HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-1996
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
~a
February 6, 1996
s
AGENDA Apsh U& ~c (Q - CO(o
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL AWoda a -
February 6, 1996
Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
February 6, 1996 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City
Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at which the following items
will be considered:
NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO
CLOSED MEETING AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM FOR WHICH IT IS
LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE.
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Consider waiver of conflict for the lawfirm of
Canterbury, Stuber, Pratt, Elder & Gooch to
represent Sunmount in the lawsuit of Sunmo_ unt v,
FAA.
2. Consider and discuss defense of and the settlement
of RPS Ventures Inc., et al v. City of Denton and
Weber and Barnes v. Cit of Denton pending in the
362nd District court under Section 551.071 of the
Open Meetings Act.
3. Consider settlement proposal in Iwuchukwu v City
and _Clark.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments - ,
Sec. 551.074 - Under TEX. GOV T CODE
3
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
February 6, 1996 at 6:00 p.m. in the Ci t
Hall, 215 E. tY Council Chambers
McKinneYDe of . nton Y
will be considered: Texas at which the foZlowiti g item
NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to
one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the
purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters
should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the
Council for citizen input, City Council deliberation and formal
City action. At a work session, the City Council generally
receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City
staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or
organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council
or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by
individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases
when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to public
input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens
have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearina.4, so
citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless
invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City
C
AgenOa lb.9 (V (0
City of Denton City Council Agenda Agenda Ven
February 6, 1996 Otte
Page 2
Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report
regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored.
Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting
agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining
the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens
prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The
purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the
regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow
citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide direction
regarding the Economic Development Transition Committee
recommendations.
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
February 6, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be
considered:
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Consider approval of the minutes of September 19, 1995,
September 26, 1995 and October 3, 1995.
3. Consider approval of a Resolution of Appreciation for Gene R.
Green.
4. Citizen Reports
A. Receive a citizen report from Willie Hudspeth regarding
meeting times for the City's Boards and Commissions.
5. Public Hearings
A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance providing for a change from the single family
residential (SF-7) zoning district classification and use
designation to the office conditioned, 0(c) zoning
district classification and use designation for 0.155
acres of land located at 1413 East McKinney Street. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval, 5-0.)
B. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance providing for a change from Office (0) and
Planned Development (PD-57) zoning district
classifications and use designations to a new Planned
Development (PD) zoning district classification and use
designation for a 1.059 acre tract located in the
northeast corner of the intersection of Carroll Boulevard
and Fort Worth Drive; approving a development plan for
City of Denton City Council Agenda
February 6, 1996
Page 3
the district. (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval 7-0.)
C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance providing for a change from the Single Family
Kasidential (SF-10) zoning district classification and
use designation to the Office Conditioned (O(c)) zoning
district classification and use designation for 0.7656
acres of land located at 1100 Bonnie Brae Street.
(Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 5-0.)
D. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an
ordinance amending Section 34-114 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas to reduce the
level. of escrow required of developers of residential
subdivisions for sidewalk construction. (The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommends approval 4-1.)
6. Consent Agenda
Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and 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. The city council has received background
information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding
these items prior to consideration.
Listed below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for
payment under the ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back-
up information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items 7.A,
7.8, 7.C, 7.D). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to
allow council members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to
approval of the Consent Agenda. Upon the receipt of a "request to
speak" form from a citizen regarding an item on the Consent Agenda,
the item shall be removed and be considered before approval of the
Consent Agenda.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid #1843 - Aerial Device Bucket Trucks & Utility
Power Source Truck
2. Bid 41850 - Books for Public Libraries
3. Bid #1851 - Plumbing Repair at Central Fire Station
4. Bid #1846 - Renovations and Repairs to Fred Moore
Nursery School - Phase II
5. P. O. #62929 - Howard Price Turf Equipment
6. Check Requisition - Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission
II
r
f
City of Denton City Council Agenda
February 6, 1996 (r....r~
Page 4 ^~and~ i o
7. Consent Agenda Ordinances
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive
bids and awarding a contract for purchase of materials,
equipment, supplies or services. (7.A.1. - Bid #1843,
7.A.2. - Bid #1850, 7.A.3. - Bid 41851)
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive
bids and providing for the award of contracts for public
works or improvements. (7.A.4. - Bid #1846, 7.A.5. - Bid
#1857)
C. Consider adoption of an ordinance awarding a contract for
the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or
services by the State Purchaaing General Service
Commission. (7.A.6. - P.O. #6292:1)
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
expenditure of funds for the fourth quarter paynent by
the City of Denton for Solid Waste permit fee with Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission. (7.A.7. - Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission)
8. Ordinances
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing a tract
comprising 11.34 acres, located east of Mayhill Road and
north of Blagg Road, temporarily classifying the annexed
property as "A" Agricultural District. (First Reading, A-
69) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval 6-0.)
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing a tract
comprising 21.62 acres located in the Estates of
Forrestridge Section II; temporarily classifying the
annexed property as "A," Agricultural District. (First
Reading, A-70) (The Planning and Zoning Commission
recommends approval 6-0.)
C. Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing a tract
comprising 34.78 acres located in the clear zone south of
the existing runway in the vicinity of the Denton
Municipal Airport; temporarily classifying the annexed
property as "A," Agricultural. (First Reading, A-71)
(The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval
6-0.)
1+
City of Denton City Council Agenda
February 6, 1996 ti9enE~ 110
Page 5 a I.
d:-
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance prescribing the number
of positions in each classification of Police Officer;
prescribing the number of positions in each
classification of Fire Fighter; repealing all prior
inconsistent ordinances and resolutions to the extent of
any such conflict.
E. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing assignment
pay for Fire Department employees in the classification
of Captain who are also assigned to perform the duties of
EMS Program Manager.
F. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing assignment
pay for Fire Department employees in the classification
of Driver who are also assigned to perform the duties of
Maintenance/Logistics officer.
G. Consider adoption of an ordinance repealing ordinance 76-
IS relating to 2 hour parking limit in parking facilities
adjacent to Municipal Building.
9. Resolutions
A. Consider approval of a resolution removing Lloyd V.
Harrell from the Board of Directors of the Industrial
Development Authority and reappointing Rick Svehla,
Acting City Manager and Kathy DuBose, Executive Director
of Finance for terms of six years.
B. Consider approval of a resolution appointing a special
six (6) member oversight committee to monitor, evaluate,
and report on the progress of the five year Capital
Improvements Program, subject to the authorization of the
voters at the bond election on February 24, 1996.
10. Consider approval of the appointment of Deputy City
Secretaries.
11. Vision Update
12. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
13. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items:
A. Legal Matters
B. Real Estate
C. Personnel
D. Board Appointments
T
i
City of Denton City Council Agenda
"~~►'o -
February 6, 1996 ?zr.43+
Page 6;
14. New Business
This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest
items for future agendas.
15. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
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 Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on
the day of _ 1996 at o'clock (a.m.)
(p.m.}
I _
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE
CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE
HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-RELAY-TX SO
THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH
THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
ACC002E7
r..n (rP
Agenda No.,9,= 7fp .~UU(o
Date cv`-
AGJWDA CHECMXBT
To Be Performed initial/Date
Draft Agenda for Staff
Revise for Meeting with
Council
Receive Back Up Material
Review Ordinance/Resolution
Captions
Duplicate
15 Full Agendas
45 Agenda Onlyts
Distribute
Full Agenda - Council, LVH,
RS, DD, Press &
Chamber
Agenda Only - Execs & Judge
Mail Agenda Only's
Call for P&2 Agenda
Call for PUB Agenda
POST AGENDAS
- AGENDA MEETING
Number and File
* Agenda available for staff duplication only after all materials
have been prepared for Council and posted.
AMM00231
r
b
,F
i
r
AQEn:] I1;Ilrcf.Ls ~ L
ar.; 2 - G ~Se
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUMOPAL BUILDING 215 E McKINNEY DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(817) 566.8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION COMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION
At the January 23, 1996, Council meeting, Council requested additional detail on the formation
of an economic development corporation (EDC) and on the economic development sales tax
election process. The attached report is in response to your request. The Economic
Development'fransition Committee (EDTC) has also included additional information to further
clarify their responses to the original charges given to them in Phase 1. Harry Hall, Chair, and
other members of the EDTC will be present at the February 6th meeting to respond to any further
questions you may have regarding their recommendations.
If you have any additional issues you %vish addressed at the meeting, please do hesitate to call.
- 1.42,A
Rick Svehla, tng City Manager
"Dedicated to Quality Senice"
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SALES TA
1. What types of activities are eligible under Sections 4A and 4B of the economic
development sales tax?
SECTION 4A SECTION 4B
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TOURISM/SPORTS DEVELOPMENT
acquiring buildings, land equipment acquiring buildings, equipment facilities
basic infrastructure a.^d improvements for professional and
build speculative buildings amateur sports
improving the promotion of transportation - athletic, entertainment, tourist, convention
facilities, including mass commuting and and public park facilities, including:
parking facilities - stadiums, ball parks
improvement districts - auditoriums, amphitheaters, concert halls
- paying the principal and interest on debt - learning centers
- grants to industry/business - parks and open space improvements
- relocation payments - municipal buildings, museum exhibition
low-interest loans to business, loan facilities and related stores, restaurants,
guarantees* concessions and parking and
marketing/promotion (limited to 10%) transportation facilities
general administration of industrial - operation and maintenance of projects
development corporation: . marketing/promotion (limited to I0°.o)
- salaries of staff of corporation - general administration of industrial
- corporation office lease or purchase ievelopment corporation:
- supplies, materials and services - salaries of staff of corporation
necessary for the operation of the - corporation office lease or purchase
corporation office. - supplies, materials and services
necessary for the operation of the
corporation otiice.
' Included as part ofa municipal economic development program under Section 380.001 of the
Texas Local Government Code.
2. How did the EDTC arrive at the conclusion that an economic development sales tax
under Section 4A would be best for Denton?
Attachment A details the kinds of activities for which 4A funds have actually been used by
other successful EDC's. These are more in alignment with what the EDTC sees as the
philosophy and objectives for Denton's economic development program-- namely,
expansion of the tax base. Other criteria used to favor the 4A legislation included the
following:
2
r
► Section 4B(n) requires at least one public hearing before expending funds on every project.
The EDTC felt that this process would hamstring the corporation in meeting its primary
objective of promoting economic development.
► 4B is project focused, i.e., Arlington's Ball Park
► 4B focuses on public projects, i.e., coliseums
► The EDTC felt public amenities were being taken care of through the CIP process.
► 4A is program focused, i.e., Allen's 200-acre industrial park
The 4B legislation has raised more public criticism, and there is some legislative sentiment
to curtail 4B activities.
3. Why, did the EDTC not recommend a combination of 4A and 4B?
For exactly the same reasons as listed above.
4. What are the eligible election dates for the economic development sales tax?
1996 1997 1998
Third Saturday in January January 20 January 18 January 17
First Saturday in May May 4 Ma 3
y' May 2
Second Saturday in August August 10
August 9 August 8
First Tuesday after First Monday in None Allowed November 4 None Allowed
November
*No November elections are allowed in even-numbered years.
5. Why did the EDTC choose the August 10, 1996, election date?
The EDTC felt there was a collective urgency to produce results and that time was of the
essence. They were concerned that if the community delayed until a January 1997 election,
they would be another 18 months to two years behind the competition. A major part of
their reasoning stems from the fact that revenues are not available until six months after the
passage of a half-cent sales tar election. Therefore, it would be difficult to implement
concrete economic development initiatives until that revenue is available.
3
As the EDTC examined the available dates for 1996, they detemt I~ V QS JOE
"~cp
enough time to develop a campaign to be ready for a May election. Due to the upcoming
presidential election, a November date was unavailable for 1996. That only left one
remaining date for 1996-- August 10, 1996.
6. Didn't the Cornerstone Croup's information show that an August election date has
the least successful election results? Why not then wait until 19971)
Yes, however, while Cornerstone's overall statistics showed an August election success
ratio of 50:50, the more recent August elections (1994 and 1995) have been successful 80%
of the time.
The EDTC also felt that the economic development issues have been the top priority of
discussion of the leadership of Denton for well over two years. The evidence of the
approved strategies out of the Vision NVork/Business Teams that were adopted by the Crty
Council and the Chamber of Commerce strongly suggested that everyone is already
committed to moving expeditiously ahead to further our economic dc- elopment efforts.
7. Is a successful campaign doable by the August date?
Yes. Keep in mind the EDTC members have been talking to members of the community
about this issue for many months now. Their reading of the community's commitment to
this effort is to keep the Vision momentum going. They are convinced, if approached in
the right -way, an August election can have a positive outcome. They art fully aware of the
amount of time, energy and effort that will be necessary to make this campaign successful.
i
S. What Is the time line in preparation for an election?
I W February 10, 1996 (Six months): The Cornerstone Group indicated that it takes several
months to successfully plan and run a campaign for an economic development sales tax
election.
June 6, 1996 (60 days prior to election): The Justice Department requires that we notify
them whenever we deviate from our regularly scheduled election dates. (An August
election is not a regular election in Denton.)
June 21, 1996 (45 days prior to election): The Tax Code states a city must call for the
election at least 30 days before the uniform election date. Ilowever, the Election Code
states 45 days. The Secretary of State recommends 45 days to allow for federal pre-
clearance, early voting by mail, and other required procedures.
4
w
*ftd.1 t:a. 77
Apaka ram _(.•7 S +
August 10,1996: Flection date od;-P= ~d - g-Ca
August 20,1996: If voters approve, the governing body has 10 days after the election to
enter the resolution or ordinance that declares the results into the meetings minutes.
The City Secretary sends a certified copy of the election results by resolution or ordinance
to the Comptroller's Office (by certified or registered mail).
January 1, 1997: The tax becomes effective after one complete calendar quarter elapses
from the date the Comptroller's Office receives notification of voter approval (Section
321.102(a) of the Texas Tax Code).
► March 1997: City begins to receive revenue from the tax. The City must deliver the funds
to the EDC.
9. Are public hearings required?
No public hearingE are required to form an EDC.
No public hearings are required to call a sales tax election. However, under the 4B
legislation, public hearings on the specific proposed projects are required before expending
funds.
The EDTC felt that two years of public discussion with interested citizens from all walks of
life (doctors, homemakers, professionals, engineers, developers, educators, etc.) took place
in a very open fashion in the Vision process. Furthermore, the members of the EDTC
continue to be in constant contact with members of the community to get a reading on these
issues.
I
The EDTC feels that now the City is at a policy decision point, and specific policy
recommendations need to be implemented by the City Council.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS:
10. What is an Economic Development Corporation (EDC)?
An EDC is a non-profit corporation established by a municipality under the Development
Corporation Act of 1979 for the purpose of promoting economic development.
5
f
J
IL What are some of the most successful EDC's doing for their communities?~
EDC's centralize the economic development effort. Some cities have empowered their
EDC's to buy land and build industrial parks, improve airport facilities, develop and
manage major marketing campaigns, provide financial incentives to new and existing
industry (loans, loan guarantees, grants, gifts), improve or provide infrastructure, and
contract for services. Other examples are listed on Attachment A.
12. Now are EDC's funded?
EDC's are funded through private donations, foundations, general fund, public/private
partnerships, and economic development sales tax,
13. Would the structure and by-laws of the EDC be put before the voters?
No. Those are policy decisions that would be made by the City Council with respect to the
overall business plan of the corporation. The voters will be making a decision about hov:
to fund those strategies. The information about the structure and the by-laws will be shared
with voters thrc,..ti speeches given at civic and organizations throughout the community.
Certainly, information will be provided in campaign materials that will clearly state the
objectives and initiatives of the EDC and outline its legal structure (some of which are
proscribed by state law under the Article 5190.6 of the Development Corporation Act).
14• Can the public petition for an election to dissolve the EDC or to repeal the sales tax?
4A: Yes. Corporations established under Section 4A of the law require a petition by at
least 10% of the registered voters to call an election on the dissolution of the 4A
corporation. The City Council can also call an election to repeal the sales tax on its own
initiative or when requested to do so by a petition in accordance with Section 321.404(e) of
the Texas Tar Code.
413: The law does not specify a procedure for repealing the 4B tax. However this may also
be governed by the procedures set forth in Chapter 321 of the Tar Code for calling of
elections for increasing, reducing, or repealing the tax.
4B election ballots are required to provide information on proposed projects. The law
states that a city may not collect a "sales and use" tax imposed under this section after all
the debt payable by the sales tax has been retired, However, most cities include "operation
and maintenance costs of proposed projects" in the wording of the ballot, allowing
collection of the tax as long as the project is in operation. For example: If a city imposed
the tax for the construction, operation and maintenance of a ball stadium, the tax could be
collected as long as the stadium was in operation.
6
I
S
v
15. Is it the EDTC's recommendation that the Council immediat yogt~
appoint the five member EDC board? Would the EDC boar
Council with recommendations on operatin me ac o
budget? g policies, business plan' o structure and e ! Yes. The EDTC feels time is of the essence. h
finally came to the reasoned conclusion that it µou d be in everyone's best int rest to have
the actual membership o the formal EDC decided. The EDTC members felt that the
critical and formal operating recommendations such as operatin
budget preparation, hiring decisions, or anizei B policies, business plan,
the formal board. B onal structures, logistics, etc., should fall to
There are tow 261 other communities much further ahead than Denton.
The EDTC believes there is a real urgency to move forward ex editiousl to u
economic development effort. Quite frankly, there is going to be y parade our
an
time, energy, and commitment to complete the Phase 11 charges. enormous amount that
permanent" appointees complete those charges for review and approval by he Cityer that
Council.
16. Is there a down side to going ahead and making the appointments to the EDC?
No. The EDC will not be empowered to act on any independent authority. Until the
EDC's by-laws are approved, operational policies and business plan established, and a
budget approved and funded by the City Council, no independent initiatives can be
implemented. Appointment of strong, business-minded civic leaders would be an asset in a
sales tax election.
17. Would the formation of the formal EDC board prior to the sales tax election harm or
promote the success of the election?
The EDTC members felt strongly that moving ahead to make these appointments could
only further along the economic, development effort. It is understood that these
level of appointments commitment eand iolvement on rne?m critical. Also, the rmanent" appointment encourages a higher
charges. From the voters perspective, naming those f inthe members to co the Phase
divid als remo em hetguess work ll
about who Hill be leading he economic development effort if the half-cent sales tax is
established.
18• What are some accountability issues?
At the most fundamental level, accountability for the ultimate decisions in a 4A corporation
lies with the City Council. The following proposed charter and by-law
specific accountability measures with respect to the operations of the corrporation: speak to
7
k
{
L
tht.
State statute and the EDC by-laws provide for the board appointments to be made by the
City Council.
The by-laws provide for the City Council to be ex-officio members who will be notified of
all meetings.
The EDC must comply with the Open Records Act and Open Meetings Act.
A quorum must be present for action to be taken.
It is the EDTC's intent to contract with the Cit., for legal, financial, and audit services.
Board members must reside within the City limits.
The City Council must approve policies on investments, operations, financial
accountability and reporting, performance measures, budget controls, reserve levels, return
on investment, recapture provisions in contracts, etc.
The by-laws provide for an annual audit to be submitted to the City Council and the City
Manager.
The by-laws provide for an annual performance evaluation detailing the corporation's
achievements.
The by-laws provide for annual budget approval by the City Council.
The by-laws provide for all monies of the corporation to be deposited and/or invested in
accordance with City policy.
19. Do EDC's cooperate or compete with property owners/developers?
It is my understanding that it is the EDTC's intent to form strong partnership ties with local
property ommers and developers to market and promote development throughout the
community. There may be occasions where the EDC is empowered to provide certain
incentives that a developer could not, such as low interest loans, infrastructure
improvements, etc.
The proposed EDC charter enumerates certain powers, including purchase of land.
Certainly many other economic development corporations have purchased land for
development purposes. However, it is my understanding that this is not currently the
sentiment of the EDTC. Rather, it is their intent to create an environment by which the
8
i
I
}
Y
1 O
.1. -1 t.7.
I'
private sector will capitalize on growth and lead development. F ling the.),he E 4
unique circumstances, could decide to purchase land and/or construct buildings.
20. If the EDC wanted to buy some property and build some spec buildings, would the
Council have to approve that?
Like any other departmental budget, the EDC will be required to submit their program plan
each year. The Council will not need to approve activities that have already been approved
in the budget process. However, any unexpected or unplanned activities not provided for in
the budget, would be required to go to the Council for approval.
21. What thought has been given to the appropriate mix between commercial and
industrial development? Is there an emphasis on job creation?
While the appropriate "mix" has yet to be determined, the fundamental objective of most
EDC programs is to significantly increase the tax base. As the EDC formulates its business
plan, they will set more specific goals about commercial and industrial tax base targets.
The by-product will be retaining area residents in Denton by providing new employment
opportunities. It is important that Denton remain as an employment center. Jobs are an
element of an economic development program the individual voter can readily relate to and
the promotion of job creation is often used in the campaign materials.
22. Does the EDTC recommendation support the Vision Work Team's recommendation?
The EDTC's recommendations are in total alignment with the recommendations of the
Vision Work/Business Teams. Keep in mind that the EDTC has only concluded Phase 1 of
their charges. But to date, both the Vision and EDTC groups agree on the following:
Formation of an economic development corporation
The need to move expeditiously
- Funding through an economic development sales tax
Development of industrial sites
- Need of a sophisticated, global marketing approach
The EDTC was addressing the first phase of the charges. They have not yet dealt with some
of the more detailed objectives that the vision group studied. Certainly, during Phase II of
the project charges, the EDC could address other Vision strategies.
23. Are any members of the EDTC interested in serving on the EDC board?
In order to answer this question, a letter might be sent to the EDTC members soliciting a
response.
r
EXAMPLES
FUSES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
ALLEN ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $893,000) HARLINGEN ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $2.9 million)
• Financed 200-acre industrial park with $2.8 million Texas • Financed campus for Texas State Technical College
Leverage Fund loan
LONGVIEW ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $2.6 million)
AMARILLO ('h% 4A - annual revenue: $8 million) Sold $7.5 million in bonds to finance 480-acre industrial park
• Grants and interest free loans to 40 companies
MOUNT VERNON ('h% 4B - annual revenue: $77,000)
BORGER ('A3. 4A - annual revenue: $580,000) • Funded legal fees and site preparation for Lowe's 880,000
• Bought buildisg and funded operations of a Small Business square-foot distribution center
Development Center and Incubator Program
PARIS ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $625,000)
BROWNSVILLE ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $3.8 million) Built 30,000 square foot building for company. Company
• Provided grant to University of Texas at Brownsville for leases the building for five years with lease/purchase
Engineering Facility agreement to buy. Goes on tax rolls at $500,000.
PHARR 'A% 4A - annual revenue: $975,000)
EL CAM PO (1/4 % 4A -annual revenue: $235,000)
• Built 20,000 square foot spec/shell building • Funding engineering for bridge to connect with Mexico
• Rebate 2% interest for 5 years to firm ($4,332 a year) • Constructed buildinf, to house day-care center and Business
Incubator
FRISCO ('h% 4A - annual revenue: $870,000)
• Financed 1.9 miles of service road to industrial park SUGAR LAND ('A % 4A; 'A % 4B - annual revenue: $2 milli n~ J
• Joint-ventured development of 100 acre industrial park with • Street construction to serve business park 5500,000 ;
private developer • Provided 50% impact fees and 66% storm sewer cost r
• Provided $1/2 million for campus of Community College extension of service to Shoney's Inn
• Matched County fsinds to build $2.3 million service road on • Infrastructure cost to Mall developer of $5 million will
State Highway ill repaid from sales lax generated at mall until 2006 or w
total reached $5 million
N
IIOW TEXAS CITIES ARE
USING IA SALES TAX REVENUES
t
F FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Riot rruad u to kgd or e144rie41 eepcdiprul
n!icDrfssRETkNTI(1N AND A7TNA_ IfIN ( NTIBUILI)MG PIIRCIIASE,ICASE. Opcrationo(LetcalHoapiW
AJvrnieiag UPGRADE Equipeas W Loin Hospital
Promocioa, Image, Mateeiag materials Lead Pvrcfar for IadusiriaJ Pat Downtown Veeuaao Yet
Contract wish Clamber of Commerce a LJutrid Bubbling that Havre IacuDota adlor Day Can Center Wanly Appreciaeioa Negros
Fmvdatioo for marketing Service Lad fa Conectical Facilities Food Widely Affairs Cove airs"
Targes Mariring larrnuoctaro (U1144y) Upgrade CC Ptacaocat
164eirtial Studio Aueaa Upgrda a Plau At MFRACRt m F, twGRADE AND
Teavel sad Itrlmd Ex(vrasu Lad to Expect Airport PLACEMENT
Ttak Show A.totrial Part Devclopmed Aail Spur for la.Jutry
11i6b.1y 511" ldRsoarda Eaiuiag Bwiw,og Expew ion ad Upgrade Wedge W Serer Limit, Estceaioo to Idutrial Part
Duet RLJ Coemraetion of Building Drai nags Project
Di Lad Pumhas: Joe Resale or Lease Oda Control Peojrcl
Ncwllcucfl
Urovlare Cosorvcliua A Specuhlive Building Eagiocerial ad Coatruvion of Bridge
v,Jcu 1,aUU Humber Sub Courtbw se Coo annios Iduetnal Perk Developmm
Avilioe Cosurvctios
Uricfog Carter
Martdieg Trip will Ulddics Company Rcaovalioa of Theater 0111Eg
Itt"vauos of Vrut Retail Store Admisitrasioo and Opermioa
immmu Ff1R HI151NFS$ Caawkama an
~P • TitA1NlNG1>i1.iJlifON Legal aaa Accoueewmiq Eapssra
Dun, 1.oes
Hcvolvist Law Reds Job Traiaimg for efic ale Supplies
lob Tniaiq fa Sp Sptoifm Coatpaol feeunou
Lou Guarantee
lntareal Fortivuee or Writeduws Tore State TecbniW College (ComotruuiodOpentiou) Comiageacy Fvd sad Aerrvee
Uodd Idebsdaus Purckse Egwiparrat for Traioiag Programs Leas of Office Spore
lacvboeor Program JTPA Supplcmeasat Fudiog PUML--e Office Buiwieg
Eaurprisr Zoos EA&Iiibmrd Work Force Developmeot Development of Strategic Plaa
Capital Grade Provide space for Traiaiag Proems Coatrvctioe a(IX(iea Spre
1411, boo ad Mvviog Expcnrs Fvd Tuba allvocrioul Castor Furairors sad Equipuene
Itaferrriu Subsidy to Airliae Upgrade Space for Traisiag Programs Codcrt for Admivolrrivs Servicu
S,bsiJy to State Fish ROAM Profssiocal Dose sod Meuiage
Swb%WUoJ Tax Aboscmam YEaetnptioa PROGRAMS AND ACITVITIF_S Subrriptioas
Subsided Lad WrduclLom Development Fiume Program 4Tues
SuboiJiad Bwildiog 1"o-AascJLur Small Bwsia si Development Castel Stmue W Killcc Bad
Salop Tax Rebate Reuotiom sod Espet co. of Local Businesses
Ixcotives for Prison a Concctiaal Facility Qritaw Ligbi Progrm
Led Purcksd sad Gnea to Buliaee IGndl locubuor Operation
ql rstias Gua1a Golf Course Project
Equips-cm Put:hue mlai■ Street Progrm I i
Lou Guamawato SWe Programs MiaontylWorrei s Buriseas Eduprise
SrrburJisu Laa to Fisacial luslitutiooe Fvd Day Cue Ceotee
Lou to Tdevisioo Repair Slop Matc►ng Clams to Goodwill Induateiee
Tess Leverage Fvd Dcvalopascat of Date Base (Y
NO for Permits
vPMP
Source. Tar Fvww wwf Cuy, Scptembee 1991, by no Coccermoos Group
G
(
b
L...xm..-aa
a
EXAMPLES_
USES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS
ALLEN (',4% 4A - annual revenue: $893,000) HARLI[NGEN (14% 4A - annual revenue: $2.9 million)
• Financed 200-acre industrial park with $2.8 million Texas • Financed campus for Texas State Technical College
Leverage Fund loan
LONGVIEW ('A % 4A - annual revenue: $2.6 million)
AMARILLO (b4% 4A - annual revenue: $8 mill'3n) • Sold $7.5 million in bonds to finance 480-acre industrial park
• Grants and interest free loans to 40 companies
MOUNT VERNON (1/2% 413 - annual revenue: $77,000)
BORGER (I/z% 4A - annual revenue: $580,000) Funded legal fees and site preparation for Lowe's 880,000
• Bought building and funded operations of a Small Business square-foot distribution center
Development Center and Incubator Program
PARIS CA % 4A - annual revenue: $625,000)
BROWNSVILLE ('h% 4A - annual revenue: $3.8 million) • Built 30,000 square foot building for company. Company
• Provided grant to University of Texas at Brownsville for leases the building for five years with lease/purchase
Frigineering Facility agreement to buy. Goes on tax rolls at $500,000.
1, 1, CAMP" (1/ % 4A - annual revenue: $235,(00) PHARR (I/z% 4A - annual revenue: $975,000)
• Built 20,000 square foot spec/shell building • Funding engineering for bridge to connect with Mexico
• Rebate 2% interest for 5 years to firm ($4,332 a year) • Constructed building to house day-care center and Business
Incubator _
FRISCO ('A% 4A - annual revenue: $870,000)
• Financed 1.9 miles of service road to industrial park SUGAR LAND ('b % 4A; 'A % 4B - annual revenue: $2 milli r'! t
• Joint-ventured development of 100 acre industrial park with • Street construction to serve business park-$500,000 ?w r I
:(D 0
private developer • Provided 50% impact fees and 66% storm sewer cost 0
• Provided $1/2 million for campus of Community College extension of service to Shoney's Inn
• Matched County finds to build $2.3 million service road on • Infrastructure cost to Mall developer of $5 million will a
State Highway 121 repaid from sales tax generated at mall until 2006 or w n, rr
total reached $5 million >
I
I
r
Q
v.
S
c
IIOW TEXAS CITIES ARE
USING 4A SALES TAX REVENUES
FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(Nut tcaccacd as la legal cc authorized upcltdilutcs)
I ANDIBITI DING P1fRCUS MA-SE. openticeorLocel Hospital
p1151NF``5 RF_:TFNT[(1N AND A7TRACf'ION ff .RAII£ Fquipteeat rot Locd Hospital
AJvcrtising Veteran Fork
Prontotioa, Image, NI'Actiag Materials Lead Pnrcbue for Industrial Park Do Dowwaw ala Appreciation Program
Contract with oamber of Commerce or Inlustml BudJiog that Houses Incubator aodlor Day Cue Center Industry Apry AIWn P,Ogrmu
Fouodaliw for Nlarictiog Service Land for Cone,Gonl Facilities Target NIAlWing Tofuaructure (thday) Upgrade or Placental MASTRUCTIfRE IIPCHADE AND_ Food
h(ijjtW NlarLtziog Stdiu Accca Upgrade or hacerrcd
fwd a Eapanl Airpon PI.ACE6IENT
Trawl and Rclatol Eapocats Rail S for Industry
Lduurid YnY pcvalopment Spur
Trad< lbuws Water and Sew" Lice Ea<asioo to Industrial Part,
liryhway 5igua7liUW sda Paining BuiWisg Expansion and Upgrade
Direct Mal Coestmctios of Building Drainage Pmjrel
Ncw+lctlen Lad Purchase for Resale or Luse Odm Coastal Ploj"I
ViJeu Wochnaa Cooctrvetiuu or Speculative Building Eogiaettieg and Coo+lrnetioA of Bridge
1 e«o Numb" Sub-COUnhour Coostrvclioo lad xtriAl Part Devclopwot
Llricriag Centel Pavilion Construction
Morictiog Trip with ULAirics Cumpaay It,Wv8lioa of Iheart I (1TI[Ft
Reiovanoo of Vaconl Rctail Store Admioizrrmioa ad Opentioos
INCF;NTIVF.SISIRISIDIFS Pf)R BUSINESS Caruuttant✓Eagiaeen
Ducat Loans TRAININCiElyf ICATIf1N Legal aid Accaumiag Elpcnan
Revdvia Lose Foods lob Training for Individuals Supplies
g
L co e "Masai lob Trsiaiog for Specific Company tasuraace
Intense Fogivcuu W Write Juwv Teus Sine Te,bnical College (Grant Nell96tM1-.y.NlnAl) Contingency Fuad lad Reserves
Burled Idcbadoess Purchs" BquipmcW rot Training Pzogram+ Luse of Mice Spacc
lacubwoc Plotters 1TPA Supplcmeod Funding Purchue ONice Building
Eatcrpriee Zonc Ertablishroeat Wort Force Dcvelopeacnl Davdapmcat of Strategic Plao
Capital Greats PreviJe Space for Traiaiog Programs Construction of (Write Space
Rclocaiao ad Nfoving Expenses Fowl T«hnicallVacatiooat Clatter Furaitureaad Equipment
riot Training Programs Contract for Admiaistntive Services
Upgrade Space
Iloderwrite SubskJy to Airline SobsiJy to State Fish Hatcbary Professional Duce and Muziop
Subud'lted Tax Abotcm WsjExcmptioos PRO(IRAMS AND ACTIVITIES Subscripiins
Subsidized Lad PurcbuclLuse Development Finance Program Tests
subsidized Buil log Pm. has,)Lcale Sma It Bu ti ae" Devc lop me of Cc Met Statue to Ki11er Bu
u
Sales Tom Rabsics Rcaatioe and Explosion of Locsl Busiacsscs g
loccativcs for Prison at Coneaional Facility elnstnus Light Program
I ad Purchesnf and Givca to Business tGrenq locubslor Opentiaas
Opctatiog Uaala Gulf Course Project
Equipmed Purchase Maio Strul Program
Loan Czuae►ou'l to State Programs gliaonty(Womca's Business Enterprise
Subordinate Loans to Financial 106GIUt1049 Fund Day Care Center
I
Loon to Tdcvisioo Repair Shop MatAiag Orants to Goodwill lodustriti
Tun Leverage Fund Daclipmcut of Data Base
Paid for P<rariu I
Suunrt lbrar Town and city, September 1991, by TkC Coracntooe Croup
'v
i
ac~12 t1o.
MEMORANDUM
' DATE: February 1, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Harry Hall, Chair
Economic Development Transition Committee
SUBJECT: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TRANSITION COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL
On August 15, 1995, the City Council passed ordinance 495-157 (attached) establishing an
Economic Development Transition Committee (EDTC) whose rharges were divided into two
phases-- the first of xhich were to be completed by January 31, 1996, and are as follows:
Charge 01: Study other economic development charters and make choices of positive
aspects of each that would lend to the success of an EDC,
In the interest of the ambitious schedule that needed to be met in order to complete the first phase
of the charges, the EDTC hired the Cornerstone Group, an economic development consulting
firm with expertise in the area of economic development corporations. A great deal of reliance
was placed on the expertise and in-depth experience of the Cornerstone Group in developing a
charter for a Denton economic development corporation (EDC). With a limited budget and an
ambitious deadline, the EDTC limited specific site visits to EDC's in the State of Texas. Some
members of the EDTC also participated on the Vision Work Team and had already visited a
number of EDC's. Rather than duplicate their findings with repeated visits, those members
shared the information they had compiled. After our review of successful organizations, the
EDTC, in collaboration with the Cornerstone Group, drafted a charter that represents a
philosophy that we feel will work best in the City of Denton. The primary, elements of that
charter include:
I
5
s
J; EJ/c1
Establishing a corporation responsible for the economic developm
which sill:
Expand the economy in order to provide the highest level of job opportunities and quality
of life
Improve infrastructure to attract and support development and investment
Retain and expand existing businesses
Diversify and broaden the tax base
Protect the local environment and resources
Membership made up of individuals with special expertise (Le, finance, accounting, law,
business accomplishments) and interest in civic service. Members serve at the pleasure of
the City Council.
Funding by a one-half cent economic development sales tax.
Ability to develop policies and operating procedures that do not conflict with City policy.
Oversight by City Council
Ability to carry out economic development activities in Denton
plan, develop, improve, sell, and/or lease land
build or rehabilitate buildings for sale or lease
make secured or unsecured loans or loan guarantees
borrow funds and issue bonds with Council approval
develop and implement financial incentive programs
develop long-range goals and programs for Denton
employ personnel as may be needed
contract for services (including with the City of Denton)
provide funding to develop infrastructure
market and promote Denton
It must be emphasized that the actual development of operating policies and a business plan
for the corporation is included in Phase 11 of the charges from the City Council and the
Chamber Board of Directors.
Charge t12: Tour the most successful EDC's in the country and document a
recommendation of the best structure and outline results-oriented goals.
We limited out EDC site visits to successful EDC's in Texas because of time and budget. The
following EDC's were visited:
2
City 4A 4B Both City 4A 4B Both
Allen x Brownsville x
Frisco x McKinney x
Harlingen X
Terrell x Garland No sales tax
During the tours, the EDTC learned that it is absolutely essential to have a team effort and to
have all parties communicating effectively. We learned there must be buy-in to the primary
strategies and objectives behind the formation of the EDC. There must be checks and balances
that ensure public accountability. All investment of funds must be made for the express purpose
of the benefit of the citizens. Specific policies and procedures are essential to provide guidance.
EDC's use experts or specialists in fields such as bond sales, finance, law, investments, etc., in
order to protect the City from liability and to ensure an appropriate return on the investment.
We learned that cities structure their economic development corporations to operate and provide
services in many different ways, depending on the philosophy and goals of the City Council.
However, a common thread in the visits was that most were funded through the economic
development sales tar.
Charge 1#3: Present justification for corporation charter at joint meeting of City Council
and the Chamber of Commerce.
The EDTC recommends the City form an Econcmic Development Corporation as provided for
under Section 4A of the Tax Code.
Charge 04: Develop and provide written bi-monthly status reports reporting on the
progress of the above-mentioned tasks, and on expenditures to the date of the report.
Provide the Chamber Board and the City Council with a written report, no later than
January 31, 1996, unless that date is extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
That report must have the EDTC's recommendations and findings concerning the
formation of an EDC, thereby completing (b), (c), and (g) of this agreement.
The EDTC presented a preliminary report to the City Council on January, 23, 1996, and to the
Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors on January 25, 1996. In addition, members of the
EDTC have had on-going discussions with the members of the City Council and Chamber of
Commerce Board.
3
S
;:nC] l-en
Expenditures to date of this report are:
Comerstone Group
$7,080.00
Travel//Supplies/Miscellaneous
94.5
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$9,029.95
The primary objective of We EDTC is to gain authority to proceed with a campaign for the
passage of the econornic development sales tar. It is understood that the City Council may wish
to deliberate further on the specific charter provisions as well as the appointees to the
corporation.
Please let me know if I can provide ap;: additional information regarding the EDTC'~
recommendation.
Harry Hall, hair
Economic evelopment Transition Committee
I
4
i
E:VM1=S\0RD\CKWER.ED
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DIM-TOM
AND THE DENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FOR
A PROGRAM TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
AECT, IO. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute
Amendment No. 2 to an Agreement between the City of Denton and the
Denton Chamber of Commerce for the purpose of providing for a
program to promote economic development ("Agreement"), a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.
EECTTON That that certain resolution p by the
Chamber of commerce on the 22nd day of June, 1995a,ssed
a true and
correct copy of which is attached to this ordinance and by reference co
ditions of this ~ordinance b and the attached Amendment No. 2
to the Agreement.
EEUL Ult. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the / 646 day of
1995.
BO CASTLEBERRY, MA R
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY.
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
~
BY:
'1
c~
1
Apwds lie.
Awe) 1w.1
0,'t;,
AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DEMON AND THE DENTON CHA"ZR OF COMMERCE
THE STATE OF TEXAS 9
COUNTY OF DENTON §
This Second Amendment to that certain agreement for a program
to promote economic development entered into the 15th day of
August, 1989 by and between the City of Denton, Texas, a Texas
municipal corporation ("City") and the Denton Chamber of Commerce,
a Texas non-profit corporation ("Chamber"), as amended.
WHEREAS, on August 15, 1989, the City and the Chamber entered
into an Agreement for an economic development program ("Agree-
ment"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1994, the City and the Chamber entered
into that First Amendment to the Agreement, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Chamber will mutually cooperate to
create an Economic Development Transition Committee ("EDTC") for
the purpose of researching and recommending the best structure for
an Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") and to develop the
charge to the EDC.
ARTICLE I.
That the City and Chamber hereby amend Article 1 "Office of
Economic Development" of the Agreement as amended, to read as
follows:
2. Of ; of Economies D v l nnm r,r ~
this Agreement, During the term of
the Chamber shall maintain an Office of
Economic Development ("Office"),
ARTICLE II.
That the City and Chamber hereby amend Article 2 "Economic
Development Committee Created" of the agreement, as amended, to
read as follows:
2• ~onomic Deve7r,om n Sransi ion Committee
to promote a program for economic development, theIpartiies
a916. 9(
agree that an Economic Development Transition Committee
("EDTC") will be established and seated no later than October
1, 1995, unless this date is extended by mutual agreement of
the parties. The members of the EDTC, who shall represent the
diverse interests of the community, shall be composed of seven
persons, four of whom will be appoin~ed by the City Council
and three of whom will be appointed by the Board of Directors
! of the Chamber. No employee of the City or the chamber and no
elected official. shall be appointed to the EDTC. The members
of the EDTC shall select one of their members as chair and
shall adopt their own rules of procedure. The EDTC will
replace the current Economic Development Advisory Board
("Board") and assume all responsibilities, duties and author-
ity previously assigned to the Board.
In addition, the EDTC is charged with accomplishing the
following tasks:
a) Develop Economic Development Corporation ("EDC") mis-
sion/operating principles.
b) Study other economic development charters and make
choices of positive aspects of each that would lend to
success of EDC.
c) Tour the most successful EDC's in country and document
recommendation of best structure and outline results-
oriented goals.
d) Determine long-range financing of economic development
program and EDC operation. Assess potential success and
funding opportunities under both Sections 4A as well as
4B of Article 5190.6 Vernons Tex. Civil Statutes to
ensure all opportunities under the law are reviewed. If
positive, develop strategy and campaign, and make
recommendation to City Council to call election.
e) Define roles with regard to financial responsibility and
authority of economic development financial contributors
(i.e., investors, City Council, Public Utility Board).
f) Obtain counsel for promulgation of charter for EDC.
Page 2
II
5
)
Ro.
g) Present justification for corporation charter at joint
meeting of City Council and Chamber of Commerce.
h) Present justification for long-range financing of EDC
programs at joint meeting of City Council and Chamber of
Commerce.
i) Draft internal operating policies for final adoption by
the EDC.
j) Recommend detailed line item operations budget for first
year activities related to establishment of EDC.
k) Hire experts/consultants for expeditious and professional
implementation of short term objectives, i.e., financial
analyses, team building, and economic development
consultants econometric models.
1) Develop economic development program operational perfor-
mance indices.
m) Continually work at strengthening coalition with inves-
tors of economic development program.
n) Develop and provide written bi-monthly status reports
reporting on the progress of the above-mentioned tasks,
and on expenditures to the date of the report. Provide
the Chamber, Board, and the City Council with a written
report, no later than January 31, 1996, unless that date
is extended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
That report must have the EDTC's recommendations and
findings concerning the formation of an EDC, thereby
completing charges (b), (c), and (g) on page two of this
agreement.
o) If the EDTC concludes that the formation of the EDC is
justified and in the best interest of the entire communi-
ty, it shall provide the Chamber Board and City Council
with a written final report, no later than March 31,
1996, unless that date is extended by mutual written
agreement of the parties, with recommendations and
findings regarding the remainder of the charges. The
Page 3
S
L
S
I'cn
final report will include, without limitation, recommen-
dations for the proposed organizational structure, a
proposed budget for the EDC, a final draft of the
charter, and an analysis of the one-half cent sales tax
as a funding option, as well as an analysis of other
funding options.
The EDTC will also be responsible for the development of
the charge to the formal EDC including,
the following; without limitation,
a) Conduct oral interviews with city Council members and
Chamber Executive Board members for purposes of annual
EDC effectiveness assessment.
b) Determine appropriate physical location for EDC headquar-
ters.
c) Conduct recruitment and make selection of CEO.
d) Hire experts/consultants for expeditious and professional
implementation of short term objectives, i.e., financial
analyses, econometric models, land planning, development
specialists, engineering, public relations, team build-
ing, and economic development consultants.
e) Develop and implement five-year strategic plan.
f) Set measurable first year goals and establish priorities
for tasks.
g) Prepare pay structure, organizational design, job
descriptions, performance measures and incentives.
h) Monitor performance results and conduct performance
reviews of CEO.
i) Develop annual operating business plan and maintain
performance indices. Revied quarterly and make adjust-
ments.
Page 4
S
r
i
~.oer"3 11 en
Dot: - 60 -
j) Continually work at strengthening coalition with inves-
tors of economic development program.
k) Adopt internal operating policies.
1) Publish annual performance report.
m) Analyze and publish cost/benefit of efforts.
n) Develop periodic comparative analyses, i.e., land
purchases, infrastructure expenditures, etc.
o) Establish business retention and account management
activities.
P) Develop and market industrial parks.
q) Meet with major land owners /developers to determine
desire, interest and plans for development.
r) Obtain firm market prices on parcels of land available
for industrial development.
s) Send requests for proposals to national brokers for
development of industrial parks.
t) Purchase, if appropriate, land and develop specific
buildings to meat goals.
U) Establish linkages with higher education institutions and
implement strategies to better leverage university
research and educational asset-.s.
V) Interview corporate CEO's and invite input to process and
survey as to need for customized training programs.
w) Establish technical training center.
X) Establish brand image and develop marketing campaign.
y) Establish and strengthen strong ties and relationships
with Dallas and Fort worth chambers and the North Texas
Page 5
a
1r
k0ands No. „
ApendaHen Lll~
BCt 2 q
Commission.
Z) Participate actively in metroplex MIDAS group.
aa) Develop first-class marketing video.
bb) Conduct high profile events (i.e, golf/tennis tourna-
ments, symphony/theater events) for stockholders and
development contacts and periodic special events/tours
for metroplex and national brokers and relocation
consultants.
cc) Conduct at least one international marketing tour each
year.
ARTICLE IV.
That the City and Chamber hereby amend Article 4 "Support
Services and Funding" of the Agreement, as amended to read as
follows:
4. Ssineort Services and Finding. The Chamber shall provide the
office space, equipment and support staff necessary to the
operations of the Office. The City shall provide funding as
approved in the City's budget which shall be adopted on or
before the 20th day of September of each year. Of the amount
appropriated for each year, the City shall pay the Chamber
one-half on October 1st and the remaining half shall be paid
on the following April 1st. Thereafter, the City shall
provide annual funding in the amount appropriated for that
purpose by the City Council.
Any funds provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement
shall be retained in an account separate from the Chamber's
general operating fund, and shell only be used for the
purposes provided for in this Agreement. The Office shall
keep current and accurate records of all funds received and
expended, which shall be subject to inspection by the City at
all reasonable times.
The Chamber Economic Development Office shall provide
monthly status reports to the City on the progress of the
Page 6
t
D
S
AplnQ] Ite _
D94 r '
Economic Development Program, which shall include a descrip-
tion of expenditures of the Office made with funds appropriat-
ed by the City. Annually, during the budget process, the
Chamber 5').•ll submit a program budget request to the City
Manager. The City shall then evaluate the progress of the
Chamber Economic Development Program and, at that time,
determine whether to continue appropriations to support the
office the following fiscal year.
Special studies, research, travel expenditures and
operational expenses, including City administrative expenses
relating to support of the Economic Development Transition
Committee will be funded as a line item in the 1995/96
Chamber Office of Economic Development budget.
Until such time as the Economic Development Corporation
is formally established and in operation, the Chamber will
remain accountable and liable, through the direction of the
President, for fiscal management, disbursement of funds, and
supervision of Economic Development Chamber staff and fulfill-
ment of the original program goals.
ARTICLE V.
That save and except as amended hereby, that all the terms and
conditions, sections, sentences, paragraphs, and phrases of the
Agreement, as amended, shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the City of Denton, Texas has caused this
Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized Mayor, and the
Denton Chamber of Commerce has caused this Agreement to be executed
by its duly authorized Chairman of its Board of Directors on this
day of 1995.
BOB CASTLE BERRY, MAYO
Page 7
- L
5
t
i
agenda Item
Duu.
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY: 16
AP VED TO LEGAL FORM;
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY AT RNEY
BY:
DENTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
BY: n:d
ATTEST: Charles iv. Carpe er
President
BY:
SECREVARy
E:\NPDOCS\K\OWSER. EDI
Page 8
S
3
apan0a Ik. - _ 9Ce - ODC~
"algm_~,~5
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUT 2 G-QLe
September 19, 1995
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, September
19, 1995 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Discussed contemplated litigation concerning the
request to rezone 3.753 acres from SF-7 to O zoning
on the south side of 135-E and Lindsey Street.
2. Consulted with the Attorney on contemplated
litigation regarding paving liens and potential
settlement of such contemplated litigation.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
1. Deliberated the purchase, exchange, lease or value
of the property located south of McKinney between
Loop 288 and Woodrow Lane and conferred with
employees of the City to receive information and to
ask questions regarding this real property
transaction.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, September
19, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for National Fire
Prevention Week.
2. The Council considered approval of the minutes c: July 18,
1995.
r
1
.
i
Aoenda 'o.
City of Denton City Council Minutes Am,cnds 110n
September 19, 1995
Page 2 ono -Z (a 962
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the minutes as presented.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
3. The Council considered approval of an exception to the noise
ordinance for Capricho Show at the North Texas State Fairgrounds on
Saturday, September 23, until 1:00 a.m.
Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, stated that Julia LoSoya,
representing the Capricho Show, was requesting an exception to the
noise ordinance on Saturday, September 23rd until 1:00 a.m. A
concert would be held at the North Texas State Fairground. In the
past, this event had received numerous complaints for its amplified
music. The loudspeakers were recently moved so as to not face the
neighborhood which resulted in an elimination of the complaints.
Krueger motioned, Young seconded to approve the exception. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
4. Public Hearing
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered rezoning
a 3.753 tract from SF-7 to Office and considered adoption of an
ordinance rezoning 3.03 acres from Single Family-7 (SF-7) to Office
with conditions. The land was located on the south side of IH-35,
about 200 feet east of Lindsey Street. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of 3.03 acres to
Office with conditions, 5-1.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was a City initiated zoning. The zoning case involved 3.03
acres of the 3.753 acre tract.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting.
Robbins continued that the Denton Development P?an amendment which
was the next item on the agenda would expand a moderate activity
area into this area. He detailed the change in zoning lines
proposed by changing the Denton Development Plan amendment on a map
which was included in the agenda back-up. The Planning and Zoning
Commissions' first vote on the Plan amendment was 3-0 to postpone
consideration and include it with a major update for the Plan in
the near future. Staff was recommending that if the ordinance fr.r
this item was not approved, the resolution regarding the Denton
Development Plan amendment should be postponed. In 1961, this area
City of Denton city council Minutes A3eneaft .
September 19, 1995 pot.
Page 3
was changed in zoning from Single Family-7 to the Business
District. Later in 1961, with a major general ordinance amendment,
the Business District was renamed Commercial District. In 1969, a
new zoning map was adopted by ordinance, and there had not been any
other ordinances changing the zoning in the area since then.
During staff's resr,arch, map changes were found for which there was
no ordinance, no minutes of the Planning and Zoning commission or
City Council or any public hearings on a map change. A 1971 zoning
case in the area to the north, had a zoning map which showed the
Commercial zoning line at a different location from that adopted in
1969. Another zoning case from 1975 indicated another zoning line
on the property which corresponded to the current zoning map. The
map should have not been changed as there was no ordinance
supporting the change. The map was probably changed sometime
between 1969 and 1971. In the spring and summer of 1994, an
application was made to change the zoning from SF-7 and Commercial
to Office with conditions. The Planning and Zoning Commission made
a recommendation on a site plan with screening conditions
concerning an eight foot masonry wall's placement so that three-
fourths of the landscaping would be on the outside of the wall. A
new site plan was never submitted and the applicant withdrew the
rezoning application in the face of neighborhood opposition with
the 1120% rule" in effect. After withdrawal of the site plan, an
application was made for a preliminary plat for a 5.381 acre tract
which the Planning and Zoning Commission denied in November of
1994. It was not known until after this case that the current
zoning map was in error because it had not been changed since 1969
by ordinance. Planning and zoning's analysis of the case was
centered on policy recommendation for office with conditions on a
smaller area than Council was asked to evaluate. There were three
alternatives for the council to consider. The Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommended was that (1) there be no direct
illumination of adjoining land zoned SF-7 or any other district
permitting single family use; (2) no motorized vehicle access to
Lindsey or Willowwood Streets; (3) a masonry wall at least eight
feet tall would be constructed before development along the west
and rear of the property that was developed; (4) an additional row
of trees adjoining the Southside Baptist Church would be planted or
maintained; (5) if the property that drained south was developed,
its drainage should be redirected to drain north; (6) there must be
living quarters on site for a full time manager; (7) there would be
a two story height limit; and (8) a limited area within which the
motel could be built.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting.
Robbins continued with an alternative set of conditions (Alternate
1-Conditions 2). These were conditions which would be favorable to
r
No.
[AamdaNm
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 19, 1995 -
Page 4
the owners of the property. A comparison of the Planning and
Zoning Commission's conditions and the alternate set of conditions
included: (1) the condition for direct illumination would be the
same; (2) the access to Lindsey and Willowwood would be the same;
(3) the masonry wall would be constructed six feet tall on the
sides and rear of the property and an eight foot masonry wall would
be constructed adjacent to property in the district which was zoned
and used and would be constructed at the time of development; (4)
the condition for a church buffer was the same; (5) drainage would
be according to City specifications which would not require the
water to drain north; (6) the manager would change to an on-site
manager as opposed to a full-time manager; (7) there was no change
in the height requirement; and (8) there was no change for the
building area. Alternative Two dealt with the deletion of certain
kinds of uses. A comparison of Alternative Two and the conditions
from the Planning and Zoning commission were: (1) unchanged; (2)
unchanged; (3) unchanged; (4) unchanged; (5) the drainage would be
to City regulations; (6) unchanged; (7) a series of uses would be
deleted from those uses allowed in the office district. As a
condition of this ordinance the following uses would be deleted:
hotel, motel, hospitals, dormitories, boarding house, rooming
house, group homes, half-way homes, fraternities, sororities, homes
for the care of alcoholic/narcotic/psychiatric patients. Some of
these uses were allowed in an office district as specific use
permitted uses. This proposal would delete those uses completely.
None of the conditions recommended by the Planning and Zoning
Commission had a site plan requirement for any use and did not
delete any of the uses authorized by the office district.
Mayor Castleberry opened the public hearing.
Mary Jo Hill stated that her family had lived in the area for many
years. They did not object when the highway was built nor did they
object when other establishments were constructed in the area.
They did object to the proposed motel within 200 feet of their
home. The first site plan had a parking lot within 35 feet of
their bedrooms. A motel was not needed in the area as there were
four motels within walking distance. A quite neighborhood was
needed. They were not against building nor growing but were
opposed to this development. One Council Member who indicated
favor to the proposal asked if the developer had worked with the
residents. Last July the residents had an appointment with the
developer. The day of the appointment it was cancelled because the
developers were busy. They had had no contact since that time.
The developers had not tried to contact the neighborhood. There
was no discrimination connected with this case and she objected to
such statements. The motel was not needed and they did not want
the hotel. There would be traffic problems, sewer problems., and
III
r
Y
~0eeda ~ ~
City of Denton City Council Minutes COs"ajttam
September 19, 1995 Vet;
Page 5
drainage problems with another motel and another motel would create
more crime in the area.
Don Bailey encouraged the Council to oppose the ordinance change
for the motel on this site. The motel would further deteriorate
the area. This was a quality of life issue for the neighborhood.
He suggested that the Council focus its attention on that area of
the neighborhood that had an existing motel on the site plus
enforcement of laws on that site would help. He was concerned about
the quality of life and about the neighborhoods with the
possibility of having this type of activity so close to their
homes.
John Weber stated that this case had been ongoing for 1'h years. He
always felt that the citizens were the City and the Council Members
were elected by the people to represent the people. When the
Council served other groups they no longer served the people. The
citizens of Denton were before the Council and had stated their
opposition to the building of the motel in this area. The citizens
pointed out many areas which would violate zoning regulations. He
asked the Council to consider the residents and citizens of the
City when making a decision and not vested interests. They were
trying to develop the neighborhood with the COPS program and the
beautification program. He asked Council to not rezone the
property.
Steve Fore stated that the rezoning proposal had become a political
issue for some members of the local political and business
community. The Denia Area Community Group had worked hard against
this proposal, not because they were a political group, but because
they lived in the area. The Denia Area Community Group was a
diverse collection of people that all saw the negative impact of
this proposal. The standard reason given for approval of the
proposal was that it would send the wrong message to other
potential developers if denied. He felt that parcels of land along
1-35 were being built rapidly. This property was different as to
its proximity to a long established neighborhood and because of the
nature of the existing development in the surrounding area.
Stipulations in the Denton Development Plan were intended to
preserve the balance between residential areas and commercial
development. It was clear that many of those stipulations applied
to this case and indicated that a motel should not be built on the
location. City could move the zoning boundary anywhere it wanted
and could change the intensity allocation to any figure. But the
fact remained that it was still in the neighborhood and they felt
that the proposal was bad for neighborhood and bad for Denton. }]e
questioned what type of message would be sent to other
neighborhoods.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ^nr~P^❑_ 's ^
September 19, 1995
Page 6
Dr. Kathleen Eiland spoke about the motel franchise fee which had
been mentioned mani times. The proposed Sleep Inn was on the low
end of the quality chain. She had called other area motels
regarding room rates and the Sleep Inn was on the low end of those
rates. Some of the area motels were not in good condition. There
were many vacant rooms for visitors in Denton. There were
violations of the Denton Development Plan's half mile requirement
as there were five motels within a half a mile of each other.
There was no site plan review for this proposal and she asked the
Council to not put another low dollar motel in the neighborhood.
Carol Brantley stated that there was no need for another motel in
the area. This area was a diverse residential area with many
different types of homes. She felt that the neighborhood was being
invaded with another proposal for a motel. Most motels were built
for a quick return on investment and not for the benefit of the
neighborhood. The average motel was built to last approximately
seven years and most motels were sold within the first three years
or did not make it financially. if traveling though Denton, she
would not stop in such an area. The motels look great when first
built but deteriorate quickly. she asked the Council to remember
who their constituents were in the City.
Annette Mulkey felt that the City was just trying to get past the
reputation of not being business friendly and was going too far on
this issue. Statements had been made on how the motel was willing
to help the neighborhood which was not true. If the Council
considered something of a business nature in the area, she asked
the Council to keep conditions on the property so that it would not
be a blight to the area. She asked the Council to listen to what
had happened to the other motels in the area. It appeared that the
Council was not listening to what the neighbors were saying and she
requested that the Council respect the needs of the neighbors.
Bill Miller stated that changing the location of the driveway would
not keep traffic off Lindsey. The issue was based on the false
statement that Denton was not growing. The question was how did
Denton want to grow and not whether Denton would grow. In his
opinion the motel industry in the city was poor, and until it
improved he would not put any more in neighborhoods. He asked the
Council to keep a small area for the residents of the neighborhood.
He felt that the neighborhood had been put in double jeopardy as
the issue kept coming back in many different modes. This issue was
driven by people who did not represent the citizens and he felt
that the council members in the district should represent them.
Linnie McAdams stated that this was a very diverse neighborhood
with a variety of people and price of homes. The area was a special
City of Denton City Council Minutes Agindallo.~
September 19, 1995 Agenda furl
Page 7 Dab
place to live and adding another motel would detract from the
quaiiLy of life in the neighborhood. Traffic situations in similar
motels was not what was wanted in the neighborhood. A half a mile
away the University of North Texas planned to build an arts center
and another motel in the area would not add to the quality of
Denton. There was not a problem with not having enough rooms in
Denton. She objected to a motel in the area, but did not object to
an office in the area. They did not want to add to the crime
problems which might be associated with cheap motels. She asked
the Council to adopt Alternative 2 to preclude motels in the area.
Henry Smith stated part of the property which would be changed for
the request for commercial zoning was in the backyard of the last
house on Lindsey Street. There was an enclosed fence around this
entire land. This was a neighborhood and they wanted to keep it
such. He asked why the Council would want to commercialize the
backyards of residents. The neighborhood has been trying to work
for over a year with the owners of the property. The owners were
ordered twice by the Planning and Zoning commission to meet with
the neighborhood which was never done. Art Anderson started
negotiating with the neighborhood and proceeded to mail a barrage
of letters to the neighbors. In one of the meetings, Art Anderson
made it clear the intentions of the RPS Ventures was that they were
only here for the short-term. Motels change ownerships many times
over the years and some people were living in motels on a permanent
basis. He asked the Council to take a stand for the neighborhood
and oppose the zoning to allow a motel to be built.
Chris Mehaney stated that Choice Hotels International fully
supported the development of this proposal. Typically Choice
Hotels produced a substantial property with an extensive Quality
inn inspection system. They had a signed franchise agreement with
the property owners. There was a Sleep Inn in Richardson and Plano
with one under construction in Addison.
Art Anderson stated that the property owners did not support the
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission but would
accept the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations subject
to the conditions in Alternate 1. He had talked several times with
some of the residents and an attempt had been made to try and
address the issues. From the beginning they tried to be consistent
with the development. The owners bought the property based on
commercial zoning as indicated on the maps for 20 years and
intended to build a motel on the site. The owners tried to address
the issues raised from the neighborhood from an adjacency
standpoint recognizing that this was a tract of land which had
frontage on I-35. The bottom line was that it was a commercial
tract of land on an interstate highway. Motels could co-exist with
A0$Wr* Mo L"`
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~~~m
September 19, 1995
Page s
residential neighborhoods. The commercial zoning line was 200 feet
away from any residential structure and the layout of the property
was changed so that it would be fronting and oriented to the
highway. This tract was not a part of the neighboi:.ood in terms of
how it was zoned and the conditions placed by the Planning and
zoning Commission addressed all of the adjacency issues.
Jennifer P;illips stated that the Denton Development Plan was
written to preserve the integrity of neighborhoods. This zoning
case violated several items in the Plan. One of those dealt with
building neighborhood service centers. The City staff's solution
was to move a line on a map to put this in a moderate zoning area
which was not realistic. The problems would still be there even if
a line were moved.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Council Member Brock stated that the area was now over the
intensity allocation before any building was done.
Robbins stated correct.
Council Member Brock asked if the Raddison was included in
determining the intensity area.
Robbins stated yes.
Council Member Brock asked how much the intensity was over the
allocation.
Robbins stated that the whole intensity area was 17% over
allocation. The Raddison was calculated at a commercial rate and
the golf course was calculated at an institutional rate.
Council Member Brock stated that if the re-zoning was approved for
a hotel/motel, the intensity level would need to be changed c.r move
the boundary of the intensity area.
Robbins replied that staff felt they should move the line but there
was no ordinance which required such. The staff did not say that
the line had to be moved. It might be prudent but the Council was
not required to do so.
Council Member Brock asked if the Planning and Zoning's study of
the Denton Development Plan would anticipate major revisions to the
Plan.
Apenda No. -
L-J
City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenda It m
September 19, 1995 pale
Page 9
Robbins replied correct. The Planning and Zoning Commission's
recommendations were due in October on how to revise the plan.
Krueger motioned, Young seconded approve Alternate 1.
Council Member Miller stated one issue to consider regarding the
case was how individuals would get to the motel from the
Interstate. As he understood, there was a pledge to not use the
neighborhood for the traffic flow. He had driven in the area and
felt that in order to not use the neighborhood as a way to get to
the motel an individual would have to come in from the northwest
and get off I-35 on McCormick Street. That was a very difficult
intersection to go through. If an individual stayed on the
Interstate and exited in the vicinity of where the motel would be
built, he would have to turn on Bernard Street. This would take
him through the neighborhood to get to the motel. The location was
poor as far as how to get to it. The owners of the property bought
the property based upon a line on a map and assumed that everything
was correct. They did not check adequately into the details.
Art Anderson stated the owners bought title insurance and had
zoning verification from the City.
Council Member Miller stated there was property 112 which had a
zoning line through the property. He asked if that was normal
where owner did not have that knowledge,
Art Anderson stated he was at a zoning hearing the prior evening
k where that exact situation occurred. The prer was zoned nto
two different zones. The bottom line was hat the zoning lineiwas
consistent from the first zoning hearing and the plat hearing.
There was no reference at the first zoning hearing and the first
plat hearing and no objection made when it was stated that the
commercial line was as it was shown. Everyone assumed that that
was where the line was. Staff cannot find an ordinance but that
did not mean that it was never approved.
Council Member Miller asked how the property was zoned at this
point, based on ordinances.
Robbins replied it was zoned SF-7.
Council Member Miller stated that this was a zoning hearing to
determine whether or not the property would be rezoned. Most
decisions made by Council were made by a majority and the majority
ruled. In this matter, the law indicated that in a zoning case
where 20$ of the property owners within 200 feet were in opposition
to the rezoning, a super majority of the council was needed in
r.,
City of Denton City Council Minutes o,,3Io
September 19, 1995 lgtr.31:.n
Page 10 p
order to approve the rezoning. That meant six of seven council
member votes was needed to approve the proposal.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that it was not 20% of the
property owners but rather 20% of area of the land or more owned by
' the property owners.
! Council Member Miller asked what percent of the land owned by the
property owners in this case was in opposition.
Robbins replied that there was 39% in opposition.
Council Member Miller asked what percentage was recommending
approval.
Robbins stated that there were no replies in approval without
conditions.
Council Member Miller stated that the percentage in opposition to
the proposal was more than normal. Some had indicated that this
was an economic development issue on which he supported growth. The
case was very difficult, with possible threats of lawsuits against
individual Council Members and against the City. He had been
threatened with a lawsuit against him personally. He felt that the
land had a different use other than just SF-7. He agreed that
there were enough motels in area and would vote against the
proposal. There was a use for the land which was not just single
family land usage. If the motion did not carry, he hoped the
Council would consider a motion which would allow the property
owners to use the property for office purposes with the
restrictions named and referred to in Alternate 2.
Council Member Krueger asked what the percentage of opposition
would be if the existing motels were removed from the 39%.
Robbins stated that it would still be over 20%
Council Member Brock read a statement from a document Mr. Robbins
presented to the Planning and Zoning C-)mmission on January 4, 1996
" preventing and/or mitigating potential adverse impacts to single
family and other types of residential development by other
uncomplimentary or incompatible land uses had historically been an
important reason to instituting land use controls in every country
which had land use controls. Preservation and protection of
neighborhoods was as goal of almost all community master plans.
The Denton Development Plan was no exception." For over two years
the community had been involved in a visioning project. Her areas
of concentration dealt with areas such as this. Entranceways were
1
1
Agenda f.o. ~P
Aveds Ram
Diu
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 19, 1995
Page 11
nDt seen just as a "live" issue but as a part of the economic issue
to be studied. There was a great deal of discussion on entranceway
corridors which came into the city and through the city. There was
the need to present a positive image of the city. One
recommendation was to establish a brand image as a quality
community and market that image per the Fantus study. In the past,
some had interpreted economic development as anything anywhere.
The City had a need to take charge and decide on how the City was
going to grow. People all over Denton had a right to be concerned
about zoning in the City. Everyone had an investment in Denton and
should be concerned. This rezoning issue and placing of a motel
violated the intensity strip development, neighborhood preservation
policy, entranceway policies, and violates long-range economic
development policies.
On roll vote to rezone the property with Alternate 1, Condition 2,
Miller "nay", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "nay",
Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed with a 4-3
vote as a super majority was required.
Miller motioned, Cott seconded to rezone the property with
Alternate 2 plus the seventh condition that hotels/motels,
hospitals, toarding/rooming houses, group homes, half-way houses,
fraternities, sororities, and homes for the care of alcoholic/
narcotic/ psychiatric patients were prohibited. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott 'taye", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye",
Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "nay". Motion failed with a 3-4
vote.
5. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution amending
Appendix A of the Denton Development Plan by changing the
boundaries for intensity Areas 99 and 119 defined therein in
conformity with the map attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as Exhibit 1, by extending the boundary of
Intensity Area 119 along the south side of I35-E to its approximate
intersection with Lindsey Street, and reducing Intensity Area 99
correspondingly to accommodate the expansion; and amending the
concept map of the Denton Development Plan to conform therewith.
(The Planning and zoning Commission recommended approval 5-1,)
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, requested that this item be
deferred until a later date with the update of the Denton
Development Plan.
t
u
Agenda fjo.
City of Denton city council Minutes AwlaIran-~
September 19, 1995 Data
Page 12
Miller motioned, Brock seconded to defer the item. On roll vote,
Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye",
Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry 'laye". Motion carried with a
vote of 5-2.
6. Consent Agenda
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to approve the consent Agenda as
presented. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase orders:
1. Bid 11789 - T1 Channel Banks
2. Bid 11790 - 100 MBPS Network Backbone Equipment
3. Bid 11791 - Diesel Powered Electric Generator
4. Bid 11801 - Janitorial Services
5. Bid 11785 - Addition to Denton Municipal Generating
Station
6. Bid 11798 - Metal Building
7. Bid 11799 - Egan/Panhandle Area Water/Sewer Utility
Replacement and Rehabilitation
8. RFP 11774 - University of North Texas
7. Consent Agenda Ordinances
The Council considered adoption of the Consent Agenda Ordinances
7A.-7C. Biles motioned, Cott seconded to adopt the ordinances.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry 10aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
A. NO. 95-187
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. (6.A.1. - Bid 11789;
6.A.2. - Bid 11790; 6.A.3. - Bid 11791; 6.A.4. - Bid 11801)
B. NO. 95-188
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. (6.A.5. - Bid 11785; 6.A.6. - Bid 11798;
6.A.7. - Bid 11799)
i
w
Aoenda tto.
City of Denton City Council Minutes ADendalt:m
September 19, 1995 Data
Page 13
C. NO. 95-189
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING A COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL AND
AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS EQUIPMENT,
SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (6.A.8. - RFP
11774)
8. Ordinances
A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of
Denton and Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. for professional
engineering services relating to establishing a fee or charges
under which a municipal drainage utility system may be funded.
Bob Nelson, Executive Director for Utilities, stated that several
weeks ago the Council requested a reduction for services and for
the city to do their own services on some items associated with
this proposal. Whether Council was in favor or against storm water
fees, a consultant's expertise was needed to determine whether to
proceed with such a fee. Council could consider a less aggressive
program fee which could range between $2.00 to $2.25 per month.
This would hold constant for five-six years.
Council Member Cott stated the speed of how to do this was
Council's determination as much as was the water's determination to
make. There were three items on this issue: 1) what the City had
done, 2) what the developers had done, and 3) what indiviC,jals had
done.
Nelson stated that his staff contacted a number of residents and
businesses regarding increased drainage in neighborhoods. It was
very difficult to spend those dollars and raise the revenues needed
to do those projects in a rapid pace. This issue was about to go
on the CIP process which would be good for the issue. There was a
tentative time table regarding the issue.
Council Member Young stated he was against the $23,000 for a
consultant because he knew that the City needed to do something
about drainage and flooding. He felt that the City could do $1
million per year in drainage projects and not have to do this fee,
which was a tax. He asked if the City could do $1 million per year
for drainage and not have to hire a consultant.
Nelson stated that ha just completed the budget process and would
have welcomed $1 million for that project. The $1 million for that
project was five cents on the tax rolls and presently the city had
V
Agenda fJa
City of Denton city council Minutes ApenCaIf
September 19, 3.995 Gab
Page 14
approximately two cents on the tax roils for operations and one
cent for debt services.
Council Member Young stated that paying for this study before
citizens voted on it was in the wrong order.
Nelson stated that when this issue was before the Council several
years ago, one concern was no one was certain on what fee to
implement. A study would determine that fee.
Council Member Young stated that a study was done in 1990 and a
consultant paid for then.
Nelson stated it was not done by a consultant, it was done with a
committee.
i
Council Member Young stated that that should be done now.
Nelson state that due to prior discussions he felt external
assistance was needed to go through state regulations and
procedures.
Council Member Krueger stated that he had asked for a reduction in
the contract and was pleased with the revisions. In his opinion
this tax was not a new tax and could replace a tax with lower %axes
as much as 8%. This merely created a new line on the utility bill
and would be a fee added to the utility bills. He agreed that the
issue should be taken to the people and let them vote on the issue.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-190
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING
SERVICES RELATING TO ESTABLISHING A FEE OR CHARGES UNDER WHICH
A MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE UTILITY SYSTEM MAY BE FUNDED; AUTHORIZING
THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFFCTIVF
DATE.
Miller motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Donald white stated that he was representing himself as a business
man and some 800 signatures of residents and registered voters in
the City who were in opposition to the contract and to any new
drainage utility. He was prepared to exercise whatever was needed
to see that the City's money was spent in a frugal and business-
a
Wdj Na 'D
[AOWIRem
City of Denton City Council Minutes September 19, 1995 ta
Page 15
like manner. Based on the Charter, he felt that there must be a
City election before a new utility was formed. The City Attorney
indicated that these waters had not tested in following the letter
of the law to create a new drainage utility district. At some
point, a stand must be taken and a limit on where to draw the line.
f L. T. Hensley stated that he was in opposition to the tax and did
n
ot want another tax added to his bill. He had had enough taxes
and
not vote
thattanotherdbureaucracy u did to
need by the
to be dd ale. He believed
Carl Williams felt that a cos,sultant should not be hired for every
item which needed to be studied. This was a back door way of
violating the constitutional rights of the City. Calling it a fee
when it was really a tax was not right. It seemed like a back way
to make universities and churches and schools pay taxes.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated the item this evening was not a vote on
whether or not to adopt the fee. These seven individuals were not
elected in order to be told what to do. They were elected to
listen and to ma'.e decisions on what was heard and on what they
thought. This was not a tax as so stated in the newspapers. This
was an attempt to educate the Council and have individuals
knowledgeable in this area advise the Council on whether or not
this was feasible for Denton. Approximately 30% of the acreage in
the city limits were governmental entities which did not pay taxes
but which contributed to wastewater problems. No one on council
had indicated whether they would vote for or against the fee. They
were just trying to learn something. The fee for the contract
before Council was less than half of the original proposal. The
City needed to spend dollars to learn whether or not a reasonable
fee schedule had been developed to take to the voters in the
future.
Council Member Young stated he understood the need to study this
issue. But the people needed to make the decision on the issue and
the issue should be studied after an election on the issue. The
people should vote on the issue, and if approved, proceed with the
study.
on roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance amending
Ordinance No. 88-189, which granted a franchise to Sammons
Communications, Inc. to reconstruct, operate, and maintain a cable
television system in the City of Denton, Texas; consenting to the
i
l
AOenQs 1JO, ^w
Ap2nts 4I-em
:2 146
City of Denton City Council Minutes
. 2
September 19, 1995
Page 16
assignment and transfer of that franchise from Sammons
communications, Inc. to Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this ordinance; and approving an
acceptance agreement; and providing for liquidated damages not to
exceed $4,000 for failure to meet customer service standards.
(Second Reading)
r
Richard Foster, Public Information Officer, stated that this was
the second reading of this ordinance. The second reading
transferred the cable television franchise from Sammons
Communications to Marcus Cable. Last week Council approved an
ordinance and agreement incorporated with it, but had a deletion on
language regarding telecommunications services. This was the same
document that was approved last Tuesday.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that he hal inserted in the
acceptance agreement and ordinance a provision which indicated that
Marcus would apply for a franchise if it decided to go into
telecommunication services. If it did not have to do that under
the law, it would have to pay a 5% franchise fee which would be
applicable to cable television on all telecommunication services.
That statement was deleted with the understanding that the issues
would be discussed further with Marcus. This was not a
possibility, and was consistent with what had been discussed during
the negotiations. Some conditions included in the agreement were
an additional penalty if Marcus failed to maintain certain customer
service standards, information on various staffing levels and
expenditures, signal quality assurances, economic opportunity
goals, access to records which the City did not have before,
payment of consultant and attorney fees up to a $125,000 limit and
an access charge to help fund local access activities on the cable
access channel. The sta:`f recommendation was to approve the
ordinance.
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-191
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 88-189, WHICH GRANTED A
FRANCHISE TO SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO RECONSTRUCT,
OPERATE, AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF
DENTON, TEXAS; CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF
THAT FRANCHISE FROM SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC. TO MARCUS
CABLE ASSOCIATES, L.P. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE; APPROVING AN ACCEPTANCE
AGREEMENT; PROVIDING FOR LIQUIDATED DAMAGES NOT TO EXCEED
$4,000 FOR FAILURE TO MEET CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS;
PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION;
v
i
Agenda No bD
Agenda he
City of Denton City Council Minutes Date
September 19, 1995
Page 17
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECT OF THIS ORDINANCE UPON OTHER
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Young motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the ordinance.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye$', Cott "nay", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried 5-2 voce.
9. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the Community Development Office to submit an
application to the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory
Services seeking funding and authorizing the city Attorney to
negotiate a contract with the Texas Department of Protective and
Regulatory Services.
Derrick Collins, Human Services Coordinator, stated that this
resolution would authorize the Community Development Office to
submit an application to the Texas Department of Protective and
Regulatory Services to seek funding and to negotiate a contract
with that department.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles left the meeting.
Collins stated the purpose of the grant was to develop community
based programs for assistance to families and provide an
opportunity to improve coordination of services. In the past four
weeks, he had been working with various agencies within the county.
The proposal would be for $250-300,000 funding for two case workers
for case management and financial assistance to potentially
homeless individuals. The second portion of the grant would
purchase hardware and fund a position to expand the tracking system
at the Denton County Cooperative Ministries. The proposed 5% match
would be made with funding already allocated towards human service
organizations and there would be no additional City funding for the
project.
Council Member Cott asked if these were new programs within the
current programs.
Collins stated that this would not be a new program. This was
building on collaborative efforts already built within the
community and would coordinate programs.
s
AWdl k
City of Denton City Council Minutes Agenes hem
September 19, 1995:.
Page 18
Council Member Cott asked if this was funded by CDBG or HUD funds
in the past and now would be funded by general funds.
Collins stated that there were no additional funds not already
allocated.
Council Member Krueger stated that this was only a grant.
Collins stated it was a grant which could be renewed for up to
three years.
Council Member Krueger asked what would happen to the new positions
hired after the grant was ended.
Collins stated that a service committee would be responsible for
securing additional funding for the programs. If at the end of the
three year period, no additional funds were secured, the program
would discontinue except for service provision with a tracking
system.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-056
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE TO SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTIVE AND
REGULATORY SERVICES SEEKING FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
PROTECTIVE AND REGULATORY SERVICES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Young motioned, Miller seconded to approve the resolution.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting.
on roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
B. The Council considered approval of a resolution accepting
a grant from the Texas Forest Service.
Cecile Carson, Community Improvement coordinator, stated that this
grant was a continuation of a project started in 1992-93. The
Texas Forest Service had selected Denton for an $8,500 grant. The
City, through a variety of in-kind services, would bring the total
grant to $10,475. The grant would provide the City with staff
A
6
1
1
Ayend~ 1:0...
City of Denton city council Minutes AVedsM;n
September 19, 1995
Page 19
familiar with tree and tree identification who would go out and
identify trees on collector streets and then map that information.
This information was useful in the CIP Program and in land use
analysis. There was no cash expenditure on the part of the City
with in-kind matches such as a salary to supervise an intern and
the use of City utility bills to distribute a pamphlet on tree
planting.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-057
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS FOREST SERVICE;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Cott motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
budget adjustments for fiscal year 1994-1995.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer, stated this resolution would
adjust the 1994-95 budget. It transferred $45,000 from savings
identified from other departments and placed it in the Fire
Department to cover unanticipated overtime.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-058
A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR
1994-95; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
D. The council considered approval of a resolution
consenting to the assignment and transfer of a contract with
Dynamic Health & Performance Inc. to Pacificare Wellness Company;
and authorizing the City Manager to execute an assignment of the
contract from Dynamic.
Craig Maroney, Human Resources Generalist, requested approval of
the resolution which would authorize the transfer and assignment of
I
I
I
AOer.'a A f7o.
pnd3 ftem
City of Denton City Council Minutes Dare
September 19, 1995
Page 20
a contract from Dynamic Healt`, and Performance Inc. to Pacificare
Wellness Company. Both parties agreed with the transfer and had
signed the contract. There was no additional costs associated with
the assignment and transfer.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-059
A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER OF A
CONTRACT WITH DYNAMIC HEALTH AND PERFORMANCE, INC. ("DYNAMIC")
TO PACIFICARE WELLNESS COMPANY ("PACIFICARE")p AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE CONTRACT FROM
DYNAMIC; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
E. The Council considered approval of a resolution adopting
Policy No. 106-04 "Overtime".
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Services, stated this item made minor
revisions to the City's overtime policy. The Fair Labor Standards
Act provided for exempt employees who were exempt from the overtime
provisions and non-exempt employees who were not exempt and who
were paid overtime. There were three categories of exempt
employees-administrative, executive, and professional which were
compensated with salary and were not eligible for overtime. Non-
exempt employees were compensated on an hourly basis and were
eligible for overtime at a time and a half rate. Civil Service
employees were non-exempt. Non-exempt employees' overtime hours
were those hours over 40 hours per week and were paid at 1, times
their hourly rate of pay. The city could pay compensatory time
which was accrual of actual time at time and a half. That
provision was used to better manage overtime payments. The changes
requested provided for the supervisor to designate all overtime as
paid in cash or accrued in compensatory time up to the maximum time
provided. The maximum compensatory time balances for non-Civil
service employees were 80 hours, for Police Officers, 100 hours and
for Fire fighters 200 hours. Those were the policy provisions
requested. This provided for non-Civil service employees to be
able to respond to emergencies and special needs coverage for sick
leave, vacations, unscheduled activities such as shift transitions,
and service delivery interruptions due to acts of nature.
A
L
406 k
City of Denton City Council Minutes Aamon
September 19, 1995 peg
Page 21
Council Member Cott questioned why this was not done during the
budget process.
Tom Klinck stated that staff had been working on these minor
changes for a number of months. There was no additional budget
impact for this budget year as a result of the changes.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-060
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY NO. 106.04 "OVERTIME"; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye"
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
F. The Council considered approval of a resolution in
support of I-35 Corridor Coalition in its effort to receive federal
designation of Interstate-35 as the official North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Highway.
Linda Ratliff, Economic Development Coordinator, stated that this
resolution was in support of the designation of 135 as the official
North American Free Trade Agreement Highway. Judge Moseley was
instrumental in the formation of the coalition in April of 1984.
The resolution would be sent to Dentonfs representatives in
Congress asking them for their consideration.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-061
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
APPROVING THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) ; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution.
Council Member Miller stated that whether the designation was
re eived or not, the truck traffic would be there. The purpose of
the coalition and the reason for the designation would be to be
able to use Federal tax dollars rather than State tax dollars to
provide for heavy truck traffic. There were more miles of 135 in
Denton County than any other County.
Apena~ t». ` O
.m
City of Denton city council minutes
September 19, 1995 Opt:
Page 22
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
h G. The Council considered approval of a resolution voting
for a member to the Board of Managers of the Denco Area 9-1-1
District.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that the Denco
9-1-1 District had requested each City to vote for a candidate for
a two year term beginning October 1 on the District Board of
Mangers. The opening available was the end of the term for Mayor
olive Stephens. There were three nominations before the Council.
One was to reappoint Mayor Olive Stephens, one was for Council
Member Ronni Cade from Lewisville and one from Oak Point, Ms.
Sherry Schuyler.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-062
A RESOLUTION VOTING FOR A MEMBER TO THE BOARD OF MANAGERS OF
THE DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to nominate Olive Stephens.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried 6-1 vote.
H. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
the fiscal year 1996 budget of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District,
pursuant to Tex. Health & Safe"-.y Code, Section 772.309.
Kathy DuBose, Executive Director for Finance, stated that this was
the fiscal year plan of the Denco Area 9-1-1 District for 1996 and
a review of the past year which they asked council to approve.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-063
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1996 BUDGET OF THE
DENCO AREA 9-1-1 DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO THE TEX. HEALTH &
SAFETY CODE SECTION 772.309; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes en~all:n
September 19, 1995
Page 23
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the resolution. On
roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger 10aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried unanimously.
10. The Council held a public hearing and considered, deliberated
and took action on the duties and evaluation of the Municipal
Judge; considered, deliberated and took action on the resignation
of the Municipal Judge; and discussed recruitment of a new
Municipal Judge.
Mayor Castleberry stated there were three individuals who reported
directly to the Council. Those individuals were the City Manager,
the City Attorney and the Municipal Judge. At the request. :f the
Municipal Judge this was a public hearing. There would be a 15
minute time limit on her presentation which the Mayor would be
coordinating.
Judge White stated she was here to discuss the duties and
evaluation of the Municipal Judge, to discuss the resignation of
the Municipal J,idge, and to discuss, if necessary, the recruitment
of a new Municipal Judge. As she had stated to City Council
members who had contacted her upon receiving her resignation, she
did not want to resign but felt she was being forced to resign due
to issues which she had continuously brought forward and which she
felt were not being adequately addressed. She had been the
Municipal Judge in Denton for nine years and during that nine year
period she served the City well. She also had been appointed the
Chief Magistrate of Denton County in 1992 and was a substitute
magistrate before that. One function of the Municipal Judge was
the administrative portion which involved a review of all the
functional activities of the Court; development of the
organizational structure; formulation of all the local rules of
practice and procedures for operating the Court; development of all
the administrative policies and procedures for the Court and the
Court Clerk's office; allocation of the work load among the various
judges; facilitation of the judge'-e understanding and performance
of their role as judges and magistrates; preparation of the Court's
annual budget; preparation and oversight of all reports to the City
administration and the Texas Judicial Counsel. Some of the duties
as Municipal Judge and as a Magistrate were to preside over trials
to hear all of the evidence; decide all the questions of law and
render appropriate judgements; preside over jury trials which
included issuing writs to summon a jury panel, ruling on challenges
for cause, summoning additional jurors, complying written jury
charges and instructions, and instructing the jury; taking and
recording pleas; enforcing the Court's judgement; setting and
forfeiting bail in misdemeanor and felony cases; issuing search
Agenda No, G -CC(O
City of Penton City Council Minutes Agendalten
September 19, 1995 Otto -
Page 24
warrants; administering magistrate warnings to defendants charged
with misdemeanors and felonies; issuing summons in misdemeanor and
felony cases; issuing arrest warrants in misdemeanor and felony
cases; accepting affidavits of probable cause in misdemeanor and
felony cases; appointing counsel when required in misdemeanor and
felony cases; conducting examining trials in felonies before a
Grant Jury indictment was rendered; conducting emergency mental
health commitment hearing, and issuing warrants for involuntary
hospitalization; conducting medical revocation hearings; conducting
juvenile detention hearings when the juvenile judge was
unavailable; issuing building inspection warrants; issuing
processes such as subpoenas, warrants and writs of attachment;
deciding motions to quash, motions for continuance, motions to
compel production of documents, motions to adjudicate guilt and
motions for indigency; keeping and maintaining a docket and minutes
of all proceedings had in the Court whether misdemeanor or felony;
considering direct and indirect contempt of Court proceedings;
conducting driver licenses suspension hearings; and hearings under
the Texas Liability Insurance statute. The law changed on a daily
basis on appeals and the business of being a judge meant keeping up
with all of those changes. She submitted copies of her past
performance reviews which she felt was important to the new members
of the Council. She felt that the evaluations were necessary for
the Council to review in order to be enlightened as to some of the
tasks she had done while a Municipal Judge and were instructive in
pointing out some of the issues she had raised over the last nine
years. In each evaluation salary compensation was an issue as were
terms of contract. Since her evaluation in December of 1994, her
most major development was the implementation of the Court of
Record legislation. This legislation was implemented on August 16,
1994 and coincided with the Court's move into the new facility. In
anticipation of this legislation and the move to the new court much
work needed to be done to implement this Court of Record. While
implementing the Court of Record there could be no down time in the
Court. She was involved in the process of design and construction
of the Court facility. She had to establish additional dockets for
Court and established the Juvenile Diversion Task Force and began
working on the teen courts program. She had been asked by several
of the Council Members to stay on but one of the issues they were
unable to agree upon was the compensation issue. She did not feel
that the current salary of $57,075.20 with no car allowance was
adequate for the type of work she was required to do. She felt
that she deserved a higher salary for what she did. She had some
handouts dealing with the compensation matter for Council
consideration.
Mayor Castleberry stated that Judge White was out of time for her
presentation.
Y
~,peeda ~~o.
lonEs fl°n
City of Denton City Council Minutes Ve..
September 19, 1995
Page 25
i
Young motioned, Cott seconded to extend Judge White's time for 10
minutes. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"nay". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Judge White presented a judicial salary survey which she had
compiled and reviewed several exhibits given to Council. Exhibit
31 was an executive City of Denton assignment which showed a
control point for each of those positions. It was her understanding
that once the control points were reached, there were no longer
merit increases but incentive bonuses awarded as cash lump sums
which were not reflected on Exhibit 30. Exhibit B1 showed how the
program worked and the type of increases the executives received
once they reached the controls point. Exhibit C showed the pay
plans with minimum, mid-point and maximum salary range. According
to these documents, her salary did not even meet the mid-point.
When the part-time judge was hired, the Council's agreement was to
hire at a range of $15-17 dollars when in fact the employee was
hired at $23 per hour. The general pay schedule for that position
indicated that that was at the maximum level. Exhibit Q showed the
job classification and showed that the job classification was a 10
with a hiring range of $15.72-$17.70 per hour and a maximum rate of
$23.15 per hour. That employee was hired in at the maximum rate
with no prior judicial experience. Four months later, that
employee was given a 4% increase in salary. She felt it was
important to look at each salary plan as they highlighted the fact
that her salary was not in compliance with the salary survey.
Exhibit F was a salary survey done by the Human Resources
Department in 1993 which showed that the maximum was $67,000 and a
mid-point of $56,000. At that time she was making $50,000.
Exhibit I was the salary survey done in August by the Human
Resources Department with regard to her position and included a
survey of cities which were not Court of Record cities. That
survey did not include the Chief Judge's salary but rather only the
full-time associate judges. Most of the judges, who were Chief
Judges were only doing administrative work and not presiding on the
bench as she did. She was on call 365 days a year, worked during
all holidays, was not able to take vacations with this job as the
schedule would have to be redone to do so. Most of the asscciate
judges worked in the evenings and there were two judges who filled
in when necessary. She asked the Council to look at the
information presented as she was not able to adequately discuss it
in prior meetings. Exhibit 4 contained hPr proposal with the
conditions she would accept if she was to continue her employment
with the City.
r
1
f
Y
AQM47170..' war
City of Denton City Council Minutes AOenC31'en_
September 19, 1995
Page 26
Council Member Young asked White if she would be willing to take
her resignation off the table and give the council a week to study
her proposal.
Judge White stated that her resignation was not effective until
September 30th and if Council needed until the next session to
study the matter, she would not need a re.;ponse at this meeting.
There would be no need to remove her resignation from the table if
council could look at it by this time next week.
Young motioned, Cott seconded to delay this item until next week
and consider it in an Executive Session whiob would give Council
time to go through all of the Judge's materiels.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the motion was to consider the item
in an executive session.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that Judge White would have to
remove her request that all of these discussions be held in a
public hearing.
Judge White stated that the discussion of next wee}- with regards to
the materials she had presented could be discussed in Executive
Session if that was the desire of the Council.
Mayor Castleberry asked Council Member Young if that was a part of
his motion.
Council Member Young agreed.
Mayor Castleberry asked Council Member Cott if that was a part of
the second.
Council Member Cott replied no that he preferred to cor,tinue the
discussion in public.
Young motioned, Biles seconded to delay the item until next week
and to discuss the item in public.
Council Member Miller stated that he wanted to discuss the item in
open session and asked Judge White if she preferred it be done in
open session.
Judge White stated she had no objection to either forum.
Council Member Miller stated the whole purpose of the Executive
session was to have information presented to the Council. If there
was something which might cause an individual personal harm, it was
A?enda+,to. -rap
City of Denton City Council Minvtes AOendaIrarn
September 19, 1995 D _
Page 27
not done in open session. The Executive Session was for the
benefit of the individual and the issues being discussed. He
wanted to make sure that the Judge wanted that forum.
Judge White stated that she understood why the Executive session
existed. The fact was that there were no minutes of those
sessions. She would defer to the vote of the Council.
Council Member Cott stated that Judge White started this discussion
in this forum and Council should continue it in that forum.
Judge White replied that that was fine with her and if she needed
to state on the record that she was requesting it in public, then
she would do so at this time.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked for a restatement of the motion.
Council Member Young stated that his motion was to delay the item
for a week and to consider it in a public forum.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if that would be to review the material
presented by Judge White or to conduct the evaluation.
Council Member Young replied both.
Council Member Brock stated that the next session was just a work
session next week and was not a regular session.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the next regular meeting would be
after September 30th. He suggested taking a 15-30 minute recess to
review the information presented by Judge White as there was no
regularly scheduled meeting before September 30th.
City Attorney Prouty stated this had been posted as a public
hearing. He wanted to find out from the Judge if she wanted to
proceed with the public hearing and then have Council go into an
Executive Session if desired to discuss the material presented.
Judge White stated that she would like to give the public an
opportunity to speak. Council could then go into a recess after
that, if desired.
Council Member Young withdrew his motion.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the public hearing would be held and
discussion continued after that.
f
City of Denton City Council Minutes EAAgenh da NO,
September 19, 1995 111
Page 28 I
Sandra Lee stated that she felt Judge White had done a wonderful
job and had made the Court successful in many ways. Before
becoming a Court of Record the City lost money due to appeals made
out of the Court.
i
Council Member Young left the meeting.
Lee continued that night arraignments had been started to
accommodate those coming to Court who worked during the day. Judge
White had consistently provided the Clerk's office with wr'.tten
material in the form of Judicial Orders which were followed to
ensure that the Court operated in accordance with State
legislation. The Orders focused on changes which affected the
office and office procedures.
Council Member Cott left the meeting.
Lee stated that Judge White was the only Black executive currently
working for the City. The reason most Blacks were leaving was due
to not being paid adequately, unfair business practices and/or
discrimination. She felt that a compromise must be reached.
Ken Royal stated that he was speaking on behalf of Judge White to
address the issue of equal salaries and benefits for equal work.
He believed in fairness and if a job was performed, fair
compensation should be received. Judge White was doing a
satisfactory job but had a discrepancy of compensation. He urged
that Judge white be given an increase equal to other City
employees. Heads of other departments were paid more. New
employees would cost more to obtain than the process of correcting
the inequities of the current Judge. Wesl
d that Whitena d on behalfeof otherh epartmentahc:ads on the support
staff Judge
he felt were not compensated relative to fair market value nor
compensated equitably to their counterparts in other departments.
Those employees were the City Treasurer and the Head Librarian.
What Judge White was seeking from the Council was understandable
and fair. He could not understand how the Municipal Judge, who had
been on the job for nine years and had oversight of an entire
branch of the City government would make less than the Director of
Information Services who had oversight of a staff of four. He did
not understand why she would make less than the Parks and
Recreation Director who had only been on the job for six months.
He questioned that the problem was between the Judge and the
Council. That the Judge was not given as much time as needed to
talk with the Council was an indication of the problem. The way
the Judge was being ignored and the way some of the members were
ill
Aoend3Uo.
City of Denton City Council Minutes Ogeazoadiitan
September 19, 1995
Page 29 ..L ^
talking during her presentation showed disrespect to the Judge. The
Judge had done many positive things in this community. Her
compensation should be in-line with the other employees of the
Council - those being the City Attorney and the City Manager. He
felt this was an issue of respect. The three lowest paid directors
in the City were Black. Her talent, dedication, bilingual
background, and color made her too valuable an asset to lose. He
encouraged the Council to treat her fairly.
Cay McSpedden stated that she had been employed by the
for the
last 7 years. When she began working in the Munic palCCourt there
was a severe backlog of cases. Currently there was no backlog and
there had not been any for quite some time. The Judge dealt fairly
and firmly in the Court. The Judge was consistent in handling cases
and everyone was well versed in the policies and procedures of the
Court. The Judge was a great asset to the City and was dedicated
to quality service. To serve the best interest of the City would
be to do whatever was required to keep Judge White.
Council Member Young returned to the meeting.
Bob Stalder stated that he had been the Court Bailiff for several
years. Last year he had the opportunity to attend a Court Bailiff
school where a retired Texas Supreme Court Judge was a speaker. He
asked a series of 50 questions of 75 court bailiffs from across the
State. After each question he asked the bailiffs if their judge
was following that item. After all the questions were asked, only
three bailiff's had judges which were doing everything according to
law. He was one of those three. He asked Council to do everything
in their power to keep Judge White. He requested that Council work
out a compromise and put same of their personality conflicts aside
to do what was right.
Carl Williams stated that in 1995 he was disappointed to be
standing hare. In 1979, he stood here with some of the same issues
and he would like to move forward.
which he had heard. One was communicaThere were severaems
tions which wasla ptwo-way
street. He was concerned about the message the City was sending to
the people of Denton. The City was trying to implement a teen
court and the City would have to start over again if a new Judge
was hired. The Part-Time judge made as much as the Municipal
Judge. What message was this sending to African-Americans.
African-Americans were being told to do everything right but they
did not need as much money as a white male.
Valla Rhae Royal did not want to speak but was in favor of Judge
White.
i
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 19, 1995
Page 30 t,;cca I'^n
Council member Cott returned to the meeting.
Council Member Miller summarized the meetings the Municipal Court
Advisory Committee had had with Judge White. The Council did not
initiate this and was first brought into it when the Judge
submitted her letter of resignation effective September 1st. After
so many years with the City the Council wanted to find out the
issues before accepting her letter of resignation. Prior to this
Council a Municipal Court Advisory Committee was established. Two
members of that Committee were not re-elected. The present Council
appointed two new members to the court Committee-Council Member
Cott and Mayor Pro Tem Biles. The first meeting with the Judge was
on August 16th. During that time, it was felt that there was not
enough time before September 1st to resolve the issues and
requested that the Judge extend her the letter of resignation to
September 30th which the Judge did. The Committee felt that the
issue was what could be done and what was a solution to the
problem. The Committee indicated to the Judge that they felt the
Judge was doing a good job and that they would like to see her
continue to do so. lie asked the Judge if she wanted to stay and
Judge White indicated yes, but only if certain items were done. He
stated that the committee could not make any commitments and could
not bind the rest of the Council on any of the issues. This was not
a negotiation process. This was a process of communication to
receive information. The Committee asked what were the issues and
dealt with them one at a time. one of the major issues was
communication which was a two-way street. Another item was that
the Judge felt she was not getting fair attention or respect from
the Council. The Council had three functions which reported
directly to them - the city Manager, the City Attorney, and the
Municipal Judge with the Assistant and Part-Time Judge. The
Council assumed if they did not hear anything, everything was going
okay. Some issues were not brought to council which were relevant.
At the conclusion of the first meeting, the Committee stated that
it would talk with the Agenda committee and ask that the Judge be
put on the agenda at least once a month. It was suggested that the
Council spend as much time as possible informally and that Judge
White be included in those meetings. to consider her willingness to stay T with othetunder tan ding Jthat
Council would look at the salary issue on April 1, 1996. After the
meeting of September 11th, the Committee stated that it would talk
to the Council to have the item placed on the agenda in a Closed
Session on the following Tuesday and would
full consideration. Judge White's letter indicated present her letter or
that becausefof
the salary concern she was asking for back pay, an immediate
increase in pay, a car allowance, and vacation pay. The Committee
said that at that point it could not commit the council. The Judge
City of Denton city council Minutes Awd3 110. co
September 19, 1995 Page 31 had an increase in April of last year and was on an annual review.
The Committee was willing to talk to Council when her review came
up this year and to look at the fact that there was a salary issue
to deal with. To meet her needs and her satisfaction could not be
done all at one time and in one year. He asked if the Judge would
be willing to work on other issues and in April take a long look at
h the salary issue. If so, he asked that she let the committee know
and if not the Committee would take a report to Council the
following week. He received a fax in his office on Labor Day which
detailed and reviewed prior discussions. This was apparently the
response to the Committee's ability to go back to the Council and
work on these issues. He quoted from the Judges letter:"Listed
below are several options that the Council could consider as it
related to my compensation request. Option One - Pay $10,000 back
pay; $4,000 vacation pay; and $2,400 car allowance with current
year 1994-95 Municipal Judge budget. Increase pay to $75,000 and
$3,600 car allowance in deferred compensation from 1995-96 budget
effective October 1, 1995. Option Two: $10,000 back pay; $4,000
vacation pay; $2,400 car allowance from current fiscal year 1994-95
Municipal Judge budget. Raise salary to $65,000 plus $3,600 car
allowance effective October 1, 1995 and then raise salary from
$650000 to $75,000 effective December 1, 1995. With an additional
amount of $2,000 lump sum for the City benefiting at my expense to
the $10,000 they were able to use for the period October to
December". The Committee had a meeting on September 11th and tried
to explain that they were trying to take care of the issues, but it
could not happen overnight. He felt the issue of back pay was not
legal under State law. He requested the Judge consider waiting
until April to work on the issue of salary. The Committee
recognized the need to do so and recognized that in April this
would not be a normal salary increase. Judge white and the
Committee could did not agree and the Committee indicated that it
would submit the Judge's demands to the council by giving them a
Excopy
i etter. The
invited the Council planned to attend discuss sExethis in
cutive
Session so that she could discuss these matters. He talked with
the Judge at the next meeting and indicated that they would be
going into Executive session with a number of items on the
Executive Session agenda to liscuss. Some of those issues might be
considered later in the meeting and was that alright with her. In
the meantime and unknown to him, the Judge had submitted a letter
through the City Attorney that she wanted to do this in open
session. There cortinued to be issues of communication and
obviously a compensatia, issue. He felt that it was something
which could be done in the course of a normal contract increase.
Last year the Judge received an increase in April of about 7-7.5%
was the largest increase given by Council. Doing this in the
middle of the year and on the basis as presented, his
-OpLk
City of Denton City Council Minutes p9E1~at.0
September 19, 1995 ppendalien
Page 32 pata._
i
recommendation was that this was not an appropriate way to go.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the Judge was fair and open to new
ideas. He had respect for her as a Judge and had known her to be
very open and easy to talk with. After three meetings of t:.e
subcommittee, he had a feeling that the Committee was beginning to
implement a number of the Judge's suggestions. Some of those needs
she had outlined included: security in the office, doubling the
size of her office to accommodate a secure hallway, a second
bailiff, a car to serve warrants, and the implementation of
security procedures in the Court room. He felt it was a good faith
demonstration to the Judge that the Committee was seriously
committed to those items the Judge felt had been neglected. The
Committee also specifically addressed the communication and
participation issues. The Council decided that during the budget
process was not a good time for discussions on these issues. The
Council decided that on regular meetings, they would start a half
an hour later so that Council could talk with each other without
having to discuss business. As a part of that process, the Council
wanted the Judge to join them. He wanted the Judge to begin making
not less than monthly reports to the Council on the status of the
judiciary. He felt tonight, in spite of a demonstration of good
faith, Judge White indicated an unwillingness to work with Council
and the financial constraints they had to wait for her annual
review which most likely would result in a substantial pay raise on
April 1st. The memo from the Judge indicated it had to be October
1st. On April 1st of this year, the Judge received a 5.85% raise
in salary plus, for the first time, an additional payment of 4%
2.eferred compensation. She was now asking for what amounted to an
$18,000 pay raise which would be the equivalent to a 31.5% pay
increase. That would be the second pay increase in one year.
Those two pay increases in one calendar year would be approximately
37%. He did not want Judge White to leave if there was a way to
implement this on April 1st. Every year there was a review process
and every year there was most likely a pay raise. The next review
process began in December and January and most likely would result
in an annual pay increase for the Judge. This subcommittee did
much to try and understand the specifics as well as the big picture
of Judge White's position and opinions. Why the deadline of
October 1st without a little bit of patience and a little give and
take, he did not understand.
Council Member Cott stated that there was a system in this
organization and 950 employees. If Council went through this the
wrong way, the organization would be in chaos. If he was called a
racist one more time he would become intolerant.
City of Dent
on City Council Minutes September 19, 1995 Page 33
C::
Council Member Young stated that the City Council agreed to keep
all people they hired, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the
City Judge on the same level. The City Manager made $101,000, the
City Attorney made $90,000 and the city Judge made $57,000. This
was not keeping it on the same level. The Judge did not have a car
allowance as the car she had was for the Court. All of the items
which Mayor Pro Tem Biles indicated was given to the Judge was not
money from the General Fund but was money generated from the
Courts. Her starting salary was $35,000 while the City Manager's
starting salary was $68,000 and both had been with the City nine
years. Over that nine year period, a 34% increase was given to the
City Manager and a 12% increase was given to Judge White. The City
Attorney was just hired at $90,000. This was one problem right
there as the City was not keeping faith with Judge White. Five
years ago another problem started with the Judge. Reports sent to
the Council went through another Council Member's office and never
reached the Council. Even her budget never went to Council as it
was found thrown in the trash. The communication factor was a
problem. A Judge in a Court of Record was different from other
courts. What Judge White was asking for was parity and to be
compensated equal to other City Council hired employees. She asked
to be treated fairly and she felt as though other directors
disrespected her and discriminated against her and she had to go
through all this to get a hearing. He felt that Judge White's
request of vacation pay was not the way to go. The Judge should
receive a car allowance of $2,400 and her salary increaser to
$65,000 in October when by her contract she had an annual review.
In December, increase her salary to $75,000 where it would be in
parity with other Municipal Judges of her calibre. Judge White was
a very good judge for Denton.
Council Member Miller spoke on the issue of comparative Salaries.
The policy of the City for the employees who reported to the
Council and for all employees was to survey comparable jobs in
similar kinds of situations in cities and over a period of time pay
the going rate. He felt the appropriate time was in April and
would create all kinds of problems to do it now. The Court
Advisory Committee asked the Director of Human Resources to put
together a list of the Courts of Records in Texas, and the median
salary for those 13 cities was $57,200. Judge White took exception
to the survey data used. Using the Judge's data for nine cities,
the median salary was $66,000. The Committee went as far as it
could go and recommended Council work on the salary issue in April.
Council Member Brock stated she was not directly involved with the
subcommittee's work. She did not know how previous councils had
reached the salaries for the three individuals hired by Council.
She did not see the fact that these three positions were filled by
City of Denton city council minutes AOcnG~l~.. S
September 3.9, 1995 nu:'
Page 34
Council would indicate that they should all be paid equally. They
were very different kinds of jobs. For instance, the City Manager
was in charge of hundreds of people with very diverse
responsibilities and a complexity of expertise was needed which was
' similar to the presidents of the two universities.
Council Member Young stated the agreement was made that they would
be on the same level. The City Attorney had approximately the same
amount of people to supervise as did Judge White yet Judge White's
salary was much less.
Mayor Castleberry stated that there was nothing wrong with this
situation. He was disappointed in the statement which cast a
negative reflection on this council,
Council Member Krueger stated that actions of Councils in past
years should not reflect on what this council could and should do.
He was willing to work towards the issues and felt that the Judge
would receive a substantial raise in April. As a representative of
the City he could not see going back to the citizens and explain
two raises in one year. It was not fair and he would recommend an
extensive review in April. The Council could not reflect on past
Councils. He requested that Judge White consider that option and
come back in April to correct the problem.
Council Member Young stated he was disappointed with the Mayor.
Since he had been on council, there had never been a time limit on
a director giving a presentation. For the Mayor to tell a citizen
that he did not like what was being said was heavy handed.
Mayor Castleberry stated he had talked with the City Attorney about
a time limit because the Judge should have a certain time limit and
not one-two hours. He was concerned when anyone stated that there
was underhandedness going on when there was not. He would not be
accused of doing something wrong. There were some salary issues
people did not understand and he was glad that this was brought
out. He was the presiding officer of the Council and had the
authority to place time limits. He confirmed this with the City
Attorney.
Council Member Miller requested a 10 minute recess.
City Attorney Prouty stated that the Council could take a recess
but could not deliberate in a recess.
Mayor Castleberry stated if Council was going to talk with the
Judge it needed to be done in open session.
f
LJV
ApenW qo..
City of Denton City Council Minutes ADVIaI M
September 19, 1995
Page 35 Ona
Young motioned, Cott seconded to delay this issue for two weeks if
it was alright with Judge White.
Mayor Castleberry stated that delaying it would place the item on
an October agenda.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the resignation would become
effective before the next meeting.
Council Member Miller felt that something needed to be done and not
wait another two weeks.
Judge White stated that the Committee had made some progress but
had reached a stalemate regarding salary problems. The Council had
made some statements that would give her cause to pause for another
two weeks if Council wanted to take it up at that time. She would
make her resignation effective after giving the council some time
to consider the matters presented to them at this meeting.
Council Member Krueger questioned if Judge White needed the two
weeks to consider her position. The Council had indicated their
feelings about the issue.
Judge White responded that she hoped the Council would take time to
look at the documentation she provided. She had strong feelings
about the matter and tried to present documentation from her view
point. After review, she hoped they had might have different
positions. She asked them to review those materials and see if
they had the same position after the review.
on roll vote to postpone, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "nay", and Mayor Castleberry
"nay". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
11. The Council considered appointments to the Economic
Development Transition Committee.
Mayor Castleberry stated. the members would vote on only four
appointments.
Council Member Cott voted for Troy LaGrone, Ed Smith, Bob Coplen
and Harry Hall.
Council Member Brock voted Troy LaGrone, Ed Smith, Randall
McDonald, and Bob Coplen.
Council Member Miller voted for Troy LaGrone, Bob Coplen, Ed Smith
and Randall McDonald.
C
4
T
a0en~ 1!0.
City of Denton City Council Minutes A;ep.Ca Item
September 19, 1995 03%
Page 36
1 W-
Mayor Castleberry voted for Barbara Russell, Der.cell Bulls, Bob
Coplen and Troy LaGrone.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles voted for Carl Anderson, Ed Smi':h, Dick Smith
and Harry Hall.
Council Member Young voted for Carl Anderson, Ed Smith, Dick Smith
and Troy LaGrone.
Council Member Krueger voted for Carl Anderson, %'d Smith, Dick
Smith and Harry Hall.
Tabulation of the results indicated that Ed Smith, Troy LaGrone,
Bob Coplen were the top votes. Carl Anderson, Dick Smith, and
Harry Hall each had three votes.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the Council would vote again to break
the tie. If a member was not voting for a nominee, the abstain
button would be used on the voting board.
On a vote for Carl Anderson, all members abstained.
On a vote for Harry Hall, the vote was 6-1 with the Mayor
abstaining.
On a vote for Dick Smith, all members abstained.
Harry Hall would be the member on the Committee.
12. The council considered nominations/appointments to the City's
Boards and Commissions.
Francis Caster was nominated by Council Member Cott to the Downtown
Advisory Board.
13. Vision Update
Council Member Miller stated there would be public meetings on
October 30th and November 1st at the Campus Theater with two
presentations by the Vision Group.
14. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, presented the following items,
A. Next week the Council would be making nominations for the
Appraisal District.
r
a
EA21nft City of Den ton City Council Minutes P
September 19, 1995 7^ 91n
Page 37
B. Sunday was the City Picnic and the Council was invited to
attend.
15. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting items
discussed earlier.
16. New Business
The following items of New Business were suggested by Council
Members for future agendas.
A. Council Member Krueger asked for an update on the
presentation by Teri Woods regarding an easement dedication.
Deputy City Manager Svehla stated that the Council would receive
that update at the first meeting in October.
B. Council Member Brock requested a discussion regarding the
City's in-fill policy or send the item first to the Public
Utilities Board for a recommendation.
17. The Council did not meet in Closed Meeting during the Regular
Session.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:10 a.m.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON; TEXAS
ACCO02BE
r
u
Agoda Ita
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUT Seq:c"l1%,n
September 26, 1995 Da,
The council convened into a Closed meeting on Tuesday, ep
260 1995 at 5:00 P.M. in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in a Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Discussed contemplated litigation concerning the
denial to rezone 3.753 a^.res from SF-7 to O zoning
on the south side of I35-7, and Lindsey Street.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOV'i CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a work Session on Tuesday, September 26,
1995 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The Council considered Agenda Item 04 from the Special Call
Session.
4. The Council received a resolution of appreciat_ci. from the
Blue Ribbon Sales Tax Advisory Committee.
Tom Harpool, chair, stated that the Committee would like to present
a resolution to the city council in appreciation for the Council's
actions to reduce the property tax again this year as per the sales
tax process. The resolution was unanimously approved by the
Committee on September 8th.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
1. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the establishment of a Racial Diversity Task Force.
City Manager Harrell stated that this was an item which came out of
the Council's planning session and was a Council priority to
establish this task force. This Council was an ambitious Council
and wanted to get things done and accomplished. One problem which
staff was beginning to experience, however, was that staff liaisons
had to staff all of these committees and tasks. That support on
special projects was in addition to their daily tasks. Currently
the CIP election was underway; staff was working on the drainage
utility item which had been revised and included more staff
responsibility for the tasks; the Vision Project was nearing a
major activity; an Economic Development Corporation had just been
appointed with staff being asked ti assist that group to gather
information; and the Planning and Zoning commission would be
c
L
City of Denton City Council Minutes =V!M
September 26, 3995
Page 2 update of the Denton Development Plan. Staff was nearing the stage
where some projects needed to be completed before more projects
were added and he asked for Council support in this area.
Tom Klinck, Director of Human Resources, stated that per Council
direction at the August 31, 1995 Council meeting, staff prepared
information on the background, purpose, scope and committee
membership for such a task force. The purposes would be to examine
the awarding of contracts to outside vendors for services, to study
City personnel policies and practices in recruitment hiring and
promotion activities, pay practices and pay raises and State law on
the Civil Service system of police officers and firefighters. It
was decided that each Council Member would appoint three members
and the City Manager would appoint four members to the Committee.
The Committee could hold two initial meetings, one to have the
Committee members learn of Council's desires concerning the
Committee and a second meeting to appoint a chair and receive
training in cultural awareness, group process techniques and assign
sub-committees. The sub-committees could deal with recruitment,
hiring, and promotional practices; pay and pay raises; Civil
Service; and the awarding of contracts. The Committee would
develop a final report and recommendations for the City Council.
Staff support was estimated to be one and a half clerical support,
one professional support and associated costs for copying and
supplies.
Council Member Young asked if the Committee would be charged with
studying whether or not a police review board was needed.
Klinck stated a Civil Service sub-committee could be assigned that
activity.
Council Member Cott stated that the need for this task force had j
not been proven in the last few years and felt that this inferred
that current staff was doing something wrong. He felt that this
was not needed and was divisive. There were not enough incidents
which called for this committee and there was no reason to have
someone defend himself over this issue. He recommended not to
proceed with this committee.
Mayor Castleberry stated that initially he was interested in
proceeding with this committee in order to bring to light what a
good job was already being done. He felt that the establishment of
a task force would imply that things were not being done correctly
and also that the cost for the committee was great. There were
many projects going on at this time. He felt there was no reason
to spend time on this committee.
Council Member Young stated that one of his issues in his seven
point plan was to increase awareness of the need for minority
hiring and promotion within the City of Denton. The history of
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995 1ac'1L11"0.
Page 3 '.p:n93 Iten
hiring and promotion within the City of Denton. The history of
minority employment in the City was poor and an increased awareness
would help promote minority staffing and help understand the
problems in the City. The Committee would come back with a
solution which had not been done before in Denton and which was
needed. People in his district wanted this and he was in favor of
this task force.
Young motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the Racial Diversity Task
Force.
Council Member Krueger stated that everyone would be naive if they
thought that Denton had no problems in this area. He did not know
if there was a problem in Denton but felt that this task force
would help focus on this area. There might be minor problems which
could turn into big problems later on.
Council Member Miller stated that in principle he was in support of
looking at diversity. He was concerned that the way the proposal
was being constructed and comments he had heard that there was a
preconceived notion that there was a problem. This was being done
to look for problems, not to look at what was being done right.
Looking to promote diversity was one thing as opposed to being more
divisive. The Denton Intercultural Association was working to
promote opportunities for individuals in Denton. He had an uneasy
feeling about this Committee at this time as he felt it was born
out of accusations rather than looking at the practices of the
City. He did not see anything at this point that the committee
would be a constructive endeavor.
Council Member Brock felt that it would be worthwhile to have a
study of this sort but was concerned with the many different
committees in progress at this point in time. Staff and citizens
were working on many issues. She suggested postponing the
Committee for a while in order to get citizens to work on the
issues without taxing them too much.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles hoped that such a report would show that the
city was doing a good job in this area. He felt that currently the
City was diverse in many areas such as race and gender. He shared
the concern of making more appointments to yet another City
committee at this point in time. He did not feel the suggestion to
form this committee came from a preconceived conclusion. He was
also concerned about the cost of such a task force at this point in
time. B:cause of the financial burden and the overuse of
volunteerj, he suggested a delay in forming the Committee for a
time in crde:: to get some of the other committee's work completed
and perhaps, look at the issue after the first of the year.
Council Member Young stated that he wanted staff and Council to
understand that this was not his own idea. This was a minority
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995 gar.C~ I:n - f
Page 4 ,an'i 4: n
that it was not fair to them. He was elected by the citizens and
they wanted him to find out if they had been treated fairly. He
could understand that there were many committees going on at this
time and could understand to wait until the first of the year. His
mission was to find out the answers to this issue. This was from
all of the minority population in the City of Denton. People would
not accept the fact that there was no problem.
Brock suggested a friendly amendment to postpone the issue until
the first meeting in January. Biles seconded the amendment.
Young and Krueger accepted the friendly amendment to the motion and
second. on roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "nay",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"nay". Motion carried with a 5-2 vote.
2. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
a proposed interlocal cooperation agreement to establish a Lake
Safety Council.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that the City had received
a letter from the County asking for an agreement to coordinate law
enforcement on Ray Roberts. The City of Lewisvilla felt that the
proposal made sense to have cohesiveness for a Lake Safety Council
and an idea of how to channelize the law enforcement. Lewisville
did express a concern about collection of fees. Their staff and
committee reviewed the proposal and recommended to their Council
that if and when fees were considered, that it be a separate issue.
City Manager Harrell stated that there was also a similar agreement
with Lake Lewisville. The County was proposing to enter into both
of these agreements.
Council Member Cott asked about the City's position on liability.
Svehla stated that the proposal held any law enforcement officials
and their agency responsible for acts done by them.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that there was a provision in
the agreement where all public entities waived claims against one
another. The City would assume a slight risk of liability if it
entered into such an agreement.
Council Member Krueger stated that he had spoken with Judge Moseley
and others who were trying to create an safer environment at Lake
Lewisville. The Council would be remiss to not get in on the
ground floor on this issue. There was a slight risk for liability.
Krueger motioned, Brock seconded to join in the agreement.
t
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995 ~V3
Page 5 - r , -
Council Member Young felt that the idea of law enforcement with
each other was the most important item of the proposal.
Mayor Castleberry asked why it was necessary to have a formal
resolution. Fart of Lake Ray Roberts was in the City's ETJ and
could not some type of agreement be made without a resolution.
Svehla stated that the resolution would formalize the agreement.
The agreement made the Sheriff's office the point of contact rather
than the local entities. Texas Parks and Wildlife was also
involved and a resolution would formalize an agreement among all of
the entities.
Mayor Castleberry asked if the City would be committing to
expenditures.
Svehla replied not at this time.
Council Member Miller expressed support for the proposal because
coordination and communication was important. He felt that at some
point the City would receive a request for funding.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 6-1 vote.
3. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave
staff direction regarding nomination(s) to the Board of Directors
of the Denton Central Appraisal District.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance officer, stated that there were five
members to the Board of Directors of the Denton Central Appraisal
District. Each taxing jurisdiction was responsible for making
nominations and ultimately voting on members to that Board. The
purpose of the action at this meeting was to receive Council's
nominations for a candidate which would be voted on at a later
meeting. Each appraisal district was allotted 5,000 votes which
were allocated to each taxing jurisdiction within that appraisal
district. Currently the City would have 256 votes with 1,000 votes
needed to be elected to the Board. Historically the City had
coordinated with the School District to be assured of having a
member representing the City of Denton.
Council Member Brock indicated that the allocation had changed for
the City which now had fewer votes than in the past.
Fortune replied that the allocation was distributed based on prior
year tax levy. The City's property tax had been reduced so the
allocation had been reduced.
Young nominated, Cott seconded Mary Horn.
S
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995
Page 6 ~OcnlaW-
Mayor Miller nominated; Brock seconded Bill Giese. Castleberry stated that as the City only had 256 votes it
needed to work wit,i the DISD.
Council Member Krueger stated that Mary Horn would be the DISD
nomination.
City Manager Harrell stated that the item could be postponed for a
week in order to determine any action on the part of the DISD.
Biles motioned, Brock aeconded to postpone the issue until the
October 3, 1995 meeting. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye",
Cott "nay", Krueger "ayEi", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 6-1 vote.
Mayor Fro Tem Biles suggested staff research any action by the
County and DISD.
Following the completion of the work Session Items, the Council
convened into a Special Call Session on Tuesday, September 29, 1995
in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. Consent Agenda
Biles motioned, Krueger seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as
presented. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye",
Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
"aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid 01793 - Pecan Creek Interceptor Cleaning and
Training
2. Bid 01768 - Bank Depository services
2. Consent Agenda Ordinances
Krueger motioned, Brock seconded to adopt Consent Agenda ordinance
2A. On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger
"aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye".
Motion carried unanimously.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995
Page 7 agenda 110 - d
konda Iten
OitP
A. NO. 95-192
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. (1.A.1. - Bid /1793; 1.A.2. - Bid
#1768)
3. ordinances
A. The council cons i_,I red adoption of an ordinance
authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of
Denton and Freese and Nichols, Inc. in association with Barton-
Aschman Associates, Inc. for professional engineering services
relating to establishing impact fees for water and wastewater
facilities; and streets.
City Manager Harrell stated that during the discussion of the 1994-
95 City budget, Council included funds in both the utility and
general funds to hire professional help to analyze whether or not
the City should impose impact fees. This was the last meeting
before the start of the next fiscal year. If Council did not take
action tonight to encumber the money which was set aside in the
1994-95 budget, the funds would lapse into the fund balance and it
would be a year before this kind of analysis could be done. The
arrangement had been structured so that initially there would be a
thorough analysis by the consulting firm of the whole subject of
impact fees for a very modest amount of money and the Council could
then decide on whether to take the next step towards dealing with
impact fees. Staff felt that this was an area which deserved
careful consideration by Council. A vast majority of the larger
cities within the area had already adopted impact fees. Staff felt
Council should debate this issue as the growth wave was coming
towards Denton with a substantial amount of growth and development
in the future. The debate was whether new residents would be
responsible and help participate in the needs for growth of the
utility systems. Lacking impact fees, there was no recourse except
to have revenue sources such as utility rates and property taxes be
the funding for those utility needs.
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the cost of the first phase of the study was approximately $3,400.
At any point in time Council would be able to stop the process and
the City would not have to pay for any of the projects not started.
Council Member Young stated that more than $94,000 would be spent
for consultants to study impact fees. Impact fees were anti-
business and he was totally against this. Just because other
cities had impact fees did not make it right. He felt a committee
could do this work rather than have an outside consultant. He felt
this was anti-business and anti-growth.
a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
September 26, 1995
Page 8 ~7enQ1 `
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-193
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN ENGINEERING
SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND FREESE AND
NICHOLS, INC. FOR ASSISTANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT OF IMPACT FEES;
AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Miller motioned, Brock seconded to adopt the ordinance.
Council Member Cott stated that most revenue to the City was in the
form of a tax. The attempt here was to shift the tax to pay the
bills for development expansion from the homeowner to the
developer. He felt that adopting a fee during the year lied to the
people of the City of Denton.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the vote on this issue at this
meeting was not for or against impact fees. The vote was to
encumber funds so that Council could make a decision on whether or
not to spend any of the money. The contract only authorized the
spending of $3,400 at this point.
Robbins stated that Council was not authorizing that. There would
be another step in which a written document would be passed on the
consultant indicating the authority to begin work.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that Council would be voting to encumber
the funds but would not be authorizing the expenditure of money.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that Article III indicated that
before beginning work on any task, written authorization to proceed
from the owners was necessary.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the process at this meeting was
merely a budgetary decision to allow the Council to take up the
issue during the next fiscal year. Council was not voting on
impact fees but preserving the opportunity to do so.
council Member Young felt that $94,000 was too much to spend on
consultants. Any kind of vote on this issue was a vote for impact
fees. This would be anti-business and was just another tax. This
was not necessary nor needed at this point in time.
Council Member Miller stated that the whole idea of impact fees was
to look at up-front costs. These were very complicated issues and
there was a need for professional advice in this area. Engineers
could be put on staff to help with this issue but it would be
costly. Council needed this kind of input to make these decisions.
ti
V
a
City of Denton City Council Minutes tipc~d~t;o
September 26, 1995
1Itc,
Page 9
Oaic..
City Manager Harrell felt that there were many things the City did
which were appropriate for citizen committees to be involved with.
If Council decided to proceed with the establishment of impact
fees, the area of engineering calculations and designing programs
was very complex and might be needed to be defended in Court. In
some cases technical expertise was needed to make workable
programs.
On roll vote, Miller "aye", Young "nay", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye",
Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion
carried with a 5-2 vote.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACCO02CO
f
Y
. f
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
September 26, 1995
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tues
260 3995 at 5:00 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, Miller and Young.
ABSENT: None
1. The Council considered the following in a Closed Meeting:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Discussed contemplated litigation concerning the
denial to rezone 3.753 acres from SF-7 to O zoning
on the south side of 135-E and Lindsey Street.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Work Session on Tuesday, September 26,
1995 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.
The council considered Agenda Item 04 from the Special Call
Session.
4. The Council received a resolution of appreciation from the
Blue Ribbon Sales Tax Advisory Committee.
Tom Harpool, Chair, stated that the Committee would like to present
a resolution to the City Council in appreciation for the council's
actions to reduce the property tax again this year as per the sales
tax process. The resolution was unanimously approved by the
Committee on September 8th.
The Council returned to the regular agenda order.
1. The Council received a report and held a discussion regarding
the establishment of a Racial Diversity Task Force.
City Manager Harrell stated that this was an item which came out of
the Council's planning session and was a Council priority to
establish this task force. This Council was an ambitious Council
and wanted to get things done and accomplished. One problem which
staff was beginning to experience, however, was that staff liaisons
had to staff all of these committees and tasks. That support on
special projects was in addition to their daily tasks. Currently
the CIP election was underway; staff was working on the drainage
utility item which had been revised and included more staff
responsibility for the tasks; the Vision Project was nearing a
major activity; an Economic Development Corporation had just been
appointed with staff being asked to assist that group to gather
information; and the Planning and Zoning commission would be
r
Y
f
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTE 401nda IIAR -V
October 3, 1995 Apenh Iten
The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tue
1995 at 5:45 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hail.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, Krueger, and Young.
ABSENT: Council Member Miller
1. The Council convened into a Closed Meeting to discuss the
following:
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
1. Considered settlement offer in GTE v. Denton. et
al.
2. Discussed settlement and defense of contemplated
litigation concerning the denial to rezone 3.753
acres from SF-7 to 0 zoning on the south side of
135-E and Lindoey Street.
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
1. Discussed the acquisition of property for expansion
of the City's landfill.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Sec. 551.074
The Council convened into a Regular Meeting on Tuesday, October 3,
1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Biles; Council Members
Brock, Cott, and Krueger.
I
ABSENT: Council Members Miller and Young.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for Public Power Week.
Council Member Young joined the meeting.
Mayor Castleberry presented Yard of the Month awards to:
Kirk and Cindy Simmons
Billy and Rhonda Caraway
Four Seasons Nursery
Monk and Mildred Clearman
David and Andrea Boots
Steven R. Alspach and Peter Holland - Downtown Award
f
i~
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
?age 2
Afleeda Ho.
ov.
2. Citizen Request
A. The council considered a request for an exception to the
noise ordinance for the Denton County Chapter of the American
Cancer Society for a Relay for Life at Fouts Field, on Friday,
October 6 through Saturday, October 7, 1995.
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this
request was for a Relay for Life event to be held at Fouts Field,
A sound system would be used from 7:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. on Friday
and from 11:00 p.m. Friday evening - 7:00 a.m. Saturday morning
with ongoing events during that entire time. A portable sound
system and music for entertainment for events would be used from
11:00 p.m. Friday - 7:00 a.m. Saturday.
Krueger motioned, Biles seconded to approve the exception. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
3. Public Hearings
A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption
of an ordinance amending Section 34-6(a) (5) of the Code of
Ordinances. This section of the code involved the criteria for
granting variances to the Standards in Chapter 34, Subdivision and
Land Development. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommended
approval 4-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this ordinance would amend the variance criteria to the Subdivision
and Land Development regulations. That was the provision which had
two kinds of variar,:es. one change would address a variance in the
situation when there might be an unreasonable hardship or
difficulty if strict compliance of the regulations were followed.
There were five criteria which the Planning and Zoning Commission
must use to grant a variance. The Commission asked staff to
develop a change in the variance regulations as most of the
variances seen did not meet the fifth criteria of unreasonable
hardship or difficulty. The ordinance would add the phrase
"subsequent to the date of creation of the requirement from which
a variance was sought".
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
No one spoke in favor.
No one spoke in opposition.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 Agenda IJo. `
Page 3
The following ordinance was considered:
NO. 95-194
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTION 34-
6 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY 01' DENTON, TEXAS TO
MODIFY THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED BY THE PLANNING 6 ZONING
COMMISSION IN GRANTING HARDSHIP VARIANCES FROM DEVELOPMENT
EXACTIONS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
4. Variances
A. The council considered a variance to Section 34-114 (17)
of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations (sidewalk
requirements), for Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Rife Addition.
The 2.363 acre tract was located on the east side of Mayhill Road,
approximately 313 feet north of Blagg Road. (The Planning and
Zoning commission recommended approval 4-1.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the next three variances were associated with the same subdivision.
The Planning and Zoning Commission had already approved a
preliminary plat and a final plat for part of the property. This
property was in the City's extraterritorial jurisdiction and the
previously approved plat which contained no variances was being
processed through the County. This variance dealt with the
requirement for sidewalks to be built along the perimeter street.
The cost of this sidewalk would be approximately $1,700-2,000 with
an office and warehouse on the site at this time. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommendation of the variance considered the
fact that this would be a sidewalk to nowhere with no other
sidewalks in the area and very little pedestrian traffic in the
area.
Council Member Cott stated that this was a classic economic
development case. He felt there was nothing to look at the issue
by itself.
i
Cott motioned, Biles seconded to approve the variance request.
Greg Edwards stated that he would answer any questions concerning
the request. The Planning and Zoning commission reviewed the very
limited pedestrian access to the property, the idea that the
sidewalk would go nowhere and felt that the variance request met
the criteria in the ordinance as it did not provide any benefit to
the property owner. He asked for Council approval of the request.
City of Denton City Council Minutes Aovd3 no. ' ~dta
October 3, 1995
Page 4 A9znC1I:.n
On roll vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye",
Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
unanimously.
B. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124 (5)
of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations (perimeter
street paving requirements) for Lot 1, Block A of the proposed Rife
Addition. The 2.363 acre tract was located on the east side of
Mayhill Road, approximately 313 feet north of Blagg Road. (The
Planning and Zoning commission recommended denial 4-1.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the Planning and Zoning commission recommended denial 5-1 of the
variance request. In considering denial of the variance, the
Commission looked at the impact of the proposed development on the
street. The requirement was to improve Mayhill Road in front of
the development. Given the considerable amount of truck traffic
which would be using the warehouse, the Commission felt that the
requirement fit the need being created by the development. Council
had a number of options associated with this variance situation.
It could approve the variance, deny the variance or approve the
variance with conditions. Since the Planning and Zoning commission
recommendation of denial there had been much discussion between the
staff and the applicant on a variance with conditions. Staff
recommended Council consider granting the variance with the
condition that a fee equal to the cost of the improvements as
determined by the City Engineer be paid to the City prior to the
City signing the plat. The City would use the money to improve not
only the area in front of the development but all along Mayhill
Road. Council had granted this type of variance in similar
situations.
City Manager Harrell stated that without granting the variance, the
property owner would have to construct a turn lane in front of the
property and improve a portion of the road. The City would take
the money paid to the City for that type of improvement and improve
the asphalt depth of the roadway all the way up to University.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the width would be improved.
Robbins stated that if Council granted the variance, the City would
add approximately two inches of depth to Mayhill Road which would
better handle truck traffic.
Mayor Castleberry asked if the paving in front of the building was
a part of the condition of the certificate of occupancy or zoning
regulations.
Robbins replied no that it was outside the city limits so there was
no zoning. This was a requirement of the Subdivision Regulations
associated with the plat to improve Mayhill Road.
a
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 5 Apmdit V0. ' Mp
A-03 Wn
Council Member Brock asked if there was no widening of the road at
the site, what traffic problems would develop with the trucks
turning into the site.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated the road near the driveway
going into the warehouse would be widened to help the turning of
the trucks.
Council Member Krueger asked if this was not going around the
ordinance. According to the ordinance, the developer needed to put
in a turn lane.
Svehla replied that the ultimate section on Mayhill would be a four
lane road. Normally in perimeter kinds of situations, the owner
built half on each side which was what was originally asked to be
varied. If the City had known how large the warehouse was going to
be in the beg£iining, off-site improvements might have been asked
for. This was an option to solve truck traffic on Mayhill which
was not just in front of the proposal but on an entire section of
road.
Greg Edwards stated that a previous question dealt with ownership
of the property. Mr. Rife owned the property and leased it to
Sally Beauty. He expressed a concern about the pavement as it went
nowhere. By the time the road was extended and became a value to
the citizens of Denton and to the property, it was felt that the
pavement would not be in good condition. The proposal was to give
the cost of the development to the City and the City use those
dollars to improve Mayhill Road. This would improve both sides of
Mayhill to University instead of only one side.
Council Member Krueger asked if Blagg Road was one of the proposed
exits for a northwest exit from Ryan High School.
ovehla replied that would be Mills Road which was further south.
Council Member Krueger expressed a concern about tying up the
school traffic with truck traffic.
Svehla stated that the bus traffic would use the road at a
different time than the truck traffic. There would not be much of
an overlap of that kind of traffic.
Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the variance with the
conditions as noted in the September 29, 1995 letter from Mr.
Edwards to Mr. Svehla. On roll vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye",
Krueger "nay", Brock "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry
aye . Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
C. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124 (5)
of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations (drainage
J
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~
October 3, 1995
Page 6
Apen~] I,.n pr
channel requirements), for Lot It Block A of the proposed Rife
Addition. The 2.363 acre tract was located on the east side of
Mayhill. Road, approximately 313 feet north of Blagg Road. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 4-1.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval with a
6-0 vote. The Commission recommended to waive the requirement to
cement the drainage area. There would be a dedicated drainage
easement through which a 100 year storm would go through. The
Commission also noted that there were no other drainage
improvements in the channel anywhere in the area.
Cott motioned, Biles seconded to approve the variance. on roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
D. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124
(g)(1) of the Code of ordinances concerning easement requirements
for drainage facilities for the final plat of the Muenks Addition.
The subject property consisted of 2.171 acres and was in the Single
Family 7 Conditioned (SF-7[cJ) and Two Family Conditioned (2F[cJ)
zoning districts. The property was located on the southwest corner
of Hinkle Drive and Haggard Lane. (The Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended denial 5-2.)
Frank Robins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
this was a variance request to the requirement to dedicate the 100
year flood plain. The area was located across from Good Samaritan.
This property was recently rezoned with Lots 1-4 being rezoned to
duplex and one large lot in which there was room outside the
floodway and flood plain to construct a house. The applicant did
not want to dedicate the easement but would enable the City to
improve or clean up the drainage channel if needed. The commission
felt that the development would generate enough run-off to warrant
the dedication of an area which could not be used for development
and therefore recommended denial of the variance.
Council Member Brock stated that this was an area which could not
be built on under any circumstances.
Robbins replied correct.
i
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that the Planning and Zoninc commission
expressed concern that the City have access to the area for the
purpose of cleaning out the area to facilitate drainage.
Robbins stated that currently the City did not have access to the
area which was why an easement was necessary.
City of Denton City Council Minutes 113'"a.
October 3, 1995 ANPpen?~I;+n
Page 7 Data .
i
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if FEMA changed the lines of the
floodway, would the easement metes and bounds change.
Robbins replied no but there was a system in place where property
would be given back to the property owner.
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to deny the variance as iz was
critical to clean out the area when necessary. on roll vote, Young
"nay", Cott "nay", Krueger "nay", Brock "aye". Biles "aye", and
Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion tied with a 3-3 vote.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the item would be placed on the next
Council Agenda due to the tie vote.
E. The Council considered a variance to Section 34-124
(f)(3) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations
(drainage channel requirements), for Lot 1, Block 1 of the proposed
Cline Addition. The 20.0 acre tract was located on the north side
of Milam Road, approximately 1771 feet east of Rector Road. (The
Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the standard in this proposal with this type of drainage
improvement was that if the water could be handled in a 48" pipe
then the water should be dealt with underground. The cost of that
drainage would be approximately $130,000. Only one mobile home
would be constructed on the site and it was felt that it was not
reasonable to require the underground improvement.
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to approve the variance. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
5. Consent Agenda
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. On
roll vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", " „
Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry ru" yen, aye Motion kcarried
unanimously.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
1. Bid 11800 - Crack Sealing Program
2. Bid 01796 - Chambers Street Drainage
6. Consent Agenda Ordinances
Mayor Pro Ten Biles left the meeting.
The Council considered consent Agenda Ordinance 6.A. - 6.5. Brock
motioned, Young seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda Ordinances 6A.
r
t
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 8 _(zb
AOenCa No.
A2..li I!cn lr~
"aye". 6B. On roll vote, Young "aye", Cott 'raye", Krueger "aye", Brock
and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
A. NO. 95-195
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.
(5.A.2. - Bid 11800)
B. NO. 95-296
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR
THE AWARD FOR CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (5.A.2. - Bid 01796)
7. Ordinances
A. The council considered adoption of an ordinance providing
for the indefinite closing of Lattimore Street from the east side
of North Ruddell Street east and north of the east/west portion of
Lattimore Street (approximately 350 feet west of Pertain Street).
(The Planning and zoning commission and the Traffic Safety
Commission recommended approval.)
Mayor Pro Tem Biles returned to the meeting.
Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager, stated that this request was
initiated by the four landowners in the area. This street was not
a well used street and the landowners were concerned about debris
dumped in the area and individuals loitering in the area. Because
of the narrow pavement travel was difficult in the area. The
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Traffic Safety Commission
recommend closing the street.
Council Member Brock stated that a Fire Marshal memo gave tentative
approval if the abandonment occurred west of the hydrant.
Svehla replied that the hydrant was on the northern end of that
piece of road.
Council Member Brock questioned EMS access if the abandoned roadway
was used as a private drive with a gate.
Svehla replied that both families indicated that they intended to
leave the gate open and if it were closed, they understood that the
City might have to use tools to cut th3 chain on the gate in an
emergency.
r
u
i
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 9
The fallowing ordinance was considered: p[` la ` 9(p
NO. 95-197
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE
INDEFINITE CLOSING OF LATTIMORE STREET FROM THE EAST SIDE OF
NORTH RUDDELL STREET EAST AND NORTH TO THE EAST/WEST PORTION
OF LATTIMORE STREET (APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET WEST OF PERTAIN
STREET); AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll
vote, Young "nay", Cott 'laye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye,', Biles
"aye" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
8. Resolutions
A. The Council considered approval of a resolution
authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
Public Transportation Contract with the Texas Department of
Transportation for funding public transportation.
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this
was Amendment No. 1 to the contract executed during 1995 with the
Texas Department of Transportation for the funding of public
transportation services in Denton. The amendment extended the time
line to purchase additional capital equipment with capital funding.
Council Member Cott asked if there was any change from the Federal
government.
Portugal replied that there were no changes. The funding level
might change but those appropriations had not been made as yet.
Council Member Cott asked more detail regarding that issue.
Portugal stated that Congress would appropriate the amount of
funding which was available for all Section 9 operations. When
that funding was appropriated, it would be determined how much the
states would receive. Texas' percentage did not change as the
Federal government's percentage and the State's percentage was a
dual percentile with a local option. That local option allowed the
City to participate in the grant process.
The following resOILtion was considered:
NO. R95-064
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT
NO. 1 TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT WITH THE TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FUNDING PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 10 711 v- y ~g-
~
L a' c°:--~--
Biles motioned, Brock seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote„ Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye" and mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
B. The council considered approval of a resolution revising
airport lease rates at the Denton Municipal Airport. (The Airport
Advisory Board recommended approval.)
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this
resolution represented new lease rates for the Denton Municipal
Airport. The previous rates were adopted in 1986 as part of the
Airport Master Plan. It was felt that those rates might be
prohibitive to future development at the Airport. The new rates
were competitive with surrounding areas.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-065
A RESOLUTION REVISING AIRPORT LEASE RATES AT THE DENTON
MUNICIPAL AIRPORT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
a e and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
C. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
the sublease of Airport property by Fox-51 Limited to Excel
Aviation, Inc. (The Airport Advisory Board recommended approval.)
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated this
resolution would approve a sublease from Fox-51 Limited to Excel
for Hanger 5. Excel Aviation would use the hanger for aircraft
sales, restoration and parts and components.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-066
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
APPROVING THE SUBLEASE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY BY FOX-51 LIMITED,
TO EXCEL AVIATION INC.; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
D. The Council considered approval of a resolution approving
the sublease of Airport property by Fox-51 to children's Airlift
c
City Of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 4en?a11a.
Page 11
a. (Q
Command. (The Airport Advisory Board recommended approval.)
Joseph Portugal, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that this
was another standard sublease at the Denton Municipal Airport for
Hanger 3.
The following resolution was considered:
NO. R95-067
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
APPROVING THE SUBLEASE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY BY FOX-51 LIMITED,
TO CHILDREN'S AIRLIFT COMMAND; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Biles motioned, Young seconded to approve the resolution. On roll
vote, Young "aye", Cott "nay", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
9. The Council considered a program for the update of the Denton
Development Plan. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval 6-0.)
Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that
the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended that Council
begin updating the Denton Development Plan. The policy in the plan
stated that the Denton Development Plan should undergo a major
update every 5-lo years. The elements of the program which the
commission recommended to Council were to (1) conduct a major
update, and (2) appoint a policy committee to make recommendations
to the Planning and Zoning commission who would
recommendations to the City Council. The general make-up of mthe
committee would be 5-17 members with a list of areas to be
represented. If Council approved the program the appointment of
members to the committee would be on the Council's next agenda.
The Committee could recommend amendments to the Plan in pieces
without making a recommendation on the entire plan which would
provide a clearer understanding of parts of the plan. The Planning
and Zoning Commission addressed some of the major issues the
Committee could consider such as revising the concept map,
considering other Master Plan components, corridor studies, and
analysis of development policies from the Vision project.
Council mber
Cott
ated importantebut had no budg t.thVision had man that Vision was very
lives of citizens in Denton. He felt the City was at riskcwith the
bond rates and at risk with the tax rate. He felt it was time to
hear from the City Manager, the Mayor, Council Member Brock and se who
was exceptnfor lone whi h came f om thes City, government with no money
, J
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 Agenda ~JO '
Page 12 Agenda N
Dato
Council Member Krueger felt that this was a good idea. However,
last week Council heard a report that staff and citizens were
overtaxed with committees. He felt it was necessary to prioritize
the current committees at this point in time. He suggested
considering the proposal in February after completing the CIP
program.
Robbins stated that staff discussed the issue of appointments and
the number of individuals most recently appointed to the CIP
Committee with the Commission and the fact that council might want
to appoint some of those same individuals to this committee. The
Commission felt that it might take the Council a while to make
those appointments and the council should probably start on those
appointments. The Planning Department had been anticipating the
start of this project and was part of the department's budget
proposal.
Council Member Krueger stated that at the last meeting, staff
indicated that it was not a good time to begin a racial diversity
task force as staff was overtaxed at this tine.
Robbins replied that it would be a different staff working on the
Committee.
Council Member Brock stated that the first planning group created
the plan over a long period of time and involved many individuals.
The Planning and Zoning Commission was recommending a smaller
committee this time but the Planning Department would still be
involved.
Robbins replied that the Planning Department had programmed this
project into the workload for next year.
Council Member Brock expressed concern over a piecemeal approach to
the amendments rather than the whole plan at once. she was
concerned that if the project was done in pieces there would not be
an overall plan and would not keep the community as a whole in
mind. She asked if the Commission had considered that idea.
Robbins stated that the thought was that over the period of a year,
the whole plan would be looked at. Within that year the entire
document would be finalized during times as appropriate.
Council Member Brock asked if there would be a danger that an
amendment might be made that later on would not be a part of the
whole plan.
Robbins stated that there were two issues from a planning process
standpoint. One was the map and one was the policies. The
policies would not be changed in one part of town and the map in
another with a different set of policies. The policies would apply
v
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3 1995
Page 13 r,~",:~
Agana On
Date
across the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Hiles stated that the allocation of staff time which
would be required for the proposal had already been allocated in
both the fiscal aspects by the adoption of the budget as well as
the man hours. This was not the same as the issue from the last
meeting and felt it was important to move forward on this project.
A number of builders and property owners had expressed concern
regarding the current plan. He suggested that the Council not move
too fast with the appointments to such a committee and should allow
Council time to find individuals to appoint to the Committee.
Council Member Young stated that last week the Council voted to
extend the racial diversity task force until January. For all the
same reasons he felt that this proposal should be extended until
the first meeting in February. The racial diversity task force was
just as important as this.
City Manager Harrell stated that one of the real concerns in this
process was to make sure that there were enough citizens with
volunteer time to work on the process. Council had indicated in
the planning session that it anticipated doing the racial diversity
task force and he had indicated that Council would be receiving a
recommendation to begin the update of the Denton Development Plan.
At that point he expressed concern to not go any further until some
other projects were completed.
Council Member Krueger stated that he had a problem with the backup
for this item. At the last meeting there was back-up regarding the
racial diversity task force which indicated $100,000 was needed and
a large amount of staff time. At this meeting the backup indicated
that the cost would only be $22,500. lie felt that the numbers were
not the same and questioned priorities.
City Manager Harrell stated that the $100,000 included in-kind
executive and management staff time for which compensation was
already being paid. It was not the allocation of $100,000 of new
money. The $22,000 was a specific line item for outside help for
assistance on the project but did not inc h,le staff time.
Council Member Krueger asked why that item ..j:. not in this agenda
back-up. Why was it in the last back-up but not in this back-up.
City Manager Harrell stated that the prior backup included
specifics regarding executive staff time, clerical staff time and
supplies needed. The report from this week was from a different
department and was outlined differently. The department could
outline the in-kind expenses needed for this process.
Young motioned, Cott seconded to table this issue until a date
certain of the first week in February.
u
City of Denton City Council Minutes ~~~Cal.o 9
October 3, 1995 r,~cn{lf~o
Page 14
Dcl:
Mayor Pro Tem Biles was not sure the item needed to be tabled until
February even before any discussion had occurred. If it were
considered as a work session item for more discussion in perhaps
three weeks, there would be a better idea of what the Committee
would be doing. If the item was tabled, the Council could not even
discuss the project until the first week of February. He suggested
that the Council not vote to table the item so that it could be
discussed before February.
Council Member Cott called the question. Motion died for lack of
a second.
On roll vote, Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "nay", Brock "nay",
Biles "nay" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion failed with a 3-3
tie vote.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that this item would be placed on the
next agenda.
10. The Council received a report and gave staff direction
regarding nomination(s) to the Board of Directors of the Denton
Central Appraisal District.
Jon Fortune, Chief Finance officer, stated that the Board of
Director positions for the Denton Central Appraisal District were
up for re-election. The Denton ISD had nominated Bill Giese, the
Town of Flower Mound and the Town of Trophy Club had nominated Paul
Stone. Aubrey had nominated William Brady and E. T. Harmon.
Aubrey ISD had nominated J. A. Hensely. This was a nomination
process at this point in time and council would be voting on the
representatives in November.
Council Member Cott asked what Denton County had done.
Fortune stated that they were going to nominate Marl, Horn and Paul
Stone.
Council Member Cott nominated Mary Horn.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles asked if the city could have more than one
nomination.
Fortune stated that yes that the City could nominate up to five
individuals. The City only had 256 votes and 1,000 votes were
needed to be elected.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles nominated Bill Giese.
Fortune stated that several taxing jurisdictions could cast their
support for a particular person by nominating them. In the past,
the City had coordinated with the DISD so there would be a local
r
j
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 Vo
Page 15 11, representative. V
City Manager Harrell stated that in the past come jurisdictions had
nominated the same person. When the City received its ballot there
would only be one list of nominations. The City would then cast
its 256 votes for one person or split it among several nominations.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that the motion was to nominate two
individuals, Mary Horn and Bill Giese.
Council Member Brock seconded the motion. On roll vote, Young
"ay..°', Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye" and
Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
11. The Council held a public hearing and considered, deliberated
and took action on the duties and evaluation of the Municipal
Judge; considered, deliberated and took action on the resignation
of the Municipal Judge.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the Council held a public hearing two
weeks ago on this item and a request was made by the City Attorney
to the Municipal Judge on the manner in which she would like to
have this item on the agenda. As there was no reply, the item
remained a public hearing.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mayor Castleberry stated that he had received a Speaker Card from
Rae Gray and Johnny Hammons indicating support for Judge White.
Joe Dodd felt that Judge White was one of the few accurately paid
employees in the city. He felt that situation went wrong when the
City acquired a new part-time judge who was hired at maximum salary
which created an imbalance in the department. That was not because
the part-time judge was white. It was because she was a friend of
the Council. The problem was how Council paid City employees and
there was a need to get on an equitable basis.
Carl Williams stated that he had received several phone calls
regarding this issue. He felt it was petty politics. A system had
been developed where people perceived that they were being treated
unfairly. He felt the City deserved better as did the Council and
their constituents. Sometimes the good of the whole needed to 14e
looked at rather than the good of self.
Brock motioned, Biles seconded to accept the resignation of Judge
White. On roll vote, Young "nay", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock
"aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried
with a 5-1 vote.
I
V
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 Rp,adaL'en
Page 16 p-fo _q~n
12. The Council discussed recruitment, employment, and appointment
of a new Municipal Judge.
Council Member Young stated that this issue was very important to
the people in his district. The people in is' is district felt that
Judge White had been discriminated against and disrespected. He
was going back to his district to talk to the people and would tell
the people where all the negative votes came from. They would
exercise their constitutional rights against those people. This
was a promise.
Council Member Cott stated that this was not a racial vote but a
managing vote. He had read in the paper that the Judge was going
to resign and here were the reasons. The Judge never came to the
Council but rather went to the newspaper. The Council spent hours
trying to get her to understand that if there were 900 people in an
organization, the Council could not have one of those people decide
that in the middle of a contract which she signed, she could not
have the Council change that contract. If that would have happened,
every other City employee would have had the right to do the same
thing. The Council was not a racial council but rather a fair-
thinking Council.
Mayor Pro Tem. Biles stated that he had a ncmber of questions he
felt could only be answered by the City Attorney in a Closed
Session. He requested that prior to a public discussion of the
recruitment, employment and appointment of a new Municipal Judge,
that the Council go into Closed Session.
Herb Prouty, City Attorney, stated that council could go into
Closed Session to discuss this item.
Mayor Pro Tem Biles suggested that Council complete the rest of the
agenda and then go into a Closed Session.
Council M.:+mber Cott stated that he would not participate in any
Closed Session on this subject in any way.
13. Vision Update
Council Member Brock stated that the Vision project had a budget
with each of seven agencies paying similar amounts. Any of the
recommendations out of the Vision project had to be authorized
through the process of the City Council. This was not a shadow
government but rather a broad based citizen initiative. She urged
everyone to attend the upcoming public presentations at the Campus
Theater.
Council Member Cott believed that Vision had been principally
funded from the City. There had never been a budget presentation
or a spending presentation to the City by Vision. There were 700-
i
c
M
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995 9,aS.i i:; LLB
Page 17 l.~end~ C:n _
800 people who participated and 70,000 people in the City and those
were who he was speaking for.
City Manager Harrell stated that the total budget of $90,000 for
the project had been presented to the council. Of that $90,000,
the council had appropriated $50,000. That had financed all of the
activities to date. There would be projects out of the Visioning
process which would ultimately have to come back to Council if they
were City projects and be approved by council. Vision projects for
the DISD, UNT and TWU would have to be approved by those
organizations.
14. The Council considered appointments to the City's Boards and
Commissions.
Mayor Castleberry indicated that there were two nominations to
consider.
Council voted on Council Member Brock's nomination of Dick Waters
to the
Sign Board of Appeals. On roll vote, Young "nay", Cott
"aye", Krueger ~~"aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote.
Council voted on Council Member Cott's nomination of Francis Caster
to the Downtown Advisory Board. On roll vote, Young "aye", Cott
"aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles "aye" and Mayor
Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
15. The Council considered an appointment to the Lakes Safety
Council.
City Manager Harrell stated that the City had received a memorandum
from Judge Moseley that the County was reactivating the Lakes
Safety Task Force and asked for one council member to serve on this
Task Force.
Council Member Young nominated Council Member Krueger. On roll
voted Young "aye", Cott "aye", Krueger "aye", Brock "aye", Biles
"aye" and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously.
16. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
A. Council received a report concerning the latest honorees
added to the Wall of Honor.
City Manager Harrell stated that the back-up included copies of
letters received regarding exemplary service to citizens. In
accordance with the program these letters would be placed in the
front hallway.
1
...E
City of Denton City Council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 18 Em
17. There was no Official Action taken at
Meeting Items. this time on Closed
18. New Business
There were no ite•ns of New Business suggested by Council Members
for future agenda:;.
1 Council conti:,uau discussion
Meeting: of the following items in Closed
A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072
C. Personnel/Board Appointments
Sec. 551.074 - Under TEX. GOVT CODE
Council Member Cott did not participate in the Closed Session and
Council Member Young left the meeting during the Closed Session.
Following the completion of the Closed Session the Council returned
to open Session and took the following action:
Mayor Pro Tem Biles stated that as a result of the action that
Council had taken in accepting Judge White's resignation which was
tendered over a month ago, there was as of this moment a vacancy in
the position of Municipal Judge. Given that there was that vacancy
and there was no one to perform those dutiese Council of the e
nsure Cthe smooth take operation
to direct icipal court. H needed to
that cil action Mr.
ested
Klinck in He
the uH
uman
I Resources Department to immediately contact Robin Ramsay, who was
the associate Municipal Judge, to seek his availability and
willingness to fulfill the interim capacity so that the court
operations would continue. He also su
Klinck to immediately begin a search fors a new uMunic pal cJudge
department all of the appropriate scope and resources of his
Consensus of the Council was to agree with Mayor Pro Tem Biles'
suggestions.
` Mayor Castleberry stated that the Council Subcommittee would handle
I this transition period.
Mayor Pro 'rem Biles stated that he would be willing to serve again
as part of a subcommittee as he felt there were some issues to
handle.
Council Member Cott agreed.
I
ti
. s
i
City of Denton city council Minutes
October 3, 1995
Page 19 4~enda IJO.
Mayor Castleberry stated that the transition would be handled by
I the Subcommittee and it would keep the Council informed of all
steps taken for a smooth transition.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
BOB
CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
JENNIFER WALTERS
CITY SECRETARY
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ACC002C1
S
V
i
- -9
In u~prtc~ttttan of ,
"GENE R. GREEN"
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1996, Gene R. Green retired, after serving with the City of
Denton since November 16, 1965; and
WHEREAS, during the past 30 years, Gene has represented our City as an example of a
quality service e,.nployee; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been fortunate in basing enjoyed the dedicated and
outstanding service of Gene Green and wishes to recognize same; and
WHEREAS, Gene has always served above and beyond the efficient discharge of his
duties in promoting the welfare and prosperity of the City, and has earned the full respect of his
fellow employees, colleagues and citizens of Denton; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
That the sincere and warm appreciation of Gene Green felt by the citizens and officers
or the City of Denton, be formally conveyed to him in a permanent manner by recording this
Resolution upon the official minutes of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, and for-
warding to him a true copy thereof as a token of our appreciation.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1996.
40 BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATITST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS 10 LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:~// 1 C,,Wr
s
G
r
AWW3 flo._,.
AP(W8IteM 'H
CITY COUNCIL REPORT Om _ 2 -Lo - ~SP
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: February 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Rezoning of .155 acres at 1413 McKinney to an Office Conditioned 10(c])
zoning district.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.
SUMMARY: See attached report.
BACKGROUND: See attached report.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Property owner, surrounding neighborhood, users of McKinney St.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
- 00,04 A
Prepared by: Rick vehla, Acting City Manager
C,
45 & Y
G. Owen Yost, ASLA
Urban Planner
Approved:
rank N. Robbins, AICP
Director of Planning & evelopment
I
4panda t:o. `
aptnda Il~an~ ~ 5
REP,)RT Dw-
To: Mayor and members of the City Council
Case No.: Z-95-037 Meeting Date: February 6, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Barbara Russell
919 S. Carroll, Ste. 201
Denton, TX 76201
Current Owner: Joni Eddy
209 Plum Hollow
Denton, TX 76201
Requested Action. Rezone to an Office-conditioned (O[c)) zoning district, from a
Single-family (SF-7) district.
Location and Size: The .155-acre lot is located on the north side of McKinney St.,
approximately 1,200 ft. west of Audra Lane. It is currently
addressed as 1413 McKinney.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single-family residential, SF-7 zoning.
South - The right-of-way of F.M. 428 (McKinney), across from which are
several Denton County government facilities in both Light
Industrial-W zoning and with a Specific Use Permit. Also, there
are a few single-family residences in SF-; zoning
East - Single-family residential, SF-7 zoning.
West - Single-family residential, SF-7 zoning.
Denton Development Plan:
Low intensity area, No. 48 (111 % allocated)
.M1
4
Apeflh No.
Aaw u m : ~ z
SPECIAL INFORMATION fie„ g~
• Engineering & Transportation:
Vehicular access will be from the existing public alley on the east of the parcel, which
currently has an opening onto McKinney. The existing, unpaved alley would be paved
as far as the site's parking entrance, and would be curved slightly to align with the
existing curb cut. Sidewalk construction is not required since sidewalk was not
required in the past, when the property was sold and/or platted as part of the College
View Addition
• Drainage:
The site drains naturally to the south. There will be a minimal increase in the surface
drainage, which will be adequately handled by existing facilities in E. McKinney St.
• Landscaping:
As a suggested condition states, the landscape ordinance would be triggered by the
use change to office, requiring the approval of a landscape plan. This includes a 6 ft.
tall, solid screen buffering the parking area, to shield abutting residences from
automobile headlights.
• Utilities:
Existing utilities are adequate to handle the proposed office use.
Currently, there is a 12" water line in front of the property, and a 16" water line on
the south side of McKinney St. There is a 6" gravity sewer line in the center of
McKinney St., flowing west.
There is an existing fire hydrant at the northeast corner of Hettie and McKinney,
approximately 100' from the site. Fire flow is adequate.
Underground electric service will be provided for new service.
HISTORY
The area was zoned SF-7 according to the 1969 zoning map. No zoning change has
been requested on this lot since.
Replatting will not be required since the tract was sold, in the current configuration,
prior to enactment of the Subdivision & Land Development Regulations. i.e. it is a "lot
of record"
NOTIFICATION:
Notices were mailed to 26 property owners within 200 ft, of the site, on December
29, 1995. As of this writing, no replies have been returned. In addition, a meeting of
the surrounding neighbors was held on January 3rd. Four nearby residents attended.
All but one were in favor of the proposal. Some indicated an interest in the same type
of rezoning.
J
Apen?a tdo.
ANALYSIS
INTENSITY:
In this particular study area, the allocated intensity trips are at 111%, making it
,overallocated". In such a situation, the DDP directs that the proposal be analyzed
under the "feast intense most logical" land use criteria.
In a low intensity area, a proposed use is normally allocated up to 60 intensity trips per
acre. Since this proposal covers .155 acres, the normal allocation of trips (vis-a-vis the
current single-family house) is 9.3 trips (,155 x 60). A land use proposal can also be
figured according to building size. For an office use proposal, it is figured at 15
intensity trips per 1,000 sq. ft, of structure.
If the current house were re-used, the building size would be just under 800 square
feet. That figures out to an intensity trip utilization of 12 trips - 2.7 intensity trips in
excess of the site's allocation. If the structure were 1,600 sq, ft., it would require 24
intensity trips - 14.7 trips overallocated.
So, in either case, the proposal calls for a "disproportionate share" of intensity. Since
the site is not a left-out lot, nor has a revision to the intensity standard been
requested. A disportionate share analysis follows:
1. Adequate infrastructure:
As the Council can see from the Special Information section of this report, the
infrastructure is adequate to handle the proposed office use.
2. Unusual topography:
The topography of the site is not unusual. The land slopes gently toward McKinney
St. All of the site is usable.
3. Compatibility:
This criterion is a crucial one as concerns this proposal, in that the proposal must be
compatible with the existing neighborhood. If this were a Detailed Plan situation, a
plan of the site would have been submitted as well as (perhaps) elevations of building
facades; making this criterion easier to evaluate. But this request is not a Detailed Plan,
and must be evaluated according to what could be built on the site.
If the existing house is to be used, the appearance would certainly be compatible with
the neighborhood. But if a second story is allowed or a new 1600 square foot
structure is built, there may be issues of incompatibility with the neighborhood's
character. The conditions allow a new structure up to 1600 square feet in area, about
twice the size of the existing house. These include issues of exterior lighting,
additional parking and signage, "looking into back yards", and landscaping.
4. Other DDP policies:
The DDP policy of neighborhood input was met via the January 3rd meeting of the
neighborhood. The issue of site design within 1600' of a residence could be somewhat
satisfied by the proposed conditions, and somewhat by promises made at the
neighborhood meeting. The policy of neighborhood protection is satisfied by the
suggested landscaping condition. Also, that particular policy urges diversity of land
s
ADendg Np,
use, which would be a product of this zoning change. 0; n,~ r
~t-14.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of Z-95-037, with the
following conditions:
1. Use of the structure to be limited to offices, professional or administrative.
2. Lighting be designed so as not to shine on, or otherwise disturb, surrounding
residential property.
3. The provisions of Ch. 31 of the Code of Ordinances ("landscape ordinance") be
activated whenever the use of the site changes to office.
4. Height be limited to two (2) stories.
5. Maximum size of the office is 1600 square feet.
6. A sign be limited to 6 ft. tall and 20 sq. ft. of effective area.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve application as recommended.
2. Approve application with additional conditions.
3. Deny application,
4. Postpone. (to date certain)
5. Table. (indefinitely)
ATTACHMENTS_--.---------.
1. Location map.
2. Existing plat-Coilege View Addn.
3. Intensity area No. 48 data.
4. Tax valuation.
5. Draft ordinance.
6. Commission minutes.
AXX009DD
J
ATTACHMENT f%o.
® r1 LJ ~ao!~ Can
CIL-
z
DAVIS
I ~
i n
■ ■
IN
+ 1u~
NM
' ~ ~ ~ qty
NoPT~
~ I
v
{ ATTACHMEN
Lcr ~F r;9en9~ 110.
* -fl
0 C AS /0.
"COLLEGE' VIE W..
TO G/TY-OF DEIVTON, TEXAS
49 o ISO
60 1
ti 8 0 io, 1 a I
7 g y
6 9 6 9
h 5 9 10 j 5
t ° 4 11. y 4 11
~~0 2 13 t E 19
14 1 1.!•
v° DA V/.S' S T. C n
o I
b 5 .fi h C 5e 6 '
4 ~ I
4 7 + W 4
T ~
8
3 8
0
a 2
G je R..Alr. ^
° n f0. 1. 10 n
•Jur. Gar, o 6o ISO, be 60 {
M~•K/NN6Y
Sr
I
s ^ - F Slt ` M Two.
CO .~ti
/•s /SOS •
1 ' OOL= VIEWADD TICK A'
_ M-J I1 M
7
r
{
III
I
jl
',pend~ Ho. ' VV _
ATTACHx 3 0"'~'raC= ,
3vT
LAND USE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF DENTON
TntensitY area t. 48 Type: Low
Traffic survey zones: 6563 6564 Intensity Trips/ac 60
565
Boundary description: South: Mc Kinney6S
t. 6569
Date: East: Old North Rd., Audra, Lattimore, Mulkey
08/18/93 West: TP i MKT Railroad
LAND USE---------EXISTING----------L-A---ND--U--SE---
ZONING
UNITS ACRES INTENSITY ACR~ESENINT
ENSITY ACRES UNITS ILANNED TS r PKENsr
j < 16 11.4 160
0 0
SF-16 0 0 -7010 503 176.18 0.7 7 0
SF-LESS10SF-016 7 221 75.13 500 2210 65.03 2731.26 33 330
SF 142 29.07 1420 0 7 38 380
MOB.HOMES 1 0.4 10 0 64 312 7120
DUPLEX 0 0 0
j MF-R p 0 0 0 p 0 0 0
MF- 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IOM/RET 0 10.34 6721 0 0 0 0
OFFICE 0 0 7.5 4875 0 0 0
"'DUSTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3TI'NAL 0 0 0 0 0
0 33.42 2840.7 p 0 0 0
PARKS
R/0/SPACE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TRANSPORT 0 19.96 0 0 0 0 0 0
AGRIC. 0
0 0 0 25.85 0 0 0
VACANT 0-- 176.9 0 0 p 0
0
18392 99.08
TOTAL 883 472.8 7627 78 383 3830
INTENSITY CALCULATIONS
(1) Intensity area total trips
(2) Trips allocated to existing land uses (b472.8
uilt) times 60 28368
(3) Trips allocated to current zoning incl. P Ds (not built) 18392
(4) Trips allocated to vacant lands not zoned plus Agric, zonin
9 11451
(5) Estimated unallocated intensity trips 1)minus 2 + 3 1551
(6) Percentage of intensity trips allocated ( ) ( ) (4) '3032 ill
I
y
f
t!e
fv N
ATTACHMENT 4
h
- afrn
g
f ; it
- S
y .
61
i ~r k z
1 1 y ;
1 i
1 r LL~ r ~
1 1 W 0
1 F
1 1 m Y'ryl
x 1 a..k
r~
r 1 ~i 0
n co
1
Ic F.
1 i a G rr' C
~rJ E ~ r eLL ~ ~
s
s
• \ i. { < a
L'r ~ • J i ~J
S H In----_.- r! co ~
a ~ ¢ ~ is ~ c rl i
r r
r $Y u Q Q
C6 W
:CHCC M ~ ~ Ca y y ItC ~
..?S p O i ' RE F
:sFr'T d
W~ a - x mW
zw
S
D
1
PROPERTY.ID: 8231195 '1'A LDR RIiIICY (N;'rltVr
COLLEGE V UW BLOCK 12, LOT l(E50'), XT 2 MX 1170 RH
PRINTEDi 01 KRUM, TX 7+,249 T%lbll'IIONS A11*A",1V41I$
/05/56 VALUE (.'H(,: G3/o -J/9` HS OA 3.632I
PROPLA!TSITUSADDRESS NBHD:
1413 E MCKINNEY
----------------30----------------
CONIT ETYL[ FOUNDATION EA/ FIWSH INT FIWSH ROOF STYLE F10041IN(.
r
HAATMOAC FLLWINO rrr nul
G
i'.
'r
24 F
EST YR BLT '40. I
i1.1: DU4,DL10,DU24,DR3ri,DU28,DI.12 MA 28
H 4
n
DATE FRwe 0 H~~ fk~084 of 0 No PA'..
H
4 All
TCIOCA ArniT UTILI/IES ACcEft EONF UTHrN
L X-----12------t
IMPROVEMENT VALUATION
e[Op NT ARE AD
A JUST Uw YEA II FHv FfA FUNC
TvFE OLxeIP11pN sole CLASS AREA
YE nrvo FAC10R AREA PRICE TtUII l ^n rAt uE
I1 R RESIDENCE Al Y 34.`01 + 16,6):
1.1 MA MAIN AREA R 2 768 31.50 iF.-68 G. 163 16+652
if
6H•: utal 16,2 LA u
L
REHI DENT rLOT~xRrnD( AS ) 8 ATI Y 'L~ ARe6R0iTS uI;1I.5IL ' ..mFIVALUE mwl
J ilAl7,14+1 6T SJZE - `0 f,
~ ~ ~ I I I T
eta 0.156 1. ! Total 7,114+ O
i I
s
YY
1
f
Lr`Je%ell. Lid
ATTACHMENT 5
'pe:!da tlo. p
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFI-
CATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (0[c]) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.155 ACRES OF LAND
LOCATED AT 1413 EAST McKINNEY STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Barbara Russell has applied for a change in zoning
for 0.155 acres of land from the Single Family Residential (SF-7)
zoning district classification and use designation to the Office
conditioned (0[c]) zoning district classification and use designa-
tion; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will
be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use
designation of the 0.155 acres of land described as in Exhibit 1,
attached hereto and incorporated into, this ordinance by reference,
is changed from the Single Family Residential (SF-7) zoning
district classification and use designation to the Office condi-
tioned (0[c]) zoning district classification and use designation
under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton,
Texas, subject to the following additional conditions:
1. Use of any structure is limited to offices,
professional or administrative.
2. Lighting shall be designed and maintained so
as not to shine on, or otherwise disturb,
surrounding residential property.
3. owner shall comply with the provisions of the
City's landscape ordinance (Chapter 31 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, as
amended) upon using the site for an office.
4. The maximum height of any structure shall not
exceed two (2) stories.
5. The maximum floor area of the office is limit-
ed to 1600 square feet.
6
3
ApRndo No. ~ lO
flir.4^i P°n
6. Owner shall be limited to one sign, no more
than six feet (61) tall, with no more than
twenty square feet (20 ft.') of effective area.
SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended to
show the change in zoning district classification.
SECTION III. That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION I~" That this ordinance shall become effective four-
teen (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, a daily n•,wspaper
published in the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVEV this the day of
_ 1996.
ATTEST: BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
i
i
4
r
Aoamda ka, C~ Ob(~
Agenda HIM
Date
! 1413 EAST McKINNEY STREET
FIELD NOTES to rru that ccnam bact of land situated in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas and being referred
to as the Easl 50 ul Lul 1 it, Blui k 12 of Colfeye View AWil on
Ihei euf, recurded in Volum e 318 Page 4 ul the Deed ,a adds on ! on Ihu; T Cdyexa osf, Dethe ntonsub, je actccortriaddnybelmgto themPlalore
Records ofnDenlun Cunly
poibeularly LJe5LPbed ns fulluws
BEGINNING for the Suullc,lsl Corr!er of the Iracl being desc abed herein at a capped iron rud set to, the Southeast
Corner of said Lot 1 m Il;e Wesl fine of a platted 20 fool alley ai;d the North fine of East McKinney Street,
THENCE Nurlh 88 Deg ecs 30 Minutes 00 Seconds Wosl wish The South line of said (of 1 atong said Street a
distance of 50 01 fcul TO a ripped uui1 rod set for the Southwosl Corner of the herein descoll ed lracl,
THENCE Noilh 00 Degrees 04 Minutes 16 Seconds East severing) said Lot 1 a distance of 134 81 feet to a capped
uun rod 50 for the Noithwust Copier of The herein described Iracl in She North fine of said Lul 1,
THENCE South 84 Dagrecs 43 Minutes 32 Seceiids East willi said North [rile a dislatILC of 50 00 feel to a capped iron
rat set for the Northerisl Corner of said Lot 1 in The West brie of said alley,
THENCE South 00 Degrees 04 Minules 16 Seconds West wilh the East fine of said Lot 1 along said alley with a fence
pail of the way a distance of 135 88 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and eirctuserg 0 155 of an acie of land
1
L 4
t s; i
T
Z
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 6 4gca^a tlo.
January 10, 19M
Page 22 - - -
Mr. Jones: I move approval of the final plat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Lowe's Addition.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. opposed same
sign. Approved. (5-0)
b. Consider the Alternative Landscape Plan.
Mr. Yost: In the case where an applicant wants to use something that is different from what
is required they submit what is called an alternative landscape plan. In order to be approved
by you it must be clearly superior to what is normally required. Staff recommends this plan
without conditions.
Ms. Schertz: 1 move approval of the alternative landscape plan for Lot 1, Block I of the
proposed Lowe's Addition.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (5-0)
VII. Hold a public h--aring and consider rezoning .155 acres to the office-conditioned zoning
district from a single-family district. The site, addressed as 1413 McKinney Avenue, is
located on the north side of McKinney Avenue, approximately 9,400 feet west of Audra
Lane.
Ms. Russell: 1 know that you have seen my name on the petition tonight so 1 would like to
make a few brief comments to you and then I will excuse myself. I do no, have to but 1
choose to do so. I was involved in the sale of this property. We started off with this zoning
being conditioned on the sale of the property but the buyer decided that this was a good piece
of property and so we have already closed on the property. 1 have been paid and I have no
further interest in this property other than the interest that you would have. 1 want to make
some points to you. The zoning on this is what it is going to be used for and we didn't go
into any ocher zonings because the use will be office zoning. The owners took the initiative
themselves, as well as the city, to send out notices inviting everyone to a public meeting that
was held on the 3rd. You have a list of the people that attended and I think that their
questions were all answered satisfactorily. What the neighborhood will be noticing on this
is an improved residence. They will be putting a handicap ramp in front, and the parking
will be according to city code in the rear. It will look very much like a residence with more
landscaping than it has now. At this time I will excuse myself and turn it over to
Commissioner Schertz. Ms. Russell left the chambers at 8:30 p.m.
Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing.
3,
1.
i
P&Z Minutes )Nrn) M
January 10, 1996 r.,i^
Page 23 pa. '
Mr. Yost: This site is roughly .155 acres, one small city lot. It is currently located in the
' Single Family-7 zoning district. The applicant is requesting Office zoning with conditions.
The surrounding land use on that side of McKinney is single family. Across the street there
are several Denton County facilities such as the jail. The zoning there is Light Industrial.
There is some single family across the street and there is a Specific Use Permit. The public
infrastructure is in place and acceptable. Replatting is not required since this property was
in this configuration prior to the adoption of our Subdivision Regulations. This was
originally part of the College View Addition. There was a public meeting held on January
3rd and there were twenty-six notices sent out. We have received no replies. We looked
at several of the Denton Development Plan policies in analyzing this. The first was the
intensity. There will be a slight increase in intensity. The property is in a low intensity area
which is normally allocated sixty intensity trips per acre. This building is just under eight
hundred square feet so it would require twelve intensity trips, which is 2.7 intensity trips
over its normal allocation. If they add a second story and make the square footage sixteen
hundred, then the intensity trips would be twenty-four, which would be 14.7 trips over the
allocation. There is a disproportionate share of intensity. At the neighborhood meeting
there was no opposition to this that I am aware of. Mr. Robbins was at that meeting.
Mr. Robbins: There was one neighbor that was opposed.
Mr. Yost. Staff recommends approval of Z-95-037 with the following six conditions as
listed in the backup.
Mr. Powell: You talked about intensity trips and I think that it is common knowledge that
across the street Denton County plans to build a courthouse. So the intensity trips that this
lot would bring or not bring is pretty academic, isn't it?
Mr. Yost: That is for the Commission to decide.
Mr. Powell: What I am getting at is that there are going to be a lot of trips to that
courthouse.
Mr. Yost: It will be small to what is proposed across the street.
Ms. Flemming: Are there sidewalks to the east of NO
Mr. Powell: There are sidewalks that go all the way to Food Lion.
Ms. Schertz: Would the petitioner like to speak?
Ms. Joni Eddy: My name is Joni Eddy and I live at 208 Plum Hollow. I did recently
purchase this property with the intention of using it for office. I think what the residents will
see are improvements in the property compared to what is there right now. We plan to do
additional landscaping, some painting, the driveway will be much improved, and it will look
~ c,
i
P&Z Minutes - _ G
January 10, 1996 rcoci tsa, _
Page 24 noan4V
Dal:
like a residence with the exception of a moderate size sign in the front. The lighting will just
be residential lighting. There won't be any additional lighting to disturb the residents in the
area. We do plan to use a shrub hedge to keep headlights from disturbing the neighbors.
Ms. Schertz: Are you familiar with the conditions that staff is recommending?
Ms. Eddy: Yes.
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Is there
anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the petition? We will close the public
hearing.
Mr. Robbins: The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the house and that they
would build a sign that looks like this. Those are not specific conditions that are part of the
ordinance, so they don't have to use the house, they don't have to build a sign that looks like
that, although the height and the area of that sign are standards that would be in the
ordinance.
Mr. Powell: I move that we recommend approval of Z-95-037 rezoning to Office
conditioned district with the conditions stated on page 115. There are six conditions.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Schertz: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand.
Opposed sanne sign. Approved. {4-0)
VIII. }fold a public hearing and consider a recommendation on an ordinance amending Chapter
34, Subdivision and Land Development, concerning the escrow guarantee amount and
responsibility for building sidewalks.
Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing.
Ms. Russell returned to chambers at 9:48 p.m.
Mr. Salmon: We heard this back in December and we agreed to supply you with a draft
ordinance prior to it going to City Council. After that meeting I sent a legal request for the
actual ordinance. When Jerry got into it he had some specific questions that we did not
discuss in very much detail at that meeting. They are rather important items that we feel
need to be brought out on the table to make sure everyone understands what exactly what
it is we would be doing by changing the ordinance to what has been proposed. In response
to that Jerry has prepared two separate draft ordinances, each of them different. I will
briefly describe the difference between them. Depending on what is decided tonight we will
be going to City Council in February with one of the draft ordinances. The first ordinance,
which is the longer ordinance, reduces the amount of sidewalk escrow from one hundred
~ r
S
r
S
CITY COUNCIL REPORT q/
.gcRC3170. ,iP~r a
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick SvehIa, Acting City Manager
DATE: February 6, 1996
SUBJECT: Adoption or a Detailed Plan and rezoning to a Planned Development district for the prr,poscd Carroll
Point Addition.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.
SUJIJIARY: See attached report.
BACKGROUND: See attached report.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Property owner, surrounding neighborhood, users of Carroll Blvd.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
of4ez I
Prepared by: Ri SvehIa
Acting City Manager
G. Owen Yost, AS
Urban Planner
Approved:
Frank H. Robbins, AICP
Director of Planning & Development
a
t
r
Aocnda 9 t. 00 6D
AoW3 I:en
REPORT
To: Mayor and members of the City Council
Case No.: Z-95-018 Meeting Date: February 6, 1996
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Dennis J. Koop
P.O. Box 1477
McKinney, TX 75070
Current Owner: same
Requested Action: Rezone the subject tract from the Office (0) and Planned
Development (PD-57) zoning districts to a Planned Development
district, and approve a Detailed Plan.
Location and Size: The 1.059-acre site is located immediately north of the
intersection of Carroll Blvd. and Fort Worth Dr., east of Carroll
Blvd.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - An office building and a single-family residence, in PO-105
zoning.
South - The right-of-way of Fort Worth Dr., across from which is
Commercial zoning.
East - The rights-of-way of Fort Worth Dr. and Myrtle St.,
across from which are mixed residential and commercial uses in
commercial zoning.
West - The right-of-way of Carroll Blvd., directly across from
which is largely undeveloped SF-7 zoning.
Denton Development Plan:
Intensity area No. 119. 175% allocated.) Moderate intensity.
r
AQuura Ho.
AaW3 ften ~d~
SPECIAL INFORMATION fir: ~~-=~se~
• Engineering & Transportation:
The Traffic Safety Commission approved two curb cuts accessing Carroll Blvd. for a
different proposal on this site. However, the applicant is only requesting one access
point to Carroll with this proposal. There will be one curb cut onto Myrtle St. as well.
0 Drainage:
The existing drainage facilities are sufficient.
• Landscaping:
Proposed landscaping adequately screens and buffers the abutting land uses. Six
protected trees are proposed to be removed. The proposal meets the standards of the
landscape ordinance, and satisfies the criteria for a Planned Development detailed plan.
• Utilities:
There is an existing 6 in. water line in Myrtle St., which is sufficient to serve the
project. Fire flow at the hydrant at the site's northeast corner is adequate.
There is an existing 8 in. sanitary sewer line in Myrtle St., which is sufficient to !+erve
the project.
Underground electric service will be provided by the City per commercial requirements.
HISTOf.'f
The site is currently zoned both "PD-57" and Office. The Planned Development
(roughly the east half of the site) was zoned in July of 1983, by Ord. 83-69. The
western half, zoned "0", was designated in 1979.
NOTIFICATION:
On December 1, 1995, ten notices were mailed to all property owners within 200 ft.
To date, two replies have been received, both in favor of the proposal.
ANALYSIS_
The site is in a moderate intensity area, according to the Denton Development Plan
(DDP) which allows a maximum of 350 intensity trips per acre. This car wash
proposal requires 370.85 intensity trips (1.059 x 350), Is called an
"officelgovernment" use. Thus, there is no violation of the DDP's intensity policy.
The proposal follows the Carroll Blvd. policy of the DDP by not furthering :trip
commercial development along Carroll Blvd., because the property is below intensity
allocation, zoned for office and is well designed with street end adjoining land
landscaping. Several protected trees are saved.
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission recommends that Z-95-018 be approved.
-3
r
ALTERNATIVES [c
1, Approve application as recommended.
2. Approve application with conditions.
3. Deny application
4. Postpone (to a specific date),
5, Table (indefinitely),
A rTACNMENTS
1, Location map.
2. Tax valuation. 12 sheets)
3, Detailed Plan.
4. Draft ordinance.
5. P&Z minutes.
AXX009DO
y
EAGL
ATTACHMENT 1 ll~
E h,. C-V~ P Jim
0!
Dal.
321 . i
918 2 /
3
~ 922
0 \ en 6
L LLI
N
O
C~ f 1GtQ 1z .S~ ,
O
~ <c0 f
G a
0
~I \
W. COLLINS
Igo o
0
S'
Ili OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS TAMING ENTITIES 1A51 APPRAISAL
19t,n 111 H If) AND I I GM I rr ,I. n 11 Ili
PROPERTY.TD: 811407: Y.OOF DENNIS J (302159) Col S05 0135 RL/01/55
CARROLL Pf1INC, SLOC): 1, LOT 2 720 e0lfflTRY CLUB RD
EXEMPTIONS APPAAIiEO VAL UE
MC Y.INLTEY, TX 75069-9691 :3,672
FEINTED: 12107195 VALUE CNC: 0+./tA3/92 ~
PROPS R I Y SN USADVRF bti NBHD:
. u.)II 11 I'll
CONNf SIY,k IODbbA di rr 1..1 n ✓r PU IIN:'n
I IL A IMr. AL
kl j 1
I ~
..-ten
ADJ Fh'R 1991 APFRAISAL W/R':+1337.
y7
H
Y
f'i
DAIL 141', Ir[D Hrnrl Iur.a n... .
~
I o 93-11023511)
12/11/°+l 900130 2755 88
P4r , tJ
IOPIN]NA['In uullnts All V,5
AREA ADJUST , UNIT YFAR PHY. ICON IFUNC
%
51 ~.Ml NI •.r HIIA'S ARlA t
rD tn,C is Sr 4lv HON rAr rn LAC TORI AREA PNIL"E BUILT GOOD y.(
i
l°
I I
w
.':r u..
l.lurrul , . Ai • nnrt 1'NIG! MAPRki VALUE
r
ITBH': 7CGE:SS! U C3 11 ';FT, 16836S~I 2.1)0 33,672 LO SIZE 16836X1
RESIDENT LOY ~
Cotal 3.386`.,9 Totall 33,672{
I
e AIA Hnlq n I , IV aNO IEG AI h. OWNER NAME AND AOOHL:iS iA %VNO ENTITIES LAST APPAAISAI
P
F'RUFERTY.ID: III7 E00P DEWNI6 J (30215)) COI S05 COS RL/k?1/95
('OZY DAYS, PLI)ICK 1, LOT 1 7 ^ C~CIIINTRY CLUE RD
E%EMP7*NS APPRAIStO VAW
W. Y1111IFY, TX 75069-9691 56,716
PRINTED: 12/:;7/`05 VALUE CH(,: 06/10/92
Pn'JPr HTY slrU% Al,imr,s 11PND:
FT WORTH DR
[nIISF Slgl. IJUnp,pq 1•I run a I RII lnp u i.a .
At A IINDA I. VI UIJIU'rr. 'f
!
ADJ PER 1`Sl9f E:FF'RAISra, W/R111074
r
WE rolil
.V if `.l3'll l!:.~51f5
12/14/91 900(1 + 2755 88
erHw Naar u'u Illy I , „
nFFR
MULTI
HIM
AREA ADJUST UNIT YEAR PHY FCUN IuNC
secar rrt „NIPUOn IIA'.•, AkdA IAL TORI AREA PRICE BUILT GOOD
rn I•vc it 1ai,i, 1
~ Env
P oral 4NII. a NaRM l1 VaLUI Ad VN V!
11F.'1i'. ICIlAS51 20358Sr '.OO , 56,7161 MLO ST ZE 283`BY.1
commERi 10L G t 11 SF'I
I
E ~
i
' I
fetal 0.651A Total 56,716
1
t
c; ,
1 w ~ TP^
O
ifs , w..u .ns 'hf GR.I'HIC X.J r:i _
~jl
r
7 as
rot" 1 . RRO♦ f cc r
1 ~ f ~ IT r) 1 } ~ ~ } 1 /
Site Dafa! 3 +r
Total Land Area
t, j ACC
X11 T' Y :djlfyl J ~l i 4dic0ated Tran,c Gawallav 1059 Acres
E-r q
1` tVJ
2 * 5 dIt C A
F%A Peak 8 T b~e55taii . e - 32 TrkDa
64 Tarn $
1Ar , t~ 1 f / t~ 'i r• 1 ' Landscape S r"ry °D b
H 1~ / 8
H2 m \.f, I~P' ! sneer YO rd ken
i + !
, LerdscaDe Nea RBWked 33287sF
o J 1 ~r
a ` 1.657
F
Ln'dgcaoe Nee Rovldvd .6.597 SF
J ' y Tree Ramlr&,er" 313x52500 p31
Tree Credira - W EAlet Reserved Trees y
1 `,l / v a% r wry Trees Rood for perin+eter ScraMrg g Trees
Rotscred Trees To Bs Re7omd S or 11
r, %I + ! r O . aY Itaamary N sa#ww Can.
# ` 1 ruTxr [Nr,ary, wu 9, W of mi rv~no of
r
R M Y
Grp hiorrnatgn ~
,
CAR WASH FACUTY t5o x 75 x Lr' Herr
w • Exterict to 8e GIRIod Faced Block z
Ends of C■ Wand Building to be Solid Blork
fa B In 1WDM on [rids
Intorar to De Giezod Faced Bloch •
ORYUd7 CANOPY tp x 20' x H lioignt
' Goon Canopy StrmVg
FLOOR AREA RATA - ill
~I
. ni nltGw.:zj
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM OFFICE (0) AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-57) ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS TO A NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENP
(PD) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 1.059
ACRE TRACT LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CARROLL BOULEVARD AND FORT WORTH DRIVE; APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR THE DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR A PZNI,LTY IN THE MAXIMUI4
AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS TEEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Dennis J. Koop has applied for a change in zoning for
a 1.059 acre tract of land located in the northeast corner of the
intersection of Carroll Boulevard and Fo_t Worth Drive from Office
(0) and Planned Development zoning classifications and use!
designations to a new Planned Development District (PD) zoning
classification and use designation; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will
be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use
designat.on of the 1.059 acres of land legally described as shown
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
is changed from office (0) and Planned Development (PD-57) zoning
classifications and use designations to a new Planned Development
District 'PD) zoning district classification and use designation
under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton,
Texas.
SECTIOV II. That Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated
into this ordinance by reference, is approved as the Detailed Plan
for the new district, in accordance with Division 2 of Article IV
of Chapter 33 of the Code of ordinances.
SECTION III. That all conflicting ordinances, incluWrig
without limitation Ordinance 83-69, are hereby repealed to the
extent of any such conflict.
SECTION IV. That the City's official zoning map is hereby
amended to show the change in zoning district classification.
SECTION V. That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
.
1
S
4
{
r
i
AOan~A Na.~~(p
Alen"~ 1 M
SECTION VI. That this ordinance shall become effective four-
teen (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 news-
paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:_
~L•
Agenda No. 1-0 -cc)(,
Agenda It m
1.057 ACRES One
FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of lane situated in the City of Denton, Denton Courty,
Texas and being all of Lot 2 in Block 1 of Cam,ll Point Addition, Lot 2 Block 1 an addition in said
City, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Cabinet D Page 388 of the Plat Records of
Denton County, Texas and also bei rv all of Lot I Block 1 Cozy Oaks Addition, an addition in said
City, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Cabinet C Page 344 of said Plat Records; as
recognized and occupied on thn ground; the subject tract being more particularly described as
follows;
BEGINNING for the Northwest Comer of the trail being described herein at a capped iron rod
set for the Northwest Comer of said Lot 2, same being the Southwest Comer of lot 1 in Block 1
of Carroll Park Addition, an addition in said C8y according to the Plat thereof, recorded In
Cabinet D Page 0102 said Plat Records and being in the East line of Carroll Boulevard;
THENCE South 89 Degrees 33 Minutes 12 Seconds East with the North line of said Lot 2 and
the South line of said Lot 1 Carroll Park Addition a distance of 127.40 feet to a 1124 iron, rod
found for the Northeast Comer of said Lot 2 and the Southeast Comer of said Lot 1 in the West
line of Lot 2 of Myrtle Addition, an addition in said City, according to the Plat thereof recorded in
Cabinet B Page 231 Plat Records;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 52 Minutes 02 Seconds West with the East line of said Lot 2 Carroll
Park Addition and the West line of said Myrtle Addition a distance of 69.82 feet to a 112' iron rod
found for the Northwest Comer of Lot 1 of said Cozy Oaks Addition;
THENCE South 89 Degrees 28 Minutes 47 Seconds East with the North line thereof and the
South line of said Myrtle Addition a distance of 159.73 feel to a 112" to a capped Iron rod set for
the Northeast Comer of said Cozy Oaks Addition as dedicated In the platted West line of Myrtle
Street;
THENCE South 00 Degrees 27 Minutes 57 Seconds East with the East line of said Cozy Oaks
Addition along said Street a distance of 87.82 feet to a 1/2' a capped iron rod set for an angle
point In said East line, being In the apparent Northwesterly line of Ft. Worth Drive;
THENCE South 38 Degrees 49 Minutes 49 Seconds West with the South line of said Cozy Oaks
Additlon along said Drive a distance of 163.39 feet ;o a square tube found for the Southeast
Comer of said Cozy Oaks Adddlon;
THENCE North 88 Degrees 30 Minutes 06 Seconds West with the South line thereof a distance
of 60.05 feet to a 2' pipe found for the Southwest Comer of said Cozy Oaks Addition, same
being the South Comer of said Lot 2 of Carroll Point Addition in the Easterly line of said Carroll
Boulevard;
THENCE North 23 Degrees 40 Minutes 44 Seconds West with the West tine of said Lot 2 along
said Boulevard a distance of 309.77 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing 1.059
acres of land.
~XHiBIT
. I,
ATTACHMENT 5 [A~~-cnjj a Ma.
P&Z Minutes Item
December 13, 1995 -
Page 14
Ordinances. That particular section requires that a development at the intersection of two
arterial streets dedicate an additional ten feet of right-of-way, or you may call it a right-of-
way flare at that intersection. It is an additional ten feet of right-of-way for a distance of one
hundred and fifty feet. They are proposing to dedicate two feet of right of way on Carroll
Blvd. which would make the right-of-way fifty feet from the center line, which is what we
need for a road the width of Carroll Blvd. They are also going to dedicate a small triangular
piece of right-of-way up in the corner of the property. He does not wish to dedicate the
additional ten feet of right-of-way. The request is based on the unusual shape of the
property and the shape and size of the abutting right-of-ways. We are all familiar with the
five criteria that are required to be met for this type of physical hardship variance. Staff
feels that in this case the variance should be granted. We don't believe that this will be
detrimental to public health and safety because Carroll Blvd. is already in place with all of
the required turn lanes. The shape of this property was actually a result of the city and the
state when the right-of-way was purchased for Carroll Blvd. back in the late 60's and early
70's so it is certainly not a function of any prior owner of the property. The variance will
not impede Carroll Blvd. or Ft. Worth Drive from functioning as arterial streets.
Mr. Moreno: Is Ft. Worth Drive already six lanes at this point?
Mr. Salmon: Right, it actually turns from Ft. Worth Drive to Carroll Blvd. at this
intersection. Ft. Worth Drive actually goes around the east side of this property. Carroll
Blvd, is six lanes at this point.
Mr. Powell: I move that we grant the varixice to the right-of-way dedication requirement.
Mr. Jones: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand.
Opposed same sign. Approved. (7-0)
b. Hold a public hearing and consider the Detailed Plan for a proposed car wash facility.
(Z95-018)
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Yost: If you would like we can cover b and c together.
Ms. Russell: Yes let's do that.
c. Hold a public hearing a.id consider the preliminary replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the Cory
Oaks Addition and "t 2, Block 1 of the Carroll Point Addition to Lot 2R, Block 1 of
the Carroll Point Addition.
Mr. Yost: The proposerd site is a little over an acre and is at the intersection of Carroll, Ft.
Worth Drive and Myrtle. The intensity area is moderate and it is under allocated so there
is no intensity problem. The proposal is for a car wash, The westem half is office zoning
rr„nda 10 ~,/s~e -ooc
P&Z Minutes r.gen.a lien !5 1 s
December 13, 1995 Q_
c t, -a--(°
Page 15
since 1979 and the eastern half is planned development zoning and that was done in 1983.
There were ten notices mailed out and we received two replies in favor. The zoning to the
north is PD 105 for office uses. There are no violations of Denton Development Plan
policies. The Carroll Blvd. policy states that there will be no further commercial
development along Carroll. This development will not further the existing strip commercial
since the land that we are talking about is already zoned for commercial uses and we are
merely asking fcr another commercial use at the same site. Concerning the detail plan and
the zoning, staff recommends that Z-95-018 be recommended for approval with the
following conditions: (1), that the six protected trees to be removed be identified on the
plan, and (2) that the building locations and building lines be modified to accommodate extra
right-of-way dedication on Carroll Blvd, since in the previous item (a) you approved the
dedication of two feet instead of the requirement. That will cause a very slight movement
of the building. The replat did not get noticed because it is a commercial replat. We are
asking that both of these lots be replatted into one large lot.
Mr. Cochran: 1 am curious about the traffic generation. The other car wash in town gets
a lot of traffic and is on a street that can handle the traffic. What type of car wash is this
going to be? Flow did you determine the three hundred and seventy intensity trips?
Mr. Yost: Classifying the use as a car wash, and considering it to be retail/office, according
to the DDP the total allocation for such uses is three hundred and fifteen intensity trips per
acre. This site is slightly over an acre so I multiplied the acreage times three hundred and
fifteen intensity trips.
Mr. Cochran: I just wondered how reasonable this figure is since a car was!r generates more
traffic.
Ms. Russell: Just for the record I own the property to the north and I am in favor.
Mr. Tom Galbraith: My name is Tom Galbraith and I am with Dunaway & Associates in
Ft, Worth, Texas. There is obviously concerns about the drive approaches. I sat down with
David Salmon and we worked through this issue and then we went to the Traffic Safety
Committee. In terms of addressing our neighbors to the north we arc going to build a six
foot fence with a ten foot buffer and several of the trees are along that fence line. We are
trying to buffer a lot of the lower activities. We screened the dumpster pad with a fence and
landscape. There are some easements that we are changing on the plat. We are reducing
the sixteen foot utility easement to a ten foot utility easement. There will be two drainage
improvements for underground storm drainage at both edges of the drive onto Carroll Blvd.
There is an existing system that we will tie into at that point so we are not turning water
loose onto the street. The buildings on the detail plan are proposed to be made of glazed
block and the color scheme will be consistent with the University of North Texas. On both
ends of the building it is solid for an eight foot height. The canopy structure is entirely
open. There is some perimeter vacuum stands along the edges.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Anyone to speak in
opposition to the petition? We will close the public hearing.
/_3,
P&Z Minutes
December 13, 1995 Fft~llt~aJ7 "0 (p
Page 16 a P:n , %
-
Mr. Yost: 1 neglected to add four conditions to the ,-eplat. These minor co irons:
(1) that the right-of-way dedication be shown, (2) that tl:e total acreage of the right-of-way
be added to the plat, (3) that the utility easement along the northern side be ten feet, and (4)
the net acreage of the lot be shown. With those four conditions and the approval of the
variance, staff recommends approval.
Ms. Schertz: I move approval of uhe detail plan for the proposed car wash with the
following two conditions, that the six protected trees to be removed be indicated on the plan,
and that the building location a:td building lines be modified to accommodate extra right-of-
way dedication on Carroll Blvd.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor plcue raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (7-4)
Ms. Schertz: 1 make a motion to approve the preliminary replat of Lot 1, Block 1 of the
Cory Oaks Addition and Lot 2, Block I of the Carroll Point Addition to Lot 2R, Block 1
of the Carroll Point Addition with the following four conditions provided by staff here this
evening.
Mr. Powell: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand.
Opposed same sign. Approved. (7-0)
VIII. Rolling Meadows Estates Addition. The 187.877 acre tract is located at the southwest
corner of Shepard Road and Green Valley Circle, in Demon's ET1.
a. Consider a variance to the drainage easement requirement.
b. Consider a variance to the drainage channel lining requirement.
Mr. Salmon: Landmark Surveyors is representing the owners of this property. The variance
applied for is Section 34-124 (e) & (g) concerning drainage design standards. Section (e)
requires that the channels that are not associated with flood plains be lined either with
concrete or an alternative material. Section (g) requires that an easement be granted for
public drainage facilities. The owner proposes to leave the drainage areas on the property
in a natural state with no easements. The applicant did not specify on the variance
application whether they were applying fc: a physical hardship variance or a reasonable
nexus variance so I will cover this for both types of variances. A physical hardship variance
has to meet five criteria before it can be granted. Staff does not recommend either one of
the proposed variances based on physical hardship for the following reasons. Not granting
an easement could be detrimental to public welfare and safety, or injurious to other
properties. By not granting an easement future lot owners could obstruct the natural flow
of drainage across their property and cause damage to their own property or the pro.-rty of
/Y.
DATE: February 6, 1 996
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT Mo* 1*6,,
2 - ' 9..r~..._.
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehfa, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance to rezone .7656 acres from
the Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning district to the Office Conditioned (0(c))
zoning district on property located on the northeast corner of Bonnie Brae and
Crescent and also known as 1100 Bonnie Brae.
F; FCOMM ENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning
rouest (5-0) at its meeting on January 10, 1996.
SUMMARY:
See Plan,:Ing and Zoning Commission Rbport.
BACKGROUND:
See Planning and Zoning Commission Report.
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED
Not applicable.
FISCALIMPACT.
None.
Respectfull s b itCeed,
Prepared by; c. Svehfa
r tting City Manager
1
Don Bateman, Planning Technlcian
Approved by;
c• *oAl
rank Ro
b, CP
Director Planning and Development
Attachment #f: Planning and Zoning Corintlssion Report.
Attachment #2: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes from January 10, 1996.
Attachment #3: Ordinance.
l•
r
V
FEE-02-1996 10:18 CITY OF DENTON FLPLNNtNi P.02i05
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REP, to. CASE #Z-95-038 fAgenda nem +
February 6, 1996 ~O _ (C. --CT
i
' GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant: Dr. John Kozura III
1716 Scripture, Suite E
Denton, Texas 76201
Owner, Jehovah Witness Kingdom Hail
P.O. Box 50293
Denton, Texas 76206
Action Requested: Rezoning from the Single Family 10 (SF-10) zoning district to the
Office Conditioned (0(c)) zoning district.
Location and Size: The subject property consists of a 0.7656 acre tract located on the
northeast corner of Bonnie Brae and Crescent.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Vacant lot (SF-10) and Doctors O'rice (PD-144)
South: SF-10 zoning and a single family neighborhood.
East: SF-10 zoning and a single family neighborhood.
West: Agricultural zoning and a ranclVfarm.
Denton Development Plan (DDP):
Low Intensity, Study Area #115 (53% allocated)
SPECIAL INFORMATION:
Transportation: The site has 201.61 feet of street frontage on Bonnie Brae, which
is classified ass a primary arterial street. The rezoning of this lot will
not have an impact on transportation in this area. According to
Section 34-115 of the Subdivision and Land Development
Regulations, closure of both curb cuts on Bonnie Brae wouldl be
required since the property has access from Crescent. However,
in instances where the Engineering and Transsportation
Department determined that due to physical circumstance
compliance is not reasonably possible, a permit may be issued that
is not in compliance with this code. Due to the placement of this
existing building and the fact that additional pavement may not be
placed on the property due to drainage problems in the area, the
Engineering and Transportation Department has determined that if
the applicant stripes the parking lot with the spaces at a 45 degree
angle creating a one way circulation pattern, one of the drives on
Bonnie Brae can remain and would be an exit only.
FEE-02-1995 10:10 CITY OF DENTON PLANNING
P-03/05
Planning and Zoning Commission Report
Z-93-038 Apend, Ko.
Page 2 AVada Kan
Dais
SPECIAL iNFORMATION~contirsuedt-
Drainage: Tha rezoning wi:l not impact the drainage in this area as conditions
to limit the building footprint to its current size as welr as prohibiting
further paving (concrete or asphalt) will be placed on the property.
The property is not platted and no new public improvements are n3eded to support this
development.
8ACKGRQ run,.
The subject property Is currently owned by the Jehovah Witnesses Church and was
zoned Single! Family 10 (SF-10) with the adoption of the 1969 zoning map. Dr. Kozura
has requested the zoning change for the purpose of moving his medical practice into
the existing building.
On January 3, 1996 staff met with the surrounding neighbors to discuss the zoning
case. It was reported by an individual that drainage was a problem on his property. He
felt this was unused by the subject property as well as the property to the north
(Dr. JankWs office). It was explained to the individual that staff was placing conditions
on the zoning to prohibit any further runoff to adjacent properties.
NOSE:
Fifteen (15) property •)wners were notified of the request prior to the Planning and
Zoning Commission, meeting on January 10, 1996. Two reply forms have been
vretfucrned In favor, one undecided and none In opposition.
MA,L
Intensity
The subject property is located in a low inter-,;ity area that is 53% allocated. The total
number of intensity trips for the property allowed by the Denton Development Plan is 46
(0,7656 x 60 Vd/ac). The total intensity trips generated by the proposal is 49 (3,300
square feet x 15 t/1,000 square feet of floor area). The current use (church) of the
property generates 115 intensity trips (3,300 square feet x 35 t11,000 square feet of
floor area). Though the proposed rezoning is inconsistent with t;le Denton
Development Plan proportionate share pollcy, the intensity generation will be
decreased by the proposed use.
.Separation
The subject property is approximately 250 feet from a medical office on Bonnie Brae.
Therefore, the proposed rezoning is not consistent with the Denton Development Plan
policy on separation. However, as one of the conditions will be that Dr. Kozura
adaptively reuse the existing building, this inconsistency is lessened.
Concentration
The subject property consists of 0.7656 acres. The maximum concentration size
allowed by the Denton Development Plan along a primary arterial street is 3 acres.
i
r
v
FEE-02-1996 18 19 CITY OF DENTON PLRNNING
P,04i05
Planning and Zoning Commission Report EA13 .
Z-95438 n
Page 3 ,
A NA PSIS (continued]:
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Denton Development Plan policy
on concentration,
Other Policies
The proposal also appears to support the following policies of the Denton Development
Plan:
Promote and encourage balanced growth so that development takes place
equitably in all planning areas of the city.
Encourage a spatial pattern of land use development which reduces the cost of
public services and Infrastructure.
Protraction of residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of incompatible land
uses, traffic, noise and pollution.
Improve the design, image and character of the city by preserving existing
vegetation and natural topography and encouraging adequate landscaping in
new developments.
` Promote distribution of land uses resulting in less traffic congestion.
` Strip Commercial - Any form of continuou3 strip commercial is strongly
discouraged in/or near low intensity areas. The Plan encourages centers of
activities and discourages strip commercial centers. Encouraging diversity on
major arterials (commercial nodes broken up by high density housing, offices,
etc).
Diversity/Neighborhood Protection - The Plan encourages small scattered
apartments and nonresidential uses in all areas of the city. Input into planning
by neighborhood associations is encouraged.
Encourage and promote development along the entranceways that will enhance
the City's image. Developments along entranceways to the City shall conform to
the following:
• Strict compliance with the sign ordinance.
• Provide attractive landscaped frontages.
Require minimal curb cuts with emphasis on the internal circulation of
traffic on site.
Specific Area Policies
Specific area policies are intended to provide a framework to promote
development In a designated area which requires special treatment in view of its
T
6
FEE-02-1996 10:19 CITY OF DENTON PLPM[NG
P.05ib5
Planning and Zoning Commission Report [420h rto. `
Z-9"38
Page 4 C,
ANALYSIS (continued);
unique location and character. Major entranceways are freeways and primary
arterial streets predominately used by incoming traffic into the city. Bonnie Brae
is a major entranceway. The Plan encourages and proriotes good urban design
to enhance the aesthetic quality and visual amenities along entranceways.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this request with
the following conditions:
1. No further paving (whether concrete or asphalt) will be permitted on the
properly.
2. The building footprint of 3,300 square feet cannot be increased.
3. No lighting of the parking lot or building shall produce intense glare or direct
illumination across the bounding property line nor shall any light be of such
Intensity as to create a nuisance or detract from the use and enjoyment of
adjacent property.
4. The existing sign of eight feet in height and thirty four square feet will be the
maximum allowed on Bonnie Brae. Signs on Crescent will comply with the
current sign ordinance,
5. Article III, Sections 31.59 and 31-60 of Chapter 31, landscaping regulations will
apply to the property (see Attachment 5).
ALTERNATIVES-
1. Deny the request.
2. Approve the request as submitted.
3. Approve the request with other conditions.
4. Postpone consideration.
ATTASHM>eNT$%
1. Location Map.
2. Site Map.
3. List of Permitted Uses.
4. Appraisal District Tax Card.
5. Sedions 31-59 and 31.60 of Chapter 31, landscape regulations.
TRTP4 P. n5
r
u
i
ATTACHMENT 1
1200 BONNIE BRAE NORTH
oa:..~~n'9Co
1 ILI
PL,"ry~IRi[ 1
~M1! :Sv ~J
UNIVERSITY OR, kES'T, -
I
; I - SITE
s .ssrc„ES, "
L Y dE•-
0 ON W cnorcc~~
a ~ ~J CpF "r
m Cai SEht
`-i CNU I Gh
o ~„ti:EJ U JL--JL_ I~
VI
2 ~ f
CAOY =
_ 5."4 D
LOCltion flap
it
s
ATTACHMENT 2 _
+I ~ + r
I I^
' LOT r o
t t Cie t rc rr. PA_`
+
H erne oa c iao ee
M
` 11 .Ar 1
u
Cti ~
e
0.7656 ACRE
~ + Q
l 1°
MI
~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ UO NM( K{( !TR(~ r
O + I I oa.. n,t+n e.•u
i ' I ,i.. 1
I
I 4, a ~
I r•
t
41 1
~ a. s n ~ • t
~ ~ i 89'CO'0••~ IaQ Ij _
CRESCENT STREET so PON 41
I
i
y
r
F
ATTACHMENT 3
Z-95-038
Y1. \ 1
1
PERMITTED USES
Church or Rectory
College or University or Private School
Community Center (Public)
Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature
School, Private Primary or Secondary
School, Business or Trade
Home Occupation
Telephone Line $ Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Studio for Photographer, Musiclan, Artist or Health
Scientific or Research Laboratories
Offices, Professional and Administrative
8.
T
Z
PROPERTY IU ANU LEGAL UESClOPtION OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS TAKING ENTITIES LAST APMAISAL
Y.IDT R34269 JEHOVAHS WITF ESS KINGDOM HALL (27593 G01 S05 C05 A
1/01 O /95
„3~ R. BF.AUMONT TRACT 250, ACRES
OLD DCAD TR 51A(7)
EKEMP71ONS AP'IIAfI Vau! '
! 01/03/96 VALUE CH,: 04/12/07 EX 35,052j
PROPEATY SITUS ADDRESS NDHD: IMPROVEMENT ROHM: FRAI
i
t
r
1 113~4 now 111 rnPSN PIT FIMSN PROF STYLE FIDOrANG
1~A1A.a PLUWMO ii ~~~y r+wi.N en«+a r.:.`}I
RE MARAS f I
AND SKETCH COMMANDS
DAII POKE 6~7 10 U1IN■OOP PAGE
z
TOPMAAMT UMI111I ACCESS E041 OTNIA
H
E+ ,
a' How"? :n Ty" DEUmPTON CLASS AREA ADS UST UNIT YEAR aa• ♦ PN ICON, PU11C. v111E
ID » AREA (ACTOR AREA PAIGE BUILT DooD
LAND VALUAPON
DIKAIIf IT►1 N/E '„T r: r. AAfA VNIf PPICL ruc N~. AM VALUE Pw VAIIII
rA'O
ME SITE 1 E2 Y A 0.762A 46000 100 35,052
gal Acres 0.762 'rota 0.762A Total 359052
ATTACHMENT 5 r,gtaSs pTJ to v~'
131-59 DENTON CODE =a I':r
Sec. 3l•39. Street yards-Landscape requirements.
(a) Area requirement. The street yard shall contain a permanently landscaped area of at
least twenty 120) percent of the total area within the street yard, u depicted in illustration No,
1 in section 31.92 and illustration No. 2 in section 31.93, except as follows:
11) Manufacturing and distribution/warehousing u,-es. When a building permit issued is
for any building to be used for a manufacturing or distribution/warehousing use
located on property which does not have frontage ujnn an arterial street, the street
yard shsll contain a permanently landscaped area of at least ten (10) percent of the
total area within the street yard.
Z lmprotemenrof existing uses. When a buildingpermit issued is for the expansion of an
existing building into the existing front yard or a parking lot permit issued is for the
construction of a new parking lot or the expansion of an existing parking lot into the
existing street yard on property which has an existing building or parking lot, the
street yard shall contain a permanently landscaped area which is at least equal to the
area calculated as follows:
The total area of the building or parking lot to be located within the existing front
yard, divided by the total area in the Pdsting street yard, and the result multiplied
by twenty (20) percent.
ib) Credits.
(1) Each square foot of permanently maintained permeable area within the drip line of
e protected tree located within the street yard shall count as one and five•tooths (1.5)
square feet of required street yard landscaped area. Overlapping drip lines of pro-
tected trees shall only be counted once toward the required stmt yard landscaped
areas.
2) All landscaping in the permanent parkway installed by the applicant shall be cred•
ited toward the street yard landscaping area requirements.
(u Water supply. Exterior water supply outlets, sufficient in number and location, shall be
provided for maintenance of the required trees &Ad landscaped areas.
(Ord. No. 88.101, } U301), 8.2188)
Sec. 3180. Same-Trite requirements.
Ica) Number required. The stmt yard of each lot shall contain trees of a minimum of two
(2) inches in diameter measured at ground level in the following ratlas:
(1) For street yards less than one hundred ten thousand (110,000) square feet, one (1) tree
per two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or fraction thereof of street yard;
(2) For street yards equal to or over one hundred ten thousand (110,000) square fat, fifty
DSO) trees plus one (1) tree per rive thousand (5,000) square feet or fraction thereof of
street yard;
2168
10-
LA.WSCAP[NG, SCREEAlL~iG ^end3 It:n
AND TREE P1V~
,bi Prnsenwtion ojprotected frees. The number of trees required is the street yard shall be
met, whenever possible, by the preservation of existing protected trees, if any, located within
the street yard. Where parking Iota are to be constructed to serve any development, the
development shall be designed, where possible, to avoid locating any parking lot or portion
:hereot in a street yard if such locating would result in the removal of any protected tree that
is necessary to meet the number of trees required for the street yard. The
required by this article, which shown removal of any such protected tree from the streeSite t yard,
shat] only be apprvved as follows:
I, The removal would leave sufficient number of other protected trees within the street
yard to meet the tree requirements of this article; or
,21 Where the protected tree to be removed would otherwise
number required for the street yard necessary to meet the
constructing any sewer, water, electric or gas removal is requested for the purpose of
gas lines or equipment, drainage facilities,
sidewalks, driveways, parking lots or other utilities, facilities or improvements within
the street yard to serve the property, the department may approve the plan, if it
determines reasonable efforts have been made to avoid removal of the protected tree
la determining whether reasonable efforts have been made, the department shall
coi s.Aer the following-.
a. The feasibility of rerouting or relocating any of the improvements that requires
the removal, Including the relocation of any parking lot or portion thereof where
sufficient land is available; and
b. The additional coat, if any, that would be incurred in ensuringpreservation of the
protected tree.
~c) Tree credits. Any protected tree located within the street yard and which is preserved
as shown on the approved Iandscape plan shall count as two (2) areas toward the number of
required trees, if it is healthy and without substantial damage or defect.
dI Permeable areas. So As to ensure the visibility of the required trees in the street yard,
a permeable area shall be maintained around each tree. For protected trees, a permeable area
encompassing the area within the drip line of the tree shall be maintained. For newly planted
trees, the required permeable area shall be in sire as specified in the plant list, based on the
sires and species of trees planted. A "permeable area" shall mean an area that is not covered
with asphalt or concrete or other similar impervious material, except for landscaping mate-
rials as approved by the department.
%Ord, No. a 104, f 1(302), 6. 21-981
Sec. 31-31. Parking lots-Landscape requirements.
(a) Street yard parking lots. Landscaping requirements for street yard parking lots shall
be as follows:
1 General. Any parking lot or portion thereof which is constructed within a Street yard
and which Is to contain more than twenty (20) ping spsees shall provide perms-
2189
S
t
r
P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 2
January 10, 1996 na d N
Page 2
Ms. Flemming: i move approval of the consent agenda.
Ms. Schertz: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (5-0)
III. Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning a .'7656 acre tract of land, also known as 1100
Bonnie Brae, from single family (SF-10) to office with conditions (O[c)). (Z-95-038)
Ms. Russell read the procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Ms. Bateman: Tonight before us is a .7656 acre tract of land where currently the Jehovah
Witness' Church is located. Dr. Kozura, the applicant, is rc nesting to rezone the property
from SF-10 to Office with conditions. The main condition is for the sole purpose of medical
or administrative offices only, any other uses allowed in the Office zoning district would be
prohibited. We had a neighborhood meeting on January 3rd and the main concern was
drainage. There are some conditions that staff is placing on the property to prevent any
further run off than what is currently there. We notified fifteen property owners. There
were two in favor and one undecided. When reviewing this site with the Denton
Development Plan we found that the DDP allows forty-six intensity trips and the proposed
use would generate forty-nine trips. The church that is currently there produces a hundred
and fifteen intensity trips so even though it is not consistent with the Plan we feel that it
would be better than what is currently there. The recommendation is for approve! with six
conditions, (1) the sub;ect property be used for only for medical or professional office
building, (2) that no additional paving. whether asphalt or concrete, be permitted on the
property, (3) that the building footprint not be increased any larger than it currently is, (4)
that no lighting of the parking lot or the building protrude over the property boundary lines,
(5) the current size of the sign which is thirty-four square feet be the maximum allowed on
Bonnie Brae and that any signs placed on Crescent meet the Sign Ordinance standards, and
(6) that the property abide by certain sections of the landscape Regulations.
Ms. Schertz: Would you review the drainage and how that will be handled?
Mr. Salmon: At my request Ms. Bateman added the condition that no additional paving be
allowed. The drainage from this site does empty into the utility easement that runs north and
south along the backs of those lots. In the oast before Bonnie Brae was improved there used
to be quite a bit of flooding in that neighborhood. With the improvements that were
constructed several years ago on Bonnie Brae and other improvements that were installed
back in the Thomas, Ector, and Stanley street P.reas most of the flooding has been resolved.
I believe that in this case there are still a few yards that face Stanley Street that still get a
little bit of water from this site. That is why we are proposing that this particular use would
not make any expansion to the building cr the parking lot.
r
P&Z Minwes
January 10, 19% Agenda t
Page 3 Acerda
Dal;
Ms. Schertz: Are we correcting the situation or is there minimal water and there doesn't
need to be a correction?
Mr. Salmon: From the city's Pei spective it is minimal in relation to the amount of water
and the amount of problem that used to be there. We don't feet that it is a signiticznt
problem and it would be better if it were to drain toward Bonnie Brae, but we don't think
that it is justified to ask the petitioner to spend thousands of dollars when he is wanting to
occupy the existing building.
Ms. Schertz: Can any suggestion be made to the homeowners on a less expensive basis that
they could do to help the drainage situation?
Mr. Salmon: It is kind of hard to give specific recommendations. We are more than happy
to visit with people and walk their yards and make suggestions.
Ms. Schertz: I agree that the cost should probably not be passed along to the developer.
It is up for discussion right now and it could be addressed. Someo ie has taken the time to
bring it to the city's attention so I think for goodwill towards citizens and the city's
reputation I would welcome a city staff person contacting this one individual and at least
scheduling a meeting. Then if they choose not to do anything about it but complain then that
is their choice.
Mr. Salmon: Shortly after Dr. Janke's zoning case to the north of here, city workers did
go out and do some work in the easement. Part of the problem in that easement is that the
grades are so flat that without removing a bunch of curb and gutter and doing a lot of work
like that, you really can't totally fix the problem.
Nis. Bateman: I would like to add that the property is not platted and if Dr. Kozura ever
chose to expand on his business he would have to come in and plat and more things would
be addressed at that time, including sidewalks, landscaping, and dedicating drainage
easements.
Mr. Powell: Number one on your staff recommendations says that the subject property and
building be used solely for medical, professional, or administrative offices. Why are we
tying it down to that? He may want to sell it some day for something other than those three
uses.
Ms. Bateman: That is based on his request on the application? He has requested that it be
used solely for that. The next person that purchased the property would have to come in.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak?
Dr. John Kozura: My name is John Kozura and 1 am the petitioner. I have abided by
everything that the zoning manager asked me to do. There will not be any changes to the
l3.
i
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996 1
Page 4 t7anC w
` vat, _C a "4 to
parking ]c;. I do not intend to do anything that would make it any worse than it is now. All
of the work will be on the inside of the building.
Mr. Powell: Is this a lease or is this a purchase?
Dr. Kozura: This is a purchase.
Mr. Powell: Is it all right with you that this is being tied down for its uses? There are a
whole list of uses that are being excluded and it doesn't make sense to me.
Dr. Kozura: I went along with what they asked me. That was the way that it was presented
to me. I assumed that because we wanted to get this through as quick as possible that they
felt it would appease the Board,
Mr. Powell: Some of the excluded use,; I can understand.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Is there
anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the petition?
Mr. G.R. Rawley: My name is G.R. Rawley and I live at 1119 Stanley. I would like to say
that I am in opposition to this and I turned my reply in yesterday.
Ms. Russell: Yes sir, we do have that. When this report wa; given to us on Friday they had
not received it yet if you turned it in yesterday. It is in the file and we have seen it.
Mr. Rawley : Anybody that thinks that it is a little bit of water, I invite you to cane out
there after a rain. My yard is washing away. If this is approved I would like it conditioned
that the two curbs be closed off so that he water will not drain through my property. Right
now over half of the three quarter acres drains through my lot. The petitioner said that he
wanted to be a good neighbor and when I asked him if they told him about the drainage he
said
that ithat usseed by thnot is properry~ I th~ that the city should be' correct drainage
responsible.
Mr. Powell: The expected use is not going to change the flow of water is that correct?
Mr. Rawley: No, I have been living there for thirty years and 1 have had this problem since
after the first year that I moved there.
Ms. Russell: The church was built in 1973 and you had problems before that time?
Mr. Rawley: Yes.
Ms. Russell: From the sounds of it this is a problem that you have had for quite a while and
should probably he a C1P project. Have you talkers to anyone at the city?
/Y
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1946 Apnda N .
Page 5 M,. r _
Mr. Rawley: When I first moved there they h, ~l La ditches on either side of Bonnie Brae,
If the lots on Bonnie Brae had been built so that t 1k y would drain on Bonnie Brae then that
would have cut down on my problem.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in opposition to the petition? Would the
petitioner care to speak in rebuttal?
Dr. Kozura: I was not aware of the drainage problem until after I bought the building. It
was brought to my attention when 1 came in to see about rezoning. At this point I feel that
since I did not know about it and since it was existing I don't think that it would be fair for
me to have to change it
Ms. Russell: We will close the public hearing. Any final remarks?
Ms. Schertz: From hearing everything this evening, 1 want to draw a couple of conclusions
so that we understand correctly. It sounds like this is a situation where we have some
citizens experiencing some difficulty with the drainage and each of
them in their own way
has tried to take care of it or m y
gybe not, and in doing so they shifted the water. Am I
correct in maMn the statement
g that the city staff has addressed some u; These needs and you
are aware of them and that we have done all that we can do short of getting it on a Capital
Improvement Program?
Mr. Salmon: Actually the city has had two separate C1P drainage projects, one on Stanley
Street and one on Bonnie Brae. This block literally has drainage on all four sides of it.
Unfortunately there are two ;)roblems. The tnain problem is that this particular block
bounded by Bonnie Brae, Emcry, Crescent, and Stanley is zone AO tloodplain. Zone AO
is an area that is unusually flat, that during a heavy rain the water doesn't run off fast
enough because the grades are so flat. The other problem in this area is that even though
we have installed quite a few drainage improvements the culvert underneath Hwy. 380 just
to the north and east of here is extremely undersized. The State Highway Department is
proposing to rebuild Hwy. 380 at some point in the future, and of course they would make
that culvert the correct size and then our drainage systems are going to work correctly. But
until that happens our drainage systems that are out there don't have the capacity that they
ought to have. This is really one of those lot to lot drainage issues.
Ms. Flemming: The action that we take tonight will not have any affect on the drainage?
Mr. Salmon: This is a zoning case and it would have no effect on the drainage.
Mr. Powell: I am a little conf ised getting back to the staff recommendations. Why are we
saying that this can only be used for three things and then there is a whole list of prohibited
uses? Why do we have this list of prohibited uses and are they pan of the zoning?
Mr. Drake: I asked that the planning staff prepare a list of prohibited uses to attach to the
/s
r ~
P&Z Minutes I
January 10, 1996 r,pea a t~b.
Page 6
conditioned zoning ordinances because the ordinance is prohibitive in character. If you want
to see if a violation has occurred then jou can look at the prohibited list of uses.
Mr. Rawley: Since Dr. Kowra was not told of this problem is there anyway that the church
can be held liable for this problem?
Mr. Robbins: The City of Denton has no authority to require that the church do something.
Mr. Powell: Mr. Salmon, you have been out on the siu, the request that we put a condition
on it to close off some opening:, is that reasonable? It seems that we could cause a flooding
problem with that condition.
Mr. Salmon: Yes, it is not as simple as blocking off an opening because you are correct
with the way that the parking lot is sloping if you bloA it off then you are just going to dam
water up in the parking lot. It is not going to keep water from running in that direction.
Mr. Powell: 1 move that we approve this zoning request subject to conditions 2 through 6.
In the list of prohibited uses I would eliminate church or rectory, college or university or
school, community center, institutions of religious or philanthropic nature, private, primary
or secondary schools, business or trade school, home occupation, telephone line or exchange
switching or relay station, studio for photographer, artist, musician or health, and scientific
or research laboratories.
Mr. Drake: So the intent is to allow more uses?
Mr. Powell: I am not upset about the whole list 1 just think that there are some things on
the list that aten't logical. There will still be some prohibited uses.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Mr. Robbins: I would 1 ke to take a moment to confer with our legal counsel.
Ms. Russell: We will take a short break.
Mr. Robbins: The issue for me is having to do with notice. When we make notice of the
zoning case if the conditions become less restrictive then you may not be able to do that
because we didn'; make notice of that discussion. If you make notice of an Office district
and then you want to go to Cenetal Retail district, you can't do that without having basically
another zoning case and notice being made for that less restrictive General Retail district.
In this case we had an application for an Office district with specific conditions written on
the application. We made notice of Office with conditions and none of the specific
conditions were listed in that notice. The Commission has the flexibility to maneuver within
the Office conditioned district, but you can't move out of the Office district. You can
legally do what your motion was for. In all of the previous discussions with neighbors and
1C1~'J lid 1.
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996
Page 7 y"--- -
others this issue has not been discussed, that it would be anything other than Office, medical
or professional.
Mr. Drake: In the Open Meetings Act there is a requirement that items should be placed on
the agenda to give the public notice of what the Board will be considering. In this case the
Board is considering a rezoning to Office with conditions. That hasn't changed. Even
though the motion is to change the conditions from what staff recommended, the zoning
itself is still Office with conditions. I feel that it is in compliance with the Open Meetings
Act.
L Ms. Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right
hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (5-0)
IV. Good Samaritan Village is located on the east side of Hinkla Drive, approximately 2,500 feet
north of University Drive.
a. Consider a variance to Section 34-18(b) concerning platting for the sole purpose of
avoiding public improvements.
Mr. Salmon: Jerry Yensan of Landmark Surve-ors is representing the Good Samaritan
Village and has applied for a variance of Section 3448 (b) of the Co.:, Ordinances, which
concerns the platting around public improvements. The cited section s ates that a final plat
may not exclude land for the sole purpose of avoiding public improvements. I think the best
way to go through a history of how we have ended up at where we are. The main building
at Good Samaritan Village was built in 1976 and at the time our ordinames did not require
the land to be platted. In 1979 some of the duplexes along Headlee Street were platted and
constructed. At that time the drainage channel that runs north and south through the
property and was concrete lined through the area where the duplexes were being built. In
addition to that a temporary outfail ditch was constructed which routed the drainage around
and made it so that the drainage would flow off of the property. In 1994 Good Samaritan
revised their planned development to include ten more duplexes. At that time they were only
planning on constructing the duplexes on the northern portion of the property. At that time
they were told that they would have to plat their property and the issue of drainage
improvements and sidewalks came up. They said that they were only looking at five
duplexes at the time, and according to the ordinance staff does have some discretion so cue
agreed to a partial platting of the property. We did tell them at that time that i f in the future
they were going to develop any further property then they would have to plat the entire
property. By 1994 it had come to light that there was a problem with the existing drainage
ditch in that it didn't drain properly and it held water. At that time there was also a
proposed project in the Capital Improvements Program to actually install an underground
drainage system in that area where the channel is located at a cost of around two hundred
and fifty-eight thousand dollars. As is also part of our ordiance, when someone develops
property within two years of a C1P project one of their options is instead of constructing the
improvements they can give the city the money to build them and let the city contract to have
/7.
1 J
xc: ,a .c,a ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY R'dSIDENTIAL (SF-10) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFI-
CATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE OFFICE CONDITIONED (O[C)) ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0.7656 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED AT 1100 BONNIE BRAE STREET; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN
THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Dr. John Kozura, III, has applied for a change in
zoning for 0.7656 acres of land from the Single Family Residential
(SF-10) zoning district classification and use designation to the
Office conditioned (0[c)) zoning district classification and use
designation; and
WHEREAS, on January 10, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will.
be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use
designation of the 0.7656 acres of land described as in Exhibit 1,
attached hereto and incorporated into this ordinance by reference,
is changed from the Single Family Residential (SF-10) zoning
district classification and use designation to the Office condi-
tioned (0[c]) zoning district classification and use designation
under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton,
Texas, conditioned as set forth below:
1. No further paving (whether concrete or asphalt) may
be placed on the property.
2. Maximum building footprint of 3,300 square feet.
3. Lighting on the parking lot or building shall be
designed and maintained so as not to directly
illuminate, or produce intense glare upon, adjacent
properties, nor be of such intensity as to create a
nuisance or detract from the use and enjoyment of
adjacent property.
4. Only one sign may face Donnie Brae, limited in size
and area to that of the existing sign, measuring
eight feet in height and thirty-four square feet
(34 ft.') in area. All other sigrs shall conform to
the City's sign ordinance, as subsequently amended.
5. Owner shall comply with City landscape regulations
as amended, specifically, but without limitation,
S
i
4
s
JRA 26 ' % 08: 40 002 P02
' ti7enla fJO. ~
APea:~ lten
§§31-59 and 31-60 of the current code of ordinanc-
es.
6. The uses contained within the list of prohibited
uses attached hereto and incorporated by reference
herein as Exhibit 2, are prohibited within this
r district.
SECTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended to
show the change in zoning district classification.
SECTIO 11. I. That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2,000.00. Each day that a prevision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective four-
teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary
i° tereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be
published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a daily newspaper
published in the City of Denton, T,:xas, within ten (10) days of the
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 2
S
i
r
.1 ~14
Agenda '10.
ALL THAT CERTArN TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND LY;NG AND BEINC SITUATED
IN THE R08ERT BEAL'MONT SURVEY. ABSTRACT 4',iii S1, CITY AND
COUNTY OF UNION, TEXAS, AND BEING PART OF A (CALLED) 1.616 ACRE
TRACT AS DESCRIBED IN A DEED FROM CHARLES E EwiNG AND WIFE LEONA
C. EKING TO 906BY D, 1AILL'AMS. E.F. CANTRELL AND C.E. LANE.
TRUSTEES OF 'HE DENTON CCNGRECATION OF JEHCWA'S WITNESSES. ON THE
6TH DAY OF N04Eu3ER 1972, RECORDED IN vOLI:ME 659, PAGE 332, DEED
RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, AND BEING MOR£ PARTCULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOAS.
LOT 3 BEG NN k,G AT AN RCN PIN FOUND N THE NCR,., BOLNDARY .NE OF
CRESCENT STREET AT 'HE SOJ'HEAST CORNER OF _A,0 T 616 ACRE TRACT,
SAME BEING THE SOUTH'AEST CORNER OF Cl 3'_CCf. •F- Cc THE
3E.LEli AOD T'ON. AN ADDITV. TO THE C'-' AND COUN', OF
CE4'CN, TEXAS. ACCORCiwO TO THE P_41 RECOR:E: C.2 vE'T A, PAS.-
''92,''„A` RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY',
''#"ICE SOJTH 89 DEGPEES 00 4LNUTES C4 SECC',:S AES! ARH THE 4ORTH
LINE OF SAD CRESCENT STREET A DISTANCE CF !684'3 FEET TO 4
GKNA'L FOUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SA.,D '.616 ACRE TRACT AT
THE 'NTERSEC''CN OF THE FAST LINE OF BONNIE BRAE STREET AND THE
NORTH LINE OF CRESCENT STREET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 55 l I 24 SECONDS EAST A-7H THE EAST
:4rE CF BONNE BRAE STREET A DISTANCE OF 20• of FEE' TO AN R04
°'N FCL'.D FOR CORNER,
LOT 2 THENCE NORTH 89 DECREES 28 MINUTES 00 SECCNOS FAST PASS `45 AT
12.0-) FEE7 THE SOUTHEEST CORNER OF , ,Cr J. CF -HE JA,NKE ADD TION.
AN A:DIT40N '0 THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ACCORDING TO
THE Fl.AT RECCRDED ,N CABINET I, PAGE 86, PLAT RECORDS OF DENTON
COUNT, TEXAS AND CONT,NU NG IN ALL A TOTAL :STANCE OF '61.88
FEET '0 AN FON PAN FOJ%D aT THE SOUTHEAST CQR•.ER Cr _07 ? CF
SA!C AN`,.E AUDILON. SAME POINT BEING IN THE REST 30UNDARY .
OF 6LCCK 'F,' OF SArD 6ELLEu6ADE ADDITION;
r_c• ~r r
£GREES 55 U `r;TES 4; 3iCi CAST x'H •..c u,ccr .
a r Jr ~,A.y ;,LL," VEADE ACCdT C'r, A :-STANCE `W 9,2-
-EE- AN 9CN PN FO ,D i CORNER,
'HE',CE SCc DD fGPEES 24 N NJTES 11 SECONDS EAST A TH THE AEST
L'NE Oc B,0 Cc SA1^ SELLEVEADs 400'f a O'ST.vOE OF
19084 FEET •0 t i4' CF 9EGINN`4G ANT :ON'A•1NS A,L
C 7656 AOPE CF LAND
LOT I
OINT OF
?ECI.1•NING v - =E: E EC4 A.: HEFE
ro,.,4
;AO, • ...,L - a' ~1) ^ 'A-
Y N. rAYWATb
_ %le 't S6s9 fR I
Stier f
- • - _ , of '
moo.
T
l
1
Z-95-038
Awl, 111.
LIST OF PROHIBITED USE'S ,
Community Unit Development Dormitory, Hoarding or Rooming House
Hotel or Motel Art Gallery or Museum
Day Nursery or Kindergarten SGiiool Group Homes
Halfway House Restaurant
Hospital (General Acute Care)
Hospital (Chronic Care)
Public Library
Monastery or Convent
Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged
Occasional Sales
Park, Playground or Public Community Center
School, Public or Denominational
Accessory Building
Community Center (Private)
Electrical Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Temporary Field or Construction Office
Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Building
Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station
Off-Street Parking Incidental to Main Use
Off-Street Remote Parking
Sewage Pumping Station
Private Swimming Pool
Telephone, Business Office
Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well
Country Club (Private) with Golf Course
Public Golf Course
Public Park or Playground
Public Playfield or Stadium
Swim or Tennis Club
Railroad Track or Right-of-Way
Animal Clinic or Hospital (No outside runs or pens)
Farm or Ranch
Cemetery or Mausoleum
Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club
Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psy~oiatric Patients
Public Building, Shop, yard of Local, State or Federal Government
Radio and/or Television Microwave Tower
Water Treatment Plant
Airport Landing Field or Heliport
Commercial Parking Lot or Structure
Cafeteria
Mortuary or Funeral Parlor ~rr
,
r
S
i
Aft Nu
APW9 Mai D.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT - (o
DATE: January 22, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment of section 34-114 (17)F of the Code of Ordinances
h Concerning Delay of Sidewalk Construction for Single Family
Residential Developments
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval.
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND:
The proposed amendment will reduce the amount of money developers are required
to place in escrow for the postponement of sidewalk construction in single family
residential subdivisions from 110% to 15% of the total estimated cost of
construction of those sidewalks. Developers would now be held responsible for
15% of the sidewalk construction, with the remainder of the responsibility on the
homebuildere.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS. OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Engineering and Transportation
Building Inspections Division
Developers of Residential Subdivisions
Bomebuilders
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City could incur the cost of installing sidewalks in a subdivision in excess
of the 15% escrow if the developer or homebuildere did not complete them.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rick ve a
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
6av a mon
Senior Civil Engineer
Approved:
er y ar
D1 or of Ingineering & Transportation
AEE00605
4
S
1
Ill 1
I
sidewal3.ocd
Ca.. a- 1
ORDINANCE ITO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AMENDING SECTION 34-114
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS TO REDUCE
THE LEVEL OF ESCROW REQUIRED OF DEVELOPERS OF RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVI-
SIONS FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE,
AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That subsection (17)(f) of section 34-114 of the
Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby amended
to read as follows; all provisions of section 34-114 not specifi-
cally changed herein shall remain intact anti in full force and
effect:
Sec. 34-114. Streets. [text of general provisions unchanged]
(1) Street classifications. (text unchanged)
(2) Vehicle trips. [text unchanged]
(3) Compliance with specifications. [text unchanged]
(4) Street capacity. [text unchanged]
(5) Perimeter streets. (text unchanged)
(6) Improvements to existing off-site streets. [text
unchanged]
(7) Adequate street access. [text unchanged]
(8) Coordination with surrounding streets. [text unchanged]
(9) Intersections. [text unchanged]
(10) Medians. [text unchanged)
(11) Cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets. (text unchanged)
(12) Alleys. [text unchanged]
(13) Private roads. (text unchanged)
(14) Street names and signs. (text unchanged)
(15) Street lighting. (text unchanged)
(16) Fire lanes. [text unchanged]
!
4pcnda Ilo.
A;ard~ I?•n
(17) Sidewalks. [text of general provisions unchanged]
(a) [text unchanged]
(b) [text unchanged]
(c) [text unchanged]
(d) [text unchanged]
(e) [text unchanged]
(f) Escrow agreement alternative. Should the public
improvements required by section 34-40, other than
sidewalks, be completed by the contractor and
developer, and the cost of constructing sidewalks
be twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or
less, as determined by the city engineer, the
developer may, instead of constructing sidewalks
along the frontage of residential (single family or
duplex) lots in the development, deposit cash money
in the amount of fifteen percent (15%) of the cost
of completing the sidewalks or six hundred dollars
($600), whichever is greater, with a bank in Denton
County as escrow agent pursuant to an approved
escrow agreement.
(1) The form and provisions of the escrow agree-
ment shall be approved by the city engineer
and city attorney. The escrow funds will
partially guarantee the construction of the
sidewalks by the builders in the development.
(2) If the sidewalks are not completed by the
builders and accepted by the city within three
(3) years of the acceptance by the city of
other public improvements in the development,
the developer shall have the option to com-
plete the construction of sidewalks in the
development and the escrow funds shall be
released to the developer upon acceptance of
the sidewalks by the city. Upon approval by
the city engineer, the developer may make
partial draws against the escrow funds once at
least 85k of the sidewalks in the subdivision
are complete, provided that sufficient funds
remain in the account to complete the remain-
der of the sidewalk construction. This provi-
sion is an exception to the requirements of
section 34-42(b) of this chapter.
PAGE 2
r
S
r
i
AQanCa 11a. G'
Apmd~ Ite • ~ j
Data,
(3) Should the developer elect not to complete the
sidewalks, the city may utilize the escrow
funds to complete the construction. Should
the escrow funds be insufficient to complete
construction per the city's standards, the
city may utilize the remaining escrow funds to
perform initial grading or to install tempo-
rary asphalt sidewalks.
(4) A builder or owner of improvements upon a
residential lot shall not be granted occupancy
until the sidewalk in front of such lot has
been completed and accepted by the city.
SECTION II. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen-
tence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application
thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the va-
lidity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City
Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have
enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity.
SECTION III._ That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
PAGE 3
SUBDIVISION AHD A D DEV PKEU
Ageidn I.
EY+S~i rt~ Oc~l i r►aNC G, R,,~,w~ ~;c~
Olt1 ^
f. Delay of sidewalk construction. o d the public im-
provements required by Section 34-401 other than side-
walks, be completed by the contractor and developer and
the cost of constructing sidewalks is $25,000 or less, as
determined by the city engineer, the developer may, in
lieu of constructing sidewalks along the frontage of
residential (single family or duplex) lots in the develop-
ment, deposit cash money in the amount of 110% of the cost
of completing the sidewalks with a bank in Denton County
as escrow agent pursjitnt to an escrow agreement.
1. The form and provisions of the escrow agreement
shall be approved by the city engineer and city
attorney to insure tie completion of the sidewalks
within three (3) years of the acceptance by the city
of the other public improvements in the development.
The escrowed funds will guarantee the construction of
the sidewalks by the builders in the development. If
the sidewalks are nog` completed by the b»ilder and
accepted by the city within three years, the developer
shall complete the construction oY sidewalks in the
development And the escrow funds shall be released to
the developer: upon acceptance of the sidewalks by the
city. Should the developer fail to completes the side-
walks when directed by the city to do se, the city
shall utilize the escrow funds to complete construc-
tion. No additional building permits will be issued
in the development until all sidewalks are completed
and accepted by the city.
2. A builder or owner o: improvements upon a resi-
dential lot shall not be granted occupancy until the
sidewalk in front of such lot has been completed a,:d
accepted by the city. Should a sidewalk along the
frontage of an entire block of residential lots be
completed and accepted by city, the proportional
amount of UJa cost of the sidewalks completed on such
block as much cost compares to the total coat of
sidewalks to be co~pleted in the development shall be
released to the developer by the eacrov agent. This
provision is an exception to the requirements of
Section 34-42(b) of this chapter.
Bee. 34-115. Driveways and parking tots.
(a) Definitions The following words, terms and phrases, when used
in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this
subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
Dena- ~%,ans the department of public works.
wort paeued.ee~s ~ coal./ •a,:a.
AaaaM 56
f
i~
t
® AQiAfi~
a7t~Ci ft:n r
CITY of DENTON, TMAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING & 215 E McK1NNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201
r MEMORANDUM (817) 568.8200 # DFW METRO 434.2529
DATE: January 23, 1996
TO: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
FROM: David Salmon, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Sidewalk Escrow Ordinance Amendment
Al.tached is a City Council report and bacKup to be placed in the packet for the
F?bruary 6th council meeting.
"s we discussed, the proposed amendment will reduce the amount of money a
developer is required to place in escrow for the guarantee of interior sidewalk
construction in residential subdivisions. Developers will be held responsible
for 154 of the sidewalk construction with the remaind:r of the responsibility on
the home builders.
* Prior to 1992, developers were required
subdivisions prior to acceptance of the subdivision. Due toaconce nsrthatemajor
portions of the sidewalks were being destroyed during the home building process,
an ordinance amendment was processed allowing developers to postpone construction
of sidewalks in residential subdivisions by placing 1104 of the estimated cost
of the sidewalks in an interest bearing escrow account. In most cases, the
developer requires the homebuilders to install the sidewalk in front of each home
as it is constructed. So in essence, the home builder is paying for the sidewalk
instead of the developer. The hc.,e builder does not receive a final inspection
on the home until the sidewalk is complete.
The 1104 escrow can be a large sum of money. Dev:lopers main concern is that the
interest they make on the escrow account is much less than the interest they are
paying on the money they borrowed to set up the escrow account. As the City has
control over the final inspection of homes, developers feel the 1104 escrow is
excessive and that a 154 escrow is reasonable. It will give the city some
protection if development stops building prior to filling all of the lots which
was common in the 1990's. This amendment will make the City of Denton more
consistent with other metroplex cities.
Qav Salmo
AEE00650
"Dedicated to Quality Sendce"
i
,~raG]Y,O.. ^ UG
SIDEWALK RESPONSIBILITY COMPARIS IV
CITY DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITY HOME BUILDER RESPONSIBILITY
Plano Perimeter sidewalks, Sidewalks along frontage of
sidewalks across bridges, lots
culverts and power line
easements. (No Escrow) _
Carrollton Perimeter sidewalks and Sidewalks along frontage of
temporary asphalt sidewalks lots
inside subdivision if close
_ to school. (No Escrow)
Lewisville Perimeter sidewalks, all Sidewalk across front yard
handi-cap ramps, sidewalks of lots
across easements and
bridges, and along side lot
lines on corner lots. (No
Escrow) _
Flower Mound Perimeter sidewalks, Sidewalk along frontage of
handicap ramps, and across lots
easements
Coppel Perimeter sidewalks, all Sidewalks along frontage of
handicap ramps, sidewalks lots
_ across bridges
Denton (Current) Perimeter sidewalks and None
construction or 110E escrow
of interior sidewalks
Denton (Proposed) Perimeter sidewalks and 15% All interior sidewalks
escrow of interior
sidewalks
AEE00678
P&Z Minutes
December 13, 1995
Page 29 R n o,
Xr. Hold a public hearing and consider recommending alternatives amending chapter 34,
Subdivision and Land Development, concerning sidewalk escrow standards.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Salmon: At your last meeting on the same subdivision, The Oaks of Montecito, you
all wished to grant a variance of the sidewalk escrow requirement that we have in our
ordinance. It was determined after that meeting that neither the Planning and Zoning
Commission or the City Council could grant a variance of a procedure. The correct way of
acting on this would actually be to amend the ordinance. At the same meeting we decided
what they thought would be reasonable in terms of the sidewalk escrow requirement. At that
meeting we all agreed that it would be a good idea for the city te) have a small escrow
required in the event that we end up with some lots that just don't develop in a reasonable
Ume frame. Right now that is not something that is happening but back in the mid SOS that
was happening a lot. That could happen again at some point. We decided that fifteen
percent of nic total sidewalk improvements, as opposed to a hundred and ten percent, was
a more reasonable figure. Basically what that would do is that the developer would put up
a fifteen percent escrow amount prior to the acceptance of the subdivision. It would give
the city some protection against lots that just didn't develop. It would enable the city to use
the money to make linkages inside of the subdivision that were needed or necessary. Getting
into the details of this, this happened so quickly that we haven't had time to have a draft
ordinance prepared. We will have an ordinance prepared by the time this goes to Council
in January, if you will look at the ordinance change it would seem that you could just
change the number from 110 to 15 but it is a little more complicated than that because the
language in some of the other pans of the ordinance are based on there being a full escrow
amount. I have givc,t you a marked up copy of the ordinance with some of the things that
I think need to be addressed in order to make this work properly. We would propose that
the developers would only be responsible for the amount of sidewalk that the escrow
accounts would build. In the second paragraph on page 143 it says that the developer would
be required to install all of the sidewalks that had not been completed within three years.
It is conceivable that after three years there could be more than fifteen percent of the lots still
left and this would still obligate the developer to build more than fifteen percent. `,What I am
going to propose is that this paragraph be changed somehow, so that the developer would
only be responsible for the amount of sidewalks that the escrow account would actually
build. I would also like to add to this some type of mechanism that would allow the city or
the developer to put in a temporary sidewalk such as asphalt if for some reason several of
the lots don't develop. It is more than the fifteen percent escrow but to make sense of the
sidewalk system, or to make it a useful system you are going to have to build more than
what the escrow would actually provide then in that instance we would be able to do some
sort of temporary sidewalk instead of building a normal concrete sidewalk to link that up.
The only complimion to that is that at some point in time if someone builds a house tk,ey
are still going to have to build a sidewalk there. If we have 3 lot of vacant lots at least we
would be able to get them linked up with something. On the third paragraph which is
labelled number two on that page that is the portion t;iat allows us to return portions of the
money back to the developer after so many sidewalks have been completed. Of course
P&Z Minutes
December 13, 1995
Page 30
because we would only be keeping a fifteen percent escrow this would need to be changed
to say that the developer could get a partial draw on the escrow once at least eighty-five
percent of the sidewalks were completed. There would be no partial draw of the escrow
until at least eighty-five percent of the sidewalks were completed and it is just one of those
things that makes sense since we are going to a fifteen percent escrow. One thing that I
would tike to add is a minimum amount for the escrow. If you had a small subdivision you
might end up with a hundred dollars which would not be worth the time and effort. What
I Nvould suggest is to use a minimum sixty foot lot width and figure about six hundred dollars
and make the minimum of fifteen percent or six hundred dollars. That at least would give
the city enough money if needed to build the sidewalk across one vacant lot or possibly more
than that if we needed to do a temporary type sidewalk.
Mr. Drake: David is right in that this has bean something that we have rushed through. My
involvement has been rather limited. David and I did discuss the issue of the fifteen percent
and the minimum amount. I haven't had a chance to check through the wording. If the
Commission wishes to carry through with this recommendation that it will be with the
understanding that we will need to look at these items a little bit closer and not hold us to
close to the actual wording of particular ordinance.
Mr. Moreno: If you had a dishonest developer, could he put up fifteen percent and never
build a sidewalk and walk away from it?
Mr. Drake: That is one of the dangers of this. One of the things that David was telling me
about some internal procedures that we have to ensure that final inspection will not be
issued until the sidewalk is completed. That certainly does provide a little bit more
protection.
Mr. Powell: Was it the concept here that the sidewalk had to be built when the lot was
developed. That was part of the deal 1 thought.
Mr. Salmon: Well that is required anyway. We require that the sidewalk be built at the
same time as the house and a final inspection is not performed on that house unless the
sidewalk is in place. So you have that to help enforce having the sidewalk built. Currently
we require a hundred and ten percent escrow which means that the if the sidewalk isn't built
within three years then the city could get the money and do it, or require the developer to
do that. That is sort of a double safety net. What we are doing here is taking away most
of the second safety net and assuming that the first net is going to catch almost everything
and we still have a little bit of a safety net with the fifteen percent.
Mr. Powell: I like the concept, I don't want to make a recommendation until we have a final
draft ordinance. 1 recognize that you haven't had time to get a draft but I prefer to put this
off until we had a final ordinance change to recommend to the Council.
Mr. Salmon: The only thing that I might add is that first of all what we are asking you to
do is to recommend this concept and that an ordinance would be prepared for the City
Council. The City Council would actually consider the actual ordinance. Does the
r
P&Z Minutes
December 13, 1995
Page 31 FA
ordinance have to come back here?
Mr. Drake: I would compare this to a zoning case where we don't have an ordinance
prepared until it goes to City Council. What I am hearing David say is that he is laying out
the concept to see how the Commission feels about it. If the Commission can endorse the
concept as proposed we could prepare the ordinance for City Council. Now if there is some
concern that the Commission has not heard enough of the concept to get z full grasp of what
is being proposed then that might be different. I don't think that it is a necessary
requirement for the actual ordinance to be prepared unless the Commission is not
comfortable with that.
Mr. Salmon: I would add that we have a subdivision out there that we haven't accepted yet.
We have released some meters so that they can start building some houses but only a limited
amount. What we would like to do is get this ordinance to City Council in January so that
if they choose to approve it there won't be any hold up on the subdivsion. If we have to
come back here with a prepared ordinance we might be putting them off a little bit longer
than we would otherwise.
Ms. Schertz: I don't have a problem with the concept and moving on it as a concept and
telling them that we will be relying on the Council to go over it carefully for their approval.
Ms. Russell: Would it be possible, if we approve the concept, to see a copy of the ordinance
prior to it going to City Council? Then if we have a serious conflict we can bring it up
before it gets to City Council?
Mr. Drake: l don't think tha: will be a problem.
i
Ms. Russell: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the petition?
Mr. Kent Key: My name is Kent Key. This is a burden to development in Denton and we
appreciate the steps that you are taking, We would like to see this go to Council as soon as
possible.
Ms. Russell: How do you feel about the escrow of fifteen percent or six hundred dollar
minimum?
i
Mr. Key: We don't have a problem with that,
Mr. Ed Bright: My name is Ed Bright. It is a relief to us as developers. It is net a good
idea to put sidewalks in before the construction of the house. We don't mind the fifteen
percent escrow. We will vote for that unanimously. The hundred and ten percent escrow
is a killer and we sure would like some relief.
Mr. Fred Gossett: My name is Fred Gossett. To me this is a friendly business attitude and
we are approaching a solution to the sidewalks by tying them into the final inspection. I
think it makes sense and it makes good economic sense and it certainly relieves us of the
r
h
i
P&Z Minutes
December 13, 1995 ngen e
Page 32
burden of having to spend that extra money for something that could be handled in this
manner. I appreciate your consideration.
Mr. Brian Burke: My name is Brian Burke. You really are taking a big possitive step here.
1 Support this and if you support it I think that the ramifications of this will come back to you
possitively for many years. I think that you have a tremendous safety net. This is going to
do a lot to rum around the reputation that the city has gotten unjustly or not.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak
in opposition? We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Salmon: Staff recommends that you recommend to the City Council the concept that
was proposed in the backup with the addition that we have a minimum of six hundred
dollars.
Mr. Moreno: I like this concept and I realize it is a big step. I feel a little apprehensive
to signing off on this without seeing tt,,~ final draft.
Mr. Cochran: I think thVt this is a reasonable idea. I move that we approve and recommend
to Council that they endorse the concept of reducing the amount of escrow for sidewalks to
fifteen percent with a minimum of six hundred dollars and that the final draft be brought
back to us as soon as possible.
Ms. Schertz: Second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand.
Opposed same sign. Approved. (6-1) Mr. Moreno opp,)sed.
r
I
P&Z Minutes t;
January 10, 1996 -
Page 24
like a residence with the exception of a moderate size sign in the front. The lighting will just
be residential lighting. There won't be any additional lighting to disturb the residents in the
area. We do plan to use a shrub hedge to keep headlights from disRtrbing the neighbors.
Ms. Schertz: Are you familiar with the conditions that staff is recommending?
Ms. Eddy: Yes.
Ms. Schertz: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Is there
anyone that would like to speak in opposition to the petition? We will close the public
hearing.
Mr. Robbins: The applicant has indicated that they plan to use the house and that they
:could build a sign that looks like fts. Those are not specific conditions that are part of the
ordinance, so they don't have to use th, house, they don't have to build a sign that looks like
that, although the height and the area of that sign are standards that would be in the
ordinance.
Mr. Powell: I move that we recommend approval of Z-95-037 rezoning to Office
conditioned district with the conditions stated on page 115. There are six conditions.
Mr. Jones: Second.
Ms. Schertz: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand.
Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-0)
VIII, Hold a public hearing and consider a recommendation on an ordinance amending Chapter
34, Subdivision and Land Development, concerning the escrow guarantee amount and
responsibility for building sidewalks.
Ms. Schertz opened the public hearing.
Ms. Russell returned to chambers at 9:43 p.m.
Mr. Salmon: We heard this back in December and we agreed to supply you with a draft
ordinance prior to it going to City Council. After that meeting I sent a legal request for the
actual ordinance. When Jerry got into it he had some specific questions that we did not
discuss in very much detail at that meeting. They are rather important items that we feel
need to be brought out on the table to make sure everyone understands what exactly what
it is we would be doing by changing the ordinance to what has been proposed. In response
to that Jerry has prepared two separate draft ordinances, each or them different. I will
briefly describe the difference between them. Depending on what is decided tonight we will
be going to City Cottrtcil in February with one of the draft ordinances. The first ordinance,
which is the longer ordinance, reduces the amount of sidewalk escrow from one hundred
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996
Page 25 !
and ten percent down to fifteen percent, however, the responsibility for building the
sidewalks inside the subdivision remains with the developer of the subdivision. What would
happen in this case is that prior to acceptance of the subdivision the developer would put up
their fifteen percent sidewalk escrow, and in addition to that would enter into a deferment
contract with the city, and they would be responsible for the construction of those interior
sidewalks in the event that the builders did not complete them within a timely fashion. The
second ordinance again reduces the escrow from a hundred and ten percent to fifteen
percent, but it also removes the responsibility of ultimately constructing the sidewalks from
the original subdivision developer and makes the builders of the homes in that subdivision
solely responsible for the sidewalks. The main difference is that with the first ordinance if
there is a downturn in the economy, the city has fifteen percent escrow and the city can go
back to the developer to get the sidewalks built. With the second draft the city merely has
the fifteen percent escrow sitting in the bank.
Mr. Drake: The concept of dropping from a hundred and ten percent escrow to fifteen
percent escrow is going to have some negative impact on our ability to ensure that sidewalks
get completed and not at public expense. When I started to draft the ordinance according
to the direction of the Planning and Zoning Commission 1 became a bit concerned that
rutting in some of those changes we would not be able to hold anybody accountable for
building the sidewalks. One of the things about the current escrow other than being a higher
amount, the way that it is written is that it requires the developer to complete the sidewalks
and to put the money in escrow. The concern is that we can't always control who the
developer is and we can't discriminate between developers. The purpose is to make sure that
the sidewalks get put in and that the citizens of Denton don't get saddled with the burden and
the expense of that. The only way I could think of handling this was to require a contract
where the developer could defer construction of the sidewalks for three years, which is the
period of time that the escrow could be held. This is an important issue from an
enforcement standpoint. If a developer abdicates his responsibility to build the sidewalks
within the three year period, then the only alternative is to build the sidewalks and have them
accepted and approved at the same time as the other public improvements are. I spoke about
this with David and that was not the direction that he was proposing earlier. I felt that this
was important and that you were fully aware of what the issues were and to know what you
will be getting yourselves into depending on which ordinance you recommend to the City
Council.
Ms. Schertz: How do other cities handle this? Is this something new that we are attempting
here?
Mr. Drake: I haven't surveyed the other cities. What I attempted to do was to make the
longer ordinance as harmonious with the existing ordinance as I could. One of the aspects
of the current ordinance is that it is limited to sidewalks for which the cost of construction
is tvienty-five thousand dollars or less. That is because of the state law, if you have more
than twenty-five thousand dollars of public improvements then there is a bunch of onerous
bonding requirements that would b: iacensistent with this kind of a deferred construction.
j
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996 ire
Page 26 a`
The longer of the two ordinances is really very close to what we have now. The only real
change is that the escrow is changed from one hundred and ten percent to fifteen percent,
which was my initial understanding of what the Commission was recommending. The
shorter of the two ordinances allows the developer to wash his hands of the project once it
is turned over to the builders.
Ms. Schertz: My first thoughts are 'iat I am not very excited about entering into a contract
with the developer to complete the sidewalks. I feel really strong that at a point where the
developer is not able to complete a project and not able to finish the sidewalks, it is really
wasting the taxpayers money to go after him and sue him because he is not going to have any
money anyway. 1 would really like to see how other cities handle this.
Mr. Drake: The city could have taken a much tougher stance but 1 did it in such a way that
we could review it to see if it would be worth it to pursue the developer. Most statute of
limitations do not run against municipalities. The city differs from a private business in that
you don't necessarily wash away every case because you have more options available to you.
Ms. Russell: Would anyone like to speak in favor?
Mr. Ed Bright: My n me is Ed Bright and I live at 2400 F.M. 2181. I am a developer and
I specialize in single family construction. I currently have a development, Phase 2 of
Deerwood, this is very important to me because we haven't yet been accepted by the city.
There are three ways that land development works. There is tract building where the
developer builds houses on the lots and sells th° house and the lot. Another way is to
develop the lot and sell the lot to the builders. Under the present sidewalk situation my
money is sitting in First State Bank, one hundred and ten percent and it is earning 3.2
percent interest. I would rather see either one of these proposals passed because they would
give us some relief. The third way is to develop the lots and sell them to individuals and to
builders. It seems to me that the problem is not the lots with houses on them. The builder
builds the house and there is a thing called a certificate of occupancy and the building
inspector is not going to issue that if there are no sidewalks. If 1 sell a lot to an individual
he may want to finance it for five years, so for five years he is not building and that is where
we run into problems and then you could come after me. A lot of other cities use the
certificate of occupancy to make sure that the sidewalks get built. As a developer I would
gladly take either of those proposals over what we currently have, but if asked for a
preference I would prefer that latter ordinance of course.
Mr. Brian Burke: My name is Brian Burke and 1 live at 1318 Auburn. The sidewalk is the
number one war zone in the city for developers. 1 think that the ordinances as drafted offer
a good solution. I wish that I could give a comparison for other cities. 1 think that you have
a great idea here.
Mr. Fred Gossett: My name is Fred Gossett and 1 my business address is 600 South Elm.
This is one of those things that would cut us some slack and keep us in business. It is not
J
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996
Page 27 '
rfl-
our desire to escape our responsibility. I have looked around the community ~ '
seen anything that isn't eventually finished. 1 would like to see the builder held responsible
for the sidewalk and have it tied to the final inspection. 1 would hope that you will consider
either one of these and 1 would be happy with your decision.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone else to speak in favor? Is there anyone to speak in opposition?
We will close the public hearing. Are there any comments?
Mr. Salmon: The main difference between these two options is who is ultimately
responsible? Under option one the developer remains responsible for the sidewalks and the
builders are still going to be required to install the sidewalks with the homes. The only time
that the developer may have to come back is if the builder doesn't install the sidewalks. The
second option is that the builders build the sidewalks and if they don't then the city has the
fifteen percent escrow. ?t really is a matter of comfort level and protection for the
taxpayers. We don't issue certificates of occupancy for homes but the building inspectors
do go out and perform a final inspection. Typically what we do when we have issues like
this in a subdivision is that we hold final inspections until those items are done. It works
similar to a certificate of occupancy but it isn't.
Ms. Russell: Is the sidewalk part of the final inspection?
Mr. Salmon: Yes it is.
Ms. Schertz: What could actually happen is that the city doesn't give the final inspection
and the people go ahead and move into the house and the builder is continuing to pay for the
utilities. The utilities will not switch over to the owner of the home until the final inspection
is done. So yes, every builder is motivated to get that final inspection.
Mr. Jones: Throughout the city do we have many uncompleted sidewalks in subdivisions?
Has this been a problem?
Mr. Salmon: Up until 1988 our ordinance did not require sidewalks and the economy was
slow so it was not a problem. Most of our subdivisions now that have sidewalks are
relatively new and with the econorty being what it is there is not a real problem. The main
concern here is if we ever do end up in an economic period similar to what we had in the
mid to late 80a then there could be a problem.
Mr. Drake: The other reason that we have not had a problem is because we required the
developer to put the sidewalks in when they put in the streets and we did require a hundred
and ten percent escrow.
Mr. Jones: You make the comment that this option will not be available to any developer
who has previously defaulted. Would it revert then to the hundred and ten percent if you
have a developer that has defaulted in the past?
P&Z Minutes `A i d
January 10, 1996 agendaJI
Page 2E Ho~L i
aperda f;.n
Mr. Drake: What happens then is that the escrow option is not available and they build
sidewalks with the other public improvements.
Mr. Jones: I move that we recommend option 1 where the developer is ultimately held
responsi ble.
Ms. Flemming: Second.
Mr. Jones: My thinking on this is that if this is a motivational factor to attmct developers
then we could in fact attract the wrong kind of deve oper who would just go out there
develop and walk away and then come back and to do another project. 1 don't think
it will affect the developers that we currently have in town, so I don't see how this affects
them one way or the other. It is the developers that we don't know that I am concerned
about.
Ms. Schertz; So then if we hold the developer responsible for the sidewalks and the builder
is getting his final imspection, then the final inspection will not be issued also in this case if
the sidewalks are not i7 place?
Mr. Drake: That's correct.
Ms. Russell: Any other discussion? All in favor please raise your hand. Opposed same
sign. Denied. (2-3) Opposed Ms. Schertz, Mr. Powell, and Ms. Russell.
Mr. Powell: I move that we recommend option 2 where the developer is not held ultimately
responsible for the sidewalks.
Ms. Scherz: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion?
Mr. Powell: Yes I would like to explain my theory here. I don't really want to see any
sidewalks where there is not a house. The reason I say that is that when you build a house
you are going to ruin the sidewalk anyway. I just think that we should wait until the house
is build to put it in, and that is what I understand option 2 will do.
Mr. Jones: Under option I if it is not completed in the three years could the city go bac c
to the developer and ask for the escrow?
Mr. Drake: You would have the fifteen percent escrow there. For one lot the money would
be there in escrow. If you were talking about six or seven lots, the ordinance really isn't set
up to address that issue.
Mr. Salmon: What this fifteen percent escrow is for is that if there are any vacant lots then
P&Z Minutes
January 10, 1996 Aoene
Page 29 nse~ iti,a' c
we can build sidewalks across them if we need to, to make any necessary links. The
ordinance is also written so that if there are a lot of lots varant then the city can take that
fifteen percent and simply install some temporary sidewalks to make those linkages until
someone builds on those lots and puts in a concrete sidewalk. Under either option there is
a chance that you may end up with a vat art lot and a sidewalk.
Mr. Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right
hand. Opposed same sign. Approved. (4-1) Opposed Nis. Flemming.
Ms. Schertz: Could they check other cities to see how they handle this for competitiveness?
Ms. Russell: I think for informational purposes it would be a good idea.
IX. Consider removal of a 36 inch Cottonwood tree in conjunction with sidewalk construction
on Willowwood Street.
Mr. Salmon: Whenever the city is proposing to build a capital improvement and it will
require the removal of any trees ten inch:s or larger we need to bring it before you and ask
for permission to remove that tree. In this case we are going to be building a sidewalk on
Willowwood Street. In visiting with the neighborhood and each individual resident we are
in a situation were we are recommending that we remove a thirty-six inch cottonwood tree.
Over a period of two years we have had a lot of input. We proposed to go around the back
of this tree, but the property owner did not want to grant an easement. We took this issue
to City Council back in October and the City Council recommended that we not get an
easement in this case which we understood to be their way of saying to remove the tree. We
still have to bring it before you. Staff is recommending that we remove the thirty-six inch
cottonwood tree.
Mr. Powell: City Council has pretty much said that they don't want to go after an
easement?
Mr. Salmon: Right, in this case they have indicated to us that they don't want to continue
to try to get and easement at that location.
Ms. Flemming: So why did you bring it to us?
Mr. Salmon: The issue of the tree wasn't really addressed and we are required by ordinance
to bring it here to you. You can add conditions to this such as require us to plant some trees
somewhere along the project.
Mr. Powell: flow much longer would that cottonwood tree live?
Mr. Yost: Considering all of the elements it would have about twenty more years which
isn't long for a tree.
C
4q_ 2 rio-4(o
ORDINANCE 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 THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase
of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of STATE
law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described bids are the Iowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies
or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and
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 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials,
equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attachcd hereto, are hereby accepted
and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
BID ITEM
NUMBER N0. VENDOR
AMOUNT
1843 1,2 ALTEC IND.
1843 3 VILLAGE FORD $128,9 .00
1850 ALL BRODARTCOMPANY E69'4811.00
1851 ALL BCI MECHANICAL EXHIBIT
$ 16,250.00
SECTION-11. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons subrt..ting 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, and related documents.
SECTION 111. That should the City and persons submitting approved and 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 documents herein approved and accepted.
t
a
1
1, f
G... _.p? ,G1~sQ._
SECTION.IY. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the
submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount
and in accordance with the approved bids o: ;pursuant to a «rittcn contract made pursuant thereto as
authorized herein.
SECT!ON_V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM-
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
SUPPLY.ORD
?i
f
i
BID NUMBER: 1850
BID NAME: BOOKS FOR PUBLIC BRODART
LIBRARY
DOPE N DATE: JANUARY 18, 1996 Co. _ 0;.- t7
DE8CRIPtION VENDOR
SECTION[
% DISCOUNT: EXHIBIT "A"
TRADE BOOKS WITRADE BINDING 44.5%
-TRADE BOOKS W/SINGL_E BINDING 44.5%
TECHNICAUSHORT DISCOUNT 13.0%
- -
i
COST OF BOOK ORDERING SERVICE 1 NC
COST OF PROCESSING SERVICES.65
-
SECTION Ii
I _ %
DISCOUNT:
GENERAL TRADE BOOKS 44.5% i
GENERAL TRADE BOOKS WITS PUBLISHERS 44.5%
SINGLE REINFORCED BINDINGS
GENERAL TRADE BOOKS WITH PUBLISHERS 23.5%
LIBRARY BINDINGS
f I
SHORT DISCOUNT BOOKS 13.0%
COST OF BOOK ORDERING SERVICE NC
COST OF PROCESSING SERVICES .65 f
s
E
1
i
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1996
CITY COUNCIL REPORY Aoeade
Aprrta tarn ~
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ott-
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: BID # 1843 - AERIAL DEVICE BUCKET TRUCKS AND UTILITY POWER
SERVICE TRUCK
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder for each item
as listed below:
ITEM QTY DE! CRiPTION SUPPLIER P&CE
1. 2 41' Aerial Bucket Truck Altee Ind. $ 77,541.00 EA
2. l 30' Aerial Bucket Truck Altec Ind. $ 51,399.00 EA
3. 1 Utility Power Service'fruck Village Ford $.69,481.OOEA
TOTAL BID AWARD $275,962.00
SUINJIMARY: This bid is for the purchase of four Motor Pool replacement vehicles. The Item 1
units replace 1987 and 1988 bucket trucks with life to date maintenance cost of $40,637.00 and
$60,339.00 respectively. Item 2 replaces a 1986 model bucket truck with life to date maintenance
cost of $27,307. Item 3 replaces a 1986 construction truck with life to date expenditure of
$12,676.00. Each of these old units have been reviewed by the Fleet Operations Division and
determined to bc no longer economical to maintain or suitable for the assigned application.
The recommendel+ award includes the optional air conditioner for all three items and the extended
f warranty for item 2. Items I and 3 include extended warranty in base bid.
Each new unit was approved for purchase during the 1995-96 budget process.
BACKGROUND. Tabulation Sheet
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS__OR.GROUPS AFFECTED: Motor Pool, Fleet Operation,,
Electric Distribution (Item 1 & 3),Traffic Control (Item 2).
FISCAL IMPACT: These units are motor pool replacements and will be funded from Motor Pool
replacement funds account #720-025-0584-9104.
Re ect I ub 'Red
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Ap
i
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
629.AGENDA
s
5
i
r'
iBIDw 1845 BI I.MVIE AERIAL DEVICE BUCKET HENDRIX ILLACE HILL LEE TECO ALTEC COMMERCIAL MAHANEY
i TRUCK&CTfLITYFO"ER EE TRUCK& FORD UTTER )ARMON BODY LN74
1 SERVICE TRUCK I! EQUIP. i FORD FORD
~0 1.16.96 f! `F
I DESCRIPTlON_ -V'ElADOR _..PENDOR_ ..~Eti"DOR _ VENDOR__-~. VENDOR_ VENDOR Y'ENDOR _1'ENDOR
- - - - - - - f
1 _ AERIAL DEN'ICE N8 NBhd N'B_. S87,774.00~577,076.00~ NB $71,710.00
' 5195.00 5463.00 Y 5650.00{
7 OPTIONAL AIR CONDITIONER I
n a 30 FT AERIAL DEVICE i NB NB 550,750.00 S110_195.00} _ 557,469.00y $49,794.00 552,919.00 NB
u sl
OPTIONAL f6t5.00 16eS00 _ S66L00561500 f6e3.00
_AIR CON DITIONER
i
52,250.00 _N'B 5293.00 5920.00 51,420.00
OPTIONAL EXTENDED W„RRA\7Y'.~_.._--- r_. --L-~ -2. - --I
T 3. 1 L71 LITti POH ER SERVILE TRUCK SS7,5I000j 569,016.OOi_ A'8___ NB _ NH ~1B 569,615.00 SG .715.00
AfRCONDiTlONTR 5630.00
OPT_[O_\_~ ~ _ _
I~------~--- - 5.11100 5467.00 SI50.00
. ESTIhLATi0 DELI [RY
I
_ ITL511 90.120 DA IS 180 DAPS
ITEM 2 120 DA15 M120 DAYS ' 180 DAYS 194 DAYS
ITEM 7 _ 120.210 DAYS 120.210 DA 1 - 190 DAIS 120 DAYS 90.120 DAYS
_~-I.OBIDRESP_OVSE
-iHC7ECHPLMP&CRANE
J
F
t
r
i
)ATE:
apcnda t.o.
CITY-COUNCIL REPORT apa"^~ it:n
Oak
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: BID N 1350 - BOOKS FOR PUBLIC LIBRARIES
RECOMMENDATION: Council approve award of B;d #1550 - Books for Public Libraries to
Brodart Company based on the percentage discounts and processing charges as outlined on Exhibit
A.
SUMMARY: Bids were solicited for the purchase of books for the Denton Public Libraries. Bids
were received from 3 vendors on (1.) Adult Books and Related Services and (11.) Children's
Books and Related Services. Bidders were requested to offer a percentage discount off of books
in several categories (see tab sheet). The annual expenditure is estimated at $150,000.
BACKGROUND. Tabulation Sheet, Exhibit A, Memorandum from Eva Poole, Director of Library
Services.
PROGRAMS,DEPARTMENTS_OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Denton Public Libraries, Citizens
of Denton and Patrons of Denton Libraries.
FISCAL IMPACT: Purchases shall be made from budgeted accounts established in the operating
budget to pay for book purchases.
Res)ect ubmitted:
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
Name: Melanie Harden
Title: Buyer
Approved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
E86.AGENDA
f
i
F
MBER: 1850
D AME: BOOKS FOR PUBLIC BAKER BRODART INGR4M ! 1
LIBRARY TAYLOR CO. DIST.
.11 DATE: JANUARY 18, 1936 BOOKS GROUP
_1 - - VENDOR__
VENDOR i._ VENDOR __l. _VENDOR_ ~_VENDOR _I
DE_SCRI_PTION
SECTION I
I % DISCOUNT: ~
n
i 44.5% 43.4%
MADE BOOKS WITRADE BINDING 44.9'/*
' TRADE BOOKS W/SINGLE BINDING 401 % 44.5% - 43.9%
TECHNICAL/SHORTDISCOUNT 121% 13.0 % 12.0%
_
Imo- - -
COST OF BOOK ORDERING SERVICE 1 FREE NC
-
COST OF PROCESSING SERVICES L - PAGE 4 - .65 _ PAGE 5
SECTION 11
% DISCOUNT: k
GENERAL TRADE BOOKS I 44.9 ° 445% 43.9 ~
i------ - - - '/0 1--------~------~
i
GENERAL TRADE BOOKS WITH PUBLISHERS 40.1 % 44.5 % 43 9 %
SINGLE RE INFORCED BINDINGS GENERAL TRADE BOOKS WITH PUBLISHERS 17.1 % 23.5% 18.0%
LIBRARY BLNDINGS----- - - - - i- - - - - - - -
i
F-_ SHORT DISCOUNT BOOKS 12.1 % 13.0% 12.0 %
! COST OF BOOK ORDERING SERVICE FREE NC NC
COST OF PROCESSING SERVICES SEE SEC. 1 65 SEE SEC. 1
I
,eM1Ea Ii.~',t-
Oa!:
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 215 E. MCKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201
1`817) 566.8200 • DFy METRO 4344529
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 22, 1996
TO: Tom Shaw, City Purchasing Agent
FROM: Eva Poole
Director of Library Services
SUBJECT: Library Books Bid (#1850) - Recommendation
Upon review of the responses to Bid #1850, the library staff recommends the
award be made to Brodart Company for the following reasons:
• The number of out-of-stock titles maintained by Brodart is 930,000 as
opposed to 250,000 for Baker & Taylor and 2,500 from Ingram.
• Brodart guarantees that approximately 85-95% of adult popular and
best seller titles ordered - the majority of the buy mix of Denton
Public Libraries purchases - wiR be received within 30 days of receipt
of order compared to Baker & Taylor's 90% and ingram's 65-85%.
• Brodart offers the deepest discount in adult trade books:
Brodart - 34%
Baker & Taylor - 32.37%
Ingram's - 33.27%
• Brodart offers the deepest discount in children's trade books:
Brodart - 31.38%
Baker & Taylor - 28.55%
Ingram's - 29.45%
• Brodart offers a lower cost of processing per book:
Brodart - $ .65
Baker & Taylor - $ .70
Ingram's - $ 1.05
'Dedicated to Quclity .Service"
t
f
F
i
yJ 1 l
Tom Shaw
4xn
January 22, 1996 Cat;
Page 2
Brodart Company also meets all specifications as outlined in the bid
document.
I would be happy to answer any further questions that you might have.
Eva Poole
EP;dl
r
i,
F
i
CITY COUNCIL REPORT .yens' t:0..
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council oato -
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: BID N 1851 - PLUMBING REPAIRS FOR CENTRAL FIRE STATION
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder,
BCI Mechanical, in the amount of $16,250.00.
SUMMARY: This bid is for the required renovation and repairs to Central Fire Station in
preparation of the planned reopening. Included in the bid are replacement of defective plumbing
fixtures, pumps and piping in the day room, hall restroom, pass through restroom, Captains restroom.
main restroom (downstairs), sump pumps for ground water control, and under floor piping
modifications as well as cleaning of all drains.
Notices were mailed to twelve (12) prospective bidders.
BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet
PROGRAMSoDEPARTMENTS OR_GROUPS AFFECTED. Fire Department, Central Fire
Station.
FISCAL IMPACT. Funds for this renovation have been approved in the 1995-96 budget line item
100-060-0051.9102, Fire Department Capital Expenditures.
R
Acting City Manager
Approved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
690.AGENDA
----tea
r
BI---.-----__ _ _ 1851
PLUMBING REPAIRS AT BCI CBS
BI CENTRAL FIRE STATION MECHANICAL MECHANICAL i
O JANUARY 23, 1996
_
VENDOR VENDOR ^VEND
- I I
PLUMBING REPAIR AT
CENTRAL FIRE STATION
,615.00 - -
~ ~ I 250.00 $17
TOTAL BASE BID I_
--------1- - -
DAYS OF COMPLETE 65 DAYS
1 _ -
EX. MARBLE
I' I
i 4 I I
I ~
i
j l
~ I! I I j I
II
Ap* rAj as S
ORDINANCE NO.
j AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE 131DS AND PROVIDING FOR THE. AWARD
OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE
EXPENDITURE: OF FUND 3 THERI:FOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the
construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of STATE law
and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that
the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or
improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein;
NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the folIowing competitive bids for the construction of public works or
improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on
file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned I.ereto,
are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids:
BID NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT
1846 DBR CONSTRUCTION $66,425.00
SECTION 11. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not
constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such
public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with
all requirements specified _n the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written
contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after
notification of the award of the bid.
SECTION 111. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written
contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance
with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance
with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms,
conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein.
SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the abovc competitive bids and the
execution of contracts for the public works and imprccements as authorized herein, the City Council
hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such
approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto,
f
9cad~ fJo. (P
SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediate
approval. -
PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:--- _ . _
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:-_--- .
CONTRACr.DOC
1'
DAT 'BRl1ARY 6, 1996
CITY COUNCIL REPORT 'Ctr. 11'0,
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council OZ o?
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
i
SUBJECT: BID 41846- RENOVATIONS AND REPAIRS TO FRED MOORE NURSERY
SCHOOL PHASE 11
' RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder,
DBR Construction, in the amount of $66,425,00 for the base bid only. We also recommend that due
to funding availability no alternate be awarded at this time.
SUMMARY: This bid is for necessary renovations and repairs to the Fred Moore Nursery School
and include exterior cleaning, fences, carpet, wall repair, suspended ceilings, counter tops,
bookcases, doors and frames, windows, kitchen equipment, plumbing and electrical repairs, new
lighting, and miscellaneous earthwork.
BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Community Development B lock
Grant (CDBG Division), participants in the Fred Moore Day Nursery program.
FISCAL IMPACT: This project will be funded from Community Development Block Grant
Funds.
Respec ly submitted:
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Ap roved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
6 M AGENDA
u
f
S
i
BID 0 1646
BID NAME RENOVATION 6 REPAIRS SorTEiH Fsr neR n0ent5 llo.
TO FRED MOORE NURSERY too. cossr. ;.nts L'!n
SCHOOL • PHASE 2 CONST. ~~'c• afc
(OPEN DATE JANUARY 9,1996
QUANTITY DESCRIPTION VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR VENDOR _ VENDOR {
ttttt
BASE BID $69,000.00 $66,425.00,
CONTINGENCY $15,000 $15,000.00 $15,000.00`
TOTAL BID $84,000.001 $81,425.00' l
ALT.9 DESCRIPTION
1. NEW DUTCH DOORS
$4,200.00 52,983.001
2. MASONRY RESTORATION $2,700.00 $1,500.00
3. KITCHEN EQUIPMENT $41,OOD,00 $46,000.001
:4. ALUM. WINDOWS $1,400,00{ $2,100.00;
5. LAWN IRRIGATION $5,200.60 $10,500.00
6. EXTERIOR DRINKING 53,100.60 55,378,00
J FOUNTAIN
COMPLETION NCAL0AIS I IwCAI. DA1's
BID BOND ITS Srs
i I II i II ~ i
1 ~
j f
1
Iow s No.- !a 9!0
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS,
EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES BID BY THE STATE PURCHASING GENERAL
SERVICE COMMISSION; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 92.019, the State Purchasing General Services
Commission has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary
materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of state law on behalf
of the City of Denton; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended
that the herein described materials, equipment, supplies or services can be purchased by the City
through the General Services Commission purchasing programs at less cost than the City would
expend if bidding these items individually, and
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 1. That the numbered items in the following numbered purchase order for
materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Purchase Orders" attached hereto, are
hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items:
PURCHASE
ORDER VENDOR AMOUNT
62929 IIC WARD PRICE TURF EQUIPMENT $25,725.00
SECTION II. That by the accept nee and approval of the above numbered items set forth
in the attached purchase orders, the City accc~ is the offer ^f the persons submitting the bids to the
General Services Commission for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment,
supplies or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities
and for the specified sums contained in the bid documents and related documents filed with the
General Services Commission, and the purchase orders issued by the City.
1.
.t
'+7ec;a L'a.
A: 1Ln r
Dat
SECTION-ID. That should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set
forth in the attached purchase order: wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the
City's ratification of bids awarded , y the General Services Commission, 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
and standards contained in the Proposal submitted to the General Services Commission, quantities
and specified sums contained in the City's purchase orders, and related documents herein approved
and accepted.
I
SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth
in the attached purchase orders, the City Council hereby authorize, the expenditure of funds therefor
in the amount and in accordance with the approved purchase orders or pursuant to a written contract
made pursuant thereto as authorized herein.
SECTION_V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
STAILORDINANCE
` J
1
4
DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 1996
CITY. COUNCIL REPORT
A08da No.
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council AOW31•°^ _
l7a'.
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: PURCHASE ORDER #62929 - HOWARD PRICE TURF EQUIPMENT
REC OMMENDATIOIY: We recommend Purchase Order #62929 to Howard Price Turf Equipment
be approved in the amount of $25,725.00.
SUMMARY.- The above referenced purchase order is for the purchase of three (3) 72" cut, diesel
powered, riding mower at $8,470.00 each and one (1) 72" mulching deck attachment at $315.00.
The pCees are from the State of Texas General Services Commission Annual Contract.
The three tew units will replace seven (7) year old units no longer economical to maintain.
BACKGROUND: Purchase Order #62929, Ordinance R92-019 approving participation in the
General Services Commission Cooperative Purchasing Program.
PROGRAMS, -DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Parks Department, Park,
Cemetary, and right of way maintenance.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this purchase will be taken from Motor Pool replacement funds
account #720-025-0584-9104,
Respectfully submitted:
Rick 5vehla
Acting City Manager
Ap roved: 4
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
691.AGENDA
i
S
PURCHASE ORDER NO: 62929 THIS IS
CONFIRMING ORDER
ust appear on all (IF MARKED)
voi es deliv ry slips, cases,
tns., ba es, xking slips and hills. DO NOT DUPLICATE
Roo N Bid No. Date: 01 26 96 Page No. 01
t CITY OF DENTON TEXAS
PURCHASING DIVISION 1 901-8 TEXAS STREET 1 DENTON. TEXAS 76201-4354
8171383-7100 D1FW METRO 8171267-0042 FAX 8171383-7302
VENDOR OFAR PRICE TURF EQUIPMENT
VAME/ 98-255 DISON AVENUE DELIVERY CENTRAL RECEIVING S14
ADDRESS n ADDRESS FLEET SERVICES
Hik FIELD MO 63005 804 TEXAS ST.
DENTON, TX 76201
HOWARD PRICE
VENDOR NO, PRI49050 DELIVERY QUOTED 02 01 96 FOB DESTINATION BUYER MH TERMS
t 7ANTITY FT DESCRIPTION UNIT i AMOUNT
001 3.00 EA VENDOR CAT. ##515-45-65102-1 MFG NAME 8,470.000 25,410.00
CITY # 02033
HOWARD PRICE 72" OUT, LIQUID COOLED, DIESEL 24HP MOWER
002 1.00 EA VENDOR CAT. #515-45-65102-1 MFG NAME 315.000 315.00
CITY # 02033
MULCHING DECK PACKAGE
VENDOR ON STATE BID 18565
REPLACES RIGS #3791, 3792, 3793
P GE TOTAL s 25,725.00
GRIND TOTAL 25,725.00
Ol 720 025 0584 9104 25,725.00
1ENOOA INSSRi1CTl(}FIS 3. Terms • Net 30 m^h s, •°h a rw'so wiladI
1. Send mipinal Involce with duplicate copy E Shipping instructions F.DB. Deslinnion prepaid ivmi.,, ,n..„ n,=+•di
2. Bill to - Accounts Payable 5. No federal or state sales taA shell be included Purchasing ivif ion
215 F. McKinney St in prices billed,
DentoN TX 702 1-4299 PURCHASING
Apen9~ I.o,
RESOLUTION NO. d~ ~U t;'.nl] It^n
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN PURCHASING PROGRAMS OF
THE STATE PURCHASING AND GENERAL SERVICES COMMISSION; DESIGNATING
A CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN AND DELIVER ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS
IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, pur-
suant to the authority granted by Sections 271.081-271.083, local
Government Code, V.T.C.A., as amended, desires to participate in
described purchasing programs of the State Purchasing and General
Services Commission, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is in the opinion that participation
in these programs will be highly beneficial to the taxpayers of the
City of Denton through the anticipated saving to be realized; NOW,
THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Or DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION I. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
does request that the State Purchasing and General Services
Commission include its stated need on certain of the Commission's
annual contracts.
SECTION II. That Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, is authorized and
directed to sign and deliver all necessary requests and other docu-
bents in connection therewith for and on behalf of the City of
Denton, Texas.
SECTION III. That the city council acknowledges the City's
obligation to pay participation fees established by the Commission.
SECTION IV. That this resolution shall become effective imme-
diately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of f1992.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
Ii
r
J
AWA k 9G - 006
Aow* %%I
00 2 G-9(v
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C~ I'Y OF DENTON, TEXAS AUTHORIZING THE
EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE FOURTH QUARTER PAYMENT BY THE CITY
OF DENTON FOR SOLID WASTE PERMIT FEE WITH TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in order to comply with contract commitment to Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission, the City of Denton is required to the pay Solid Waste Permit Fee;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has revieAed and recommended that the Council
approve the payment of such fee; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the expenditure of funds in the amount of $25,787.50 to be paid
to Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, is hereby authorized.
SECTION ll. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage
and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
FM ORD
r
DATF,: 17I43R,YA R
1.11
=n 7
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Un!- ~
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council `
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: CHECK REQUISITION TO TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION IN THE AMOUNT OF $259787.50
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this check requisition to Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission in the amount of $25,787.50 be approved for payment.
SUMMARY; This check requisition is for the first quarter payment of the City of Denton Solid
Waste Permit Fee, The amount is calculated by a formula based upon the number of tons of solid
waste received by our landfill. A 3.5% additional charge is applied to our refuse collection rates to
offset this fee payment.
BACKGROUND: TNRCC Invoice #SWD0003798 in the amount of $25,787.50.
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS.OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Solid Waste Department, Demon
Municipal Utilities, Citizens of Denton.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available from Account #630.024-0803-8982.
Respectfully submitted:
V. 4: ee
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
y0
ZAe: Denise Ilarpool
Title: Senior Buyer
Approved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Purchasing Agent
687,AGENDA
BILLING DATE: JAN 17, 96 ACCOUNT NO. BALANCE DUE DATE DUE
DETACH THIS PORTION AND RETURN WITH
CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO: 0708496
5 dTr. 8
L] CHECK HERE IF Y U~tfDDR
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE PLEASE INDICATE
CONSERVATION COMMISSION INVOICES NOT PAID BY DUE DATE K
WILL ACCRUE PENALTIES,
t
DENTON, CITY OF
SOLID WASTE SUPT.
215 E MCKINNEY ST
DENTON TX 76201 000706496 0273561 00025787500216962
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PAGE 1
LM III Nur,t otw, o3204q DETACH TOP PORTION AND RETURN WITH PAYMENT- KEEP BOTTOM FORTiON FOR YOUR RECORDS
D`~ 'REFERENCE DESCRIPTION. -
JAN17,96 SWD0003798 PERMIT - AMOUNT BALANCE
SOLID WASTE FEE 0000041590 FY96 G1 25,787.50 25,787.5[
FOR TECHNICAL QUESTIONS CALL ELVIE ESPARZA AT (512) 239-6700.
ACCOUNT N0. THIS STATEMENT REFLECTS ALL PAYMENTS
RECEIVED THROUGH LATE FEES BALANCE DUE
0708496 JAN 17, 96
0.00 25,787.51
BILLING DATE: JAN 17 , 96 See REVERSE SIDE for Explanation of Charges PLEASE PAY THIS AMOUNT * t 7
and TNRCC Contact Telephone Numbers.
If you have questions after reading the Insert BY F EB 16,96 INCLUDE
and bank of bill, please call ACCOUNT NUMBER ON CHECK
i
a
Apph
ADWA no
D TE: February 6, 1996 e'
CITY COUNCIL. REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing and zoning a 11.34 acre tract located
east of Mayhill Road and north of Blagg Road (First reading, A-69)
RECOMMENDATION!
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. (6-0)
SUMMARY:
The City is proposing to annex a 11.34 acre tract located east of Mayhill Road and north of
Blagg Road as sho%Nm on site map included in attachment #1. Section 34-35 of the Code of
Ordinances requires city staff to assess on a case-by-case basis, the annexation of areas
located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) when significant developments are proposed,
occurring or likely to occur in the near future. Staff initiated an annexation study following
the development of a 23,200 square feet warebouse?office on a 2.36 acre tract being lot 1,
Block A of the Rife Addition. The tract is to be zoned temporary Agriculture "A" zoning
district classification at the time of annexation,
State law requires that a service plan be prepared providing for the extension of municipal
services to the site proposed for annexation. A copy of the service plan is included in the
annexation ordinance, (Attachment #2)
BACKGROUND:
The City repaved Mayhill Road in 1994 and currently has responsibility for maintenance.
Existing water and waste water lines are located on the south east corner of Mayhill Road
and University Drive. An existing lilt station is located at Audra Lane and Mayhill Road.
The construction of a 23,200 square feet warehouse/office facility will generate increased
traffic volumes on Mayhill Road. There are six single family homes and a mobile home
located in the area. Annexation will ensure that all future development complies with
policies of the Denton Development Plan and ordinances of the City of Denton.
The Local Government Code requires that the City hold a series of public hearings in order
to complete the annexation process. Two public hearings were held before the City Council
on January 2, and January 16, 1996 and no one spoke in opposition. The Planning and
Page 1
i
S
ATTACHMENT ~ropowd Ann
r~ ~7i[LiZ }
6 T
I
U5 NMY 377 S 380
( I f
Q I
Q i
° I
Q
J ~
J I I
= I
i
1 r~_sal
j i
i
lpo
< Rife Additio
0
O
i
6LAGG
j + jrf
AUDFA 1
I
Z
j
C
Zoning Commission considered this item on January 24, 1996 and v tgd 6 - 6 tR ~8~pr Q
approval. Letters were sent to all landowners informing them o tie
of public hearings as approved by City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The taxable values of personal and real property on the Mayhill/Blagg site is $1,205,822 with
an estimated city tax benefit of about $6,500 based on the 1995 tax rate. The City of Denton
will provide municipal services including fire and EMS, police, solid waste collection,
animal control, planning and development and library services based on current budgeted
resources at no additional cost.
RespofruN submit d:
a~
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
Nau~--
Harry N. rsaud, MRTPI, AICP
Senior Planner
A7pp( oved: 411 1 A/X/I i&
raH. o bins, AICP~
Executive Director for
Planning and Development
Attachment 91: Site map showing area north of Blagg Road and east of Mayhill Road.
Attachment 42: Ordinance
Attachment 43: Annexation schedule
Attachment 44: P&Z Minutes January 24 1996.
Page 2
is
i
ATTACHMENT 2
Apendt Flo.
Agenda Item
Oato
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 11.34 ACRES, LOCATED EAST OF MAYHILL ROAD AND NORTH OF
BLAGG ROAD; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS "A,"
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes to extend its City limits
line to include the 11.34 acre tract as described in exhibit "A";
and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on
January 2, 1996, and January 16, 1996, (both days being on or after
the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of institution
of the proceedings) to allow all .interested persons to state their
views and present evidence bearing upon this annexation; and
i
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the
property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at
a meeting of the City council on February 6, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in
the official newspaper of the City of Denton after annexation
proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council
taking final action, as required by City Charter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I: That the tract of land described in exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the
City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II: That the service plan attached as exhibit "B" and
incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of
municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of
this ordinance.
SECTION III: That, pursuant to 535-15 (a) of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, the annexed property is
temporarily classified as "A," agricultural district, until
permanent zoning is established by the city council.
6ECTION IV: That the city's official zoning map is amended to
show the temporary "A" agricultural district classification of the
property annexed.
SECTION V: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal
for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion
of this ordinance and the City Council hereby declares it to be its
purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property
described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of
the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City.
Y,
Sx
Y
F
i
ApM4 f10. 62
enCj hefi~
One
if an `
y part of the real property annexed is already included within
the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any
other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's
jurisdiction t-i annex, the same is hereby excluded from the
territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly
described in this ordinance.
i
SECTION VI: That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION VII: 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
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERB PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
S~
r
c
EEXHIBIT "All te
ALL that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land lying and being situated
in the county of Denton, State of Texas, being part of the Moreau
Forrest Survey, Abstract 417, and more particularl
follows:
Y described as
BEGINNING at a point in the existing city limits, as described in
Ordinance 65-43 (Tract 1), said point also lying on the west line of
the said center Forrest line of urvey,Uand being 660 feet south of and perpendicular to
.S. Highway 380 (University Drive), and in the
center of a north/south road (known as Mayhill);
THENCE northeasterly along said city
feet southeasterly of and parallel ttlimit line, sa he center line ofiU,sbeHig 660
380 (University Drive), a distance of 414 feet, more or less, to apoint
forHcorner, said point being the northerly extended east line of tract
Page 840 of the Real Property Records of DentoneCounty in Volume 2430,
THENCE south passing Y. Texas,
the northeast corner of the above referred Rife
tract, and continuing a total distance of 1244 feet more or less, to a
point for corner, said point lying on the north right-of-way line of
Blagg Road;
THENCE west along the north right-of-way line of Blagg Road, passing the
east right-of-way line of Mayhill road at 377.5 feet, more or less, and
continuing a total distance of 407.5 feet, more or less to
centerline of Mayhill road to a point for corner, said pointIlyington
the west line of said Forrest Survey and in the existing city limit line
as established by Ordinance 65-43 (Tract 1);
THENCE north along said lines a distance of 1182 feet, more or less, to
the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 11.34 acres of land, more or less.
10/12/95
AEE004CB +
s ~~y{y1 },4 t`
i~P 4
i
.y
i
E N
SERVICE PLAN {A-69)
CASE M: A-64
AREA: 11.34 acres
LOCATION: East of Mayhill Road and north of Blagg Road
A. Police Services
1. Patrolling, response to calls, and other routine services will be provided on the
effective date of the annexation, using existing personnel and equipment.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of police services will be
provided to this area as are furnished to comparable areas within the City.
B. Fire protection and Emergency Medical Services (F IS
1. Fire protection and emergency medical services by the present personnel and
present equipment, within the limitations of available water and distances from
existing fire stations, will be provided to this area on the effective date of the
annexation.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of fire and emergency
ambulance services will be provided to this area as are furnished to comparable
areas within the City.
C. V VastewaterSenices
Water and wastewater services will be extended to the property in accordance to
the City's master utility plan and Section 34-118 of the Denton Code of Ordinances.
Developers shall pay the actual cost of all water and sewer main extensions, lift
stations and other necessary facilities required to serve their development in
accordance with the City's master utility plan and the Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations.
The City may participate in the cost to oversize water and sewer mains subject
to fund availability and approval of the City Council.
e
w
u
E ~T, If I
Der,
iWhere water or sewer main extensions, lift stations, force mains or of er
necessary facilities arc installed by the developer, the developer shall be entitled
to reimbursement of the cost of such facilities from pro-rata charges paid by
persons connecting to or using such facilities to serve their property, according
to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
D. Solid Waste Collection
1. Solid waste collection will be provided to the property at the same level of
service as available to comparable areas isithin the City, within 60 days of the
effective date of annexation.
2. As development and construction commence Hithin this property, and
population density increases to the proper level, solid waste collection shall be
provided to this property in accordance with then current policies of the City
as to frequency, charges and so forth.
E. Streets and Roads
1. The City of Denton's existing policies with regard to street maintenance,
applicable throughout the entire City, shall apply to this property beginning
with the effective date of the annexation.
2. Routine maintenance of streets and roads will begin in the annexed area on the
effective date of annexation using the standards and level of service as currently
applied to comparable areas of the City.
3. Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm drainage
facilities, construction of curb cuts and gutters, and other such major
improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the City Council or
Manager, will be accomplished under the established policies of the City.
4. Traffic signals, signage and other traffic control devices will be installed as the
need therefor is established by appropriate study and traffic standards.
5. Street and road lighting will be installed in the substantially developed areas in
accordance with the established policies of the City.
F. Environmental 11ealth and CodeEnforcement Services
2
b' .
Y
I. Enforcement of the City's environmental health or rWcesincluding, but not limited to the grass and weed ordi
Aori
ordinance, junked vehicle ordinance, sign ordinance, food haanimal control ordinance, and the tree preservation ordinance shall be provided
is ithin this area on the effective date of the annexation. These ordinances and
regulations will be enforced through the use of existing personnel.
2. Building, plumbing, electrical, gas, and all other construction codes, as may be
adopted by the City, will be enforced within this area beginning with the
effective date of the annexation. Existing personnel will be used to provide these
services.
3. The City's zoning, subdivision and other ordinances shall be enforced in this
area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
4. All inspection services provided by the City of Denton, but not mentioned above,
x,ill be provided to this area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
Existing personnel will be used to provide these services.
5. Flood damage mitigation swill be provided by existing codes and ordinances of
the City as of the effective date of the annexation.
6. As development and construction commence within this area, sufficient
personnel will be provided to furnish this area with the same level of
environmental health and code enforcement services as are furnished to
comparable areas within the City.
G. Planning and D veiopment Services
The zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to the annexed area on the effective
date of annexation. The tract is to be temporarily zoned Agriculture (A) zoning
district classification at the time of annexation.
I. Parks and Recreation Services
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all recreation facilities, Including
parks and swimming pools throughout the City, on the effective date of the
annexation. The same standards and policies nosv used within the City will be
followed in the maintenance of parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.
J. DssAtkal Distribution
3
9
3
Elect rical power will be made available t;, the site as required,, t e'SA(nL)lev
service currently being provided to comparable areas within t eity. -
K. Miscellancous
Street names and signs will be installed, if required, approximately six (6) months
after the effective date of annexation.
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all publicly owned facilities, buildings
or services within the city on the effective date of the annexation. All publicly
owned facilities, buildings or services +sill be maintained in accordance with
established standards and policies now used in the City.
L. Capital Improvements Program ( C
The CIF' of the City is prioritized by such policy guidelines as:
1. Demand for services as compared to other areas will be based on characteristics of
topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related
to comparablr oreas, established technical standards and professional studies.
2. The overall cost•effectiveress of providing a specific facility or service.
The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan.
This tract swill be considered according to the same established criteria as all other
areas of the City.
4
/b.
r
ATTACHMENT 3
gOcnea No.
ANNE TION II
rr A w
ED-
November 7, 1995 City Council sets date, time and place for public hearings.
December 22, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first public hearing.
Service plan is prepared.
January 2, 1995 City Council holds first nuWk hearing,
January 5, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second public
hearing.
January 16, 1995 City Council holds second public hearing,.
January 24, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission makes recomm°ndation.
February 6, 1995 City Council institutes annexation. First Reading of Annexation
ordinance.
February 9, 1995 Publication of Annexation ordinance in Denton Record Chronicle.
March 19, 1995 Final action by City Council. Second reading and adoption of the
Annexation ordinance.
Meetings in bold require 6 out of 7 votes at City Council
I
r,
ATTACHMENT 4
MINUTES pat,
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
January 24, 1996
Regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held
on Wednesday, January 24, 1996, and began at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E.
McKinney.
Present: Mike Cochran, Katie Flemming, Guy Jones, Rudy Moreno, Bob Powell, Ellen
Schertz, and Barbara Russell.
Present from Staff: Frank Robbins, Director of Planning and Development; Jerry Drake,
Assistant City Attorney; Owen Yost, Urban Planner; Walter Reeves, Urban Planner;
David Salmon, Senior Civil Engineer; and Chris Rodriguez, Secretary.
Meeting called to order at 5:02 p.m.
I. Consider approval of the minutes of the December 13, 1995 meeting.
Ms. Russell: Are there any corrections to the minutes? Hearing no corrections the minutes
shall be approved as presented.
H. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the annexation and zoning of a 11.34 acre tract located east of Mayhill Road and
North of Blagg Road (A-69).
Ms. Russell read the procedures for the public hearing and opened the public hearing.
Mr. Peisaud: There are three annexation cases on your agenda tonight. Staff visited with
you the end of last year about this annexation. We arc here again to get your r-
ecommendation for the City Council. So far in the process, we have had the first and second
public bearings before the City Council. With regard to the annexation, 11.34 acres north
of Blagg Road and east of Mayhill Road, there has not been opposition to this annexation.
We did send letters to all of the property owners notifying them of the dates for the public
hearings. In our presentation to you on October 11th, we did point out to you that the city
is currently maintaining Mayhill Road. The residents in that area said that they are currently
receiving some city services. Because of the office warehouse development on Mayhill Road
we are proposing annexation. When this matter went to City Council there was some
discussion about providing water and wastewater services to this area. The service plan fnr
this annexation doesn't require the city to provide water and wastewater services to the
residents. You have a summary of the service plan in your backup. A number of services
will be provided on the effective date of annexation. The Code of Ordinance says that the
land owners and developers are responsible for extending water and wastewater lines to their
property. Solid waste collection will be extended within sixty days. Maintenance of streets
r
4
i
f
•QCa9] r~0. S
P&Z Minutes ld t f
January 24, 1996
Page 2
and roads will be extended on the effective date of annexation. We are currently maintaining
Mayhill Road. Environmental health, code enforcement, planning and development, police
and EMS services, and organized recreational athletic programs will be extended on the
effective date of annexation.
Mr. Cochran: How much revenue is this expected to bring into the city?
Mr. Persaud: Our estimate is about six thousand dollars.
Mr. Cochran: On the issue of water and wastewater, the citizens would be responsible for
running the lines to their hou es, would they be required to do that if they have an
alternative source?
Mr. Persaud: They currently have altemative water and wastewater systems so there is no
requirement the they have to tie into our system. They will be annexed with those systems
in place and it will be their responsibility to maintain their private systems.
Ms. Russell: Is there going to be a northeast exit from Ryan High that come down Mills and
feed into Mayhill Road?
Mr. Robbins: Yes.
Ms. Russell: So this will be even more reason for us to have Mayhill in the city limits. Nall
of Mayhill Road is in .he city limits now.
Mr. Persaud: That is correct.
Mr. Powell: Why are we not annexing it from Blagg Road all of the way to Hwy.. 380?
Mr. Persaud: That area is already in the city limits.
Mr. Powell: The fiscal impact statement on page 43 says the city services will be provided
at ro addi:ional cost, but solid waste is an additional cost, isn't it?
Mr. Persaud: It is an additional cost, but it is not an additional cost to the city because our
trucks currently go down Mayhill Road. The residents will pay for that service.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in
opposition to the petition? Are there any closing remarks?
S
fle.
P&Z Minutes January 24, 1996
Page 3
L
Mr. Persaud: the zoning
district of Agricultural, of this property our ordinance allows a temporary zoning
so we will be preparing and ordinance to take to City Council
annexing the property and allocating a temporary Agricultural zoning designation to the site.
Ms. Russell: We will close the public hearing.
Mr. 11 .34 acre Cochran; tract
1 1 movelocatedthat we recommend approval to the Council of the annexation of the
1.east of Mayhill Road and north of Blagg Road, A-69.
Ms. Schertz: I'll sNond.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Apposed same
sign. Approved. (6-0)
III. Forrestridge Addition, Section 11.
a. Consider a variance to Section 34-114 (11b) concerning cul-de-sac turnarounds.
b• Consider a variance to Section 34-125 (a) concerning lot depth conformity to zoning
district standards.
c. Consider the final plat of Lots 44-70, Block A; Lots 1-7, Block E; and Lots 1-10, Block
F of the proposed Estates of Forrestridge Addition, Section 11.
Ms. Russell: The first three items have been removed from the agenda.
d. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the annexation and zoning of a 21.62 acre tract described as Forrestridge
Section 11 (A-70).
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: 1 would like to point out that on this item the Commission was scheduled to
consider the zoning and the annexation for City Council. There has been some changes on
that and today we picked up some legal advise on annexation and zoning. What we would
like to do is deal with the zoning later. The zoning on this property is intended to be
permanent zoning and we will be designating SF-16 as a permanent zoning. We were
advised to complete the annexation process first, and then do the permanent zoning. Tonight
the item that you are going to consider with r+?gard to the zoning of the tract has been moved
to somewhere around April 10th.
Mr. Robbins: We made entice or a public hearing tonight and it is on our agenda. So what
iy
iF
V
1
Aes ftooraoa
5
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FRONT: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing and zoning a 21.62 acre tract described
as the Estates of Forrestridge Section TI (First reading, A-70)
RECOI IMENDATION•
Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval. (6 - 0)
SUMNIARY•
Lodge Construction Company has petitioned the City to annex and zone a 21.62 acre tract
described as the Estates of Forrestridge Section If and shown on site map included in
attachment #1. The tract is to be zoned temporary agriculture "A" zoning district
classi£cation at the time of annexation. The owners have also petitioned the City for the
permanent zoning of the tract to accommodate Single Family SF-16 residential
development. The zoning procedure will commence after the tract has been annexed into the
City.
State law requires that a service plan be prepared providing for the extension of municipal
services to the site proposed for annexation. A copy of the service plan (attachment 42) is
included in the annexation ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to consider a final plat for the Estates
of Forrestridge Section II on February 14, 1996. The final plat shows 44 single family
lots of 16,000 square feet and larger. The Local Government Code requires that the City
hold a series of public hearings in order to complete the annexation process. City
Council held two public hearings on January 2, and January 16, 1996 and no one spoke in
opposition. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the props c ed annexation
at its regular meeting on January 24, 1996 and voted 6 - 0 to recommend approval.
PROGRAMS DEPARTiNTFNT~ OR ,I20 UAF- ECTFD•
All city service departments including Utilities, Engineering, Planning and Development,
Fire, Police, Solid Waste, Environmental Health, Parks and Recreation, and Library.
Page 1
y
{
i
Agenda Ila, CPI
~S!nda Ccn
FISCAL IMIACT; Orr~_ . / , ,ate
Not applicable Respectfully submitted:
Rick Sve a
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
Harty N. rsaud, MRTPI, AICP
Senior Planner
Approved:
rank If. Robbins, AICP
Executive Director for
Planning and Development
Attachment # 1: Location map
Attachment #2: Ordinance
Attachment #3: Annexation Schedule
Attachment #4: P & Z minutes
Page 2
4;en;~a 1!0..~
ATTACHMENT 1 L51"'03 Iteml
cat, ; 12-
. -.4c
"WAN CIL
Ci.
w EWMO
0. rx
filBEl1 GREEII cot, W
c YO iCl'
o
10
F RARST JC
ADLL Y I
I - - £L PASEO
R, sTiAU
SUTUGO I
R.
en sw a"ftwe"s
suocAS 3;7
I
RYAN I
wastion map
s
J
,
i
ATTACHMENT 2 AOa~d~ to.
Dal: t
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 21.62 ACRES LOCATED IN THE ESTATES OF FORRESTRIDGE
SECTION II; TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS "A,"
AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton wishes t) extend its City limits
line to include the 21.62 acre tract described in exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on
January 2, 1996, and January 16, 1996, (both days being on or after
the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of institution
of the proceedings) to allow all interested persons to state their
views and present evidence bearing upon this annexation; and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the
property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at
a meeting of the City Council on February 6, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in
the official newspaper of the City of Denton after annexation
proceedings were instituted, and 30 days prior to City Council
taking final action, as required by City Charter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I: That the tract of land described in exhibit "A
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the
City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II: That the service plan attached as exhibit "B" and
incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of
municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of
this ordinance.
SECTION III: That, pursuant to §35-15 (a) of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, the annexed property is
temporarily classified as "A," agricultural district, until
permanent zoning is established by the city council.
SECTION IV: That the City'q official zoning map is amended to
show the temporary agricultural district classification of the
property annexed.
SECTION V: Shol. d any part of this ordinance be held illegal
for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion
of this ordinance and the city Council hereby declares it to be its
purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property
described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of
the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City.
'y1'
aacnsa qo. ~O
a0an.a Can
Daro~ . f _
If any part of the real property annexed is already included within `
the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any
other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's
jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the
territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly
described in this ordinance.
SECTION VI: That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION VII: 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
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERB PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
r
~Oenh r:a - (,Q
:;anGa Ran
oar,
I
Being a tract of land situated in the T.J. Martin Survey,
900, Denton County, Texas and being a part of "Tract I" of
parcel of land described in two tracts and conveyed by dee _..~c
Texas Savings Association to Lodge Construction Company, Inc., recorded
in Volume 1115, Page 211, Deed Records of Denton County, Texas and
' being further described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southwest corner of Section III of Estates of
Forrestridge, an addition to the City of Denton, plat of which is
recorded in Volume E, Page 375, Plat Records of Denton County, Texas,
said conmencing point also being on the North line of Ryan Road (a 70'
R.O.W.);
THENCE North 00 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds West, along the East line
of said Forrestridge Section III, a distance of 1290.69' to the POINT
OF BEGINNING;
THENCE North 89 degrees 07 minutes 03 seconds West in Sanders Road, a
distance of 326.35 feet to an iron pin at the Southeast corner of a
tract described in a deed from Nicky C. James et ux to Steve Fanning et
ux recorded in Volume 1044, Page 898 Deed Records, Denton County,
Texas;
THENCE North 00 degrees 37 minutes 05 seconds East with a fence, a
distance of 272.14 feet to an iron pin at the Northeast corner of said
Fanning tract;
THENCE South 89 degrees 47 minutes 21 seconds West with a fence, a
distance of 515.04 feet to an iron pin at the Westerly Southwest corner
of subject tract;
THENCE North 00 degrees 06 minutes 16 seconds West along and near a
fence, a distance of 1016.25 feet to an iron pin at the Northwest
corner of said tract;
THENCE South 89 degrees 48 minutes 21 seconds East along and near a
fence, a distance of 842.91 feet to an iron pin at the Northeast corner
of said tract on the Bast boundary line of the T.J. Martin Survey, and
the Kest boundary line of Section II of Forrestridge, an addition to
the City of Denton, $lat of which is recorded in Volume C, Page 12,
Plat Records, Denton County, Texas;
THENCE South 00 degrees-17 minutes 36 seconds West, with said survey
line a distance of 1264.21 feet to an iron pin.
THENCE South 00 degrees 19 minutes 42 seconds East, continuing along
said survey line, a distance of 23.45' to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
CONTAINING in all 21.6168 acres of land, more or less.
53 , i
VP .
4
C
I
~pcnea t1o.
ua,
SERVICE pL~tJ (A-70)
CASE A-70
AREA: 21.62 acres
LOCATION: Estates of Forrestridge Section I1:
A. foligg rkta
1. Patrolling, response to calls, and other routine serices will be provided on the
effective date of the annexation, using existing personnel and equipment.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of police services roil] be
provided to this area as are furnished to comparable areas within the City.
B. Fire protection and mergencr Rled]caE Services F.NM
1. Fire protection and emergency medical ser ices by the present personnel and
present equipment, within the limitations of available water and distances from
existing fire stations, will be provided to this area on the effective date of the
annexation.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of fire and emergency
ambulance services will be provided to this area as are furnished to comparable
areas within the City.
C. Water/Wastewater Services
Water and wastewater services will be extended to the property in accordance to
the City's master utility, plan and Section 34.118 of the Denton Code of Ordinances.
Developers $hall pay the actual cost of all water and sewer main extensions, lift
stations and other necessary facilities required to serve their development in
accordance with the City's master utility plan and the Subdivision and Land
Development Regulations.
The City may participate in the cost to oversize water and sewer mains subject
to fund availability and approval of the City Council.
f BIT
r .
-Ia
to Where slater or sewer main extensions, lift statio necessary facilities are installed by the developer, the reimbursement of the cost of such facilities from
pro-rata charges paid by
2W-
persons connecting to or using such facilities to serve their property, according
to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
D. Solid Waste Collection
1. Solid waste collection Hill be provided to the property at the same level of
service as available to comparable areas within the City, within 60 days of the
effective date of annexation.
2. As development and construction commence within this property, and
population density increases to the proper level, solid ssaste collection shall be
provided to this property in accordance with then current policies of the City
as to frequency, charges and so forth.
E. &ucts and Roads
1. The City of Denton's existing policies with regard to street maintenance,
applicable throughout the entire City, shall apply to this property beginning
with the effective date of the annexation.
2. Routine maintenance of streets and roads will begin in the annexed area on the
effective date of annexation using the standards and level of service as currently
applied to comparable areas of the City.
3. Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm drainage
facilities, construction of curb cuts and gutters, and other such major
improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the City Council or
Manager, swill be accomplished under the established policies of the City.
4. Traffic signals, signage and other traffic cc nt of devices Hill be installed as the
need therefor is established by appropriate study and traffic standards.
5. Street and road lighting swill be installed in the substantially developed areas in
accordance with the established policies of the Cite.
F. Environmental Health and Code Enforcement Senices
2
"ends tlo.
acenea tier!
Detc _
1. Enforcement of the City's environmental health ordinances
including, but not limited to the grass and weed ordinance, garbage and trash
ordinance, junked vehicle ordinance, sign ordinance, food handler ordinance,
animal control ordinance, and the tree preservation ordinance shall be provided
within this area on the effective date of the annexation. These ordinances and
regulations will be enforced through the use of existing personnel.
2. Building, plumbing, electrical, gas, and all other construction codes, as may be
adopted by the City, will be enforced within this area beginning with the
effective date of the annexation. Existing personnel will be used to provide these
services.
3. The City's zoning, subdivision and other ordinances shall be enforced in this
area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
4. All inspection services provided by the City of Denton, but not mentioned above,
will be provided to this area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
Existing personnel will be used to provide these services.
5. Flood damage mitigation will be provided by existing codes and ordinances of
the City as of the effective date of the annexation.
6. As development and construction commence within this area, sufficient
personnel will be provided to furnish this area with the some level of
environmental health and code enforcement services as are furnished to
comparable areas within the City.
G.
Planningand Development ~ervicea
The zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to the annexed area on the effective
date of annexation. The tract is to be temporarily zoned Agriculture (A) zoning
district classification at the time of annexation.
G Parks and Recreation er fete
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all recreation facilities, including
parks and swimming pools throughout the City, on the effective date of the
annexation. The same standards and policies now used within the City will be
followed in the maintenance of parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.
J. Electrical Distribution
3
9
i
R
f,
,
t
t,~en^,~ 12^m
Electrical posscr will be made available to the site as rcquir
sen ice currently being provided to comparable areas is ithin the City.
K. Miscellancous
Street names and signs Kill be installed, if required, nr,o oximately six (b) months
after the effective date of annexation.
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all publicly owned facilities, buildings
or sen ices within the city on the effective date of the annexation. All publicly
osined facilities, buildings or sen-ices still be maintained in accordance with
established standards and policies now used in the Cite.
L. Capital Im rovcmutc Prggra t 11
The CIP of the City is prioritized by such policy guidelines as:
1. Demand for sen ices as compared to other areas Kill be based on characteristics of
topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related
to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies.
2. The overall cost-effectiveness of providing a specific facility or sen ice.
The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan.
This tract will be considered according to the same established criteria as all other
areas of the City.
li
a
/G.
ATTACHMENT 3 ~¢nCslJo.J`~ W19~_
A~endr".: i '
ANNEXATHIN SCHFD Oat -
.>_.(A_ZQl
November 7, 1995 City Council sets date, time and place for public hearings
December 22, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first public
hearing. Service plan is prepared.
January 2, 1995 City Council holds first public hearing.
January 5, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second public
hearing.
January l6, 1995 City Council holds sccond public hearing.
January 24, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommend,.tion.
February 6, 1995 City Council institutes annexation. First Reading of
Annexation ordinance.
February 9, 1995 Publication of Annexation ordinance in Denton Record Chronicle.
March 19, 1995 Final action by City Council. Second reading and adoption of
the Annexation ordinance.
Meetings in bold require 6 out of 7 votes ut City Council
A
ATTACHMENT 4
P&Z Minutes ff
January 24, 1956
Page 3
Mr. Persaud: On the zoning of this property our ordinance allows a temporary zoning
district of Agricultural, so we will be preparing and ordinance to take to City Council
annexing the property and allocating a temporary Agricultural zoning designation to the site.
Ms. Russell: We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: 1 move that we recommend approval to the Council of the annexation of the
11.34 acre tract located east of Mayhill Road and north of Blagg Road, A-69.
Ms. Schertz: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (6-0)
III. Forrestridge Addition, Section 11.
a. Consider a variance to Section 34-114 (11b) concerning cul-de-sac turnarounds.
b. Consider a variance to Section 34-125 (a) concerning lot depth conformity to zoning
district standards.
c. Consider the final plat of Lots 44-70, Block A; Lots 1-7, Block E; and Lots 1-10, Block
F of the proposed Estates of Forrestridge Addition, Section If.
Ms. Russell: The first three items have been removed from the agenda.
d. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the annexation and zoning of a 21.62 acre tract described as Forrestridge
Section 11 (A-70).
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: 1 would like to point out that on this item the Commission was scheduled to
consider the zoning and the annexation for City Council. There has been some changes on
that and today we picked up some legal advise on annexation and zoning. What we would
like to do is deal with the zoning later. The zoning on this property is intended to be
permanent zoning and we will be designating SF-16 as a permanent zoning. We were
advised to complete the annexation process first, and then do the permanent zoning. Tonight
the item that you are going to consider with regard to the zoning of the tract has been moved
to somewhere around April 10th.
Mr. Robbins: We made notice of a public hearing tonight and it is on our agenda. So what
K
4
4
P&Z Minutes _bl
January 24, 1996
Page 4
we are recommending is that you not consider a vote on the zoning tonight. Since we have
made notice and it is or, your agenda to hold a public hearing we think that we ought to go
ahead and hold the pt.blic hearing, but that you not consider it and it will be back again for
notice and a public hearing after it is annexed.
Ms. Russell: So we are just going to make a recommendation to the City Council
concerning the annexation.
Mr. Persaud: When we do the annexation we are going to do the temporary zoning by
ordinance, Agricultural zoning. This is a case where Lodge Construction Company has
petitioned the city to annex the property. We held the two public hearings before the City
Council and no one spoke in opposition of the annexation. We would like to proceed with
your recommendation for Council adoption of an ordinance annexing the property.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Is there anyone that would like to speak
in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? Any further
comments? We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move approval of A-70, the annexation of 21.62 acre tract described as The
Estates of Forrestridge, Section If.
Ms. Flemming: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (6-0)
IV. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the annexation and zoning of a 34.78 acre tract located in the clear zone south of
the existing runway in the vicinity of the Denton Municipal Airport (A-71).
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: You are considering annexation and temporary zoning, Agricultural, by
ordinance. This area is currently used as a clear zone for the Denton Municipal Airport.
Federal Regulations prohibit the building of any structures on this property. The entire area
is owned by the City of Denton. We are annexing it to bring it into the city limits.
Mr. Drake: Temporary zoning is not zoning and it is a consequence of annexation. It keeps
people from coming in and developing the property with uses that could be incompatible uses
prior to the permanent zoning of the property. That is the reason that a recommendation is
/3,
S
5
~L1L'J tJO. d
aoa~ ro~ 2 ~ 4
o~tr 2~ - G~.r
DATE: February 6, 1996
CITY COUNCII. REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance annexing and zoning a 34.78 acre tract located in
the clear zone south of the existing runway in the vicinity of the Denton Municipal
Airport. (First reading, A-71)
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6 - 0)
SUMMARY:
The City proposes to annex a 34.78 acre tract located in the clear zone, south of the existing
runway in the vicinity of the Denton Municipal Airport. The site is shown on map included
in attachment 4l . The entire tract is owned by the City of Denton and is being used for clear
zone for the existing rurway. The tract will be zoned temporary agriculture "A" zoning
district classification at the time of annexation.
BACKGROUND:
The clear zone is intended to protect the approaal es to the runway and may not be used for
the development of buildings and other structures. The Local Government Code requires
that the City hold a series of public hearings in order to complete the annexation process.
City Council held the first and second public hearings on January 2, and January 16, 1996
and no one spoke in opposition. The Planning and Toning Commission considered the
proposed annexation at its regular meeting on January 24, 1996 and voted 6 - 0 to
recommend approval.
PROGRAMS, D .PARTNIENTS OR GROUPS AFFF TED•
All city service departments including Utilities, Engineering, Planning and Development,
Fire, Police, Solid Waste, Environmental Health, Parks and Recreation, and Library.
Page l
ii
SQLa"I N0.
Apda it,r,,
FISCAL IMPACT; Oats ^
Not applicable
Re. cl ly ubmi d:
Rick Svehla,
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
Iva, U
Harry N. P Saud, MRTPI, AICP
Senior PIanner
App oved:
Frank H. obbins, A[CP
Exec.;five Director for
Planning and Development
Attachment # 1: Location map
Attachment #2: Ordinance
Attachment #3: Annexation schedule
Attachment 44: P & Z minutes January 24, 1996
Page 2
r.
ATTACHMENT 1 :;coda t:o.
t undo C n -
r:. R H
I 1 l
a
J, -
SITE
_f
Location UP
3
i
~I
I
I
S
1
~ L R:,ne x , s d
ATTACHMENT 2
Ar,endi tro
Rpenda ties
Du^
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ANNEXING A TRACT
COMPRISING 34.78 ACRES, LOCATED IN THE CLEAR ZONE SOUTH OF THE
EXISTING RUNWAY IN THE VICINITY OF THE DENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT;
TEMPORARILY CLASSIFYING THE ANNEXED PROPERTY AS "A," AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of DentoA wishes to extend its City limits
line to include the 34.78 acre tract as described in exhibit "A";
and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held in the Council Chambers on
January 2, 1996, and January 16, 1996, (both days being on or after
the 40th day but before the 20th day before the date of institution
of the proceedings) to allow all interested persons to state their
views and present evidence bearing upon this annexation; and
WHEREAS, annexation proceedings were instituted for the
property described herein by the introduction of this ordinance at
a meeting of the City Council on February 6, 1996; and
WHEREAS, this ordinance has been published in full one time in
the official newspaper of the City of Denton after annexation
proceedings were instituted and 30 days prior to City Council
taking final actio., as required by City Charter; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I: That the tract of land described in exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is annexed to the
City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION II: That the service plan attached as exhibit "B" and
incorporated by reference, which provides for the extension of
municipal services to the annexed property, is approved as part of
this ordinance.
SECTION III: That, pursuant to §35-15 (a) of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, the annexed property is
temporarily classified as "A," agricultural district, until
permanent zoning is establish3d by the city council.
SECTION IV: That the City's official zoning map is amended to
show the temporary "A" agricultural district classification of the
property annexed,
SECTION V: Should any part of this ordinance be held illegal
for any reason, the holding shall not affect the remaining portion
of this ordinance and the city Council hereby declares it to be its
purpose to annex to the City of Denton all the real property
Y
4
i
i
described in Exhibit "A" regardless of whether any other part of
the described property is hereby effectively annexed to the City.
If any part of the real property annexed is already included within
the city limits of the City of Denton or within the limits of any
other city, town or village, or is not within the City of Denton's
jurisdiction to annex, the same is hereby excluded from the
territory annexed as fully as if the excluded area were expressly
described in this ordinance.
SECTION VI: That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
$2000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION VIE: 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
date of its passage.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 199(
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
i ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERB PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY
S
4
t
ALL that certain lot, tract, or parcel of land situated in Denton Ccunty,
State of Texas in the f. Hembrie Survey, Abstract No. 594, J. McDonald
Survey, Abstract No. 873, W. Neil Survey, Abstract 970, and the J.
Rjelberg Survey, Abstract 1610 and being all of a tract shown by deed to
the City of Denton, Texas recorded as 94-R0071013, Real Property Records,
Denton County, Texas and being part of a tract shown by deed to the City
of Denton, Texas recorded in Volume 871, Page 137, (Tract Two) Deed
Records, Denton County, Texas and being more pdrticularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at the southeast corner of said "Tract' Two" to the City of
Denton recorded in Volume 871, Page 137, D.R.D.C.T., said point also
being an inner ell corner of the existing Denton city limit line as
described in Ordinance 79-76, Tract I;
THENCE South 06° 49' 38" East a distance of 1010.04 feet to a point for
a corner, said point being the southeast corner of said City of Denton
tract 94-R0071013;
THENCE North 88° 33' 24" West a distance of 1500.0 feet to a point for a
corner, said point being the southwest corner of said City of Denton
tract 94-R0071013;
THENCE North 090 41. 20" East a distance of 1010.88 feet to a point for
a corner, said point being the northwest corner of said City of Denton
tract 94-R0071013 and also being the southwest corner of said City of
Denton tract V. 871, P. 137, Tract Two;
THENCE North 010 261 36" East along the west line of said City of Denton
tract V.871, P. 137, Tract Two, a distance of 464.39 feet to a point for
a corner, said point lying on the existing Denton city limit line as
described in Ordinance 69-40 and Ordinance 73-76, Tract II;
THENCE South 540 35, East along the existing Denton city limit line, as
established by Ordinance 69-40, a distance of 831.91 feet to a point for
a corner, said point being the most westerly northwest corner of Tract I,
Ordinance 79-76;
THENCE South 880 31, East along the existing Denton city limit line, as
established by Ordinance 79-76, Tract I, a distance of 520.12 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 34.78 acres of land.
10-20-95
AZS004CB /
6.
r
V
W
SERVICE PLAN (ACASE N: A-71
AREA: 34.78 acres
LOCATION: In the clear zone south of the existing runway in the vicinity of
the Denton Municipal Airport.
A. Police Services
1. Patrolling, response to calls, and other routine services will be provided on the
effective date of the annexation, using existing personnel and equipment.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of police services will be
provided to this area as are furnished to comparable areas within the City.
B. Fire roR tectiQn and Emergency Medical Services (F,'11$1
1. Fire protection and emergency medical services by the present personnel and
present equipment, within the limitations of available water and distances from
existing fire stations, will be provided to this area on the effective date of the
annexation.
2. Upon ultimate development of the area, the same level of fire and emergency
ambulance services will be provided to this area as are furnished to comparable
areas within the City.
C. Waler/Wastewater Sep it ces
Water and wastewater services will be extended to the property ;n accordance to
the City's master utility plan and Section 34.1 IS of the Denton Code of Ordinances.
Developers shall pay the actual cost of all water and sewer main extensions, lift
stations and other necessary facilities required to serve their development in
accordance with the City's master utility plan and the Subdivisioi. and Land
Development Regulations.
The City may participate in the cost to oversize water ami sewer mains subject
to fund availability and approval of the City Council.
DfT
~pen_~ Co.
I'^n
Dal. _4 Where water or sewer main extensions, lift stations, force mains or other
necessary facilities are installed by the developer, the developer shall be entitled
to reimbursement of the cost of such facilities from pro-rata charges paid by
persons connecting to or using such facilities to serve their property, according
to the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations.
D. Solid Waste Collection
1. Solid waste collection will be provided to the property at the same level of
service as available to comparable areas within the City, within 60 days of the
effective date of annexation.
2. As development and construction Comm^nce within this property, and
population density increases to the proper level, solid waste collection shall be
provided to this property in accordance with then current policies of the City
as to frequency, charges and so forth.
E. Streets and Rands
1. The City of Denton's existing policies with regard to street maintenance,
applicable throughout the entire City, shall apply to this property beginning
with the effective date of the annexation.
2. Routine maintenance of streets and roads will begin in the annexed area on the
effective date of annexation using the standards and level of service as currently
applied to comparable areas of the City.
3. Reconstruction and resurfacing of streets, installation of storm drainage
facilities, construction of curb cuts and gutters, and other such major
improvements, as the need therefore is determined by the City Council or
Manager, will be accomplished under the established policies of the City.
4. Traffic signals, signage and other traffic control devices will be installed as the
need therefor is established by appropriate study and traffic standards.
5. Street and road lighting will be installed in the substantially developed areas in
accordance with the established policies of the City.
F. Environmental Health and ode nforcement Services
2
' ~tpenC3 No.
apenc+a r en
Date _ _ .
1. Enforcement of the City's environmental health ordinances and regulations
including, but not limited to the grass and weed ordinance, garbage and trash
ordinance, junked vehicle ordinance, sign ordinance, food handler ordinance,
animal control ordinance, and the tree preservation ordinance shall be provided
within this area on the effective date of the annexation. These ordinances and
regulations will be enforced through the use of existing personnel.
2. Building, plumbing, electrical, gas, and all other construction codes, as may be
adopted by the City, will be enforced within this area beginning with the
effective date of the annexation. Existing personnel will be used to provide these
services.
3. The City's zoning, subdivision and other ordinances shall be enforced in this
area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
4. All inspection sen ices provided by the City, of Denton, but not mentioned above,
will be provided to this area beginning on the effective date of the annexation.
Existing personnel will be used to provide these services.
5. Flood damage mitigation will be provided by existing codes and ordinances of
the City as of the effective date of the annexation.
6. As development and construction commence within this area, sufficient
personnel will be provided to furnish this area with the same level of
environmental health and code enforcement services as are furnished to
comparable areas within the City.
C. Planning and Deyelnnmeel &n,ices
The zoning jurisdiction of the City will extend to the annexed area on the effective
date of annexation. The tract is tote temporarily zoned Agriculture (A) zoning
district classification at the time of annexation.
f. Parks and Recreation enicec
Residents of the newly annexed area may use all recreation facilities, including
parks and swimming pools Mroughout the City, on the effective date of the
annexation. The same standards and policies now used within the City will be
followed in the maintenance of parks, playgrounds and swimming pools.
I Electrical Di5trihution
3
9.
"J
-'0?
Electrical power Kill be made avaihbte to the site as required, at the same level of
service currently being provided to comparable areas within the City.
K. lfiscel_ lancou,
Street names and signs will be installed, if required, approximately six (6) months
after the effective date of annexation.
Residents of the newty annexed area may use all publicly owned facilities, buildings
or services within the city on the effective date of the annexation. All publicly
owned facilities, buildings or services will be maintained in accordance with
established standard-, and policies now used in tho; City.
L. Capital Improvemepta P l CM
The CIP of the City is prioritized by such policy guidelines as:
1. Demand for services as compared to other areas will Le based on characteristics of
topography, land utilization, population density, magnitude of problems as related
to comparable areas, established technical standards and professional studies.
2. The overall cost-effectiveness of providing a specific facility or service.
The annexed area will be considered for CIP improvements in the upcoming CIP plan.
This tract will be considered according to the same established criteria as all other
areas of the City.
4
~6-
S
a
1
r
ATTACHMENT
Jar.' ~;o. ^
ANNEXATION SCHEDULE
November 7, 1995 City Council sets date, time and place for public hearings.
December 22, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for first public hearing.
Service plan is prepared.
January 2, 1995 City Council holds first public hearing.
January 5, 1995 Notice published in Denton Record Chronicle for second public
hearing.
January 16, 1995 City Council holds second public hearing.
January 24, 1995 Planning and Zoning Commission makes recommendation.
February 6, 1995 City Council institutes annexation. First Reading of Annexation
ordinance.
February 9, 1995 Publication of Annexation ordinance in Denton Record Chronicle.
March 19,1995 Final action by City Council. Second reading and adoption of the
Annexation ordinance.
Meetings in bold require 6 out of 7 ,votes at City Council
J
ATTACHMENT 9
' CDC T
P&Z Minutes
January 24, 1996
Page 4
we are rarnmmending is that you not consider a vote on the zoning tonight. Since we have
ahead made notice and it is on your agenda to hold a public hearing we think that w go
ought to and hold the public hearing, but that you not consider it and it willat back again for
or
notice and a public hearing after it is annexed.
Ms. Russell: So we are just going to make a recommendation to the City Council
concerning the annexation.
Mr. Persaud: When we do the annexation we are going to do the temporary zoning by
ordinance, Agricultural zoning. This is a case where Lodge Construction Company has
petitioned the city to annex the property. We held the two public hearings before the City
Council and no one spoke in opposition of the annexation. We would like to proceed with
your recommendation for Council adoption of an ordinance annexing the property.
Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner care to speak? Is there anyone that would like to speak
in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in opposition to the petition? Any further
comments? We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move approval of A-70, the annexation of 21.62 acre tract described as The
Estates of Forrestridge, Section it.
Ms. Flemming: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (6-0)
IV. Hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the City Council with
regard to the annexation and zoning of a 34.78 acre tract located in the clear zone south of
the existing runway in the vicinity of the Denton Municipal Airport (A-71).
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Persaud: You are considering annexation and temporary zoning, Agricultural, by
ordinance. This area is currently used as a clear zone for the Denton Municipal Airport.
Federal Regulations prohibit the building of any structures on this property. The entire area
is owned by the city of Denton. We are annexing it to bring it into the city limits.
Mr. Drake: Temporary zoning is not zoning and it is a consequence of annexation. it keeps
people from coming in and developing the property with uses that could be incompatible uses
prior to the permanent zoning of the property. That is the reason that a recommendation is
C t
P&Z Minutes
January 24, 1996 nas. . ' y 5
Page 5
not necessary from the Planning and Zoning
It is Commission to approve the temporary zoning.
merely a consequence of the annexation.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone to speak in
opposition to the petition? Any closing comments? We will close the public hearing.
Mr. Cochran: I move approval of A-71.
Ms. Flemming: I'll second.
Ms. Russell: Any discussion.? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same
sign. Approved. (6-0)
V. Hold a public hearing and consider rezoning 10.994 acres from the General Retail (GR)
district to the Multi-Family 1 (MF-1) district. The site is located on the east side of Audra
Lane approximately 500 feet north of its intersection with McKinney Street.
Ms. Russell opened the public hearing.
Mr. Yost: The situation is that there is an existing apartment complex on this property. At
the time that the apartments were built it was a general retail zoning and it was allowed.
Since then There were four replies in favor, one in opposition, and one undecided.
Ms. Russell: Is there such a thing as grand fathering?
Mr. Yost: Yes it is what is called legal non-conforming and they cannot expand.
Ms. Russell:
Mr. Yost:
Ms. Russell: The reason that this is coming before us is because of a lender?
Mr. Yost: Covered DDP overall rating found in backup.
Ms. Russell: Is there anyone to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone that would
like to speak in opposition to the petition?
Clara Crudes Clara Cruder Rt.. 15, box 145 on Sanders Road. I sold a property on Audra
Lane and I wanted to know if this will affect the zoning for that house.
1-3.
r
~Ie IIR
~MiM MIAI ~ D
OM ' '
DATE: January 16, 1996
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
1 REGULAR SESSION
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick ~vehlaj Acting City Manager
! SUBJECT: Number of Positions in each Classification for the Police
and Fire Department
RECOMMENDATION
It is the staff's recommendation that the City Council adopt an
ordinance prescribing the number of positions in each sworn
classification in the Police and Fire department as specified by
Chapter 143.021 of the Texas Local Government Code.
SUMMARY
Chapter 143,021 of the Texas Local Govezc,,ient Code specifies that
"the commission shall provide for the classification of all fire
fighters and police officers. The municipality's governing body
shall establish the classification by ordinance" lsee Attachment
I).
The governing body, (i.e. City Council), is mandated by the law to
implement the provisions of the state law. This ordinance will
bring the City of Denton into compliance with the Civil Service
Law.
F-$~TLAMPACT
There is no additional funding required with the adoption of this
ordinance. The City Council has already adopted the 19_95/96 Annual
p ottram of Servi gs which incl+ides these positions.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
a
F
i
n
'.y2~1:! t!O.
I,^lII(1 S.-1
CM Report to City Council - Numbe- of Positi'~ ^ ~ -on
January 16% 1996
Page 2
Prepared by:
!A
Thomas W. Klinck
Director of Human Resources
A roved by:
]3 a
Executiv Director
Municipal Services/Economic Development
CBPO196
01104/96
r
e
4
f
r
;cptnda IJo.
Rp:nda Mm
Do
l
k
Attachment I
4
Agenda N0. ~ Co ACendl crf
W:
LOC § 143.015. Appeal of Commission Decision to District Court.
(a) If a fire fighter or police officer is dissatisfied with any commission
decision, the fire fighter or police officer may file a petition in district
court asking that the decision be set aside. The petition must be filed within
10 days after the date t'.e final commission decision:
(1) is sent to the fire fighter or police officer by certified mail;
or
(2) Is personally received by the fire fighter or police officer or by
that person's designee.
Ib) An appeal under this section is by trial de novo. The district court say
grant the appropriate legal or equitable relief necessary to carry out the
purposes of this chapter. The relief may include reinstatement or promotion with
back pay if an order of suspension, dismissal, or demotion is set aside.
(c) The court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailiog party and
assess court costs against the nonprevailing party.
(d) If the court finds for the fire fighter or police officer, the court shall
order the municipality to pay lost wages to the fire fighter or police officer.
LGC § 143.016. Penalty for Violation of Chapter.
(a) A fire fighter or police officer commits an offense If the person violates
this chapter.
(b) An offense under this section or Section 143.009 Is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $10 or more than 1100, confinement in the
county jail for not more than 30 days, or both fine and confinement.
LOC § 143.021. Classification; Examinatioa Qcqulromeat.
(a) The commission shall provide for the classification of all fire fighters
and police officers. The municipality's governing body shall establish the
classifications by ordinance. The governing body by ordinance sball prescribe
the number of positions In each classification.
(b) Except for the department head and a person the department head appoints
in accordance with Section 143.014 or 143.102, each lire fighter and police
officer Is classified as prescribed by this subchapter and has civil service
protection. The failure of the governing body to establish a position by
ordinance does not result in the loss of civil service benefits by a person
entitled to civil service protection or appointed to the position in substantial
compliance with this chapter.
(c) Except as provided by Sections 143.013, 143.014, and 143.102, an existing
position or classification or a position or classification created in the future
either by name or by increase In salary may be filled only from an eligibility
list that results from an examination held in accordance with this chapter.
t
};\rpdxe\ord\poIfIre.erd
E A~taCs MI
oat. _ORDINANCE E NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PRESCRIBING THE NUMBER
OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF POLICE OFFICER; PRESCRIBING
THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS IN EACH CLASSIFICATION OF FIRE FIGHTER;
REPEALING ALL PRIOR INCONSISTENT ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS TO THE
EXTENT OF ANY SUCH CONFLICT; AND DECLARING All EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Civil Service
Commission of the City of Denton, Texas, upon the recommendation
and request of the Director of Civil Service, Denton Police
Department and the Denton Fire Department, adopted and approved the
attached Schedule of Authorized Positions which relates to
compensation and classification of police officers and fire
fighters; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the schedule prescribing the number of
positions for each classification of police officer and fire
fighter in the City of Denton, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein as Exhibit A, is hereby approved.
SECTION II. That all prior ordinances or resolutions of the
city of Denton, Texas, in conflict herewith are repealed to the
extent of any such conflict.
SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 199b.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
i
.t
F
i
Ii
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF DENTON
SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
POLICE DEPARTMENT
The Police Department is authorized 111 positions as follows:
Chief of Police 1
Assistant Chief of Police 1
Captain 2
i,ieutenant 7
Sergeant 12
Police Officer (and Recruits) 88
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The Fire Department is authorized 105 positions as follows:
Fire Chief 1
Deputy Chief 1
Battalion Chief 1
Captain 20
Driver 33
Fire Fighter 49
j:kwpdocelord%Polflre.ord
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT _
TO: Mayor Castleberry and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECTS REVISION OF ORDINANCE 94-247 AUTHORi2ING ASSIGNMENT PAY
RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that City Council approve
the revision to existing ordinance authorizing assignment pay.
SUMMARY: Assignment pay is authorized for Fire Fighters serving in
"specialized functions" according to Texas Local Government,
Chapter 143.042: Assignment Pay.
BACKGROU11 : This ordinance has been in effect since 1988.
Revisions are being made to compensate fog the pay increases being
implemented Ja.iuary 1, 1996. EMS Program Manager's assignment pay
will be increasing to $534.00 per nonth.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: None
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact other than that
programmed into our budget.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
,Q6 el..
Rift 8v&6-
fa---Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
J mes oma son
eputy Fire Chief
Ross Chadw ck -Firs; Chief
e
i
E:\N?P)CS\DRD\F'RDG-MGR
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING; ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF CAPTAIN WHO ARE ALSO ASSIGNED TO
PERFORM THE DUTIES OF EMS PROGRAM MANAGER; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 143.042 of the Local Government Code
authorizes a municipality to pay assignment pay which is in an
amount and is payable under conditions set by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and Fir3 Chief having recommended
that the Fire Department employees in the classification of Captain
who are assigned to perform the duties of EMS Program Manager
should receive assignment pay of Five Hundred Thirty-four Dollars
($534.00) per month; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the Fire Department employees classified as
Captain who are assigned to perform the duties of EMS Program
Manager shall receive assignment pay of Five Hundred Thirty-foar
Dollars ($534.00) per month in addition to the regular monthly
salary of Captain.
SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor Castleberry and Members of the City Council
FROM., Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: REVISION OF ORDINANCE 94-248 AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT PAY
RECOMMENDATION: It is our recommendation that City Council approve
the revision to existing ordinance authorizing assignment pay.
SUMMARY: Assignment pay is authorized for Fire Fighters serving in
"specialized functions" according to Texas Local Government,
Chapter 143.042: Assignment Pay.
BACKGROUND: This ordinance has been in effect since 1988.
Revisions are being made to compensate for the pay increases being
implemented January 1, 1996. Logistics /Maintenance Officer's
assignment pay will be increasing to $703.41 per month.
PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: None
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact other than that
programmed into our budget.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
:
J
Pre aced b4Tho
i Jam s RDeputy Fire Chief
Ross Chadw ck
Fire chief
I
u
E;\NFD0C5\0RV\LOGISIIC
A;tr"z ft n_
D
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR FIRR DEPARTMENT
EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF DRIVER WHO ARE ALSO ASSIGNED TO
PERFORM THE DUTIES OF MAINTENANCE/LOGISTICS OFFICER; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Section 143.042 of the Local Government Code
authorizes a municipality to pay assignment pay which is in an
amount and is payable under conditions set by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and Fire Chief having recommended
that the Fire Department employees in the classification of Driver
who are assigned to perform the duties of Maintenance/Logistics
Officer should receive assignment pay of Seven Hundred Three
Dollars and Forty-one Cents ($703.41) per month; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the Fire Department employees classified as
Driver who are assigned to perform the duties of Maintenance/
Logistics Officer shall receive assignment pay of Seven Hundred
Three Dollars and Forty-one Cents ($7u3.41) per month in addition
to the regular monthly salary of Driver.
SECTION Ii. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1996.
I
BOB CASTLE BERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
s
t
d
t
F
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPHONE (817J 566-830_7
Office of the Cfty Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: February 2, 1996
SUBJECT: Elimination of Two Hour Time Limit for Parking in East
Parking Lot of City Hall
As mentioned in The Week That Was, the visitors to City Hall have
been drastically reduced with the opening of City Hall West. By
removing this parking time limit, we will be able to restripe the
lot to al ow for visitors and some employee use.
Ric Svehla
Acting City Manager
RS:bw
AMM007A6
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
i
i
AOWS No,
iten
ORDINANCE NO. Apend3
M
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE
REMOVAL OF THE TWO HOUR TIME LIMIT ON PARKING FOR THE EAST PARKING
LOT AT CITY HALL WHICH IS ADJACENT TO OAKLAND STREET; PROVIDING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
1
SECTION I. That the east parking lot in front of the City Hall
building located at 215 East McKinney Street and adjacent to
Oakland Street shall no longer have a two hour parking time limit.
SECTION II. To the extent that this ordinance is in conflict
with ordinance No. 76-18, this ordinance supersedes the previous
ordinance.
SECTION III. That if any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application
thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court
of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the city
Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have
enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity.
SECTION IV. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L.~PRODUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: %/~"wt
i
Ow
CITY of DENrON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING ~ 215 E. McKINNEY a DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(817) 566-8200 1, DFW METRO 434.2529
r MEMORANDUM
i
DATE: February 6, 1996
TO: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance.
SUBJECT: INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD APPOINTMENTS
The attached resolution removes Lloyd V. Harrell as a board member of the Industrial
Development Authority and reappoints current board members. This action is
necessary due to Lloyd's resignation.
Please advise if you have any questions or need additional information.
W
Attachments
AFF01061
"Dedicated to Quality Senice"
r
G
AQIfIQs tt0. -
D~4TE ~ib
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUBJECT: REAPPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS TO THE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends reappointment of Kathy DuBose, Executive
Director of Finance and myself to the Board, and in doing so will remove former City
Manager Lloyd V. Harrell as a board member.
SUMMARY: The IDA was organized in 1979 as a nonprofit corporation by the City
of Denton to promote and develop commercial, industrial and manufacturing
enterprises and to encourage employment. The Corporation is authorized to agree
with any person, firm, corporation, or other entity to issue bonds, in accordance with
and subject to the provisions of the Development Corporation Act of 1979.
ROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: N/A
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no cost to the City.
I
Respectfully submitted:
PSve a
Pr epared by Acting City Manager
- 1+.1.
A Forsythe, Executive S rotary
Approved by:
Keth DuBosq;r EMeoufive Director of Finance
AFF01082
1
e
J:\WPDQCS MS\IDA.RES
ADend~ fJO.
Apendf Re
DOC~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF DfRECTORS OF THE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton, Texas has approved the creation of
the City of Denton Industrial Development Authority (IDA) pursuant
to the provisions of the Development Corporation Act of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the terms of office of Rick Svehla and Kathy DuBose,
the only two members remaining of the Board of Directors of the
Industrial Development Authority (IDA) have expired; NOW, THERE-
FORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION I. That the following persons are hereby appointed to
the Board of Directors of the City of Denton Industrial Development
Authority:
NAME ADDRESS
Rick Svehla 215 East McKinney
Deputy City Manager & Executive Denton, Texas 76201
Director for Engineering
Kathy DuBose 215 East McKinney
Executive Director of Finance Denton, Texas 76201
Each Director shall serve a term of office of six years. The
terms of the foregoing members shall expire on March 1, 2001.
SECTION II. That this resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
0
'r
. 04PAM
NL-
Apk% ~ f 4V A.
2- !o
CITY OFDENTON TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING., DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPHONE 817)566-8307
Office of the City Manager
MEMORANDUM
TO; Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROMt Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: February 1, 1996
SUBJECT: 1996 Bond Issue Oversight Committee
During the presentation of the Blue Ribbon Committee, Mr. Mulroy
suggested that an oversight committee be formed, similar to the 191
Committee for the 1986 Bond Issue. During the discussions between
the Blue Ribbon Committee and the City Council, this was mentioned
several times. Mr. Mulroy has made the following suggestions for
committee size and membership:
Six Member Oversight Committee
• Membership consist of Blue Ribbon Committee Chairman, two
co-chairpersons; and representatives of the
Transportation, Parks and Recreation, and Drainage
Subcommittees
L
V
If you h e any questions, please call at your convenience.
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
RS:bw
AMM007A4
Attachment
1
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
E:%WPDOCS%RES\OVERSOT.COM
Agenda 1:0.
Agenda Ii.
Drte
RESOLUTION NO.
1
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A SPECIAL SIX (6) MEMBER OVERSIGHT COMMIT-
TEE TO MONITOR, EVALUATE, AND REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF THE FIVE
YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, SUBJECT TO THE AUTHORIZATION OF
THE VOTERS AT THE BOND ELECTION ON FEBRUARY 24, 1996; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council has called and ordered a boni
election for February 24, 1996, for the purpose of submitting to
the voters of the City of Denton certain capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Blue Ribbon Committee fulfilled its charge of
making recommendations relative to the projects which should be
submitted to the electorate and, among those recommendations was
the suggestion that a special committee be appointed by the City
Council to monitor, evaluate, and report on the progress of the
Five Year Capital Improvements Program should the same be autho-
rized by the voters; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of accepting such
recommendation; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION I That the City Council hereby appoints a special
six (6) member oversight committee to monitor, evaluate, and report
on the progress of the Five Year Capital Improvements Program,
contingent upon and subject to same being authorized by th(z voters
in the special election to be held on February 24, 1996. The
committee shall also make recommendations to the Planning & Zoning
Commission and City Council for all projects in the miscellaneous
drainage improvements, arterial turn lanes, traffic signals, street
construction, and sidewalk/bikeway funding categories.
SECTION II The six member committee shall be made up of Joe
Mulroy, the Blue Ribbon Committee chairman; Margaret Smith and
Brent Thornto%, two co-chairpersons; Terry Schertz, the Transporta-
tion Subcommittee chariman, Ronnie Beasley, the Parks and Recre-
ation chairperson; and Jessee Coffey, a member of the Drainage
Subcommittee.
SECTION III. That this resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
1996.
BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAY- O-
f
a
f
}
.
Agenda No.
hnena tm
ATTEST: Dv 4-2-- Le elo
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
C
BY: all i
I
Page 2
a
Y
i
E~-- 9--7, T - W 4 F I ~Wwwm am
CIT"FUENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING DENTM TEXAS 76XI • TELEPHONE a 17-566-8309
Office of the City Secretary
' MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 29, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Appointment of Deputy City Secretaries
In order to provide better customer service and continue the City's
policy of "one stop shopping", the Police Department Records
Division has begun issuing taxicab permits. The appointment of
Deputy City Secretaries in that Division will allow the permits to
be signed in that office and not require the individuals to come to
the City Secretary's office for a signature. The following
individuals will be appointed to act in this capacity: Colleen
Coleman, Cheryle Brown, Kathy Dietz, and Susan Hilton.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
fer alters
y Secr tarry
ACCOOOF4
'Dedicated to Quality Service"