DAYS. THERE WILL I X +t A 1.'+; rltlf l l "I r'llAliFrl' Ilo'III'Ilf / ~ ) rA:ir rill(' INV{,ICES. { V i I 1 { i it 1 ~ I 1 I 1 ALA I r 44 1144 1 1 I 1 ..b i 6 1 , CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE (817) 568.8307 T Office of the City Manager M E M O R A. N D U M TO. Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager i FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager I DATE: February 3, 1989 SUBJECT: Signal Contract with the State Attached you will find a contract for signal controller purchase and installation at Loop 288 and Morse Street. We have been trying for some time to work with the Highway Department in securing this signal. We have finally convinced them of the need for it. This contract simply will help us buy a signal that is compatible with the rest of the signals we ` have been buying. What we will do is actually purchase the controller and install it along with other parts of the signal and then be reimbursed by the Highway Department for our labor costs and as well as the cost of the controller. We have done this same kind of contract for signal installation at 1-35 and University Drive. We are pleased to be able to do it this way because it allows us to purchase a controller that we are used to working on and very familiar with rather than having to take a controller that is a low bid item for the State. The Staff would strongly recommend that the Council approve this contract. r i X;~' 4~ Ri k veh _ Deputy City Manager RS:bw 4423M Attachment r 4 3 Ya e CITY ofDENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL .'NLOING / DENTON, TEXAS 76201 / TELEPHONE(817)366.8200 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 10, 19SR TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, City Engineer SUBJECT; Signal Agreement State/Loop 288 at Morse This agreement will allow our Traffic Division to Install Transyt equipment that will coexist properly with our existing equipment on Loop 288 and McKinney. Ultimately, our closed loop system can also include the Morse and Loop 288 intersection. T Clarki City Engineer 0620E i i I r~ I V 6 h p Y 2605L NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AGREMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR INSTALLATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND MORSE STREET; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the City Council hereby approves and suth - orizessta mayor and City Secretary to execute and attest, respectively, the >greement between the City of Denton and The State of Texas providing for the installation of a traffic signal controller at the intersection of Loop 288 and Morse Street, under the terms and conditions contained in said agreement which is attached hereto. SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1989. I XXT-STEPHENSO MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WETERSt CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY i BY:_ _ I h Agreement No. STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAVIS AGREEMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS BY A MUNICIPALITY THIS AGREEMENT is made by and between the State of Texas, acting by and through the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, hereinafter called the "State", and the City of _n^nt-na _ Denton County, TQAa6, hereinafter called the "City", acting by and through its duly authorized officers as evidence by Resolution/Ordinance No. , hereinafter acknowledged by reference. I W I TN $$~E TH WHEREAS, the State owns and maintains a system of highways and roadways, including Loop 288, in the City of Denton; and I WHEREAS, the City has requested the State to reimburse the cost of obtaining and installing a traffic signal controller at the intersection of Loop 288 and Morse, heroin after called the "Project"; and WHEREAS, the State and City wish to cooperate in the construction of this Projects and I WHEREAS, the City desires that equipment be provided that is compatible with J standard signal operation and a future closed loop systemi and ' I WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City and the State for the City to I assist the State In supplying traffic control equipment on the Project; and WHEREAS, on tha Zf1b day of _Sel)teMber , 17 88 , the State Highway and Public Transportation Commission passed Minute Order No, 87924 P approving the Projecti and WHEREAS, the State is authorized to enter into an agreement with the City for the , Project pursuant to Article 6673-bo V,A,C.S.; ft 4EL E€ft EtjI NOW THEREFOREP in consideration of the promises and of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties hereto to be by them respectively kept and performed as hereinafter set forth, it is agreed as followss { 1' I 12/88 Page 1 of 6 I I ~T M.419 4 's tA 1 Article 1. Contract Period This agreement becomes effective on final execution by the State and shall remain en effect as long as said traffic signal controller is in operation at the described location, or unless otherwise terminated or modified as hereinafter p•avIded. Article 2. Construction Responsibilities A. For all items of construction other than furnishing and installing the traffic signal controller, the State will prepare the construction plans, advertise for bids, and let the construction contracts or otherwise provide for the construction and will supervise the construction as required by said plans. The State will secure the City's approval of construction plans prior to award of contract. B. The furnishing and installation of the traffic signal controller will be part of the construction to be undertaken by the City, and the State will reimburse the City for its contribution to the Project, as prescribed under Article 31 "Compensation." Article 3. Compensation A. The maximum amount under this agreement without modification is 48,258.84 A cost estimate of the work authorized under this agreement is marked "Attachment A"s attached hereto and made a part of this agreement. B. The State will reimburse the City the cost of furnishing and installing the traffic signal controller as to the location and manner of construction as shown and described in the plans and specifications, C. The State will reimburse the City for properly supported costs Lx urred under { -the terms and conditions of this agreement. Costs incurred prior to the issuance , of a written "NOT'k Order" by the State will not be reimbursed. Reimbursement will be made by the State to the City for labor, equipment use, materials, supplias, t travel expenses, and warehouse or material handling charges provided the City has paid from City funds their obligations covering items of costs previously billed. + Article 4, Payments A. The City shall submit the State's Faris 1329 Billing Statement, or other type of invoice acceptable to the State upon completion of the Project and the State's acceptance thereof. 8. An original and four (4) copies of the Billing Statement should be submitted to the following addeasse P.O. Box 3067, Dallas, Texas 73221-3067, C. All billing statements shall be properly documented, summarizing the costs by description of work performed, quantity of materials and devices, unit price, labor costs, and extensions. D. The State %hail make payment to the City within shirty 1301 days from receipt i of the City's request for payments provided that the request is properly prepared, executed, and documentnd, i 12/88 Page 2 of 6 J A ~ f~ t E. Unsupported charges or charges after final acceptance by the State will not be considered eligible for reimbursement. The State will prepare a final audit upon completion of the work nuthorited or at any time an audit is deemed to be in the best interest of the State. Article 5. Personnel, Equipment, and Material A. The City will use labor and supervisory personnel employed directly by the City, and using City-owned machinery, equipment, and vehicles necessary for the work. In the event that the City does not have the necessary machinery, equipment, and vehicles necessary to perform the workl the machinery, equipment, and vehicles may be rented or leased as necessary at the low bid price submitted by at least two approved bidders. B. Reimbursement for the use of materials purchased by other than competitive bid procedures will be made only if such procedures are shown to be in the public interest and provided the State shall have given prior approval for the use of said materials. All materials used for the work shall be new and undepreciated. Article 6. Inspection of Work i A. The State shall make suitable, frequent, and complete inspection of all materials, and equipment, and the work of Installation to determine and permit certification that the Project and its components meet all applicable requirements of the plans and specifications in suitable condition for operation and maintenance by the City after its completion. 0. The City will provide opportunities, facilities and representative samples, as may be required, to enable the State to carry on suitable, frequent, and complete inspection of all materials, and application methods, sufficient to afford determination and certification by the State that all parts of the installation and the component materials comply with the requirements of the approved plans and specifications. The State will promptly notify the City of any failure of materials, equipment or Installation methods, and tha City will take such measures as necessary to obtain %cceptable systems components and installation procedures without delay. Article 7. Maintenance and Operation Responsibilities Upon completion of the Project, the City agrees to apsrate and maintain at its own expense, the traffic signals as a part of the street system and agrees to assume the cost of all electrical power required for signal operation, including the electrical power needed during test periods. Article B. Termination j A. This agreement may be terminated by one of the following conditionsi (l( By mutual agreement and content of both parties, 12/88 Page 3 of 6 I y t a 121 By the State by writing notice to the City as consequence of failure by , the City to perform the services and obligations set forth in a allowances satisfactory manner and within the limits provided, with proper being made for circumstances beyond the control of the City. (3) By either party, upon thirty 1301 days written notice to the other. A. If, at any time, the City fails to assume the construction responsibilities as prescribed herein or the maintenance and operation responsibilities for the traffic State reserves the in a construction iesporcibilities ore totarrange efor maintenance and ctory manner as determined by operation responsibilities at the expense of the City. I Article g. Indemnification To the extent permitted by law, the City shall save harmless the State from all claims and liability due to activities of itself, Its agents, or employees, performed under this agreement and which result from an error, omission, or negligent act of tha City or of any person employed by the City. The City shall also save harmless the State from any and all expenses, including attorney fees f I which might be incurred by the State in litigation or otherwise resisting said claim or liabilities which might be imposed on the State as the result of such activities by the Citys its agents or employees. Article 10. Remedies I Violation nr breach of contract terms by the City shall be grounds for termination of the agreement, and any increased cost arising from the City's default, breach of II contracts or violation of terms shall be paid by the City. This agreement shall not be considered as specifying the exclusive remedy for any defaults but all remedies existing at law and in equity may be availed of by either party and shall f be cumulative. Article 11. Disputes I Should disputes arise as to responsibilities and obligations as set forth in this agreements the State's decision shall be final and binding. Article 12. Subletting The City shall not sublet or transfer any portion of its responsibilities and obligations under this agreement unless specifically authorized in writinntracthe State. In the event subcontracts are entered into by the Cityo the must adhere to the provisions of this agreement. 1{ Article 13. Amendments zed Changes in the time frame, characnters amendment, Anytamendmontbtogthisnagreement must f herein shall be enacted by writto be executed by both partirrs. 12188 Page 4 of b i i 1 Article 14, Insurance Prior to the City performing work on the Project, the City shall furnish to the State a completed Certificate of Insurance (Form 20.102 3-82) and shall maintain the Insurance in full form and affect as long as the City is responsible for the maintenance operations of the traffic signal controller. Article 15. Successors and Assigns 1 The State and the City shall not assign or otherwise transfer its rights or obligations under this agreement except with the prior written consent of the ocher party. Article 16. Inspection of C(:y's Books and Records The State shall, for purpose of termination of the agreement prior to completion, examine the books and records of the City for t;ie purpose of checking the amount of _ the work performed by the City at the time of contract termination. The City shall i' maintain all books, documents, papers, accounting records and other evidence pertaining to cost incurred and shall make such material available at their office during the contract period and for three (3) years from the date of final payment under the agreement, for inspection by the State or any of their duly authorized representatives$ shall have access to all records of the City which are directly pertinent to this agreement for the purpose of making audit, examinations, excerpts j and transcriptions. i Article 17. Legal Construction In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this agreement shall for any s reason, be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision i thereof and this agreeme-,; shall be construed as if such invalids illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein. Article 18. Governing Laws and Venue This agreement shall be construed under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Any legal actions regarding the parties obligations under this agreement must be filed in Travis County, Texas. Article 19. Prior Agreements Superseded This agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting the within subject matter. ~ i I 12/88 Page 5 of 6 I 4 p_ { €4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The State ano' the City have signed duplicate cot.nterparts of the Agreement. CITY 4r DE 1'C1~N THE STATE OF TEXAS Certified as being executed for the purpose and effect of ac.ivating and/or Byt„ carrying out the orders, established Signature c;0,t^< policies, or work programs heretofore approved and authorized by 'the State Highway and Public Transportation Commission& Typed Name and Title Byi S:gnature 1 Date Bob G. Hodge Chief Engineer, Maintenance and Operations APPROVED AS TO FORM: CRY ATTORNEY, I CITY Of DW N, TEXAS Date BY: 04 &A III 1 1 ~ I ~ I ' I I I I~ t I I f 12188 Page b of b J ~ I I i } u STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF Denton Qualified and acting city secretary of the City of Denton ~ the duly appointed, Texas, hereby certify that the foregoing pages constitute a true and correct copy of an ordinance/resolution duly passed by the City Council at a meeting held on A, D. , 1 g , at , clock__ K, To certify which, witness my hand and seal of the City of Denton Texas, this day of ' at ~ 14 at Texas. 1 i y !ue ary p e y o I Denton ~ Texas 1 Ji I a R " CITY ATTORNEY'S CERTIFICATE THE STATE OF TEXAS I COUNTY OF DENTON I is Joe D. Morris, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Denton, Texas, do hereby certify that the City Charter of 1 the City of Denton authorizes the City Council to approve the execution of contracts by means of an ordinance, and that the i j attached contract between the City of Denton and the State of Texas, dated , 1989, approved by ordin- I ance passed , 1989 and executed by Ray Stephens, Mayor is valid and binding on said City in so far S , as its approval and execution is concerned. JO D. MORRIS ASSISTANT CITY ATTORM CITY OF DEMN, Tam i I 1 J l . -mg i ` i f , EXEIBIT A COST ESTIMATE FOR CITY OF DENTON FURNISHED MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT LOOP 288 AT MORSE I. MATERIAL COST I 1 Each - Transyt 18808 80 Controller and Cabinet with Card Rack for Canoga #60110.00 1 Each - One Power Supply 1124 187.00 3 Each - Canoga P424T 4 channel Card Rack Detectors 10197.00 4 Each - Load Switches 180400 f Assorted Bolts, SpliOes, Lugs, Connectors, Tie Wrap 10^000 I #7,814.00 i 1I. EQ92P_ M8`gr Truck - 3 Bouts at #SO # 150.00 Pickup - 3 Bouts at #25 ~ x.00 I # 22!.00 I ~ 1116 UIOR 0213 Traffio Engineer - 2 tours at #25.93 # $1.04 ~ Supervisor - 2 Bouts at #22.36 44.72 Traffie Tech - 4 Boors at #10000 72.00 Ttaffie Tech - 4 Bouts at #12.02 i =sue # L.9 "I Total Estimate --~7j #1,251.0/ I I tpol I 1 I CTSSC Minutes March 7, 1988 Page 6 ITEM N4 REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND MORSE STREET: M Paul Iwuchukwu presented the request. He said this intersection was a mayor intersection. The recent ` traffic volume counts on Loop 288 indicated about f 18,000 vehicles pass through Loop 288 on an average day. Staff conducted a warrant study for that intersection. Before you can install a signal at an interee,gtion, it must, meet certain warrants. That intersection has met these warrants based on traffic volupe and delay on,the minor streets (interruption). 1 The problem is there is no money available to install the signal light. Gilbert Bernstein asked if the tenants in the park had been approached about funding the light. Paul said they had not. Virginia Gallian asked if the loop was intended to be j a free traffic flow. Paul said that was correct. He 1 said first it was intended to function like a controlled acease loop which means there would be a limited number of driveways or accesses on it. The T1 case may be an indication that the State has some how deemphasixed that classification. Just north of Riney road, the state has approved a signal for T1. At the inception of the project, no one thought the State would allow a signal on the new Loop extension. Unless there is a way to fly Morse street over Loop 288, there is no other means of controlling potential accidents at Loop .'98 and Morse. Study of accidents causer there in 01e last 12 months, showed there were 3 major ones. Two of the accidents could be controlled by installation of a signal. Virginia Gallian asked if the State had the final decision as to what kind of loop this was. Paul said yes, the State had the final decision. But, Horse i street would have no problem meeting State warrants ` for a signal. f Jack Brown, General Manager of General Telephone came h forward to speak in favor of the request. He said the businesses in the complex have sent Jerry Clark several letters in support of the petition requesting i the signal light. Petitions were collected from 443 of the 600 people that work in the commercial subdivision which was forwarded to the City. Three major accidents and numerous minor accidents have occurred. There are two problems, the light itself is sorely needed and the other is the way you i E r CTSSC Minutes March 7, 1988 Page 7 get off Loop 288 onto Morse. if you are coming from the mall area into Morse and making a right hand turn, there is a right angle with a bar ditch immediately adjacent to it. Some people have hung up the back end of their vehicles in that pipe. Coming I the other way from McKinney into Morse, the City and State did the best job they could in making a left turn lane but that is where people get rear ended. As far as who pays for it, GTE is the second largest taxpayer in town, as well as Peterbilt and Moore. We think we have paid for all the other lights in town and think it may be the City's turn. There is none by our facilities as it sands now. Greg Bristol. Manager of Health and Human Resources at Hulcher Services came forward to speak in favor of E tha request. He said, part of his job description is safety, Hulcher Services is a railroad contractor that helps the railroad clean up train wrecks and derailments. They work with heavy equipment, retail train cars, and work with hazardous material all the time. They have 17 divisions of personnel across the United states with 300 employees in these divisions. f Safety is dealt with every day working with hazardous material. However, with the entrance at Morse street it is difficult to control what happens there. We do need a traffic light at the intersection. Vivian Edwards said there was no doubt that a light I~ was needed at the location. It is a matter of funding. Greg Bristol asked what type of cost was involved. Joe Thompson said the normal cost of an Intersection was approximately $60,000 - $75,000. Joe suggested asking the State for possible funding. An answer ~ should be received from them within 60 - 90 days. Gilbert Bernstein made a motion to approve a traffic ` light at that location pending State/private funding. John Tompkins seconded the motion. Motion passed h unanimously. } j ITEM N5 SUPPORT FAO A NEW CITY RD NANO PROYIDINQ FOR pAV1N9 E.' IONS FOR PARKING LOTS AND PARKING SPACES: Paul twuchukwu presented the request. He said Planning and Zoning was working on the ordinance and was seeking input from the CTSSC Commission. 1 h ~ b d a EXHIBIT A COST ESTIMATE FOR CITY OF DENTON FURNISHED MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT LOOp 288 AT MORSE I, MATERIAL COST 1 Each Transyt 1880E 50 Controller and Cabinet with $6,150.90 Card Rack for Canoga 1 Each - One Power Supply 8124 187.00 ` 3 Each - Canoga P424T 4 channel Card Rack Detectors 1,197.09 4 Each - Load Switches 180.00 Aeso[ted Bolts, Splices, Lugs, Connectors, Tie Wrap 100.00 7,814.00 II. EQUIPMENT CO5T , Truck - 3 Hours at $50 $ 150.00 Pickup - 3 Hours at $25 75.09 225.00 III. LABOR_COST Traffic Engineer - 2 Hours at #25.92 $ 51.84 44.72 Supervisor - i Hours at 22.36 Traffic Tech - 4 Hours at $18.90 72,00 Traffic Tech - 4 Hours at $12.82 51.28 $ 219.84 C I1 6,258.84 Total Estimate $ r I tpcl i I 1 i ~ , 1 I ~ i i I t i i I i ~ J r y 1 rA R k t 8,) OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM TO. Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM. Joe D. Morris, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Section 21-9 DATE: January 19, 1989 Attached is the revised ordinance amending section 21-9 of the Code of Ordinances. Please note that in addition to the changes suggested by the Council, we have revised paragraph (b) to include the marking ufpublic an additional regularly performing t work f that may require employees persons property. If no other changes are needed, please place this item on the City Council's agenda at your convenience. Joe D. orris 1 i `t. NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 21-9 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO THE PLACEMENT OR PAINTING OF PUBLIC SIGNS ON AMOUNT OF $500.00 OFORT VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PANDL PROVIDING OR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: bECTIOJL_I.L That section 21-9 of the Code of Ordinances is amended to read as follows: Sec. 21-9. pe~itngoo or Marking Numberblic Property; (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to draw, mark, or paint any sign, picture, or character upon any sidewalk, pavement, curbstone, utility pole, public bridge, public building, public right-of-way, or other public property, except as otherwise provided in this section. (b) The prohibition of paragre+ph (a) of this section shall not apply to City employees, surveyors, oz public utility employees or their authorized agent+ marking public property in performance of their duties of ichalk painting tupon a n public sidewalk by making rusemarking or other similar water-soluble materials. of this (o) The prohibits to ° persons paragraph deviring to paint section shall not apply house numbers upon curbs in consideration of payment by the owner at that address; in accordance with a permit issued by the City Secretary. The application form for the permit shall conrdin the name and address of the person making application, minimum standards for the application of the numbering, and other information as may be deemed necessary. House numbers shall be placed only on the curb in front of the dwelling on the driveway return portion of the curb. In no event shall numbing be placed upon a curb without first obtaining payment approval of payment from the owner of the property. All persons soliciting owners of property to provide house numbering services shall include the name, address and written solicitat on materials delivered soliciting ithe propar any owner. sFCTION ii. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance lday that anprovision be this ordinance iseviolated $00.00. Each I F i a shall constitute a separat,_ •nd distinct offense. SECTION III, That this ordinance shall, become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the d?.te of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1484. 1 RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR i ATTESTt JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMt k~ DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY [/Ytti \ BY: i II t j Page 2 I i I I 1 JFfIlINIF []Fir ,1 .91"LA."LLA"T 1111 I II 1 I J T-Fl 1 1 I F I . . . . . . . f . . . r mr-Ty-n-T. I t t "t u February 7, 1489 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM TO: MAYOR AND MEM3ERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager RE: CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. GRANTING A LICENSE FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN ELECTRICAL DUCT AROUND THE PROPOSED LOCP 288 AND STUART ROAD; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RECOMMENDATION: The Public Utilities Board, at their meeting of January 25, 1989, recommended approval of this item to the City Council. SUMMARY/BACKGROUND: The duct system is located at the intersection of Loop 288 and Stuart Road which consists of four ducts. The agreement between 1 the City of Denton, Texas, and Sammons Communication, Inc., allows the right to use one 2s schedule 40 PVC conduit. Terms of the agreement that the Utility Staff felt were especially important are as follows: 1. For the privilege of using the duct system, Sammons Communications, Inc., shall pay an initial fee of 32,000; an annual fee of $10 to cover paperwork costs will be assessed thereafter. The price of this agreement was calculated from 1/5 of the estimated cost to install the total duct system, minus the duct system not used by Sammons Communications, Inc. 2. The City of Denton will not be held responsible for Sammons Communications, Inc., installation in the duct system. 3. Sammons Communications, Inc., will be held responsible for any damages to the City of Denton facilities. I~ PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: i City of Denton, Denton Municipal Utilities, Sammons Communications, Inc., Legal Department, and Citizens. ~k f i 1 ~l a 1 1 City council Meeting Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT: Initial increased revenue of $2,000; $10 per year income thereafter. Resp~fully subs fitted, arre , Ma ger I Prepared by Y ) lilt-( e son, xecut vv hector Department of Utilities Approved b , / 1 if`>r: e son, xecut ve rec or Department of Utilities I { Exhibit I Subject Agreement II Resolution 111 PUB Minutes of January 25, 1989 JI 1 1 I M 1 6308U:1-2 J~ 1 r ~ I a ` I i CABLE DUCT USE AGREEMENT F BETNEEN THE CITY OF DENTON* TEXAS r AND SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND STUART ROAD I I' I , I EXHIBIT, r.. i 4 g z 9 2543L TABLE OF CONTENTS Article Page I. Definitions 1 II. Scope of Agreement 2 III. Application for Permission to Install Cable 3 i IV. Specifications 4 V. Installation and Maintenance of Cable and Duct 4 VI. Rights-Of-Way, Legal Authority and Default 5 VII. Fee 6 1 VIII. Term and Termination of Agreement 6 r IX. Force Majeure 7 € X. Indemnity and Insurance 7 ' I ~ a XI. Limitation on Assignment and Transfer 8 1 XII. Supplemental Operatir6 Routines or Working Practices 9 XIII. Notice 9 i Attachment Exhibit A; Drawing No. P.U.E.D. 77 Revision Level 0, Dated August 8, 1988 I j -i- II h i i 2543L CABLE DUCT USE AGREEMENT r This Cable Duct Use Agreement made and entered intolg88fecc- tive and operative as of the day of and between the city of Denton, Texas, a ome u e Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Licensor," and Sammons Communications, Inc., a Texas Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Licensee;" WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Licensee is franchised to furnish CATV Service (as hereinafter defined) to residents of Denton, Texas and is the assignee of and bound by a certain "CATtheOL LEASE a dREEMENT" ensor Golden dated the 7th day of May, 1979, between Triangle Communications, which permits the Licensee to attach equipment necessary to the provision of CATV Service to Licensor's electric utility poles; and I WHEREAS, Licensor he' caused poles to be removed and underground cable duct to be installed for the purpose of tio in the electricity in Road and further defined Exhibit Are DrawingoNo?BP.U.E.D. #77, Dated August 8, 1988; and 1 WHEREAS, Licensor has dedicated a duct within Licensor's System of Ducts to be used for CATV Service to subscribers in said ' area and is willing to permit, to extent the heit, may l wfullordo so, the use of said duct by Licensee judgment, such use will not interfere with its own service requirements or, as it may be advised, the present or future, includingc consideration of the Joint Users, pes economy and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, aa followsad, the 'parties hereto do terms and conditions herein mutually covenant and agree ARTICLE 1. DEFINITIONS 1. All references herein to, "Licensor's Duct" or "Licensor's System of Ducts" or "Licensors Duct System" shall mean duct and related appurtenances solely owned by the Licensor, jointly owned by Licensor duct another or obtained through other arrangements by I I I rA 2. All references herein to "Joint User" shall mean (1) a r company or municipality which together with Licensor has a percentage ownership in a duct or system of ducts, (2i la public utility company or municipality which has use privleges for Licensor's duct, or (3) a public utility company which owns duct for which Licensor has use privileges. 3. All references herein to "CATV Service" shall mean all services provided by Sammons Communications as defined in its franchise agreement with the City of Denton. 4. All references herein to "Licensee's Cable" shall mean the coaxial cable or Cables and associated joining fittings used as the transmission media for CATV Service. 5. All reference herein to "Licensee's Equipment" shall refer to amplifiers, power supplies and other similar support equipment that is not suitable for inclusion in duct system manholes, vaults, junction boxes and pull boxes. i ARTICLE II. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1. Licensor hereby agrees to license and permit Licensee to route Licensee's Cable, for the primary purpose of furnishing ' CATV Service in accordance with its franchise, within the area of the intersection of Loop 288 and Stuart Road, and further defined by Exhibit A; to such of Licensor's Duct System of as are, in the judgment of the Licensor, suitable and available ' for such cable, subject to conditions and limitations contained herein. 2. Licensee agrees that only cable shall be routed through Licensor's Duct that Licensee shall install Licensee a Equipment in above ground locations. 3. Licensee agrees that this Agreement extends only to the use of the Licensor', Duct System as defined on Exhibit A; and that Licensee agrees to secure and maintain from the proper franchising authority, a franchise to erect and maintain its equipment within public ctreets, highways and other thorough- fares provided such franchising authority exists, and shall secure any and all consents, permits or licensee that may be required by law for its operations. 11 4. Licensee agrees to assist in and bear the expense of securing any consents, permits or licensee that may be required by Licensor by reason of this Agreement. I I ~ PAGE 2 i I ~ I I I i w r" i 1 r ARTICLE III. APPLICATION FOR P ERM SS ON TO INSTALL CABLE I. At least thirty (30) days prior to the time Licensee desires to install cable in Licensoe's Duct System, it shall make written application to Licensor. Lia~nsor ahali review Licensee's application and upon approval, shall supply Licensee written approval to proceed with installation. LicenseeUpon receiving have the right, written pto Article but not sooner install, maintain and use Licensees Cable described in said application in ducts identified therein, provided that Licensee shall complete eacF installation within one (1) year from date of said approved application; provided however, that before commencing any such installation, Licensee shall notify Licensor at least five days in advance of the time when it proposes to do such work and, in the event Licensor elects to have its representative present, Licensee shall reimburse Licensor for the cost and expense thereof. 3. Where costs are involved in the rearrangement of Licensor's Duct or other facilities to accommodate Licensee's ' Cable, the Licensor shall notify Licensee of these estimated costa and Licensee shall notify the Licensor in writing that actual costs will be paid by Licensee to effect such rearrange- ~ ment. Licensor shall then make said changes and rearrangements, at Licensee's sole risk and expense, and upon completion shall notify the Licensee that installation of cable may proceed. 4. Licensee shall not have the right to place, nor shall it Ducts; and shallLinstall' onlyEquipment Lic nsee1seCablesad System fitting required for its termination and assembly or connection within the duct system. Licensee's Equipment necessary for the full operation of and delivery of CATV Service shall be constructed housed, or mounted external to Licensoe's System of Ducts. ' Licens r written outed through Lieen ornstDu to SystemewithoutoLicensorys pcable rior restrict the attachment of service drops this Article Cable installed in the Licensor's System of ducts. i PACE 3 I I I` j Ai.TICLE IV. SPECIFICATIONS 1. Licensee, at its 0,.m cost and expense, shall construct maintain and replace Licensee's Cable in accordance with (i~ such requirements and specifications as Licensor anch l lesroom time to time prescribe, (ii) compliance qy orders now in effect or that hereafter may be sued ctions regulatory Commission or other authority having j Edition, and the National Code, 1487 specifications subsequent Electrical t Safety requirements and MI) amendments or revisions of said specifications or code. ARTICLE V. INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF CABLE AND DUCT 1, upon written notice from Licensor, Licensee shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, relocate or replace Licensee's Cable or transfer the same to a substitute duct system or perform any other ororinaton action with said Cable that may be requested by Licensensee's sole risic and expense; provided, however, that in cases of emer cto rLic elocate may, at Licensees sole risk and expense, arrange ee's sub- other awork Cable connection stem sor perform anytransfe stitute ducth sy Lice with said Cable that may be required in the maintenance, replacement, removal or relocation of said duct system, for the , service needs of Licensor. 2. No additions to, or change of locations of Licensee's Cable in Liceor's prior writtennconsentuof Licensor ,laexc pt in c seas of emergency, when Licensee must obtain oral permission from Licensor a authorized representative, presently designated as the City of Denton, Director of Utilities and subsequently confirmed in writing. 3. Licensee shall, at its sole risk and expense, maintain all of Licensee's Cable L Licensor or its agents halla condition and thorough be sole judge of suitability of such condition and repair. 4. Licensor reserves to itself, its successors and asstgna the right tomaintain o manner asSystem and bestte ableatitito f facilities therein fulfill l its public service requirements. Licensor or the Joint r event interruption Users will make every reasonable effort to p to the service of the Licensee but shall not be liable to PAGE 4 1 1 rA i e Y Licensee for any interruption to the service of Licensee or for interference with the operation of the Licensee's Equipment. y 5. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to obligate Licensor to grant Licensee permission to use any particular duct and Licensor at its discretion may revoke permission therefore granted to Licensee with respect to any particular duct if Licensor can make a substitute duct system available. If such permission is refused, Licensee is free to make any other arrangement not prohibited under the terms of this Agreement it may wish to provide for Licensee's Cable at the location in question. 6. Whenever, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, i Licensee shall be required to remove Licensee's Cable from any duct, such removal shall be made except as otherwise specifi- cally provided, within thirty (30~ days following the giving of notice to Licensee to so remove. Upon failure of Licensee to remove Licensee's Cable within such thirty (30) days or as otherwise required, Licensor may remove Licensee's Cable and charge all coats associated with said remo%..l to Licensee. ARTICLE VI. RIGHTS-OF WAY, LEGAL AUTHORITY AND DEFAULT 1. In the event any such franchise, license, permit or consent necessary for the lawful provision of CATV Service is revoked or is hereafter denied to Licensee for any reason, permission to route Licensee's Cable through Licensor's Duct System shall immediately terminate, Licensee shall, within a reasonable time, remove Licensee's Cable from Licensoe's Duct system and Licensor, at its option, may forthwith terminate this Agreement. 2. Upon notice from Licensor to Licensee that the cessation of the use of any duct system has been requested or directed by Federal, state or municipal authorities, permission to route Cable through such duct system shall immediately terminate and Licensee shall forthwith remove Licensee's Cable therefrom. 3. If Licensee shall fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, including the specification heretofore referred to, or defaults in any of its obligations under this Agreement, and shall fail within thirty (30) days --1 after written notice from Licensor to correct such default or + noncompliance, Licensor may, at its option: { PAGE 5 I r i a) forthwith terminate this Agreement in its enti i; or, JJ b) at its election, revoke the permit covering the duct i or ducts involved in such default or noncompliance; II or, c) at Licensoe's option, obtain service of an attorney to institute suit of other judicial proceeding to remedy any default by Licensee in its performance of the covenants, terms and conditions of this Agreement. Licensee expressly agrees that it shall pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses of such legal counsel. ARTICLE VII. FEES 1. For the privilege of placing and maintaining Licensee's Cable in Licensoe's Duct System as shown on Exhibit A Licensee shall pay an initial fee of $2,000, and the sum of 10.00 per f , year for the next fourteen (14) years, due and payable on October 1, of each year. 2. No additional fees will be paid by Licensee during the term of this Agreement except as provided elsewhere herein. 3. Payment of the $2,000 fee shall be made within thirty (30) days of the execution of this agreement. Failure to pay such amount when due shall constitute a default under this Agreement. ARTICLE VIII. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT 1. This agreement, if not previously terminated in accord- ance with the provisions hereof, shall continue in effect for a term of fifteen (13) years and thereafter until terminated as provided herein. The Agreement may be terminated at the end of said term or at any time thereafter by either party giving to the other party rt least (40) days written notice. l►pon termination of the agreement, Licensee shall remove Licensee's } Cable for the Licensor's Duct System within thirty (30) days of the effective termination date. 2. Licensee may at any time remove Licensee's Cable from f Licensoe's Duct System but shall immediately give Licensor I i I PAGE 6 i ~I j i w, written notice of intent of such removal and Licensee's intent to terminate this Agreement. No credit or refund of any fee shall be allowed Licensee on account of such removal. 3. This Agreement shall be subject to termination by Licensor without notice, or, where circumstances permit, upon five (5) days written notice to Licensee, upon objection being made by or on behalf of any governmental authority asserting prior jurisdictions thereof. ARTICLE IX. ~J1 FORCE MAJEURE If either party is rendered unable, wholly or in part, by force majeure or other causes herein specified, to carry out its obligations under this Agreement, other then the obligation to make Vayment of amounts due hereunder, it is agreed that on such party s giving notice and reasonable full particulars of such force majeure in writing to the other party within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the cause relied on, then the obligations of the party giving such notice, so far as they are affected by such force majeure or the causes herein specified, shall be suspended during the continuance of any inability so caused, but for no longer period, and such cause shall so far as possible be remedied with all reasonable dispatch. For purposes of this Article, force majeure means any cause or event not reasonably within the control of either party; including without llmitacion the following: acts of God; strikes; lockouts; or~ers ui any kind of the government of the United States or of the State of Texas or of any of their deppartments, agencies or officials, or civil or military auth- orities; insurrections; civil disturbances; epidermis; land- slides; lightning; earthquakes; fires; hurricanes; tornadoes; storms; typhoons; cyclones; waterspouts; floods; washouts; arrests; reattaints of government and people; explosions; breakage or accident to machinery and transmission lines or poles. ARTICLE X. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 1. Licensee shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless Licensor and other Joint Users of said duct system from and against any and all lose, costs, claims, demands, damage and/or expense arising out of any demand, claim, suit or judgment for { PAGE 7 + iA L damages to property and injury to or death of persons, including the officers, agents and employees of either party hereto and other Joint Users of said duct system, including payment made under any Workers' Compensation law and under any plan for employees' disability and death benefits, which may arise out of or be caused by the erection, maintenance, presence, use or removal of Licensee's Cables or by the proximity of the respec- tive cables, wires, apparatus and appliances of the parties hereto or other Joint Users of said duct system, or arising out of an act or omission of alleged act or omission of I'censee, i including any claims and demands of customers of Licens~a. 2. Licensee shall carry insurance, at its sole cost and expense, to protect the parties hereto and other Joint Users of said duct system from and against any and all such claims and demands and from and against any and all actions, judgments, costs, expenses and liability of evary name and nature which may arise or result, directly or indire,:tly, from or by reason of the acts or omissions of Licensee hereunder and irrespective of any fault, failure, negligence or alleged negligence in the part of Licensor or of any or the joint users of said duct system. The minimum amounts of such insurance are set out in Section 27-58 of Ordinance No. 78-21 if the City of Denton Ordinances, and the Licensee will comply with the provisions of that section, and as the same may be emended. Licensee shall promptly advise the authorized representative or Licensor of all claims relating to damage to property or injury to or death of persons arising or alleged to have arisen in any manner by, or directly or indirectly associatei with, the erection, maintenance, presence, use or removal o1: Licensee's property. 3. Licensee shall exercise special precautions to avoid + damage to facilities of Licensor and or the Joint Users in said ducts and hereby assumes all responsibility for any and all loss for such damage, Licensee shall moke an immediate report to Licensor of the occurrence of any such damage and hereby agrees to reimburse Licensor for the expense incurred in making repairs necessitated thereby. ARTICLE XI. LIMITATION ON ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER 1. Licensee shall not assign, transfer or sublet this Agreement, or any of the privileges hereby granted to it, without the prior written consent of Licensor. Provided, however, that Licensor's consent shall not be required to place 3 a mortgage or lien upon the facilities of Licensee for the purpose of financing the installation, improvement, maintenance or extension of its system. PAGE 8 i ~ 1 I i I 2. No use, however extended, of Licensor's Duct System under this Agreement shall create or vest in Licensee any ownership of property right in Licensor's Duct System, but Licensee's rights therein shall be and remain nothing more than a License. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to compel Licensor to maintain any of its duct system for a period longer than that demanded by its own service requirements. 3. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as affecting the rights or privileges previously conferred by Licensor to others, by contract or otherwise, to use any ducts covered by this Agreement, and Licensor shall have the right to continue to extend such rights or privileges; the use privileges granted hereunder shall at all times be subject to such contracts and arrangements and nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting the right of Licensor to grant use privileges to such r other parties as it may desire to do so. 4. Failure to enforce or insist upon compliance with any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment of any such terms or conditions, but the same shall be and remain at all times in full force and effect. 5. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, this Agreement shall extend to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. b. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as affecting the rights conferred or exercised by the parties under present or future governmental authority or regulation. ARTICLE XII. SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATING ROUTINES OR WORKING PRACTICES 1. Nothing in the foregoing shall preclude the parties to this Agreement from preparing such supplemental operating routines or working practices as they may mutually agree to in writing to be necessary or desirable to effectively administer the provisions of this Agreement. ARTICLE XIII. NOTICE 1. Any notice provided in this Agreement to be given by either party hereto to tits other shall be deemed to have been duly given when made in writing and deposited in the United f f States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: i PAGE 9 I I TO LICENSEE: TO LICENSOR: Sammons Communications, Inc. City of Denton 205 Industrial Attn: Director of Utilities Denton, Texas 76201 215 East McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first Above Vritten. CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, LICENSOR BY., V RAY TEPHENSO MAYO i' ATTEST: E APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY i i BY: i SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., LICENSEE BY ATTEST: SECRETARY PAGE 10 1 I i r~ V i e rr a• A Nl Wr1 i.N Wr N11FiMIMM'Welt.$ r rl ~rw n I INSTALL j I rr .l ftlow .nN w Meter 131 fUStl 0 CUT 288 1 .41" uu>e • outs I I 0 - MOr LOW" ARREIIIM Ioil ' I! C&I"91111IC U II OU'l/0) (POLE A TO 101E 1) ! II! x010'' M vAnita /0 ►VC 1 I Q inr.n /unwe N w uui JUG'S' SCADULE 10 PVC 1.100 "OUL! 0 M'C M I ~ rr.u . e rw r . r.e . / • e NEIIDVE ' p/.N1 .I w.ll•rr r. a Iwi 1 - ISr$ POLE Igo EMNNIOPRWAR/ 1 1 w -I 110' EXIST" NEU,RAI DIPOLE A 10 101E 11 I 1usEDl our lE AncNDR rLU NI IUN/iN. W1MD F..elrr.MOl LL e r f ur wI'm 611 r.rNe -I re. NOTE, DEOICATEtl I ~ PVC AS PER CML! DUCT USE AGREEMENT . M Nar M w..u a O~Y u.'n1+1 e1r.t, two../ Of r19LK kAeMO AA M NOW Will MfYlNlll p}yy~IlN[I I -f- NI I11 DM l r _~.'•`•1. _If M M un CIif OF O1NlON 1EAA! 1111 1111 - wn. M/rwn _ II ..n 1111 ra11 O M 1011 i 2543L RESOLUTION NO. AN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND SAMMONS J COMMUNICATIONS, INC. GRANTING A LICENSE FOR THE USE OF CERTAIN ELECTRICAL DUCT AROUND THE PROPOSED LOOP 288 AND STUART ROAD; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON: SECTION I. That the Mayor is authorized to execute an agreement etween the City of Denton and Sammons Communications, Inc. For the purpose of granting Sammons a license for a period of fifteen (15) years to utilize the cable duct which cross the proposed Loop 1188 and Stuart Road under the terns and conditions contained in said agreement, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. I SECTION It. That this resolution shall become effective imme a e y upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1988. 4 1 RAY j J ATTEST: JI 1 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL tOhM: f DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY 1 I BY: 1 i EXHIBIT S 2/1/89 14 EXCERPT MINUTES PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD JANUARY 25, 1989 13. CONSIDER CABLE DUCT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND )AMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AT THE INTERSECTION OF LOOP 288 AND STUART ROAD Tullos reviewed this item stating that this agreement was reviewed by the Board and sent back to be reviewed by the City Attorneys. Ron Meyerson reported that he added a paragraph to protect Denton from liability for Sammons Communications, Inc., installations in the duct system. He also stated that the Board's concern that the City be named an additional insured on Sammons' insurance is covered via city ordinance which does require i Sammons to carry $1 million in liability insurance. The attorney now recommends the document as presented. i Thompson made a motion to recommend subject agreement for approval to the City Council. Second by Chew. All ayes, no nays. Motion carried. ar I 4 ti I~ I J I 11 II